Sitting of 7 October 2003

TREASURY

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent by his Department on asbestos surveys since 1 January 2001; how much has been spent on the management and removal of asbestos for each building in which asbestos has been identified; and what budget is available for the Department and its agencies to (a)commission asbestos surveys and (b)manage and remove asbestos from buildings in (i) 2003 and (ii) 2004. [130911]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Detailed costings have not been undertaken in the case of all the Chancellor's Departments, and where this is the case, the data requested can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. Available data are as follows:

  Customs and Excise and the Valuation Office Agency both recorded nil expenditure for asbestos surveys or the removal of asbestos between 1 January 2001 and 1 April 2001. Further information in both cases could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  The Government Actuary's Department and the Debt Management Office both recorded nil expenditure for asbestos surveys and removal of asbestos since 1 January 2001.

  Work is currently under way on the National Savings and Investments' Glasgow site. Estimated cost of the remedial work to date is £500,000, and estimated costs to the end of the financial year are £750,000 (excluding VAT).

  Since 1 January 2001, the Royal Mint has spent £6,802 on asbestos surveys. Expenditure incurred in removing asbestos was £1,380 in 2001; £20,120 in 2002; and £2,980 in 2003.

  The Office of National Statistics is currently in the process of conducting a new asbestos survey at a cost of £78,000. Expenditure on remedial work since 1 January 2001 is £154,000.

  Expenditure by the Office of Government Commerce on asbestos surveys since January 2001 is approximately £27,000. The cost of remedial work since January 2001 is £279,000.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Laws:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the total revenue from council tax in (a)1996–97, (b)2001–02 and (c)2002–03, in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms using 2001–02 prices; and if he will make a statement. [130146]
  2W
  Dawn Primarolo:
  Government grant to local authorities has increased over the period since 1997. Overall there has been a 25 per cent. real increase in total grants since 1997, compared with a 7 per cent. Cut in real terms in the four years previously. Most recently, the Local Government Financial Settlement for 2003–04 increased local authority funding through Formula Grant by 5.9 per cent. In real terms. Including other grants, the increase is over 8 per cent. For the first time, every local authority has generated above inflation increases this year.

  It is in this context that local authorities have made their decisions about the level of council tax they wish to set in their areas.

  The figures requested are shown in the table:

  Council tax

  £billion

  Cash

  Real terms (2001–02 prices)

  1996–97

  10.1

  11.5

  2001–02

  15.2

  15.2

  2002–03

  16.6

  16.2

  Customs Officers
  Ms Atherton:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many customs officers there are stationed west of the line from Bristol to Southampton. [131172]

  John Healey:
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 8 September 2003, Official Report,column 99W.

  This information is not available in the format requested. Figures for the number of Customs and Excise Officers by Government Office region are published on an annual basis in the Civil Service Statistics, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House, and from the Cabinet Office website.

  The Customs figures are based on the number of officers whose office address falls within the defined area. However, Customs are a flexible resource and are frequently called upon to work across regions. In addition, regional staff are supplemented by the National Strike Force, a mobile brigade which is deployed on a national basis according to risk. Staff in these teams are allocated an office address for administrative purposes.

  Employer Documentation
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the documentation issued by his Department that an employer must complete when he or she takes on his or her first employee, in order to be fully compliant; and if he will make a statement. [128689]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  If the employee provides a form P45 showing past pay and tax details, the employer should complete its Part 3 and send it to the Inland Revenue. If there is no form P45, employer and employee should complete a form P46 and send it to the Inland Revenue.
  3W
  A new employer also needs to set up a PAYE scheme with the Inland Revenue. He or she does this by supplying the necessary details to a dedicated telephone helpline. The Inland Revenue then issue the employer with a "New Employer's Starter Pack". This contains guidance and documentation that the employer may need to operate PAYE throughout the year. The contents and format of this guidance have been developed in consultation with representatives of employers. The CD-ROM version has been particularly well received.

  Lambert Report
  Mr. Boswell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the Government response to the Lambert Report. [129699]

  John Healey:
  Richard Lambert published an interim report of his review of higher education-business links on 14 July. This set out a summary of the consultation responses and emerging issues. The Government welcome the emerging findings and expect to receive the final report of the review in the autumn, to which we will respond in due course.

  Media Training
  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was to his Department of media and voice training for ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123133]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Treasury Ministers and officials have not received voice coaching.

  Media training for Ministers cost £1,199 in 2002–03. No expenditure was incurred in earlier years.

  Officials can attend courses run by CMPS or GIGS which include media training, but these costs are not identified separately in the Department's records.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the (a)foreign and (b)UK visits he has made since 1 April 2003; with the cost to public funds of each; whom he met; and the gifts received. [126898]

  John Healey:
  The Government publish the overall costs of all ministerial overseas travel and a list of all visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500 on an annual basis. For the period up to 31 March 2003, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) on 16 July 2003, Official Report,column 327W. The next list for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 will be published at the end of the financial year.

  In respect of gifts received, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 July 2003, Official Report,column 445W.

  In the UK, the Chancellor visited Aberdeen University in April to receive an honorary degree at a cost of £192, the Carnegie Foundation in Edinburgh in May at no cost, the AMICUS conference in Blackpool in June at a cost of £306, the TGWU conference in Brighton in July at a cost of £42, the Local Government
  4W
  Association conference in Harrogate in July at a cost of £107 and the TUC congress in Brighton in September at a cost of £42.

  All ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Sector Pensions
  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the latest estimate is of the present value of the liability for payment of pensions to the beneficiaries of unfunded public sector schemes; and what the value would be if the real rate of discount was (a)3.0 per cent., (b)2.5 per cent., (c)2.0 per cent. and (d)the real rate of return on an index-linked stock of similar duration to maturity. [130882]

  Mr. Boateng:
  The Government Actuary's Department estimate that the liabilities of unfunded public service pension schemes were approximately £380 billion as at 31 March 2002.

  It is not possible to update that figure before the 2002–03 Resource Accounts for public service pension schemes are published. Revaluation of public service pension liabilities using different discount rates could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the estimation of the cost of pensions under the Whole of Government Accounts, why it has been decided (a)to issue figures without explanatory notes, and (b)to publish copies of guidance issued to Departments about the estimation of the cost of pensions. [130883]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Central Government Accounts will be published for the first time for 2003–04, as part of the phased introduction of Whole of Government Accounts. Central Government Accounts will include the consolidation of the transactions and balances of those public sector pension schemes covered by the Resource Accounting Manual and other central Government accounting guidance. Central Government Accounts will provide a full explanation of the pension figures in both the income and expenditure account and balance sheet.

  The liabilities of the main unfunded public service pension schemes are estimated by the scheme's actuary using assumptions published with the pension scheme accounts, as required by FRS17 and in accordance with the Resource Accounting Manual. Any Departments operating their own unfunded schemes are advised to seek guidance from the Government Actuary's Department on the calculation of the liabilities that should appear in their accounts.

  The Resource Accounting Manual, which contains accounting guidance for Departments on all accounting matters, is publicly available.

  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the estimation of the cost of pensions under the Whole of Government Accounts, what excess of the discount rate over the rate of price inflation has been

  5W
  applied to future liabilities; and what the typical corresponding rate is that is used by the private sector under FRS17. [130884]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Central Government Accounts will be published for the first time for 2003–04, as part of the phased introduction of Whole of Government Accounts. Pension liabilities relating to Government employees reported in Central Government Accounts, which will be published for the first time for 2003–04, are a consolidation of the liabilities reported in the underlying scheme accounts. The real discount rate to be used in these accounts is 3.5 per cent., as advised by the Government Actuary's Department and based on the expected yield on long-term gilts.

  Private sector schemes reporting under FRS17 are required to use a discount rate equal to the yield on an AA-rated bond of equivalent term and currency to the liabilities, if available. One study (by Lane, Clark and Peacock—"Accounting for pensions: annual survey 2003") has found considerable variation in the discount rate adopted—from under 5.4 per cent. To over 6 per cent. With the majority clustered around 5.6 per cent. Real. The value of the liabilities increases as the discount rate decreases.

  Ships and Aircraft (VAT)
  Mr. Laws:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons ships and aircraft above a certain size are zero-rated for value added tax purposes; and if he will make a statement. [130552]

  John Healey:
  Under long-standing EU VAT agreements, sea-going vessels used for: navigation on the high seas; for the purpose of commercial, industrial or fishing activities; for rescue or assistance at sea; and commercial aircraft used chiefly on international routes are relieved of tax.

  The UK has implemented this by relieving ships and aircraft, not used for recreation or pleasure, from VAT according to their weight. This simple rule provides clarity and certainty for businesses.

  Tax Credits
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2003, Official Report,columns 454–55W, on tax credit helplines, how many calls to the working tax credit helpline were expected in the first year of operation; and if he will make a statement. [128752]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  There was no single forecast of calls or callers to the child and working tax credit helplines.

  Mr. Laws:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the total cost of the July 1997 Budget decision to abolish payable tax credits for pension schemes and UK companies for each year from 1997–98 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [130012]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]:The estimated effects of the abolition of payable tax credits were published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report in July 1997. The abolition of payable
  6W
  tax credits was part of a wider package of corporation tax reforms, and its actual effects cannot be separately identified.

  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the amount of research and development expenditure incurred by small and medium-sized companies that will qualify for the research and development tax credit in 2000–01. [131043]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 September 2003]: There are no published estimates of the amount of research and development expenditure incurred by small and medium-sized companies in 2000–01 that will qualify for the research and development tax credit. We have received over 1;700 claims by small and medium-sized companies relating to R&D expenditure in 2000–01.

  VAT Registration Threshold
  Mr. Laws:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses were (a)above and (b)below the VAT registration threshold in each year from 1988–89 to 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [130544]

  John Healey:
  The information requested is not available.

  Details of the total number of businesses registered for VAT are published in HM Customs and Excise Annual Reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. These figures include registered businesses whose turnover is below the VAT registration threshold, and do not include businesses whose turnover is above the VAT registration threshold who are not registered for VAT. Data are not available for the number of unregistered traders with turnovers below the VAT registration threshold, as they are not required to register for VAT.

  Data are not available on the number of registered traders who are above the threshold. However, VAT Factsheets, published three times a year by Customs, copies of which are available in the Library of the House, show the numbers of VAT-registered traders by turnover bandings.

  Registered Maternities
  Mr. McWalter:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many registered maternities there were to women resident in (a)Dacorum, (b)St. Albans, (c)Watford, (d)Hertsmere and (e)Three Rivers local authority districts which took place in (i) Hemel Hempstead General Hospital, (ii) Watford General Hospital, (iii) St. Albans City Hospital, (iv) Mount Vernon Hospital, (v) Barnet General Hospital, (vi) Chase Farm Hospital, (vii) Northwick Park Hospital, (viii) Luton and Dunstable Hospital, (ix) Stoke Mandeville Hospital, (x) Wycombe General Hospital, (xi) other NHS hospitals, (xii) RAF Halton Hospital, (xiii) other non-NHS hospitals, (xiv) at home and (xv) elsewhere in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [131458]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  7W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Mc Walter, dated 14 October 2003:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your request for the number of maternities for women resident in (a)Dacorum, (b)St. Albans, (c)Watford, (d)Hertsmere and (e)Three Rivers local authority districts, which took place in the list of hospitals below for the each of the last three years for which figures are available. (131458)

  (i) Hemel Hempstead General Hospital,

  (ii) Watford General Hospital,

  (iii) St. Albans City Hospital

  (iv) Mount Vernon Hospital

  (v) Barnet General Hospital

  (vi) Chase Farm Hospital,

  (vii) Northwick Park Hospital,

  Maternities in selected hospitals, for selected areas of usual residence of the mother, 2000

  Place of mother's residence

  Dacorum

  Hertsmere

  St. Albans

  Three Rivers

  Watford

  Place of maternity

  (i) Hemel Hempstead General

  1,410

  12

  1,187

  63

  12

  (ii) Watford General

  41

  488

  81

  836

  1,056

  (iii) St. Albans City

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (iv) Mount Vernon Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (v) Barnet General

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  (vi) Chase Farm

  0

  25

  2

  0

  0

  (vii) Northwick Park

  4

  12

  2

  14

  7

  (viii) Luton and Dunstable

  19

  2

  32

  1

  3

  (ix) Stoke Mandeville

  132

  0

  0

  1

  0

  (x) Wycombe General

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  (xi) Other NHS

  18

  573

  291

  57

  24

  (xiii) Other Non-NHS

  5

  27

  7

  18

  2

  (xiv) At Home

  67

  11

  75

  17

  10

  (xv) Elsewhere

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  1,699

  1,153

  1,678

  1,009

  1,115

  Maternities in selected hospitals, for selected areas of usual residence of the mother, 2001

  Place of mother's residence

  Dacorum

  Hertsmere

  St. Albans

  Three Rivers

  Watford

  Place of maternity

  (i)Hemel Hempstead General

  1,361

  7

  1,026

  36

  7

  (ii) Watford General

  53

  480

  108

  807

  1,055

  (iii) St. Albans City

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (iv) Mount Vernon Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (v) Barnet General

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  (vi) Chase Farm

  1

  19

  2

  0

  0

  (vii) Northwick Park

  4

  6

  2

  21

  6

  (viii) Luton and Dunstable

  13

  1

  61

  2

  2

  (ix) Stoke Mandeville

  114

  1

  2

  0

  0

  (x) Wycombe General

  2

  0

  0

  4

  0

  (xi) Other NHS

  24

  544

  373

  44

  27

  (xiii) Other Non-NHS

  8

  17

  14

  14

  1

  (xiiv) At Home

  58

  9

  61

  11

  8

  (xv) Elsewhere

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  1,640

  1,085

  1,649

  939

  1,106

  Maternities in selected hospitals, for selected areas of usual residence of the mother, 2002

  Place of mother's residence

  Dacorum

  Hertsmere

  St. Albans

  Three Rivers

  Watford

  Place of maternity

  (i) Hemel Hempstead General

  377

  3

  193

  9

  1

  (ii) Watford General

  778

  479

  598

  772

  999

  (iii) St. Albans City

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (iv) Mount Vernon Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (v) Barnet General

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (vi) Chase Farm

  0

  26

  2

  1

  0

  8W

  (viii) Luton and Dunstable Hospital,

  (ix) Stoke Mandeville Hospital,

  (x) Wycombe General Hospital,

  (xi) other NHS hospitals,

  (xii) RAF Halton Hospital,

  (xiii) other non-NHS hospitals,

  (xiv) at home, and

  (xv) elsewhere

  No data are available for RAF Halton hospital as it closed in 1996. Three tables showing data for 2000, 2001 and 2002 for the other hospitals are provided in the attached tables.
  9W

  Maternities in selected hospitals, for selected areas of usual residence of the mother, 2002

  Place of mother's residence

  Dacorum

  Hertsmere

  St. Albans

  Three Rivers

  Watford

  (vii) Northwick Park

  1

  5

  1

  10

  10

  (viii) Luton and Dunstable

  56

  0

  198

  2

  3

  (ix) Stoke Mandeville

  170

  0

  0

  2

  0

  (x) Wycombe General

  2

  0

  1

  5

  0

  (xi) Other NHS

  52

  530

  595

  54

  19

  (xiii) Other Non-NHS

  5

  15

  8

  13

  1

  (xiiv) At Home

  87

  9

  69

  11

  12

  (xv) Elsewhere

  3

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  1,531

  1,068

  1,665

  879

  1,046

  Wanless Report
  Dr. Starkey:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish the report by Derek Wanless on the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions; [132198]

  (2) when he expects to receive the report of Derek Wanless on the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions. [132199]

  Mr. Boateng:
  Derek Wanless will report to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health early in 2004. It is anticipated that a report will be published shortly afterwards.

  Cigarettes
  Mr. Dobson:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the limits are on the importation of cigarettes into Britain by individuals who have bought them within the European Union (a)paying the duty levied in the country of purchase and (b)from a duty-free outlet. [132147]

  John Healey:
  Since the introduction of the Single Market in 1993, travellers making journeys within the EU have been able to bring back as many duty and tax paid cigarettes as they like, providing they are for their own use. Cigarettes may not be brought into the UK for any form of sale or reimbursement without payment of UK taxes. There are no limits on importations of this kind.

  Travellers bringing back excise goods into the UK may be required to explain to Customs the purposes for which they are holding those goods. EU agreements establish guidelines to help Member States determine whether goods are imported for 'own use' or for commercial purposes, including provision for a minimum indicative level of 800 cigarettes. The UK applies an indicative level of 3200 cigarettes, which is one of the factors Customs will use in assessing travellers' explanations of the purposes for which they are holding excise goods.

  On 1 July 1999, duty and VAT-free sales of goods to intra-EU travellers were abolished, and travellers cannot now make duty-free purchases when travelling between EU Member States.

  Transfer Pricing
  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 8 September, Official Report,column 103W, what the recovery upon transfer pricing
  10W
  cases of tax, interest and penalties was in each of the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 arising from (a)LBO led cases and (b)Revenue Policy (International) led cases which taken all together amount to the £1.7 billion referred to in the Commissioners of Inland Revenue's Supplementary Memorandum published in the 29 Report of the Committee of Publi: Accounts, Session 2002–03, HC 332. [132186]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  The recovery from transfer pricing cases was as follows:

  £ million

  LBO

  RP International

  1999–2000

  35.1

  1.09

  2000–2001

  55

  241.1

  2001–2002

  87

  196.6

  Total 1705.8

  Aggregates Levy/Landfill Tax
  Paul Flynn:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been lost to the National Insurance Fund by reductions in contributions by employers to compensate for the aggregates levy and landfill tax, in each year since they were introduced. [132274]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  The reduction in contributions to the National Insurance Fund to compensate for the aggregates levy is £0.4 billion in 2002–03 and estimated to be £0.4 billion in 2003–04. These figures are rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion.

  It is not possible to calculate the effects of the compensation for the landfill tax on the NIF due to the structural changes to secondary NICs in 1999.

  Affordable Warmth Programme
  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds in terms of tax receipts forgone was of the affordable warmth programme in each year since its introduction. [131492]

  John Healey:
  The Finance Act 2000 made capital allowances available specifically for spending on equipment for leasing under an approved affordable warmth programme, a Government administered scheme which aims to support the installation of efficient central heating systems in up to 1 million low income homes over five years. Finance for the programme is provided by commercial leasing packages, administered

  11W
  through local authorities, with Transco (the pipeline arm of British Gas plc) guaranteeing the residual value of the installed equipment.

  The estimated cost to the Exchequer of capital allowances for approved affordable warmth programmes is given in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2003 [HC 500].

  Air Quality
  Bob Spink:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to create fiscal incentives for cleaner vehicles by co-ordinating rates of taxation on benefits-in-kind with the Government's Air Quality policies. [131687]

  John Healey:
  It has been a long-standing policy of the Governments to introduce cost-effective measures to help reduce the impact that transport has on the environment.

  To incentivise cleaner cars, the Government have introduced emission-based reforms for graduated company car tax and fuel scale charges—the charge on free fuel provided for employees. These CO2-based benefit-in-kind taxes have helped reward the purchase of cleaner cars and the progress made is reflected in the 3.75 per cent. fall in average CO2 emissions of new cars between 2000 and 2002.

  In addition to progress on CO2, local air pollution has improved dramatically with falls in emissions of particulates and NOx from new vehicles, for example new cars now produce in the region of 90 per cent. less pollutants than those manufactured 20 years ago. This has been driven by successively tougher emissions standards for new cars and given that company cars are generally less than two years old, means they are delivering air quality improvements. To help facilitate this progress, the Government have incorporated air quality incentives into the company car tax regime. There are discounts for cars that use alternative fuels and technologies, for example road fuel gases, and supplements for diesel cars in recognition of their higher emissions of pollutants that damage local air quality. This approach helps ensure there are benefits for the drivers of the very cleanest cars along with benefits for the environment.

  Furthermore, to provide incentives for the use of alternatives to the car, in 1998 the Government announced a package of measures, which included removal of benefits-in-kind charges on employer-provided works buses and on public bus subsidies, and new reliefs for commuter and business cycling.

  ASPIRE Programme
  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 8 September 2003, Official Report,column 96W, on the ASPIRE programme, if he will list the potential suppliers with whom the Inland Revenue had engaged in a market-making exercise as part of its plan for the ASPIRE project, indicating in each case whether Inland Revenue or the supplier approached the other first in this matter; when the market-making exercise was (a)conceived by Inland Revenue, (b)launched with these potential suppliers and (c)completed; and how much (i) tax, (ii) interest
  12W
  and (iii) in penalties had been recovered from the suppliers as a whole as a consequence of Inland Revenue compliance activities in the 36 months leading up to the launch with these potential suppliers of the market-making exercise. [131370]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  The potential suppliers the Inland Revenue engaged with as part of the market making exercise for the ASPIRE project were:

  Accenture

  American Management Systems (AMS)

  Capita

  Cap Gemini Ernst and Young (CGEY)

  Computer Science Corporation (CSC)

  Electronic Data Services (EDS)

  Hewlett Packard (HP)

  International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)

  Fujitsu Services

  CMG Logica

  Microsoft

  PWC Consulting

  Science Application International Corporation (SAIC)

  Schlumberger Sema

  In all cases, the Inland Revenue made the first approach.

  The Market Making exercise was conceived by the Inland Revenue between August and October 2001, and was launched on 31 October 2001. The exercise continued until 10 May 2002—the closing date for responding to the OJEC notice for the competition. Not all of the potential suppliers responded to the OJEC notice. In addition, an open meeting was held for all interested suppliers on 7 March 2002, which was attended by 42 potential suppliers.

  It is a long-standing principle that information provided to the Inland Revenue for tax purposes is treated as confidential and not disclosed to anyone else without the taxpayer's consent. Exceptions to the principle arise only in very restricted circumstances, such as orders by the court to provide information or where Parliament has sanctioned disclosure by specific statutory provisions. There are statutory provisions to ensure confidentiality of taxpayer information and any unauthorised disclosure is a criminal offence. It is for these reasons that I am unable to provide the hon. Member with the information that the hon. Member seeks on these companies.

  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Answer of 8th September, Official Report, column 103W, what criteria were set for the payment of performance related pay in the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03 to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or their officers, in support of Project ASPIRE or its antecedents. [132187]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  For staff in departmental (grades) pay bands payment of performance pay was dependent upon satisfactory performance measured against an individual's performance agreement. Each performance agreement sets out an individual's key responsibilities and objectives relative to ASPIRE and any other key business objectives they may have had for the years in question. The performance and contribution of the

  13W
  commissioners and other staff in the Senior Civil Service is additionally assessed in relation to that of others in the same pay band.

  Baby Bond
  Vera Baird:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the scheme for baby bonds; and when he expects that they will be available for children in Redcar. [132379]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The Child Trust Fund is intended to encourage parents and children to develop the savings habit. It will ensure that every child, whatever their family background, will have access at the age of 18 when they begin their adult life, to a stock of assets which they can invest in their future.

  It will also help children and their parents to understand the benefits of saving and investment and how to engage with financial institutions.

  Detailed proposals covering the nature of the Child Trust Fund, how it will operate and the information and guidance that will be provided will be published shortly.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent in each year by his Department in preparing for UK entry to the euro; how much his Department plans to spend on preparations for UK entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates he has made of the total costs to his Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131597]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Details of expenditure on changeover planning were included in the third outline National Changeover Plan, published on 9 June 2003. Copies of the document are in the Library of the House.

  It is difficult to estimate with any accuracy how much any changeover would cost. It would depend on the approach taken. In particular, many IT systems will be euro compatible as a result of ongoing modernisation programmes, which would reduce the costs of any euro changeover.

  Keith Vaz:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many speeches he has made since 1 June 2003 concerning the euro. [131748]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Ministers are holding a series of meetings around the country campaigning for a pro-European consensus.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Bailey:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what recent discussions he has had with the Financial Services Authority on their discussion paper DP20, with particular reference to mutual organisations; [R] [131989]

  (2) what representations he has received on the Financial Services Authority's proposed reforms to with-profits products and access to capital for mutual insurers and friendly societies; and what impact these proposals will have on mutual organisations. [R] [131990]
  14W
  Ruth Kelly:
  The Treasury has received a number of representations on the proposed reforms to with-profits. Officials have discussed a number of issues relating to these proposals with both individual life insurance companies, including mutual life offices, and the FSA. Clearly any decision on taking forward these reforms is a matter for the FSA.

  Illegal Meat Importation
  Mr. Hendry:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions have been made regarding the illegal importation of meat identified by Customs and Excise sniffer dogs in the last five years; and how many of those have resulted in successful convictions. [131693]

  John Healey:
  HM Customs and Excise took over responsibility for anti-smuggling controls on products of animal origin from Defra on 11 April 2003. The two Defra meat detector dogs and handlers transferred to HM Customs and Excise on 1 May.

  None of Customs' seizures of illegal meat since 11 April have resulted in prosecution action.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Howard:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what he estimates the effect on current receipts would have been in (a)2003–04, (b)2004–05, (c)2005–06, (d)2006–07 and (e)2007–08 if the income tax system had been changed such that (i) the basic rate limit for 2003–04 had been set at £45,385, increasing thereafter in accordance with the normal indexation procedure, (ii)the higher rate of income tax applicable to taxable income above a basic rate limit of £45,385 in 2003–04 and an indexed level thereafter had been set at 50 per cent. in 2003–04 and all subsequent years and a (iii)60 per cent. marginal rate of income tax had been applied to annual income above £100,000 in 2003–04, with this threshold being indexed in accordance with the normal procedure thereafter; and if he will set out the assumptions concerning changes to economic behaviour, including (A) hours worked by people in different income brackets, (B) changes in consumption levels and (C) decisions on country location taken by companies and individuals that inform this calculation; [123358]

  (2) if he will estimate the effect of introducing a 60 per cent. marginal rate of income tax on annual income above £100,000 on (a)GDP and (b)current receipts after (i) one year, (ii) five years and (iii) 10 years; and if he will set out the assumptions on which the calculation is based. [123359]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]:We have compiled comprehensive information on income tax which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to the Exchequer in terms of tax receipts forgone was of the individual learning accounts introduced in the 1999 budget in each year since introduction. [131359]
  15W
  Dawn Primarolo:
  I refer the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 15 September 2003, Official Report,columns 594–95W.

  Inland Revenue
  Norman Lamb:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what properties the Inland Revenue owns; what properties have been sold by the Inland Revenue since May 1997 other than to Mapeley Steps Ltd.; and when they were sold. [122210]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  The Inland Revenue owns:
  Sheraton House, Skinner Street, Stockton (which is in the process of being sold); and the freehold of Darwin House, Shrewsbury—a historic building—let on a 175 year lease to Mapeley STEPS Ltd.

  The properties sold since 1997, other than to Mapeley STEPS Ltd. are listed as follows.

  Dundonald House, Bexhill on Sea—March 1998

  Stuart House, Edinburgh—January 19991

  Montrose House, Glasgow—January 19981

  Highland House, Manchester—November 19981

  Holborn House, Stockport—January 19991

  55–59 Wilson Patten Street, Warrington—January 2000

  St. Johns House, Bootle—August 20001

  Government Buildings, Oxford—December 2000

  23, Piccadilly, York—March 20012

  Rutland House, Bradford—March 20012

  6 Dormer Place, Leamington Spa—August 2002

  1 These buildings were sold as part of individual building PFI contracts negotiated prior to the Mapeley contract and therefore not included as part of the Mapeley deal.

  2 These buildings were transferred to Mapeley STEPS Contractor Ltd.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the money set aside to support the invasion of Iraq has been spent to date; and what plans he has to increase the funds available to support activities in Iraq. [129725]

  Mr. MacDougall:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the most recent estimate is of the cost of the war with Iraq in 2003. [130522]

  Mr. Flook:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the cost of deployments to Iraq in (a)this financial year and (b)each of the next three financial years. [131511]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the cost to the UK of (a)the conflict in Iraq and (b)the occupation since the end of hostilities; and if he will make a statement. [131468]

  Mr. Paul Marsden:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the most recent estimate is of the cost of the recent conflict in Iraq. [132296]
  16W
  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 17 September 2003]: As the Chancellor said in his 2003 Budget statement,
  "I can confirm that I have set aside £3 billion, in a special reserve available to the Ministry of Defence so that our troops continue to be properly equipped and given the resources that they deserve and have a right to expect." [9 April 2003, Official Report,column 271].

  It is too early to provide total costs of the military campaign in Iraq. However, the Ministry of Defence estimate for the preparatory phase, up to the point military operations began, at around £700 million.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Sir Michael Spicer:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to include furniture recycling projects in the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. [131406]

  John Healey:
  There are no such plans. From 1 April funding for sustainable waste management projects was removed from the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme and is now the responsibility of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Local Authorities: Euro Preparations Guidance
  Mr. Ruffiey:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost for each local authority in the East of England of implementing the guidance contained in Local Authorities: Euro Preparations Guidance—Part 1, June 2003. [131838]

  Ruth Kelly:
  We expect no significant costs to local authorities at this stage. Local authorities would have a critical role to play during any changeover and as part of sensible business planning, in line with preparations in the wider public sector and across the economy, the guidance recommends that they should make preparations. All the evidence from the euro area suggests that early planning can significantly reduce costs.

  Penrose Report
  Mr. David Stewart:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive Lord Penrose's report on Equitable Life. [131354]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The timetable for his report is a matter for Lord Penrose. Lord Penrose remains committed to producing his report as soon as he properly can.

  Events (Ministerial Attendance)
  Nick Harvey:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the (a)sports events, (1)) arts events, (c)broadcasting events, (d)tourism events and (e)museums and galleries she has attended since 1 November 2002. [118007]

  Tessa Jowell:
  The number of events attended since 1 November 2002, is given in the following list:

  Sporting:

  8 December 2002 BBC Sports Personality of the Year.

  1 January 2003 Arsenal v Chelsea @ Highbury

  12 February 2003 England v Australia @ Upton Park

  16 March 2003 World Indoor Athletics Championships

  13 April 2003 London Marathon Opening.

  17W
  Arts:

  19 November 2002: A Streetcar Named Desire.

  10 November 2002: Twelfth Night @ Donmar Warehouse.

  15 December 2002: Mahler 2 @ Royal Festival Hall.

  21 December 2002: The Wind in the Willows @ Linbury Studio.

  23 December 2002: The Merry Wives of Windsor @ RSC Swan Theatre.

  28 January 2003: The Rite of Spring @ Treptow Arena

  10 February 2003: The Vortex @ Donmar Warehouse.

  15 May 2003: Henry V @ National Theatre.

  20 May 2003: Winters Tale @ Roundhouse

  28 June 2003: The Lady from the Sea @ The Almeida Theatre

  Broadcasting:

  6 February 2003: Launch of BBC 3.

  23 February 2003: BAFTAS

  13 May 2003: Thirty Club Dinner

  16 May 2003: Cannes Film Festival: Calendar Girls.

  Tourism:

  7 November 2002: Tourism Forum @ Tate Modern

  4 February 2003: Cumbria: CBI Dinner

  5 February 2003: BTA Breakfast.

  22 May 2003: Tourism Breakfast @ Claridges

  Museums and Galleries:

  17 December 2002: The Soul of the Homeless @ Museum of London.

  3 February 2003: Constable to Lacroix @ Tate Britain.

  17 March 2003: Duhrer Exh. @ British Museum.

  25 March 2003: Titan Exhibition @ The National Gallery.

  17 March 2003: Roundhouse Theatre Event

  3 April 2003: British Empire and Commonwealth Museum

  28 April 2003: Built Heritage Foundation, Shoreditch.

  28 April 2003: Elizabeth @ National Maritime Museum.

  The list includes events attended up to the start of the summer parliamentary recess 2003.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he received on the decision to remove the concession on Class 1 national insurance contributions applicable to mariners working on UK and Isle of Man registered ships where such ships never enter or trade in UK territorial waters (a)before and (b)after the decision was announced; what discussions he has held on the matter; what estimate he has made of the net revenue effect of this change to (i) receipts by Her Majesty's Treasury and (ii) seafarers and mariners registered as UK citizens; and what estimate he has made of the effect of this change on the (A) international competitiveness of the UK/Isle of Man shipping industry and (B) future numbers of UK citizens employed in the industry. [131875]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  None. The changes announced were in relation to ships trading in UK waters, not international shipping.

  PAYE
  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2003, Official Report,column 57W, on PAYE schemes with one or
  18W
  two employees, how many such schemes there were for each year from 1999–2000 onwards for companies only, excluding unincorporated businesses. [131397]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  The information is in the table.

  PAYE schemes live at April:

  Number of PAYE schemes with one or two employees123

  2003

  396,000

  2002

  366,000

  2001

  353,000

  2000

  334,000

  1Companies only.

  2 Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3 Schemes live at a particular date have been classified by the number of employees shown on the most recent end-of-year returns submitted by employers. The number of employees may not be available for newly set up schemes at each of these dates.

  Pensioners (Tax Rates)
  Mr. Laws:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners pay tax at a marginal rate of 40 per cent.; and if he will make a statement. [130564]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  An estimated 190,000 state retirement age pensioners pay tax at a marginal rate of 40 per cent. in 2003–04.

  This estimate is based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and is consistent with April Budget 2003.

  Reduced VAT Rate (Energy Saving Materials)
  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to the Exchequer was of the reduced rate of VAT on energy saving materials in each year since 1998; and what effect the extension had on these sums in each year from 2000. [130998]

  John Healey:
  Estimates of the revenue cost of the reduced rate of VAT for energy saving materials measures for the years 1998–99 to 2000–01 were published in Table 1.3 of the 1998 Financial Statement and Budget Report [HC 620]. It is estimated to have the same full-year cost in subsequent years.

  Estimates of the additional cost for the years 2000–01 to 2002–03 of extending the measure in Budget 2000 were published in the 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report [HC 346].

  Urban Regeneration Cost
  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to the Exchequer has been of the four measures to regenerate Britain's towns and cities announced on 8 November 2000 and introduced in the 2001 Budget. [131296]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  Costs of major tax reliefs can be found in Table A3.1 oF the 2003 Financial Statement and Budget Report and in the Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs. Costs of minor tax reliefs can be found on the Inland Revenue website.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Prisk:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Minister is responsible for the implementation of stamp duty land tax. [131293]

  Ruth Kelly:
  I am.

  Mr. Prisk:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he will publish (a)the results of the consultation on the reform of stamp duty land tax affecting commercial leases and (b)revisions to the Government's proposals. [131292]

  Ruth Kelly:
  We expect to publish shortly.

  Tax Credits
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were seconded to work on working families tax credit, broken down by Government department; how many of those staff are still seconded to work on the working family tax credit; what arrangements were made to cover the work previously being undertaken by staff who were seconded; and if he will make a statement. [128800]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  A number of staff have been seconded to Inland Revenue from other Government Departments in recent years, including from the former Department of Social Security and the Department for Work and Pensions. However, I regret that information is not held centrally on their areas of work.

  Tax Incentives
  Mr. Walter:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to implement tax incentives for companies who allow members of staff to work from home; and what assessment he has made of the impact this would have on traffic congestion. [131898]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  Companies can usually claim any expenses wholly and exclusively incurred in respect of employees' home working as a deduction in working out their trading profits for tax purposes.

  In addition, a number of measures have been introduced in recent years to help employers support home workers without them incurring a tax charge or liability to pay National Insurance contributions. These include:

  exemption for provided computer equipment;

  exemption for other provided equipment, services and supplies;

  exemption for reimbursed additional household costs.

  Estimates of the effects these measures will have on reducing levels of traffic congestion are not available.

  Tax Liability (Company Car Benefit)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was generated from duties on company car benefit in kind in each financial year since 2000–01. [131297]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  Latest estimates of the tax liability on company car benefit are available on the Inland Revenue's website at: http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/taxable_benefits/tbikaep_t05_1htm

  Tax Relief (Employee-loaned Computers)
  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 16 January 2003, Official Report,column 754W, on tax relief on employee-loaned computers, whether the information requested has been collected from employers. [130999]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 15 September 2003, Official Report,columns 592–93W.

  Trading Fund Models
  Mrs. Helen Clark:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2003, Official Report,column 276W, on trading fund models, if he will make it his policy to require Government agencies operating on a trading fund model to report the amounts of their turnover provided by sales to (a)Government Departments and Government agencies, (b)private sector customers and (c)value added resellers; and if he will make a statement; [132166]

  (2) if he will require Ordnance Survey to publish in its Annual Report the breakdown of its turnover of between sales (a)to Government Departments and Government agencies, (b)to private sector customers and (c)to value-added resellers; and if he will make a statement. [132167]

  Mr. Boateng:
  Trading funds prepare their accounts in accordance with the requirements of "Trading Funds: Accounts Guidance issued by HM Treasury". These requirements comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Practice in the United Kingdom (UK GAAP) to the extent that this is meaningful and appropriate in the public sector context. UK GAAP includes pronouncements by the Accounting Standards Board, one of which (Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 25) requires the disclosure of turnover by class of business or geographical segment where the body operates in more than one class of business or geographical segment. In line with the provisions of SSAP 25, it is for the management of the trading fund to define the appropriate class of business or geographical segments. In addition, where a trading fund provides different services as defined in the "Fees and Charges Guide" (also issued by HM Treasury), the Guide requires information about the performance of each service—including details of the turnover—to be disclosed.

  There are currently no plans to extend the disclosure requirements for trading funds (either in general or in specific cases) beyond those of SSAP 25 and the "Fees and Charges Guide".

  VAT (Church Repairs)
  Mr. Ruffley:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions his Department has had with the European Commission regarding the level at which. VAT is levied on church repairs in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [131440]

  John Healey:
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 18 September to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) Official Report, column 466W.

  War Debt
  Bob Spink:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the schedule is for repayments to the USA of War Debt incurred by Britain during and in the aftermath of the Second World War, including the line of credit and the lend-lease loan. [131690]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The schedule for the repayments of interest and principal sums outstanding on the Second World War agreement for a line of credit and a lend-lease loan facility with the United States Government are as follows:

  US$ million

  December 2003

  148

  December 2004

  145

  December 2005

  142

  December 2006

  83

DEFENCE

  Criminal Offences
  Simon Hughes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, broken down by Act, the criminal offences created in legislation sponsored by his Department since 1997. [110992]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 8 May 2003]: One offence has been created in legislation sponsored by the Ministry of Defence since 1997. The Armed Forces Act 2001 included powers, in relation to persons subject to Service law, to test for alcohol or drugs after a serious incident and created the offence of failing to provide a sample in such circumstances.

  European Security Policy
  Mr. Gerald Howarth:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part the development of a research-linked European security policy will play in future British security policy. [130806]

  Mr. Hoon:
  The European Commission has yet to define precisely the content of its proposed "Preparatory Action on the enhancement of European industrial potential in the field of security research". It is therefore too early to assess whether any security research programme emerging from this will influence British defence or security policies.

  Far East Civilian Survivors
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to extend ex gratia compensation payments to Far East British civilian survivors of the Second World War who cannot prove a bloodlink; and if he will make a statement. [131361]

  Mr. Caplin:
  The eligibility criterion for the ex gratia payment scheme requires that Civilian Internees of the Japanese during the Second World War were British subjects who had been born or had a parent or grandparent born in the United Kingdom. This criterion has been thoroughly examined by the courts, including the Court of Appeal, and confirmed.

  Friendly Fire
  Mr. Keetch:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries are being conducted in the United Kingdom armed forces into the Friendly Fire incidents of the recent Gulf conflict; whether US personnel (a) participated in and (b) have been denied permission to participate in the inquiries; and if he will make a statement. [130529]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 September 2003]: The United Kingdom armed forces thoroughly investigate all suspected incidents of Friendly Fire. Depending on the type of incident, investigations may be undertaken by a variety of agencies. This could include Royal Military Police, the Land Accident Prevention Investigation Team, Boards of Inquiry or Unit Inquiry Teams.

  United States personnel have had observer status for UK investigations where relevant. The UK and the US have also jointly interviewed witnesses where possible and necessary. Further, a UK representative sits on the US-led Board of Inquiry into the incident suspected of involving an RAF Tornado and a Patriot Missile. For the incident suspected of involving a UK Scimitar and a US A-10, a joint UK/US, US-led inquiry has been held and UK representatives sat on the inquiry board. We are not aware of any further Friendly Fire incidents that may have involved UK and US personnel. There is no indication that the evidence of any US personnel has been withheld from UK representatives or that US personnel have been denied permission to participate in the inquiries.

  Iraq
  Adam Price:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqi civilians have been killed by United Kingdom or United States military forces in (a) Iraq and (b) Baghdad since the end of the conflict in Iraq. [129641]

  Mr. Hoon:
  We make every effort to minimise the impact of military operations on the Iraqi civilian population. We have no reliable means of ascertaining the numbers of civilians killed by United Kingdom Forces since the conflict ended.

  Mr. Jenkin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) small arms and (b) heavy weapons have been (i) confiscated and (ii) destroyed by UK forces since cessation of hostilities in Iraq. [126136]

  Mr. Ingram:
  We did not centrally record the numbers of weapons confiscated or destroyed before 10 May 2003. Since then, as of 24 September, over 3,100 small arms and 450 heavy weapons (rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and man-portable air-defence missile systems) have been confiscated by forces of the Multinational Division under United Kingdom Command. We do not separately record the numbers destroyed. Excellent progress also continues to be made in the broader task of munitions clearance.

  Kenya (Rape Allegations)
  Mr. Caton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in investigating allegations made by women in Kenya that they were raped by British soldiers. [125945]
  23W
  Mr. Ingram:
  The Special Investigation Branch (SIB) of the Royal Military Police is currently engaged in a major criminal investigation into these allegations. A major incident room has been established in the UK and the investigation team has visited Kenya a number of times in recent months to examine Kenyan police records and to interview alleged victims. The SIB continues to act with the full support of the Kenyan authorities. It would be inappropriate to comment further while the investigation remains on-going.

  Microsoft (Licensing Fees)
  Norman Lamb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid to Microsoft in licensing fees by his Department and its agencies in each of the last three years; and how much has been budgeted for (a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [130669]

  Mr. Caplin:
  The total expenditure on Microsoft licensing fees is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost; however the Defence Communication Services Agency holds some information on expenditure and this is set out as follows. As the DCSA has steadily taken on responsibility for more of the MOD's IT over the last three years, the early figures should be viewed as representing only a share of MOD's total expenditure. The later figures encompass an increasingly high proportion of it (though still not all).

  £ million

  2001–02

  15.06

  2002–03

  21.35

  2003–04

  25.87

  £17 million per year has been allocated for a future agreement and negotiations are under way at present. Due to these negotiations it would not be appropriate to give further information on future budgeting and it is therefore withheld under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  MOD Housing
  Diana Organ:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his policy that members of the armed services are responsible for payment of repairs to buildings, following a burst water tank, when they are the key holder of Ministry of Defence housing. [123904]

  Mr. Caplin:
  Military personnel occupy Service Families' Accommodation under a contractual licence and have a general obligation to report structural defects including leaks or water tank bursts. Where damage to the fabric of the building occurs through negligence on the part of the licensee, the terms of the licence allow the staff of the Defence Housing Executive to raise charges in respect of the cost of repairs.

  Non-Combatant Deaths
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce the number of non-combatant deaths of armed forces personnel. [129074]
  24W
  Mr. Ingram:
  We take non-combatant deaths, which can occur in a range of circumstances, very seriously. Road Traffic Accidents account for the majority of non-combat deaths, and the Ministry of Defence operates a number of road safety campaigns to increase awareness of risks on the road.

  Another significant contributor to non-combat deaths is disease, to which members of the Armed Forces are as susceptible as the general public. But as part of the Defence Health Programme we are creating a health promotion strategy to co-ordinate work already in hand within each of the three Services. Through an emphasis on fitness and proper nutrition, together with increased availability of health advice and access to treatment, we aim to reduce the instance of disease-related deaths. Fewer than one in 20 non-combat deaths throughout the armed forces last year were ruled by the coroner as suicides or open verdicts. Through a tri-Service Suicide and Self-harm Prevention Working Group we are developing a more cohesive Armed Forces suicide and deliberate self-harm prevention policy. Other measures include the bench-marking of prevention measures with the NHS, HM Prison Service and other nations, and the development of a Stress Policy. Moreover, personnel are trained to be on the alert for signs of depression, altered behaviour and other possible indicators of self-harm. Further studies are planned into the identification of factors which may indicate greater risk of self-harm and suicide.

  QinetiQ
  Llew Smith:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implementation of the long term partnering agreements on QinetiQ. [120789]

  Mr. Caplin:
  The Long Term Partnering Agreement (LTPA) between the Ministry of Defence and QinetiQ came into effect on 1 April 2003. Under the Agreement, MOD retains ownership of its ranges and QinetiQ operates them on behalf of the Department to provide MOD with a long term test and evaluation capability.

  The LTPA is worth up to £5.6 billion to QinetiQ and is expected to deliver savings to the MOD of around £700 million (at current prices).

  Absent Without Leave
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 11 July 2003, Official Report, column 1033W, on trained personnel, how many of the service personnel who went absent without leave in each year were dismissed from each service. [127908]

  Mr. Caplin:
  Available information is shown in the table. Please note that as data are captured using different methods for each of the three Services, the given figures are not directly comparable on a Tri-Service basis.

  Figures are based only on trained personnel and have been rounded to prevent accidental disclosure of sensitive personal data.

  The figures in this answer will differ from those given by my hon. Friend for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) in his answer of 7 January 2003, Official Report, columns 40–42W as AWOL figures for those under training were included at that time.
  25W

  Naval Service1,2, The Naval Service figures for the period 1 January-31 December

  Number reported AWOL

  Number dismissed from the Service2

  1998

  25

  10

  1999

  35

  5

  2000

  50

  5

  2001

  85

  10

  2002

  90

  5

  1These figures relate to Royal Navy only so do not include Royal Marines.

  2 Those dismissed at court-martial or additionally, for the Naval Service only, at Summary Trial under warrant punishment system, as the result of a (or several) discipline offence(s). For the Naval Service dismissals the dismissal may not be solely due to the AWOL offence although one of the recorded offences was AWOL. They do not include personnel who were recorded as AWOL and later dismissed at a hearing with AWOL not recorded as an offence. In the case of the Army there are figures for the number of soldiers who have been court-martialled for going AWOL and then a third set of figures for those who have been subsequently dismissed as a direct result of the court-martial. The RAF figures are those personnel reported as AWOL and later dismissed for any reason.

  Army1,2,3

  Financial year

  Number reported AWOL2

  Number court- martialled for going AWOL1

  Number dismissed from the Service1

  1998–99

  1,400

  90

  45

  1999–2000

  1,665

  100

  50

  2000–01

  1,850

  115

  50

  2001–02

  1,655

  120

  45

  2002–033

  1.685

  125

  65

  1 Those dismissed at court-martial or additionally, for the Naval Service only, at Summary Trial under warrant punishment system, as the result of a (or several) discipline offence(s). For the Naval Service dismissals the dismissal may not be solely due to the AWOL offence although one of the recorded offences was AWOL. They do not include personnel who were recorded as AWOL and later dismissed at a hearing with AWOL not recorded as an offence. In the case of the Army there are figures for the number of soldiers who have been court-martialled for going AWOL and then a third set of figures for those who have been subsequently dismissed as a direct result of the court-martial. The RAF figures are those personnel reported as AWOL and later dismissed for any reason.

  2 The AWOL figures differ from the answer given in my answer of 11 July 2003, Official Report, column 1033W, due to belated absence publications being actioned or the cancellation of some absences.

  3 Army and RAF dismissal figures for 2002–03 are subject to any unresolved disciplinary actions.

  Royal Air Force1,2

  Financial year

  Number reported AWOL

  Number dismissed from the Service1

  1998/99

  20

  0

  1999/2000

  20

  0

  2000/01

  20

  3—

  2001/02

  15

  3—

  2002/032

  25

  3—

  1 Those dismissed at court-martial or additionally, for the Naval Service only, at Summary Trial under warrant punishment system, as the result of a (or several) discipline offence(s). For the Naval Service dismissals the dismissal may not be solely due to the AWOL offence although one of the recorded offences was AWOL.
  26W
  They do not include personnel who were recorded as AWOL and later dismissed at a hearing with AWOL not recorded as an offence. In the case of the Army there are figures for the number of soldiers who have been court-martialled for going AWOL and then a third set of figures for those who have been subsequently dismissed as a direct result of the court-martial. The RAF figures are those personnel reported as AWOL and later dismissed for any reason.

  2 Army and RAF dismissal figures for 2002–03 are subject to any unresolved disciplinary actions.

  3 denotes less than five

  War Graves (Belfast)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the war graves headstones which had been vandalised at Belfast City Cemetery have now been re-instated; and whether those which were beyond repair were replaced. [119594]

  Mr. Caplin:
  Yes. Following a visit by the Director General of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in autumn 2002 it was agreed with the Lord Mayor of Belfast and City officials to re-erect the headstones. To date some 30 headstones have been re-erected and a further 180 replacements are on order and should be replaced on the graves this autumn. The remaining undamaged original headstones, which have been kept in storage, are currently being examined with a view to their reuse.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Al Qaeda
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest assessment is of the risk of terrorist attack by al Qaeda against the United Kingdom. [129079]

  Mr. Blunkett:
  I halve been asked to reply.

  The threat from international terrorism in the United Kingdom and to United Kingdom interests worldwide remains real and has not changed from the level that it reached immediately after 11 September 2001. It is kept under constant review.

CABINET OFFICE

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many electronic red boxes are in use; what has been the total cost of introducing such boxes; and what savings have resulted. [129260]

  Mr. Alexander:
  In 1998, the Defence Research Agency developed a prototype electronic red box to test security and technology features. I am informed that the cost was approximately £1,000. After ministerial trials, the prototype was not rolled out because evaluation found that it would not have significantly improved the efficiency of the management of ministerial business at that time. We continue to explore alternative methods of electronic working such as remote connection to the Government Secure Intranet and Smart Card technology.
  27W

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Computer Security
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission how much has been (a) budgeted and (b) spent since April 2002 on (i) combating computer fraud, (ii) preventing theft of computers and (iii) safeguarding the security of information held on computer; and if he will make a statement. [128791]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: As a matter of policy the Commission does not comment on details of, or expenditure on, security arrangements. However, I can reassure my hon. Friend that current security arrangements include a high profile security presence, internal audit of procedures, security tagging of equipment supplied by the House and an in-house IT Security Officer. In addition to this, firewalls, anti-virus software, data encryption for Virtual Private Network access to parliamentary data, and password protection of systems form part of the software-based security arrangements.

  In order to maintain the level of protection, PCD is preparing an IT Security Programme, which will address recommendations made by the IT Security Officer following an audit carried out by security consultants.

  I would also refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) on 17 July 2003, Official Report, column 501W.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Advocacy (National Standards)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Solicitor-General how the CPS has revised its National Standards of Advocacy; and which areas employ full-time advocacy assessors and trainers to ensure that CPS advocates meet those standards. [128722]

  The Solicitor-General:
  The Crown Prosecution Service regularly revises and publishes National Standards of Advocacy, usually every three years. The standards outline behaviours and practices that are expected of advocates who represent the Crown.

  This year the standards have been revised to take account of the increased commitment of the Crown Prosecution Service to the care of victims and witnesses; the increased role of Crown advocates in the higher courts and the need to increase public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole in line with the Public Service Agreement target.

  All Crown Prosecution Service in-house advocates are annually appraised through the performance appraisal system by their line managers. This is most often done by way of observation in court by managers. However, some areas, currently London, Thames Valley and West Yorkshire, employ full-time advocacy inspectors and trainers who observe all the Area's
  28W
  advocates regularly throughout the year and give feedback on performance to the individual as well as their managers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many former care workers in children's homes and institutions have been investigated for child abuse in Merseyside in the past five years; and how many of those individuals were (a) charged, (b) convicted and (c) acquitted. [128349]

  Paul Goggins:
  I understand from the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police that, since Operation Care began in 1996, 541 employees connected with care homes have been the subject of allegations of child abuse. Of these, 98 were arrested, of whom 36 were subsequently convicted in court, 24 after pleading guilty. Nine employees were acquitted and the remainder had proceedings against them discontinued, either before or after being charged, for a variety of reasons, including poor health.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will adopt the recommendation by the Home Affairs Committee that resources be channelled into researching and piloting the use of statement validity analysis as a tool for evaluating the credibility of witness testimony in complex historical child abuse cases. [128352]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee's report supported this recommendation, while noting that statement validity analysis is only one of a range of techniques available.

  We are aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers' Investigative Interviewing Group, which aims to develop and assist the implementation of a national investigative interview strategy, are in the process of preparing advice to police forces on a number of techniques, including statement validity analysis.

  We will consider this advice in future decisions about resourcing research.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the Government will adopt the Home Affairs Committee's recommendation that the prosecution of offences relating to child abuse, which is alleged to have occurred over 10 years since the date of the offence, should only proceed with the court's permission, and that the time period does not begin until the complainant has reached age 21 years; [128356]

  (2) whether there is a time limit on the number of years after the alleged offence that a child abuser can be prosecuted. [128399]

  Paul Goggins:
  There is in general no restriction on the time that may elapse between the commission of an offence and commencement of prosecution. Either way offences, which can be tried either in a magistrates court or in the Crown Court, and indictable only offences, which must be tried in the Crown Court, can normally be prosecuted at any time. There are statutory

  29W
  provisions prohibiting proceedings in respect of certain such offences once a specified time has elapsed. An example is contained in the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which provides that prosecutions for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 must be commenced within 12 months of the offence. If no time limit is set out in legislation in respect of any either way or indictable-only offence, then the general rule applies, and prosecutions may be commenced however long ago the relevant events occurred.

  In their October 2002 report on the investigation of historical abuse cases, the Home Affairs Committee agreed that the prosecution of offences relating to child abuse should not be time-barred.

  The Government do not support the Committee's recommendation that the prosecution of offences relating to child abuse, which is alleged to have occurred over 10 years since the date of the offence, should only proceed with the court's permission, and that the time period should not begin until the complainant has reached age 21 years. It is the role of the Crown Prosecution Service to consider each individual case, and whether there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. One of the factors to be considered is any delay in reporting a crime and the reasons for that delay. We cannot see a good reason to change the current system.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been received by the Criminal Cases Review Commission from those convicted of abuse in care homes in each year from 1997 to 2003. [128389]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission has recorded the following applications from those convicted of abuse in care homes.

  Number of abuse applications

  1997

  1

  1998

  1

  1999

  1

  2000

  5

  2001

  8

  2002

  7

  January to August 2003

  3

  Total

  26

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the take-up rate, in historical child abuse cases, of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. [128395]

  Paul Goggins:
  None.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will conduct a review of the accessability of its scheme to victims of past institutional child abuse. [128396]

  Paul Goggins:
  I would refer the my hon. Friend to the response given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in April 2003 to the Fourth Report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 2001–02 HC 836 on The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse
  30W
  in Children's Homes (column 5799). Paragraphs 71 and 72 of that response addressed a recommendation about the accessibility of the scheme to victims of past institutional child abuse.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines govern the conduct of police investigations and subsequent prosecution proceedings in care home abuse cases. [128391]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Government's publication "Complex Child Abuse Investigations: Inter-Agency Issues" and the Association of Chief Police Officers' Senior Investigating Officers Handbook both cover the conduct of police investigations into complex historical abuse cases. This is in addition to more general guidelines in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and accompanying code and the Crown Prosecution Service code for Crown prosecutors.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will take steps to encourage early consultation on the conduct and direction of investigations between the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service in cases of abuse in children's homes. [128393]

  Paul Goggins:
  These steps have already been taken. The Government issued inter-agency guidance on complex child abuse investigations in June 2002. The guidance stresses the need to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service are involved at an early stage as appropriate, while noting that they should not be involved in operational decisions about the conduct of an investigation.

  This approach is further supported by the guidance in the Association of Chief Police Officers' Senior Investigating Officers Handbook.

  Confiscated Assets
  Mr. Tom Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value is of criminals' assets recovered by the Assets Recovery Agency since its launch. [127970]

  Caroline Flint:
  I understand from the Director of the Assets Recovery Agency that, since the agency became operational on 24 February 2003, it has not yet recovered any criminal assets. However, the total value of assets under investigation exceeds £17 million in 33 cases, of which some £10 million is currently frozen under court orders in nine cases pending hearings for recovery orders. In addition, one tax assessment has been issued under Part 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act for tax in excess of £250,000. The agency has also provided assistance to law enforcement agencies in 11 confiscation order cases raised under the previous legislation with a total value of £3.25 million.

  The confiscation powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are triggered by offences committed after the provisions were brought into force on 24 March 2003, so it will be a while before cases are dealt with by the Crown court in numbers. As of 31 August, six confiscation orders with a value of just under £120,000 have been made against convicted offenders in England and Wales. The value of cash seizures made under the new powers in the Act which came into effect on 30 December 2002

  31W
  is over £34 million. 18 restraint orders have also been made on assets with a value of over £4 million. The Enforcement Task Force, in operation since last December, has enforced 248 confiscation orders made under the old legislation with a total value of £14.6million.

  Fireworks
  Ross Cranston:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answers of 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 624W and 28 January, Official Report, column 754W, 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. [116262]

  Ms Blears:
  The results of the monitoring exercise will shortly be placed in the Library.

  Graffiti
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether young offenders may be employed in removing graffiti in Sefton. [128521]

  Currently recorded homicide by Merseyside Police

  Percentage

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total victims

  24

  28

  20

  30

  28

  Victim acquainted with suspect

  16

  19

  10

  15

  16

  Proportion where victim acquainted with suspect

  67

  68

  50

  50

  57

  Proportion England and Wales

  63

  62

  54

  54

  49

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the clear-up rate for murders committed in Crosby was in each of the last five years. [129475]

  Ms Blears:
  The data have been obtained from the homicide index as it stood on 8 October 2002. Figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and the courts, or as further information becomes

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total victims

  24

  28

  20

  30

  28

  Victims with no current suspect

  4

  3

  2

  7

  7

  Detection rate (percentage)

  83

  89

  90

  77

  75

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many murders there were in Romford in each of the last 10 years; [128362]

  (2) how many burglaries were committed in Romford in each year since 1997; [128402]

  (3) if he will make a statement on crime statistics in Romford in (a) 2002 and (b) each of the preceding 10 years; [128382]

  (4) how many car thefts there were in (a) Romford and (b) other London boroughs in 2002; [128363]
  32W
  Paul Goggins:
  The local youth offending team (Yot) and Probation Service in Sefton periodically supervise young offenders removing graffiti as part of their reparation requirements, subject to meeting health and safety criteria. The Probation Service is currently planning a project with the Safer Merseyside Partnership to clean local alley walks.

  Crime (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders in Crosby were committed by a person well known to the victim in the last five years; and what proportion of the total number of murders in Crosby during this period this represents. [129474]

  Ms Blears:
  The data have been obtained from the homicide index as it stood on 8 October 2002. Figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  Information is held centrally in the form of homicide (i.e. murder, manslaughter and infanticide) by police force area. Therefore, figures can only be provided for Merseyside Police Force Area as a whole.

  available. Revisions to the data will particularly affect the numbers detected in the most recent years as longer cases are solved.

  Information is held centrally in the form of homicide (ie murder, manslaughter and infanticide) by police force area. Therefore, figures can be provided only for Merseyside Police Force Area as a whole.

  Currently recorded homicide by Merseyside Police:

  (5) if he will make a statement on the level of assaults in Romford in 2002; [128372]

  (6) how many incidents of arson there were in Romford in (a) 2002 and (b) each of the preceding 10 years; [128377]

  (7) if he will make a statement on the level of stabbings in (a) Romford and (b) other London boroughs in 2002; [128378]

  (8) how many rape offences there were in (a) Romford and (b) the London borough of Havering in each of the past 10 years. [128404]
  33W
  Ms Blears:
  Recorded crime statistics below police force area level are collected on a basic command unit (BCU) basis. Figures at BCU level for England and Wales are available for six key offences for the financial years 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03. The area of Romford is included within the Metropolitan police BCU of Havering.

  The six key offences recorded are violence against the person (total), sexual offences (total), robbery, burglary in a dwelling, theft of a motor vehicle and theft from a vehicle. At BCU level, numbers of murders, assaults, shoplifting, arson, stabbings and rape offences are not available centrally. The available figures are given in the table.

  Basic command unit—recorded crime for vehicle crime offences for 2002–03 London region

  Basic command unit

  Police force

  Theft of a motor vehicle,offences recorded 2002–03

  Theft from a vehicle, offences recorded 2002–03

  Bishopsgate1

  London, City of

  202

  191

  Snowhill1

  London, City of

  132

  169

  Barking and Dagenham

  Metropolitan Police

  1,489

  1,678

  Barnet

  Metropolitan Police

  1,801

  3,239

  Bexley

  Metropolitan Police

  1,455

  2,022

  Brent

  Metropolitan Police

  1,747

  2,897

  Bromley

  Metropolitan Police

  2,095

  3,339

  Camden

  Metropolitan Police

  1,919

  7,139

  City of Westminster

  Metropolitan Police

  1,464

  4,582

  Croydon

  Metropolitan Police

  2,341

  3,352

  Ealing

  Metropolitan Police

  2,484

  5,925

  Enfield

  Metropolitan Police

  2,033

  3,198

  Greenwich

  Metropolitan Police

  2,370

  3,293

  Hackney

  Metropolitan Police

  2,495

  4,911

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Metropolitan Police

  1,130

  4,476

  Haringey

  Metropolitan Police

  2,449

  4,067

  Harrow

  Metropolitan Police

  1,025

  2,085

  Havering

  Metropolitan Police

  1,654

  2,230

  Heathrow

  Metropolitan Police

  61

  309

  Hillingdon

  Metropolitan Police

  1,632

  3,689

  Hounslow

  Metropolitan Police

  1,487

  3,751

  Islington

  Metropolitan Police

  2,351

  5,003

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Metropolitan Police

  1,066

  3,185

  Kingston upon Thames

  Metropolitan Police

  437

  938

  Lambeth

  Metropolitan Police

  2,648

  5,272

  Lewisham

  Metropolitan Police

  1,986

  2,420

  Merton

  Metropolitan Police

  938

  1,512

  Newham

  Metropolitan Police

  3,657

  5,005

  Redbridge

  Metropolitan Police

  1,981

  3,615

  Richmond upon Thames

  Metropolitan Police

  615

  1,740

  Southwark

  Metropolitan Police

  2,659

  4,988

  Sutton

  Metropolitan Police

  822

  1,577

  Tower Hamlets

  Metropolitan Police

  2,260

  6,026

  Waltham Forest

  Metropolitan Police

  2,217

  3,818

  Wandsworth

  Metropolitan Police

  1,637

  3,706

  1 The City of London has a small resident population but provides policing services to between 3–400,000 commuters and visitors each weekday. Performance measures based on crime per 1,000 resident population produce an unrealistic picture of a high level of crime, which does not reflect the likelihood of becoming a victim of crime in the City.

  Note:

  Crimes recorded by the Metropolitan police's special operations unit have not been included in this table.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what upgrades are being made to the hardware and software elements of the CCRC's IT system. [128883]

  Paul Goggins:
  During 2003–04 there will be a variety of upgrades to the hardware to refresh items, such as PCs, which are now up to six years old. The document
  34W

  Basic command unit—recorded crime statistics-Havering

  Offence

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Violence against the person

  2,661

  2,787

  3,225

  3,901

  Sexual offences

  145

  158

  173

  178

  Robbery

  240

  392

  549

  479

  Burglary in a dwelling

  837

  897

  1,109

  1,058

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  1,749

  1,842

  1,883

  1,654

  Theft from a vehicle

  2,120

  2,143

  2,374

  2,230

  1 The Metropolitan police introduced the National Crime Recording Standard on 1 April 2002. This may have caused the large increase in violence against the person offences for 2002–03.

  Numbers of car thefts (theft of a motor vehicle and theft from a vehicle) for all the basic command units within the London region for 2002–03 are given in the table.

  management system and other key software packages are also being enhanced, but the most important advance is expected to be in the area of knowledge management.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implication of the Criminal Justice and Sentencing Bill for the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [128885]
  35W
  Paul Goggins:
  The aim of the Criminal Justice Bill is to create a fair and balanced criminal justice system that convicts the guilty, acquits the innocent and reduces offending and re-offending. The Government do not believe any of the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill will result in an increase in miscarriages of justice and will not therefore impact on the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding the CCRC received during the year ending 31 March 2003 from Round 3 of the Invest to Save budget; and what this funding was used for. [128887]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Commission received £82,545 from the Invest to Save initiative in 2002–03 to establish electronic file interchange facilities with the Court of Appeal. Considerable progress was made during 2002–03, with accreditation of the necessary secure x.GSI connection on 1 April 2003.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days on average it took the Criminal Cases Review Commission to respond to correspondence at (a) Stage 0, (b) Stage 1, (c) Stage 2 Screen and (d) Stage 2 in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [128830]

  Paul Goggins:
  All applications are acknowledged within three days. At all other stages during 2002–03 the Commission responded to 99.5 per cent. of correspondence within 10 working days.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days on average it takes the Criminal Cases Review Commission to complete reviews at (a) Stage 1, (b) Stage 2 Screen and (c) Stage 2. [128831]

  Paul Goggins:
  Reviews at Stage 1 and at Stage 2 Screen are generally completed within 30 working days of allocation. Reviews at Stage 2/3 averaged 216 days in 2002–03.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions on eligibility the Criminal Cases Review Commission made at Stage 1 during the period 31 March 2002 to 31 March 2003; how many intakes there were; and what reasons underlay the difference between these figures. [128833]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Commission made 911 eligibility decisions at Stage 1 during the period 31 March 2002 to 31 March 2003. The intake in this period was 932. The difference is due to the fact that some eligibility decisions take 30 working days to complete.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were completed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2002–03 at each stage. [128834]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Commission completed 299 cases at Stage 1,498 at Stage 2 Screen, and 189 at Stage 2/3 in 2002–03.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Investigating Officers were appointed each year by the Criminal Cases Review
  36W
  Commission during the period from 31 March 1997 to 31 March; and how many cases were investigated each year. [128835]

  Paul Goggins:
  21 Investigating Officers were appointed during the period from 31 March 1997 to 31 March 2003 (four in 1997–98, four in 1998–99, five in 1999–2000, three in 2000–01, three in 2001–02 and two in 2002–03) to investigate 29 cases.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the (a) case intakes, (b) case completions, (c) case in trays and (d) cases under review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in each year since 31 March 1997 to 31 March 2003. [128836]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Commission started its work with 279 cases (248 of which had been transferred from the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office and 31 had been received by the Commission prior to its official start). There were over a thousand applications in each of the first two years. In 1999–2000 the case intake reduced to 777 since when it has been steadily building to 932 in 2002–03. Against this, 310 cases were completed in 1997–98, 492 in 1998–99, and about a thousand in each of the four years since.

  Initial staffing levels proved insufficient to cope with the demand resulting in a rising number of accumulated cases, which peaked at about 1,600 in mid-1999. The Home Office provided extra resources in 1990–2000, a further increase in 2000–01 and, following the 2000 Spending Review, for each of the three subsequent years. At March 2003 there were 282 cases awaiting review and 365 under review. The Home Office is working with the Commission to ensure that it has sufficient funding to allow the accumulated cases to be minimised whilst coping with its increased case intake. The Commission is endeavouring to balance this achievement with the need to avoid having too many or too few staff.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many referrals were made to (a) the Court of Appeal and (b) the crown court in England by the CCRC in 2002–03. [128838]

  Paul Goggins:
  Of the total of 196 referrals in 2002–03, 179 were to the Court of Appeal, seven to the crown court in England and Wales, and 10 to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many CCRC referrals had been determined by the courts of appeal by 31 March 2003; of those determined, what the average time was from referral to judgement; how many convictions have been quashed; how many have been upheld; and how many have been varied since 31 March 1997. [128839]

  Paul Goggins:
  Of 196 referrals, 133 have been determined by the appropriate court of appeal. The average time from referral to judgment was 309 working days. 77 convictions have been quashed, 44 upheld. Two sentences have been upheld and 10 have been varied.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reapplications were made to the CCRC in each year since 31 March 1997, and what proportion this represents of non-referrals. [128840]
  37W
  Paul Goggins:
  Data are only available for the last three years. There have been 25 reapplications in 2000–01,52 in 2001–02 and 79 in 2002–03. These represent 3 per cent. of non-referrals in 2000–01,4 per cent. in 2001–02 and 8 per cent. in 2002–03.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reapplications were referred by the CCRC between 2000 and 2003. [128841]

  Paul Goggins:
  During the three-year period 2000–03, eight reapplications were referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) complainants and (b) complaints there were to the CCRC in 2002–03; and how many cases were involved. [128842]

  Paul Goggins:
  In 2002–03,73 complainants made a total of 76 complaints in relation to 75 cases.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time was for the CCRC to (a) acknowledge a complaint and (b) complete an investigation into a complaint in 2002–03. [128843]

  Paul Goggins:
  The average time to acknowledge a complaint in 2002–03 was three working days. The average time to complete an investigation into a complaint was about 29 working days.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints to the CCRC concerned case review actions or decisions in 2002–03; and how many resulted in a change to a case decision. [128844]

  Paul Goggins:
  During 2002–03, 56 complaints concerned case review actions or decisions. None resulted in a change to a case decision.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to minimise the number of complaints received by the CCRC. [128845]

  Paul Goggins:
  During 2002–03, the Commission carried out a comprehensive audit of the reasons for complaints. The aim was to define changes that could be made to the Commission's processes, communications and training programme to minimise the number of complaints received. Appropriate changes will be implemented during 2003–04.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the applications received by the CCRC in 2002–03, how many referred to sexual offences; and how many separate sexual offences were raised. [128846]

  Paul Goggins:
  During 2002–03, 932 applications were received consisting of 1,248 separate offences and 2,038 counts. Of these, indecent assault, rape, and other sexual offences represented 32 per cent. of the offences and 44 per cent. of the counts.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many process improvement projects were active in the CCRC during 2002–03; and what they were concerned with. [128851]
  38W
  Paul Goggins:
  During 2002–03, one process improvement project was active. This was concerned with the development of a more integrated training programme for the Commission.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many case review managers (a) were in post, (b) arrived and (c) left the Criminal Cases Review Commission in each year from 31 March 1997 to 31 March 2003; [128852]

  (2) what the turnover rate of case review managers in the Criminal Cases Review Commission was in each year since 1997. [128827]

  Paul Goggins:
  The turnover of case review managers (CRMs) is represented in this table:

  Date

  CRMs in post

  Arrivals during the year

  Departures during the year

  31 March 1997

  9

  15

  0

  31 March 1998

  24

  8

  3

  31 March 1999

  29

  12

  5

  31 March 2000

  36

  17

  6

  31 March 2001

  47

  9

  6

  31 March 2002

  50

  1

  8

  31 March 2003

  43

  —

  —

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications the Criminal Cases Review Commission received between 31 March 1997 and 31 March 2003; and what the annual intakes to Stage 1 through that period were. [128825]

  Paul Goggins:
  The number of applications was as follows:

  Transfers

  New cases to Stage 1

  Cumulative

  31 March 1997

  279

  —

  279

  1997–98

  —

  1,103

  1,382

  1998–99

  —

  1,037

  2,419

  1999–2000

  —

  777

  3,196

  2000–01

  —

  800

  3,996

  2001–02

  —

  834

  4,830

  2002–03

  —

  932

  5,762

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change was in the number of applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2002–03 from the previous year. [128826]

  Paul Goggins:
  The number of applications to the Commission was 12 per cent. higher in 2002–03 than in the previous year.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were (a) awaiting review at each stage and (b) under review at each stage at (i) 31 March, (ii) 31 March 2002, (iii) 31 March 2001 and (iv) 31 March 2000. [128828]

  Paul Goggins:
  The requested information is as follows.
  39W

  Stage 1

  Stage 2 Screen

  Stage 2/3

  In tray

  Under review

  In tray

  Under review

  In tray

  Under review

  31 March 2000

  22

  25

  702

  216

  190

  217

  31 March 2001

  23

  47

  281

  286

  249

  178

  31 March 2002

  17

  14

  124

  149

  199

  190

  31 March 2003

  17

  35

  104

  128

  161

  194

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many referrals were made by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in the 2002–03 year to 31 March; and how many of those referrals have been determined. [128829]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Commission referred 35 cases to the Court of Appeal in 2002–03. Nine of these referrals of convictions have been determined and all have been quashed. One referral against sentence has been abandoned.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many referrals by the CCRC have taken advantage of (a) forensic science techniques, (b) advances in psychiatry and (c) advances in linguistics that have been developed or enhanced since the original proceedings. [128847]

  Paul Goggins:
  It would require disproportionate resources to determine exactly how many of the 196 referrals to March 2003 made any use of some form of advance in the fields of forensic science techniques, psychiatry, or linguistics. This is particularly the case given that such use may not have formed a key element of the referral. In some referrals the Commission has taken direct advantage of these techniques, including the use of DNA and ESDA techniques. For example, in one case in which the defence had advanced a seemingly implausible argument at trial, modern DNA techniques supported it and the conviction was quashed. In another referral, ESDA tests cast doubt on prosecution documents and the conviction was quashed. Advances in forensic psychiatry and linguistics have been applied in several referrals, particularly in relation to the reliability of confessions and other evidence.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average turn-around for applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was in the last 12 months; and what percentage were settled within a year. [128360]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority advise that in the year ending 31 August 2003, the average time between the date an application was received and the date the applicant was notified of the decision on that application was, for the 72,531 cases so determined, 294 days. In 53,159 cases (73 per cent.) the decision letter was issued within 12 months of receipt of the application.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of complainants in criminal investigations claimed compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme in the last 12 months; and what percentage pursued a civil action for damages. [128361]
  40W
  Paul Goggins:
  Such information is not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Denis Murphy:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in each of the last five years criminal courts in England ordered offenders to pay compensation to their victims. [127252]

  Paul Goggins:
  The number of offenders ordered to pay compensation for all offences at all courts, England 1997 to 2001 is as follows:

  Year

  Offenders ordered to pay compensation1

  1997

  95,410

  1998

  99,198

  1999

  99,337

  2000

  98,558

  2001

  100,910

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in December.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to issue guidelines which prescribe the relationship between the police and personal injury solicitors. [128359]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Government's publication "Complex Child Abuse Investigations: Inter-Agency Issues" refers directly to matters relevant to the disclosure of information by the police to solicitors in historical abuse cases. We feel that this provides sufficient guidance, as there should be no need for any further relationship between the two parties.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances the Court will waive the double jeopardy rule and allow retrial to take place under the Criminal Justice Bill. [128524]

  Paul Goggins:
  Under the provisions of Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Bill, the Court of Appeal will be able to order a retrial in respect of certain serious offences for which there has previously been an acquittal, where the court is satisfied that there is new and compelling evidence which is relevant tot he guilt of the acquitted person, and that it is in the interests of justice for a retrial to proceed.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the purpose is of altering the procedures and revising the Codes of Practice as set out in clause 7 of the Criminal Justice Bill; [127669]

  (2) what the purposes are of altering the procedures and revising the Codes of Practice as set out in clause 7 of the Criminal Justice Bill. [128624]

  Paul Goggins:
  The purpose of clause 9 (formerly clause 7) is to enable the Codes issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to be updated and reviewed on a more frequent basis to maintain their relevance and accuracy. It provides for a targeted, quicker and less bureaucratic approach and allows the Secretary of State discretion in the process of updating and making changes by applying a level of scrutiny

  41W
  proportionate to the amendment or change. The Home Affairs Select Committee would advise the Secretary of State on the level of Parliamentary scrutiny required in every case.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the purpose is of the proposal in clause 23 of the Criminal Justice Bill to transfer responsibility for charging from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service; [127670]

  (2) what the purposes are of the proposal to transfer responsibility for charging from the Police to the Crown Prosecution Service in Clause 23 and of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Justice Bill. [128626]

  Paul Goggins:
  The purpose of the new arrangements is to enable the police and Crown Prosecution Service to develop a common approach to case preparation, increasing the likelihood that charges will be correct from the outset and facilitating a more efficient and effective court process. When similar arrangements were piloted last year, the results showed improvements in terms of substantially lower discontinuance, more guilty pleas at first hearing and significant falls in cracked and ineffective trials.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether HM Government will adopt the Home Affairs Committee's recommendation on including a time limit in the primary legislation on imposing conditions on bail before charge in the Criminal Justice Bill. [128522]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Government have considered the Home Affairs Committee's recommendation that there should be a limit on the duration of pre-charge police bail in cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision as to charge. The Government accept that bail granted to suspects in these circumstances (whether subject to conditions or not) should be for a reasonable period only, but it has decided that it would be appropriate to make this clear in guidance, rather than to include a time limit on the face of the Bill. No statutory restrictions on the duration of police bail exist at present, and the final evaluation report of the charging pilot recommended against imposing such a limit in these cases.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Criminal Justice Bill modifies the general exclusionary rule against hearsay evidence. [128617]

  Paul Goggins:
  The main provisions remove the old common law rule against the admission of hearsay evidence, and provide a clear statutory scheme for the admission of such evidence. Under the Bill, statements made out of court will be admissible as evidence in the following circumstances:
  the witness is unavailable for a specified reason;
  documentary records have been compiled by business;
  it is admissible under the common law rules which have been preserved or other statutory provision;
  the parties agree that it can go in; or
  the court gives leave to admit the statement.

  In addition, witnesses' previous statements will be more widely admissible at trial as proof of the facts contained within them, including allowing certain
  42W
  witnesses in serious cases to use their video recorded statements in place of their main evidence. Further details are contained in the Explanatory Notes, which have been published to accompany the Bill.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will accept the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee to delete Clause 5 pertaining to detention time limits in the Criminal Justice Bill. [128623]

  Paul Goggins:
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Government Reply to the Second. Report from the Home Affairs Committee (column 5787). Extending detention in the way proposed will help impact positively on dealing with serious offences such as street robbery.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will accept the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee to amend Clause 7 of the Criminal Justice Bill in order to preserve the existing procedures in the circumstances of a Code being established for the first time and where revisions of substantial importance or significance are made to the Codes. [128625]

  Paul Goggins:
  Government amendments tabled during debate in the Lords Committee provide for any entirely new PACE Code to be subject to affirmative procedure. We also accept that significant changes to existing Codes may be subject to the same process but that there should be scope to consider the most appropriate procedure to be followed in each case. That is why we have given an undertaking to consult the Home Affairs Select Committee in every case on which procedure should be followed and to be bound by the Committee's advice.

  Criminal Justice Boards
  Mr. Bercow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the formation of the local criminal justice boards on the delivery of services. [130495]

  Paul Goggins:
  Local Criminal Justice Boards were launched on 1 April 2003. They are subject to ongoing assessment against targets. Only the first quarter figures for performance are currently available to assess performance.

  The Local Boards have been tasked with delivery of the Criminal Justice System Public Service Agreement targets. Their key priorities are to increase the number of crimes for which an offender is brought to justice and to improve the level of public confidence in the criminal justice system. Additionally they have targets to reduce the number of ineffective trials, ensure the Persistent Young Offender pledge is met and improve timeliness. Where applicable, Local Boards have targets to reduce street crime.

  Each Local Board has set out in delivery plans what their precise targets are and how they intend to achieve them. Progress against these plans is monitored and appropriate feedback and support is given. Local Boards have recently completed and received feedback on their first quarter self assessment.
  43W
  Additionally the National Criminal Justice Board, at its monthly meetings, monitors the overall performance of Local Boards. Members of the Board—Ministers and Senior Officials—visit Local Areas on a regular basis.

  Criminal Proceedings
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has (a) to introduce a national protocol for the disclosure of third party material in criminal proceedings and (b) to implement Lord Justice Auld's recommendations on disclosure. [128355]

  Paul Goggins:
  Work on a model national protocol between the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), police and local authorities on the exchange of information in the investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases has been completed. I understand that the CPS Policy Directorate is hoping to issue the model protocol to local CPS areas, police and local authorities in the near future.

  Sir Robin Auld's report of his Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales made a number of recommendations on the law on disclosure. The Government's response was published in the Annex to the White Paper, "Justice for All" (column 5563).

  Sir Robin's recommendation that there should be a single disclosure test to replace the present two tests is included in the Criminal Justice Bill, currently being considered by the House of Lords. His other recommendations for improving prosecution disclosure were considered in the context of the joint CPS/Police disclosure project. Revised Joint Operational Instructions were issued to the police and CPS in December 2002 and became fully operational in June 2003. The Government is considering how best to take forward Sir Robin Auld's recommendation that consideration should be given to a new statutory scheme for third party disclosure, in the light of the work on the model protocol.

  Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Gibb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the deterrent effect of the length of a custodial sentence. [128547]

  Paul Goggins:
  It is extremely difficult to measure the deterrent effect of sentencing separately from its other effects. Apart from serving as punishment, sentences can impact on crime in a number of ways, through incapacitation, reform and rehabilitation, as well as the deterrent effect. Reconviction rates, for example, are lower for those who serve longer terms of imprisonment than those who serve shorter terms, but this reflects a number of factors and the contribution of deterrence cannot be readily isolated.

  In 1999, the Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics Directorate commissioned the University of Cambridge to review all the recent research looking at the impact of sentence severity on deterrence. That study1 concluded that the limited available evidence in this area suggests that generally the connection between variations in sentence severity and deterrent effect is not direct or strong. Nevertheless the availability (and
  44W
  severity) of punishment does appear to have a general deterrent effect for some classes of potential offenders, whose choice of whether to offend is influenced by their perception of the risks of being apprehended and punished. This suggests that known penal threats can have a deterrent effect.
  1 Von Hirsch, A. Bottoms, A. Burney, E. and Wikstrom, P-O. (1999) Criminal deterrence and sentence severity; an analysis of recent research. Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. Hart Publishing, Oxford.

  Custody Plus Scheme
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proposed increase in magistrates' sentencing powers will be implemented before the Custody plus scheme is rolled out. [128618]

  Paul Goggins:
  Final decisions on the timing of the reforms in the Criminal Justice Bill have not yet been made. It is likely that we will introduce elements of the sentencing reforms in phases, to ensure that they are introduced without too much disruption, and to enable the Prison Service and the National Probation Service to reach the capacity necessary to implement them successfully.

  Custody plus in particular will create an additional caseload for the probation service, which will need to be well planned for.

  Our decision on timing will also take into account the potential benefits of linking the increase in magistrates' sentencing powers with the new arrangements for allocation and transfer of cases between magistrates and the Crown court, in Part 6 of the Bill, which we may wish to implement in advance of custody plus.

  Gangs
  Mr. Wray:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken since 1997 to address problems arising from gang culture; and what proposals he has to combat gang violence. [128095]

  Paul Goggins:
  We are taking action to deal with gang-related offending where this is a problem. Initiatives such as the Manchester Multi-Agency Gang Strategy and similar community-based programmes in other areas use a multi-agency approach to deliver interventions targeted at gangs, gang culture and associated offending, while police operations, such as Operation Trident in London, are tackling the association between gang culture and gun crime.

  We are also working to prevent young people's problematic involvement in gangs in the first place, in areas where this is an issue. For example, the Youth Inclusion Programme and Safer Schools Partnerships target those young people most at risk of offending to help them avoid problematic behaviours, including gang membership. And the new Positive Activities for Young People programme provides constructive diversionary activities during the school holidays for targeted at risk young people.

  Jury Intimidation
  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of jury intimidation in the United Kingdom. [128681]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Crown Prosecution Service and Court Service do not maintain records of the numbers of cases in which jury interference occurs. However, each year there are instances of actual or feared jury interference which necessitate both a range of jury protection measures and the termination of trials before the jury has been able to reach a verdict. In a small number of cases which present a very serious risk of intimidation, the court will order 24-hour police protection for the jury. In 2000, the cost to the Metropolitan Police of such protection was £4.3 million; in 2001, £5.1 million.

  The Government have included proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill currently before Parliament for a trial on indictment in the Crown Court to be conducted without a jury where there is a danger of jury tampering, or continued without a jury where the jury has been discharged because of jury tampering. The Government believe that these measures will provide a strong and effective disincentive to jury tampering.

  Police Custody
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in (1) what circumstances it will be necessary to impose conditions before charge to ensure that a person accused of a crime (a) surrenders to custody, (b) does not commit an offence while on bail and (c) does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or herself or another person; [127674]

  (2) what guidance he intends to issue on the situations in which it is necessary to impose conditions before charge to secure that a person accused of a crime (a) surrenders to custody, (b) does not commit an offence while on bail and (c) does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice whether in relation to himself or another person, under the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill. [128630]

  Paul Goggins:
  When a custody officer releases a suspect under the new section 37(7)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for the purpose of enabling the Crown Prosecution Service to make a decision as to charge, it will be for to him or her to determine in the usual way whether to impose bail conditions in accordance with section 3 of the Bail Act 1976. No special guidance will be required as to the circumstances in which conditions would be appropriate.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long a suspect can be detained before charge for (a) non-serious arrestable offences and (b) serious arrestable offences. [128651]

  Paul Goggins:
  Section 41 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that an arrested person shall not be kept in detention for more than 24 hours before charge. Section 42 provides that if the person is under arrest for a serious arrestable offence, he may be detained up to a maximum of 36 hours on the
  46W
  authorisation of a superintendent or above. Section 43 provides that further detention up to a maximum period of 96 hours must be authorised on application to a magistrate.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the pay negotiations for the National Probation Service were not concluded by 1 April; when the negotiations will begin; whether a similar timetable will be adopted in 2004; and if he will make a statement. [128346]

  Paul Goggins:
  The pay negotiations for the National Probation Service (NPS) were not concluded by 1 April 2003 because of the need to obtain agreement to the pay remit by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Paul Boateng). The remit was not agreed until 17 July. A pay offer was then made to the Trade Unions on 22 July and this is now subject to an acceptance ballot of Trade Union members. Union leaders have recommended the offer to their members.

  It is not intended that a similar timetable will be adopted for 2004. This is because the National Probation Directorate, in conjunction with the Probation Boards' Association (the employers' organisation), is currently negotiating with the Trade Unions a new pay and grading system for the National Probation Service. If agreement can be reached, it is planned that there will be a two-year pay settlement covering the years 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the National Probation Service required a pay remit before their pay negotiations could begin this year; when the remit will be completed; why it could not be completed in time for the pay negotiations to be completed by 1 April; whether a pay remit will be an annual requirement; and if he will make a statement. [128347]

  Paul Goggins:
  When the National Probation Service (NPS) was established in April 2001 the Probation Service moved from being part funded by the local authorities and the Home Office to being solely funded by the Home Office. This change in funding made it appropriate, as with other public services, that the NPS was required to submit its pay remit for approval by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. This arrangement became fully operative for the first time for the 2003–04 pay settlement. Treasury rules require that employers cannot begin pay negotiations with the Trade Unions until the Treasury has approved the remit.

  The Chief Secretary agreed the NPS remit on 17 July and a pay offer was made to the Trade Unions on 22 July.

  The reason why the negotiations on the NPS pay settlement did not begin until July relates to the extended timetable for clearance of remits through Ministers and the Treasury. Coupled with this is a complex process of ensuring that the proposed settlement is affordable by the NPS and conforms to public sector pay policy. These factors meant that it was not possible for the NPS to meet the 1 April settlement date. It should be borne in mind that a settlement, once agreed, is backdated to the relevant settlement date.
  47W
  It is not intended that a similar timetable will be adopted for 2004–05. This is because a new pay and grading system is currently planned for the NPS and a two-year remit will be sought well in advance from the Treasury to cover the years 2004–05 and 2005–06. There should therefore be no repetition of this year's delay.

  Sexual Offences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long the maximum penalty is for those convicted of gross indecency. [128635]

  Paul Goggins:
  The maximum sentence for the offence of Indecency between Men (section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) is, on indictment, dependent on the ages of those involved. If the offence is committed by a man over the age of 21 with a man under the age of 18, it carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. Otherwise it carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. On summary conviction the offence carries a penalty of six months imprisonment, or a fine, or both.

  Indecency between men is the official name for the offence colloquially known as Grass Indecency.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government plans to (a) repeal gross indecency offences and (b) include provision regarding sexual activity in public toilets under the Sexual Offences Bill. [128633]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Sexual Offences Bill provides for the repeal of section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 which is the offence of "indecency between men not in private", colloquially known as "gross indecency" (see schedule 5 of the Bill). The Bill also provides for an offence of "sexual activity in a public lavatory" (see clause 67).

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask t he Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislation the police may use to tackle the problem of sexual activity in toilets. [128634]

  Paul Goggins:
  Currently, sexual activity in toilets could be dealt with under section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (indecency between men not in private), section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 which deals with behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and the common law offence of "outraging public decency". There is provision in the Sexual Offences Bill for the repeal of section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 but a new offence of "sexual activity in a public lavatory" is included at clause 67.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will adopt the proposal of the Home Affairs Committee to extend the statutory reporting restrictions, which preserve the anonymity of victims of sexual offences, to persons accused of those offences. [128620]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Government have noted the findings of the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC), but believe there should be no distinction drawn between those accused of sex offences and other, arguably more heinous crimes, such as murder. However, we acknowledge that some media reporting of suspects' details, prior to charge, can be severely
  48W
  distressing and damaging where charges are not then brought, and believe that informed and strengthened self-regulatory guidance issued by the police and the media, to prevent such reporting, is preferable to legislation. Discussions are already in hand to ensure the relevant guidance is strengthened.

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on performance against the 71 day target for dealing with persistent young offenders. [128717]

  Paul Goggins:
  The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders (PYOs) in England and Wales was 64 days for the second quarter of 2002—the eighth consecutive quarter at or below the 71 day target.

  This is an excellent achievement by all the Criminal Justice Agencies. It is a vital part of the Government's reforms that people should have confidence in the Criminal Justice System, and the Government are very pleased that the target is being met so.

  Mr. Rosindell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the funding given to the initiatives in the London Borough of Havering to discourage young offenders from re-offending. [128381]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Havering Youth Offending Team (YOT) budget for 2003–04 which has been proposed to the Borough Council is £792,315. This covers a wide range of work with juvenile offenders including community supervision and interventions designed to prevent re-offending. The local Probation Service carries out similar work with some juveniles and with young adult offenders.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines govern the conduct of police investigations and subsequent prosecution proceedings in care home abuse cases. [128391]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Government's publication "Complex Child Abuse Investigations: Inter-Agency Issues" and the Association of Chief Police Officers' Senior Investigating Officers Handbook both cover the conduct of police investigations into complex historical abuse cases. This is in addition to more general guidelines in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and accompanying code and the Crown Prosecution Service code for Crown prosecutors.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will take steps to encourage early consultation on the conduct and direction of investigations between the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service in cases of abuse in children's homes. [128393]

  Paul Goggins:
  These steps have already been taken. The Government issued inter-agency guidance on complex child abuse investigations in June 2002. The guidance stresses the need to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service are involved at an early stage as

  49W
  appropriate, while noting that they should not be involved in operational decisions about the conduct of an investigation.

  This approach is further supported by the guidance in the Association of Chief Police Officers' Senior Investigating Officers Handbook.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the Criminal Records Bureau's end of year deficit on the financial forecast set out in Annex A of the CRB Corporate Business Plan; how this compares to the original financial forecast; and when he expects the agency to break even. [131201]

  Paul Goggins:
  It is currently estimated that the Criminal Records Bureau deficit for the year to 31 March 2004 will be £18.8 million. The original plan, which assumed a significantly higher volume of applications, was for the Criminal Records Bureau to make a surplus of £1.8 million in the year. The Criminal Records Bureau is currently projected to break even in the year to 31 March 2006.

  Evidence Collection
  Mrs. Anne Campbell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to ensure that evidence presented in UK courts has not been obtained under duress. [131287]

  Paul Goggins:
  It is for the trial judge to decide whether a particular piece of evidence should be admitted and in making that decision he must adhere to the requirements of the law. In England and Wales, criminal courts have a range of powers to prevent the admission of improperly obtained evidence. In particular:

  Section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) prevents the prosecution relying on confession evidence where it may have been obtained by oppression of the person who made it or in consequence of anything said or done which, in the circumstances, was likely to render a resulting confession unreliable. Where the defence contends that this may be the case it is up to the prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt that this is not the case. Section 76(3) also permits the court to require the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not so obtained.

  The Criminal Justice Bill provides for similar statutory protection where the confession is sought to be adduced by a co-defendant.

  Judges also have discretion under section 78 of PACE to exclude evidence on which the prosecution propose to rely if it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. When considering this discretion the court is to have regard for all the circumstances of the case, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained.

  National Probation Directorate
  Simon Hughes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the outcome of the research into the completion and re-offending rates arising from the Think First pilots commissioned by the National Probation Directorate, will be published. [131166]

  Paul Goggins:
  The findings will be made public as soon as practicable after the research has been received and approved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Parenting Orders
  Mr. Bercow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the use to date of parenting orders. [130503]

  Paul Goggins:
  The Policy Research Bureau's evaluation of the parenting programme sponsored by the Youth Justice Board was published in September 2002. It found a very positive response from parents on Parenting Orders as well as voluntary participants, and improved parenting skills. In the year following counselling and guidance, offences by their children fell by 50 per cent.

  Vulnerable Detainees
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the terms (a) vulnerable and (b) difficult group are defined within his Department. [131350]

  Paul Goggins:
  A mentally vulnerable detainee is defined for the purposes of the Codes of Practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) as "any detainee who, because of their mental state or capacity may not understand the significance of what is said, of questions or of their replies". (Code C, Guidance Note 1 G). The PACE Codes make specific provision for detainees who are mentally disordered or mentally vulnerable to receive the support of an appropriate adult during their time in police custody (Code C 1.7). Appropriate adults have an important role to play in the custody environment by ensuring that the detained person whom they are assisting understands what is happening to them and why.

  Although the term vulnerable is not explicitly applied to juvenile detainees, they are nevertheless regarded as a vulnerable group and PACE Code C requires that they similarly receive the support of an appropriate adult (Code C 1.7).

  Section 16 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 defines a group of witnesses in criminal proceedings (other than the accused) who may be eligible for special measures assistance on grounds of age or incapacity. This group is often referred to as vulnerable witnesses.

  I am not aware of a specific definition for the term difficult group.

  Tagging
  Simon Hughes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost is of tagging an

  51W
  offender (a) under and (b) over the age of 18, from the time the tag and equipment is installed up to the lawful removal of the tag. [131168]

  Paul Goggins:
  In the financial year 2002–03, a total of 37,898 persons were made subject to electronic monitoring at a total cost of £63,448,638, resulting in an average cost of £1,674 each. Total and average cost figures are not available for those aged under or over the age of 18 separately. This is because the pricing regime for electronic monitoring is based on the type of scheme rather than the age of the person subject to electronic monitoring, and the different schemes have different age boundaries.

HEALTH

  Seized Food Products
  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide environmental health officers with the power to issue destruction orders on seized food products. [128655]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Local authority authorised officers have existing general powers to seize food products and take them before a magistrate to have them destroyed. They also have specific powers to seize and destroy illegally imported food products of animal origin.

  There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  "Achieving the NHS Plan"
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an statement on the Audit Commission's report, "Achieving the NHS Plan". [130165]

  Mr. Hutton:
  At the time the report was published we welcomed its positive overall assessment of progress. The National Health Service has moved forward since the report's publication with widespread good progress continuing to be made against the NHS Plan.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Dr. Gibson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from patients groups regarding drug therapies for Alzheimer's disease patients. [129521]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The Government have received a number of representations about the availability of the three drugs which the National Institute for Clinical Excellence(NICE) has recommended for use for people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. These drugs should be available on the national health service to all people who meet NICE'S criteria. Where there are any problems with accessing the drugs, this should be brought to the attention of the relevant primary care trust.

  There have also been a number of representations about memantine, a drug licensed for moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease, which is being appraised by NICE in the eighth wave of its work. When considering the funding of any treatment currently being appraised
  52W
  by NICE, or where no appraisal has been commissioned, funding authorities are expected to use their existing prescribing arrangements and consider the evidence available to them on the clinical effectiveness of the treatment.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [130920]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  Asbestos surveys and its management are generally included within normal routine maintenance and are not normally separately identifiable. However, using those charges that are identifiable, in the period from January 2001 to date, the Department, it's executive agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies have spent £119,000 on asbestos surveys and £794,000 on the management and removal of asbestos.

  For the vast majority of departmental accommodation, the cost of future surveys and on-going management of asbestos is included within general building maintenance budgets and they are not separately identifiable. The information where costs are separately identifiable is:
  Department of Health headquarters (London)—asbestos management budgets of £403,000 for 2003–04 and £600,000 for 2004–05 have been allocated.
  National Institute for Biological Standards and Control—asbestos management budget of £110,000 for 2004–05.
  Health Protection Agency—asbestos management budgets of £35,000 for 2003–04 and £70,000 for 2004–05.

  Asthma
  Mr. Ian Taylor:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding he gave to the National Asthma Campaign for research into the causes of asthma in the last two years. [131160]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Department does not allocate funds directly to charities for research. The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service. Research funds are provided to research contractors on the basis of individual proposals. The Department also provides support to NHS trusts to allow work funded by others such as the research councils, charities and other funders to be conducted within the NHS. The Department is funding research on air pollution and asthma and a project on the effect of a low allergen indoor environment on exacerbations of asthma.

  Mr. Ian Taylor:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that results of research commissioned by the Department into asthma are cross-referenced for scientific inquiry and international studies. [131161]
  53W
  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Department encourages publication of scientifically robust results arising from its commissioned research relating to asthma. Publication is normally in peer reviewed journals indexed on standard bibliographic databases.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Burns:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of proteomics to improve the accuracy of breast cancer diagnosis. [127434]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Government welcome any new technology that would improve the accuracy of breast cancer diagnosis. Before any new technology is introduced we must be sure that it is safe and effective and that quality standards can be maintained.

  The use of proteomics for breast cancer diagnosis is a new technique and large-scale studies have not taken place. If these studies prove proteomics to be effective, then the technique may be referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). The use of the technique in the national health service will be based on recommendations by NICE.

  Cancelled Operations
  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cancelled operations there were in each NHS trust in the first quarter of 2003–04; and what percentage of all operations this represented in each trust for that quarter. [131018]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Data on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons at the last minute (i.e. on the day patients are due to arrive, after arrival in hospital, or on the day of their operation) and the percentage of operations cancelled "at the last minute', as a proportion of all general and acute elective activity during the first quarter of 2003–04, have been placed in the Library.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Drew:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with representatives of the care industry to overcome the funding problems behind the proposal of the Criminal Records Bureau to introduce full record checks for new staff of care homes prior to their employment. [131323]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  I met with representatives from the National Care Homes Association on 24 September to discuss their concerns about difficulties care homes face when Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks are delayed. Further meetings with officials have also been arranged.

  As the independent regulator, The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) has the responsibility to ensure care homes meet all their statutory requirements. The NCSC has stated clearly that it will continue to exercise its powers wisely and where CRB clearances are not in place will apply its discretion on the use of its enforcement powers on a case-by-case basis.

  The NCSC issued a press release on 22 September, setting out its approach to CRB checks for care home staff. A copy is available on its website at www.carestandards.org.uk.
  54W
  Mr. Ruffley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new regulations have been imposed on the care home sector, and at what cost, since 1997. [131841]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The care home sector has long been subject to regulation. The regulations introduced under the Care Standards Act 2000 are based on the regulations under the Registered Homes Act 1984 and establish a more consistent and coherent and regulatory framework which care home providers and others had been calling for.

  The regulations introduced under the Care Standards Act which affect care homes are:
  The Care Homes Regulations 2001.
  The Children's Homes Regulations 2001.
  The National Care Standards Commission (Fees and Frequency of Inspections) Regulations 2001.
  The National Care Standards Commission (Registration) Regulations 2001.

  The estimated costs of implementing these regulations are set out in the relevant regulatory impact assessments (RIAs), which are available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/regulatoryimpact/index.htm.

  It is difficult to give a precise figure for the cost of implementing these regulations, given the lack of reliable detailed information and the fact that not all care homes will be affected equally, but in the case of the Care Homes Regulations and the associated national minimum standards, the RIA estimated an overall cost of £150 million spread over five years. However, these costs will have been reduced for pre-existing care homes, following the decision in February 2003 to relax certain physical environment standards relating to them.

  We anticipate that almost all of the cost of meeting the regulations will be passed on to the commissioners of care, in most cases the relevant local authority social services department. To ensure that local authorities have the resources they need to purchase services to meet the needs of their residents, we are providing substantial extra resources for social services.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the effect on the care home sector of (a) the requirement within the Care Home Regulations that all new staff engaged by care homes must have been cleared by a Criminal Records Bureau check before starting work and (b) the change in practice between the operation of the regulation since its introduction on 1 April 2002 and the enforcement guidelines operative from 1 October. [131620]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  From 1 April 2002, when the Care Homes Regulations came into force, care home providers have been required to undertake a number of pre-employment checks, including a disclosure from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), before they can employ a new member of staff. Meeting this requirement was made difficult because of long delays in the processing by CRB of applications for disclosures. The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) issued interim guidance to care providers about how to address this difficulty.
  55W
  Following significant improvements made at the CRB since last summer, it is now processing 90 per cent. of applications within four weeks. The NCSC rightly decided to look again at its guidance because there will now be fewer circumstances in which it will need to make allowance for delayed checks.

  As the independent regulator, the NCSC has the responsibility to ensure care homes meet all their statutory requirements. It has stated clearly that it will continue to exercise its powers wisely and where CRB clearances are not in place will apply its discretion on the use of its enforcement powers on a case by case basis.

  The NCSC issued a press release on 22 September 2003 setting out its approach to CRB checks for care home staff. A copy is available on the NCSC website at www.carestandards.org.uk.

  Chauffeur Services
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many officials of (a) Department of Health and (b) agencies funded by the Department of Health are entitled to chauffeur-driven vehicles. [127685]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The Prime Minister's guidance on travel by Ministers states that allocated cars and drivers will be provided for all Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State and that allocated cars and drivers will also be made available to permanent secretaries, other officials of equivalent rank and certain designated chief executives (normally at permanent secretary level).

  The Department currently has one Secretary of State, two Ministers of State and three Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State all of whom have been allocated an official car and driver. Additionally the permanent secretary and the chief medical officer also make use of an official car and driver each.

  Coronary Care
  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of heart attack patients received thrombolysis within one hour of calling for assistance in the last year for which figures are available. [130330]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The percentage of heart attack patients who were eligible (who had no contraindications) to receive thrombolysis within one hour of calling for help was 37 per cent. for the year 2002. The proportion is increasing in 2003, in line with the Government target. The figure for January to March 2003 was 44 per cent. and for April to June 2003 was 47 per cent.

  Cross-border Health Care
  Mr. Tynan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons normally resident in Scotland were given (a) emergency treatment, in (i) English and (ii) Welsh hospitals and (b) non-emergency treatment in (A) English or (B) Welsh hospitals in each of the last five years. [130338]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Table 1 shows Hospital Episode Statistics on the number of admissions for Scottish residents into National Health Service hospitals in
  56W
  England from 1997–98 to 2001–02. The admission method is broken down into emergency and non-emergency and the total numbers of admissions are also provided.

  Table 1

  Finished admissions

  Year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Emergency Admissions

  2,219

  3,143

  3,050

  3,205

  3,089

  Non Emergency

  1,763

  2,426

  2,281

  2,564

  2,493

  Total

  3,984

  5,570

  5,343

  5,772

  5,594

  Table 2 shows data from the Patient Episode Database for Wales on the number of admissions for Scottish residents into NHS hospitals in Wales from 1997–98 to 2001–02. The admission method is broken down into emergency and non-emergency and the total number of admissions is also provided.

  Table 2

  Finished admissions

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Emergency Admissions

  150

  146

  137

  148

  125

  Non Emergency

  7

  24

  9

  16

  12

  Total

  157

  170

  146

  164

  137

  Mr. Tynan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what structures are in place to encourage cooperation between English and Scottish NHS trusts where they share (a) specialist teaching, research or treatment expertise and (b) contiguous geographical areas of responsibility. [130337]

  Mr. Hutton:
  There are no formal structures in place centrally. Established clinical networks encourage the sharing of specialist teaching, research and treatment expertise.

  Under arrangements for temporary registration, people who are normally resident in the United Kingdom and are entitled to National Health Service care free at the point of delivery may access emergency or primary care services in another area. Elective treatment across borders is a matter for local contractual arrangements.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 1 September 2003, Official Report, column 947W, concerning dental practices, how many dental practices there are in each primary care trust. [129442]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: Information on the number of dental practices in each primary care trust in England, as reported at 9 September 2003 on the www.nhs.uk website, has been placed in the Library. These figures are on the same basis as those given in my response of 1 September, although for a later date; they may show some differences from dental practice numbers reported by the Dental Practice Board.

  The information also shows revised figures for practices accepting patients exempt from dental charges for registration and also children for registration, as at 3 October 2003.
  57W
  Mr. Alan Campbell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of dental care services within the North Tyneside Primary Care Trust area; and what steps he is taking to improve access. [131318]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  In the recent performance ratings published by the Commission for Health Improvement, North Tyneside Primary Care Trust (PCT) scored significantly above average for their plans in place for access to National Health Service dentistry.

  There are a number of initiatives already in place to enable PCTs to improve access to NHS dental services. This includes the general dental services incentives schemes, as well as a NHS team which will support PCTs where access is most challenging, providing advice and guidance on best practice in increasing access and modernising dentistry locally to tackle longstanding bottlenecks where it is hard to find a NHS dentist.

  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) dental practices and (b) dentists there were in each primary care trust in England in each of the past three years. [129593]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The available information for the number of practices and dentists providing general dental services (CDS) in each health authority (HA) for 2001 and 2002 and in each primary care trust (PCT) in 2003 has been placed in the Library. PCTs took over responsibility from HAs in October 2003.

  These figures exclude salaried dentists working in the general dental service, dentists working in other national health service dental services, for example, community and personal dental services, hospital dental services and dentists who do no NHS work.

  Mr. Andrew Turner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general dental practitioners were contracted to the national health service in each primary care trust area in England at the last date for which information is available (a) in total and (b) as full-time equivalents. [130663]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 18 September 2003]: Information on the number of general dental practitioners providing general dental services (GDS) on 30 June 2003, for each primary care trust area in England, has been placed in the Library.

  Information on full-time equivalent numbers is not available. Dentists providing GDS are not required to work for a specified number of hours each week and they are free to decide how much national health service work they do.

  Mr. Ben Chapman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the level of NHS dentists' charges for missed appointments. [128606]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  As part of the arrangements for dentists' remuneration, their terms of service provide in paragraphs 34 and 19 of Schedule 1 to the NHS (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992 that dentists may claim from a patient for loss of remuneration resulting from the failure of a patient to keep an appointment for general dental services.
  58W
  A claim must reflect actual financial loss and be proportional to that loss.

  Mr. Hepburn:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to increase the number of NHS dental practices in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear, (d) the North East and (e) England. [128896]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  Information on measures being taken to increase the number of national health service dental practices at local level is not held centrally. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will enable primary care trusts (PCTs) to provide assistance and support to dental practices with which they contract.

  To enable PCTs to provide such assistance in advance of 2005, the General Dental Services Incentive Schemes Directions 2003 have been published, together with guidance to PCTs. These will be backed by funds of £3 million in 2003–04 and £6 million in 2004–05 which were announced in implementation plans published on 12 August. PCTs will also have access to further funds of £35 million over these two years, which were announced on 18 September for NHS dentistry access, choice and quality.

  Mr. Andrew Turner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of people are registered with an NHS dentist in England and in each NHS region, strategic health authority area and primary care trust area thereof. [130662]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 18 September 2003]: At 30 June 2003, 23.4 million people, or 47.9 per cent. of the population, were registered with dentists providing general dental services. Information showing the percentage of population registered with a dentist in each strategic health authority area and primary care trust area by region, at 30 June 2003, has been placed in the Library.

  Registrations are recorded in the primary care trust area of the dentist.

  Registrations lapse if patients do not return to their dentist within 15 months and so the registration figures exclude patients who have not been to their dentist within the past 15 months. The figures also exclude patients who receive dental treatment from other national health service dental services, including dental access centres and those patients who choose not to register and who seek treatment on an occasional basis.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Mr. Dobson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions were made by his Department about the costs of operations in NHS diagnostic and treatment centres relative to the costs of the same operations carried out at existing NHS hospitals in the same part of the country. [130648]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: When the new national tariff for the national health service is fully implemented, the price paid by a primary care trust for treatment at a NHS treatment centre will be the same as that paid in any other NHS trust facility, i.e. the national tariff, adjusted by the market forces

  59W
  factor. We expect NHS treatment centres to deliver both high quality services and high standards of productivity and efficiency and therefore we have assumed that their operating costs will be within the national tariff.

  Diet
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken into the health effects on infants of pre-gelatinised starch in babyfood. [130119]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Neither the Department nor the Food Standards Agency has undertaken any such research. Pre-gelatinised starch is included in the list of permitted sources of carbohydrate under the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995.

  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will press the Chancellor to introduce taxation on foods which are detrimental to healthy living. [130160]

  John Healey:
  I have been asked to reply.

  Tax is a matter for the Budget. Most food is zero-rated for VAT, and we remain committed to our manifesto to pledge not to extend VAT to food. Some foods which might be considered detrimental to healthy living are already liable to VAT at the standard rate of 17.5 per cent. These include ice cream, most confectionary, chocolate biscuits, crisps, soft drinks and all hot foods sold by take-away outlets.

  Drug and Alcohol Training Programmes
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which wards and programmes within Sefton have benefited from drug and alcohol training programmes administered by the Government Office of the North West. [124385]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Government office for the North West (GONW) provides an advisory role with regards to drug and alcohol training programmes. As such, the Department is unable to provide details of any wards or programmes within Sefton that have benefited from drug and alcohol training programmes administered by the GONW.

  I have asked that an official from the GONW write to my hon. Friend, setting out its position in more detail regarding the provision of drug and alcohol training programmes.

  Food Standards
  Mr. Lidington:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his policy on NHS food procurement seeks to encourage the purchase or food produced in the United Kingdom; what guidance on food procurement he has issued to health authorities and trusts; and if he will make a statement. [129362]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department has recently compiled an action plan in response to the recommendations included in the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative, which is being taken forward by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
  60W
  Guidance has already been issued to national health service trusts on how to promote local sourcing, which, together with supporting local communities, is among the key principles of the Department's sustainable development policy.

  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is of setting up (a) Combase and (b) Growth Predictor; and what sources of funding are being used. [130090]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Both Combase and Growth Predictor have been designed to provide those involved in food safety, such as researchers, the food industry and those involved in public health, with easily accessible information to assist with risk assessment and risk management.

  Combase has been developed as a joint venture by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the Institute of Food Research and United States Department of Agriculture. Costs have been shared and the United Kingdom Government has contributed data and software to the value of £8 million over the last 15 years.

  Growth Predictor has been funded by the FSA. It cost approximately £200,000 to develop.

  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed by the Government in investigating the fraudulent trade in unfit food. [130086]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Local authority environmental health and trading standards services, in partnership with officers from the Meat Hygiene Service and the State Veterinary Service, are responsible for investigating fraudulent trade in unfit food. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) provides help and advice to local authorities and has appointed 26 local authority enforcement officers to provide regional advice on investigating unfit food. Each advisor will contribute 10 working days per year to this work on behalf of the FSA. In addition, there is a team of five investigators based at the FSA to assist with this work and two further investigators are being recruited.

  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Food Standards Agency has to conduct audits of local councils in England and Wales. [130089]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Food Standards Agency launched its United Kingdom-wide local authority food law enforcement audit scheme in April 2001. Audits are carried out against the requirements of the framework agreement on local authority food law enforcement, which sets out minimum standards of performance. Since the launch of the scheme, 149 local authorities across the UK, including 99 in England and 10 in Wales, have been subject to an audit.

  Mr. Kidney:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget of the Food Standards Agency for food sampling for each year since the Food Standards Agency was established. [130960]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Food sampling as part of the enforcement of food law is the responsibility of local authorities (LAs). LAs carried out 178,000 and 165,000 samples in 2000 and 2001 respectively. Figures are not yet available for 2002.
  61W
  Mr. Kidney:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Food Standards Agency's strategy is to ensure the adequacy of future arrangements for the testing of food samples. [130962]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 16 July 2003, Official Report, columns 413–14W, relating to the work that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is taking forward in close liaison with local authorities (LAs) and the Association of Public Analysts to ensure that food standards sampling effectively contributes to consumer protection.

  I am also aware that the FSA is working closely with the Health Protection Agency on the procedures for microbiological sampling of food to ensure an adequate system is in place for LAs.

  Mr. Kidney:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of testing of food samples was carried out by (a) local authority public analysts, (b) private sector public analysts and (c) the Food Standards Agency's laboratory in York in each year since the Food Standards Agency was established. [130964]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Information on numbers of food samples tested by individual public analyst laboratories is not held centrally. It is therefore not possible to break down the information on total samples between types of laboratory in the manner requested.

  According to the Association of Public Analysts' statistics, approximately 82,000 food samples were tested by public analysts in 2001, but the figures are not split between local authority and private sector public analysts.

  The Food Standards Agency does not have its own laboratory. The laboratory in York referred to by the hon. Member is the central science laboratory, an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there are plans to train further local authority enforcement officers in illegal meat imports. [130088]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Since April 2003, the Food Standards Agency has run 20 training courses for United Kingdom local authority enforcement officers on imported food issues, which includes the control of illegal meat imports. Further courses are planned, so that enforcement representatives from all UK local authority environmental health Departments, trading standards services and UK ports of entry will have received training by the end of March 2004.

  Food Supplements Directive
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet representatives of Consumers for Health Choice to discuss the European Food Supplements Regulations. [128354]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  I met with a representative of Consumers for Health Choice on Tuesday 7 October to discuss the Food Supplements Regulations.

  Mr. Best:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the EU Food Supplements Directive; [132229]
  62W
  (2) if he will make a statement about the EU Food Supplements Directive. [132280]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Directive 2002/46/EC on Food Supplements came into force on 12 July 2002 and had to be implemented into member states' national legislation by 31 July 2003. The Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 were laid before Parliament on 2 June 2003 and the provisions will come into force on 1 August 2005. Parallel legislation has been made in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  G10 Medicines
  Dr. Starkey:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has made to the European Commission in response to the G10 Medicines (High Level Group on Innovation and the Provision of Medicines) report. [128737]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The GIO Report, presented to President Prodi in May 2002, was produced by a group of European Ministers and leading figures from the pharmaceutical industry, patients' representatives, and European social insurance institutions. The United Kingdom played a key role, being represented by my noble Friend the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health. The European Commission has now produced a Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, and other Institutions (COM 2003/383) This document is mailable in the Library with an Explanatory Memorandum from the Department of Health.

  These matters are being discussed in both the Health and Competitiveness Councils. My noble Friend Lord Warner, is a member of the G10, working towards the achievement of our policy objectives in relation to the pharmaceutical sector.

  Health Care (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) private and (b) NHS dental practices there were in (i) Chesham and Amersham and (ii) Buckinghamshire in each year since 1 January 1996. [130598]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  No information is available on the number of wholly private dental practices. The Office of Fair Trading report, 'The private dentistry market in the UK', states that about 210 practices in the United Kingdom are totally private.

  The table gives the available information for the number of general dental service (GDS) practices and dentists there were in the old Buckinghamshire Health Authority (HA) area for the years 1996 to 2002 and in the relevant primary care trusts (PCTs) in 2002 and 2003. PCTs took over responsibility from HAs in October 2003.

  These figures exclude dentists working in other national health service dental services, ie., community and personal dental services, hospital dental services and also salaried general dental practitioners and dentists doing no NHS work.
  63W

  Number of dental practice

  Buckinghamshire HA

  Chiltern and South Buckinghamshire PCT

  Milton Keynes PCT

  Vale of Aylesbury PCT

  Wycombe PCT

  At 31 August

  1996

  118

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1997

  118

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1998

  122

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1999

  121

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2000

  121

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2001

  125

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2002

  125

  —

  —

  —

  —

  At 30 October

  2002

  —

  38

  35

  29

  29

  At 31 August

  2003

  —

  38

  36

  30

  29

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board

  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce waiting lists in (a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire. [130603]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The national health service is working to reduce waiting times so that, by the end of March 2004, the maximum waiting time for inpatient treatment will be cut to nine months and the maximum waiting time for an outpatient appointment will be cut to 17 weeks.

  Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust has recently initiated a series of agreed actions to reduce waiting times, including telephone validation of waiting lists, private patient initiatives and active re-organisation of waiting lists.

  Future initiatives to further reduce waiting times include schemes to:
  Increase the number of patients who have their operative procedure carried out as a daycase.
  Explore the role of specialist nurses and allied health professionals as alternatives to traditional consultant-led outpatients appointments.
  Introduce measures to improve health and avoid complications, for example, investment in wound care management.

  Health Care (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have moved to private practice from the NHS in (a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire in each year since 1 January 1996; and if he will make a statement. [130596]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The information is not collected centrally although the number of dentists engaged solely in private practice is small. The Department's figures indicate that only around 2 per cent. of dentists do only private practice.

  Health Protection Agency
  Patrick Mercer:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new appropriations have been authorised to fund the Health Protection Agency. [128667]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  As staled in the consultation document in summer 2002, the creation of the Health Protection Agency (HPA) was cost neutral in terms of
  64W
  public expenditure. Departmental funds allocated to the HPA were drawn largely from those sums previously allocated to its predecessor bodies and organisations.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mrs. Iris Robinson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of hospital admissions was in (a) 1982, (b) 1992 and (c) 2002. [130000]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The average cost of admissions is shown in the table.

  Year

  Average cost of a hospital admission (£)

  2001–2002

  1,544

  1991–1992

  1,278

  1981–1982

  1—

  1Not available

  Hospital Bed Costs
  Dr. Evan Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the capital cost is to the NHS of a new hospital bed. [128929]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  An indicative cost of creating a new-build hospital bed is approximately £380,000, excluding value added tax, which reflects the current business case approval level. The cost includes the capital construction cost, equipment costs and professional fees incurred, as well as a proportion of the costs of the supporting services within the new hospital, such as operating theatres, out-patient departments, accident and emergency services, catering, office accommodation, public areas, pharmacy, pathology and radiology. It does not include the running costs to make the bed operational, such as staffing, linen or cleaning.

  Figures for providing a new bed in an existing hospital or under a private finance initiative scheme are not available, as there are many factors that can influence the outcome for each of these schemes.

  Hospital Ward Housekeeping Services
  Dr. Evan Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of hospitals have implemented a ward housekeeping service; when the target was set for

  65W
  50 per cent. of all hospitals to have implemented such a service; when it is due to be met; and what the baseline was for the target. [128905]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Housekeepers support an improved patient experience by ensuring that wards are clean, enjoyable food is available and that equipment works.

  In June 2000, the NHS Plan set a target for 50 per cent. of hospitals to have a housekeeping service by 2004. At January 2003, 32 per cent. of all hospitals had begun to introduce housekeeping services, rising to 47 per cent. for hospitals with over 100 beds. These larger hospitals account for 86 per cent. of all beds.

  The new style ward housekeeper role was developed with the support of 72 trusts that had already begun to develop services in this area. These trusts had a variety of models, including purely cleaning, or purely catering. The new model is a multi-skilled role, covering both areas.

  Prior to the NHS Plan, housekeeping data were not collected centrally.

  Infection Control
  Dr. Evan Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans his Department has to monitor and improve levels of healthcare-associated infections in community healthcare settings; and if he will make a statement; [128923]

  (2) what plans his Department has to commission qualitative and quantitative studies to investigate infection control practice among community healthcare personnel; [128925]

  (3) what central monitoring and recording is undertaken by his Department on compliance with infection control guidelines in community healthcare settings. [128926]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Central monitoring of compliance with infection control in community settings is not undertaken.

  New National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines, "Infection Control: Prevention of Healthcare-associated Infection in Primary and Community Care" were published this summer. These evidence-based guidelines include the standard principles for controlling infection, for example, hand hygiene and the prevention of infections associated with certain invasive devices. They also contain information on the education of healthcare workers, guidance on implementation and audit criteria to assess compliance. Implementation of these guidelines and other initiatives will encourage good practice and help prevent avoidable infections.

  The National health service research and development methodology programme has recently asked for bids for research into surveillance of healthcare associated infection in the community after discharge from hospital treatment.

  Involve
  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the contribution in 2002–03 by the Department of Health to the budget of Involve is. [129589]
  66W
  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Good research governance requires that service users are involved in research design and commissioning to ensure value for money. "Involve", formerly "Consumers in NHS Research", offers support both to research commissioners seeking to fulfil their responsibilities in this respect and to members of the public wishing to contribute to the research process.

  In 2002–03, "Involve's", allocation from the Department's research and development budget was £410,000.

  Khat
  Jeremy Corbyn:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects of khat on the Somali population in the UK; and what advice his Department gives to local health authorities in developing policies to deal with the issue. [127514]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Home Office commissioned and published a report on khat use in Somalis living in London in 1998, which identified only limited concerns about its use and availability. In addition, the Home Office's drugs and alcohol research unit is shortly to start a detailed study to assess the level of harm caused by khat. The interim findings of this report will be available in spring 2004 and will be considered by the advisory council on the misuse of drugs. It is expected that a final report will be completed in autumn 2004.

  There is currently no specific guidance for local health authorities on this issue, though mental health services and drug services have a range of treatment options for dealing with the effects of stimulant misuse.

  Listed NHS Buildings
  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the buildings belonging to the NHS which are (a) Grade I and (h) Grade II listed. [130318]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The latest estimate available shows that at June 2002 there were 627 listings (8 Grade I; 34 Grade II* and 585 Grade II) on 468 NHS sites. Information on this matter is no longer the subject of routine collection.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of readmissions of mental health patients within 90 days of discharge was as a proportion of total discharges in each primary care trust (a) for the quarter sending (i) April 1998, (ii) March 2001 and (b) for the most recent quarter available. [131025]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  Information on readmission rates of mental health patients within 90 days of discharge in each health authority for quarters ending March 1998, March 2001 and March 2002 has been placed in the Library.

  Microsoft (Licensing Fees)
  Norman Lamb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid to Microsoft in licensing fees by his Department and its agencies in each of the last

  67W
  three years; how much has been budgeted for in (a) 2003 –04 and (b) 2004–05; and how much the NHS has budgeted to pay Microsoft in licensing fees in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [130687]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The total amounts spent on Microsoft products by the Department, its executive agencies and the National Health Service between 2000–01 and 2002–03 are shown in the table.

  £

  Year

  Expenditure by the Department and executive agencies1

  Expenditure by the NHS1

  2000–01

  413,000

  32,800,000

  2001–02

  854,000

  34,300,000

  2002–03

  781,000

  66,800,000

  1 All sums are inclusive of VAT

  For 2003–04, the Department and its executive agencies have budgeted approximately £197,000 including VAT. The NHS has budgeted approximately £59,300,000, including VAT, before the expiry of the NHS enterprise agreement in October 2004.

  For 2004–05, the indicative budgets for purchase of Microsoft products for the Department and its executive agencies have not yet been established. Information on the NHS budget beyond the expiry of the NHS enterprise agreement is not available. Negotiations are being undertaken with Microsoft about the possible renewal of the agreement.

  MMR
  Mr. Laurence Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the side effects following (a) the single vaccination for mumps, measles and rubella and (b) the MMR vaccination; and if he will make a statement. [129029]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), with expert advice from the independent advisory committee the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) is responsible for ensuring that medicines and vaccines on the United Kingdom market meet appropriate standards of safety, quality and efficacy.

  MMR (combined measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine and some single component measles, mumps and rubella vaccines are licensed in the UK. Licensed vaccines are assessed for safety prior to the licence being granted. Information on side-effects known to be associated with these vaccines is included in the relevant product information. As with all vaccines and medicines, after licensing, the MHRA and CSM keep the safety of MMR vaccine and single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines under continual review. The MHRA uses a number of data sources to monitor the safety of medicines and vaccines These include reports of suspected adverse drug reactions spontaneously provided by health professionals through the 'Yellow Card' scheme. This voluntary scheme has been in existence since 1964 and has a proven track record in identifying important new safety concerns with medicines. Other data sources include periodic reviews
  68W
  of safety information submitted by the licence holders, medical literature and the results of any new clinical trials or epidemiological studies.

  Many studies, including one commissioned by the MHRA (then the Medicines Control Agency) in 1998, have specifically investigated the alleged association between MMR vaccines and the development of autism and have found no evidence of a causal link. The CSM has considered these studies and the general safety of MMR vaccines on several occasions in recent years and its advice remains that MMR vaccine is the safest way to protect children from three potentially serious infections. This advice is consistent with the advice of expert bodies around the world. No studies are available that have examined the effects of giving single vaccines separately on a population.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Phil Sawford:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have received treatment for multiple sclerosis through the Risk Sharing scheme; and whether the target of 9,000 patients by November will be reached. [131178]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  We estimate that at the end of August, some 6,300 patients were receiving treatment with a disease modifying treatment for their multiple sclerosis. Around 300 patients each month are being initiated on treatment.

  The figure of 9,000 patients mentioned in Health Service Circular 2002/004 is not a target, but represents an estimate of the total number of patients who might be eligible for treatment under the guidelines prepared by the Association of British Neurologists.

  NHS Administration
  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new (a) units, (b) departments and (c) organisations have been created in the NHS by legislation and regulation since 1997. [131015]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  Since 1997, the Department has established:
  Two health authorities (HAs) in 1999, four in 2001, and 28 on 1 April 2002. On that date, the 95 HAs then existing, including those set up in 1999 and 2001, were abolished and 28 new HAs were established. These new HAs were renamed strategic health authorities from October 2002.
  11 special health authorities.
  481 primary care groups (PCGs) on 1 April 1999 as sub-committees of existing HAs. All PCGs have now moved to primary care trust (PCT) status, either individually or by the merger of one or more PCGs and previously existing national health service community health care trusts. There are now 303 PCTs, two of which are designated as care trusts (CTs). There are a further five NHS trusts designated as CTs.
  129 NHS trusts.

  No units or departments have been created by NHS legislation since 1997.

  Mr. Steen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many administrative staff were employed by the NHS, broken down by (a) category and (b) salary scale, in each of the last five years. [128705]
  69W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 September 2003]: Information on the number of administrative staff employed in the national health service by salary scale

  NHS administrative staff in England by area of work as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total clerical and administrative staff1

  185,214

  191,738

  199,603

  211,653

  227,303

  All clerical and administrative staff

  162,521

  167,451

  174,347

  184,229

  195,009

  Central functions1

  71,079

  73,996

  77,628

  81,439

  85,706

  Hotel, property and estates2

  10,025

  9,630

  8,341

  8,516

  8,392

  St&t support3

  12,703

  12,726

  12,986

  13,374

  14,666

  Clinical support3

  66,145

  68,425

  72,406

  77,861

  83,312

  Ambulance support3

  2,569

  2,674

  2,986

  3,039

  2,933

  All administrative managers4

  22,693

  24,287

  25,256

  27,424

  32,294

  Central functions

  16,981

  18,265

  19,244

  20,909

  24,775

  Hotel, property and estates

  2,305

  2,287

  1,960

  1,978

  2,032

  St&t support

  420

  437

  486

  506

  666

  Clinical support

  2,672

  2,980

  3,271

  3,635

  4,426

  Ambulance support

  315

  318

  295

  396

  395

  GP Practice Administrative staff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Includes staff working in such areas as personnel, finance, IT, legal services, library services and general management support services.

  2Staff working in clerical and administrative support of areas such as laundry, catering, domestic services and gardens.

  3 Clerical and administrative staff in support of clinical areas such as medical secretaries and medical records officers.

  4 Staff with overall responsibility for budgets, manpower or assets, or accountable for a significant area of work. This excludes nursing, ST&T and ambulance managers in posts requiring specific clinical qualifications.

  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the administrative cost of the NHS was as a percentage of its total budget in each year since 1997. [127337]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The administrative cost of the national health service as a percentage of its budget in each year since 1997 is shown in the table.

  Total health authority and primary care trust administration and NHS trust management costs(£million)

  NHS total expenditure England (£million)

  Administration costs as percentage of NHS budget

  1997–98

  1.962,983

  34,664

  5.7

  1998–99

  1.935.116

  36,608

  5.3

  1999–2000

  2.095,224

  40,215

  5.2

  2000–01

  2.166,011

  43,951

  4.9

  2001–02

  2.565,092

  49,279

  5.2

  Note:Administration expenditure includes the cost of the board. Commissioning administration, community health council expenditure, primary care trust preparation costs, some public health staff costs, capital charges, etc.—ie all expenditure which is not related to the provision of patient and social care and staff training.
  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of (a) medical and dental staff and (b) administration and estates staff was in each year since 1997 (i) in cash terms and (ii) as a proportion of total NHS expenditure. [131037]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Expenditure on medical and dental staff and administration and estates staff, in the Hospital and Community Health Services in England, between 1997–98 and 2001–02, is shown in table 1.
  70W
  is not collected centrally. Information on the number of administrative staff by area of work is shown in the table.

  Table 1

  £

  Medical and dental staff

  Administrative and clerical staff and maintenance and works staff

  1997–98

  3,021,917,492

  2,057,163,826

  1998–99

  3,300,976,457

  2,169,826,239

  1999–2000

  3,664,710,847

  2,313,931,257

  2000–01

  4,138,320,465

  2,519,278,346

  2001–02

  4,790,866,706

  2,843,734,268

  Source:Annual Financial returns of Health Authorities, NHS Trusts and Primary Care Trusts.
  Expenditure on these staff, expressed as a proportion of total net national health service expenditure in England during the same period, is shown in table 2.

  Table 2

  Percentage

  Medical and dental staff

  Administrative and clerical staff and maintenance and works staff

  1997–98

  0.087

  0.059

  1998–99

  0.090

  0.059

  1999–2000

  0.092

  0.058

  2000–01

  0.094

  0.057

  2001–02

  0.097

  0.058

  Source:Annual Financial returns of Health Authorities, NHS Trusts and Primary Care Trusts and the Departmental Reports 2001CM5103 and 2003 CM5904.
  In April 2001, NHS accounting and budgeting changed to a resource based system. Figures for 2001–02 are not comparable with previous years.
  71W
  Expenditure on NHS staff in Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved administrations. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Hepburn:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much per capita has been spent by the NHS in (a) the North East and (b) the UK in (i) 1996, (ii) 2000 and (iii) (projected for) 2003. [130739]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Information on the average level of National Health Service spending per weighted head of population in the north east and in England is shown in the table. Information is not yet available for 2002–03.

  £ per head

  1996–97

  2000–01

  The North East

  615.31

  796.11

  England

  625.56

  825.38

  Notes:

  1. Health authority annual accounts 1996–97

  Health authority summarisation forms 2000–01

  Primary care trust summarisation forms 2000–01

  Weighted population figures for 1996–1997 and 2000–01

  2. In many health authorities there arc factors which distort the expenditure per head. These include:

  The health authority acting in a lead capacity to commission healthcare or fund, training on behalf of other health bodies.

  Asset revaluations in NHS Trusts being funded through health authorities.

  For these reasons expenditure per head cannot be compared reliably between health authorities.

  3. Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities.

  4. Expenditure is taken from audited health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total expenditure by the health authority and by the primary care trusts within the health authority and region area. The ma ority of General Dental Services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care trust summarization forms and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board. An element of pharmaceutical services expenditure is accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority and not by health authorities.

  5. Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in an element of double counting in 2000–01 where one body acts as the main commissioner and is then reimbursed by other bodies. This element cannot be identified in 2000–01.

  6. The North East has been taken to include the geographical areas covered by the following Health Authorities:

  County Durham and Darlington Health Authority.

  Gateshead and South Tyneside Health Authority.

  Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority.

  Northumberland Health Authority.

  Sunderland Health Authority.

  Tees Health Authority.

  NHS Direct
  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how the NHS Direct service has developed since March 2000. [130321]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  NHS Direct has developed since March 2000 to become the world's largest e-health service, supporting over a million patients every month
  72W
  through its telephone advice and information service and associated website. In this time, NHS Direct has symbolised the changing relationship between the national health service and patients, supporting patients to become more empowered, better informed and more able to exercise choices over their own health and health care.

  NHS Direct has been available to callers throughout England since the end of October 2000. Call volumes have grown by 49 per cent. since March 2000. Independent evaluation highlights a service that is safe, popular and increases access to advice and information without increasing demands on other parts of the NHS. Caller satisfaction rates have continued at over 95 per cent. and 45 per cent. of calls to the service are completed without referral to another service. The roll-out of NHS Direct was commended in a report by the National Audit Office, published in January 2002, which estimated that the service covered 50 per cent. of its running costs by reducing demands on other services in the NHS.

  In November 2001, NHS Direct Online was re-launched to include an interactive inquiry service, which is able to provide patients with detailed information about topics not covered on the website. NHS Direct Online receives half a million on-line transactions every month. NHS Direct Online has been awarded one of the first ever eEurope awards for eHealth by the European Commission. 200 applications were received from 22 countries. At a conference and award ceremony in Brussels in May this year, attended by European Commissioners and 33 Ministers from across the member states, Bob Gann, Director of NHS Direct Online, received the award for "Empowering Citizens in Management of Health and Wellbeing". The panel judged entries against criteria including economic benefit, accessibility, quality assurance, technical standards and European applicability.

  NHS Direct achieved the Prime Minister's pledge that, by the end of September 2001, patients who wished to would be able to obtain advice on dental issues and details of NHS dentists simply by phoning NHS Direct.

  NHS Direct introduced a dedicated textphone service in November 2001.The service connects callers to NHS Direct nurses, who have had specialist training to help them meet the needs of textphone users.

  Since March 2002, access to out-of-hours care through NHS Direct has been available to 10 million patients. By December 2004, technical and operational links will be in place to allow NHS Direct to transfer calls to any out-of-hours provider in the country. Full clinical integration of services will follow as soon as possible thereafter.

  The first version of the NHS Direct performance framework was launched in March 2002. The framework is based on the principle of continuous quality improvement and outlines responsibilities and tools for service delivery and the monitoring of performance and improvement at all levels of the organisation—from the individual to the national service. The framework also outlines a set of key performance targets for NHS Direct, areas for the development of clinical indicators and areas for the

  73W
  development of internal management measures. NHS Direct has embarked on a major programme for improving its productivity. This delivered a 15 per cent. increase in call volumes in 2002–03, without any increase in staff numbers.

  NHS Direct aims to support the NHS in many areas, including contributing to a responsible and coherent response to public health. NHS Direct has worked with the Department and other stakeholders to provide a public helpline in the event of health alerts. These have ranged from local incidents, for example, chemical spills, to handling calls during a multi-regional hepatitis C look-back exercise, as well as the Alder Hey independent inquiry. Since March 2000, it has handled a total of 631 health alerts.

  Since April 2002, NHS Direct has been able to directly refer patients to pharmacists, where appropriate, for advice about medication or minor ailments or injuries. This has helped many patients receive a quicker and more appropriate response to their problems. It also makes better use of the skills of pharmacists and helps relieve some pressure on general practitioners.

  The strategy document for developing NHS Direct, published in April 2003, sets out the continued commitment to this popular and innovative service. The impact of new financial investment will further support plans to use technology and new ways of working to boost productivity and increase capacity. In total, NHS Direct will aim to expand its call taking capacity three fold in the next three years, while at the same time, developing the various channels through which patients can access the service.

  NHS Estate (Health and Safety)
  Dr. Evan Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether his Department met their target in the NHS plan of ensuring that 90 per cent. of the NHS estate was health and safety compliant by March 2002; what percentage of the estate did not comply with health and safety regulations in March 2002; and what new deadlines have been set on health and safety in the NHS estate; [123928]

  (2) whether his Department met their target in the NHS Plan to eliminate the fire safety backlog in the NHS Estate by March 2003. [124004]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Trusts that did not report full compliance will cover a wide variety of conditions, including that which is only just below standard. At 31 March 2002, 10.55 per cent, of patient-occupied floor area was below health and safety compliance and 8.57 per cent. below statutory fire safety standards.

  Trusts generally manage high-risk deficiencies as a priority in order to ensure that premises are intrinsically safe and not of concern to local enforcement bodies.

  Further improvements to health and safety and fire safety will result from the current priorities and planning framework targets for reducing the backlog of maintenance by 25 per cent. by 2004.

  Nurses and Care Workers (Gender)
  Ms Walley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is on patients being (a) offered a choice and (b) consulted on the gender of the nurses and careworkers who treat them; and if he will make a statement. [126687]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department is committed to increasing patient choice in the national health service to ensure that its services are more responsive to the needs of individual patients. The first step in increasing patient choice is to provide patients waiting for elective surgery with choice over the hospital in which they are treated. By the summer of 2004, all patients waiting six months for surgery will be offered the choice to move to another hospital. From December 2005, patients who may require elective surgery will be offered a choice of four or five hospitals or providers when their general practitioner refers them. We have also launched a national consultation exercise—'Choice, Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS and social care'—to get the views of patients and NHS staff on extending patient choice within the NHS beyond elective surgery. Fundamental to increasing the responsiveness of services is ensuring that patients are afforded privacy and dignity, including taking into account their views as to the gender of their nurses and care workers.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to answer outstanding ordinary written questions tabled by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for answer before 7 July. 2003. [126505]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 17 July 2003]: All ordinary written questions tabled by the hon. Member before 7 July have now been answered.

  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell which have been due for answer for over five siting days; and when he expects to answer them. [127701]

  Mr. Hutton:
  At 17 July, there were two questions outstanding to the hon. Member. I replied to one on 8 September 2003, Official Report, column 157W, and to the other on 18 September 2003, Official Report, column 977W.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many questions directed to him remain unanswered. [130754]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  At 6 October 2003, 215 parliamentary questions remained unanswered, of which, 63 were not yet due for answer.

  Pneumococcal Vaccination
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide pneumococcal vaccination to people over 65. [130802]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  A new pneumococcal immunisation programme for adults aged 65 years and over was announced on 20 August 2003 and will be introduced over the next three years.

  Post-operative Care
  Mr. Hoban:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out into the impact of greater consultant involvement in post-operative care; and if he will make a statement. [129599]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department has not conducted any research on the impact of greater consultant involvement in post-operative care.

  The Policy Research Programme ((PRP) has recently been asked to commission research on early warning scoring systems and outreach services for adult critical care; both of which can help improve experience and outcomes for patients with potential or actual need of critical care services. The PRP is liaising with the NHS

  Table 1: Number of clients that (a) received and (b) did not receive a service, broken down by client group

  Rounded numbers

  2000–011

  2001–022

  Client groups

  Total clients assessed

  Received a service3

  Did not receive a service4

  Total clients assessed

  Received a service3

  Did not receive a service4

  All primary client types

  1,008,000

  683,000

  326,000

  1,020,000

  683,000

  317,000

  Physical & sensory Disability/Frailty

  773,000

  538,000

  235,000

  780,000

  536,000

  231,000

  of which:

  Physical disability

  396,000

  283,000

  113,000

  351,000

  241,000

  104,000

  hearing

  23,000

  17,000

  6,000

  22,000

  16,000

  5,300

  visual

  45,000

  30,000

  14,000

  33,000

  23,000

  9,400

  dual

  5,500

  4,300

  1,400

  5,000

  3,500

  1,400

  frailty

  257,000

  179,000

  78,000

  278,000

  192,000

  80,000

  Learning Disability

  28,000

  17,000

  11,000

  28,000

  18,000

  10,000

  Mental Health

  131,000

  83,000

  49,000

  129,000

  77,000

  51,000

  of which:

  dementia

  31,000

  24,000

  7,300

  31,000

  23,000

  8,000

  Substance Abuse

  10,000

  7,400

  2,900

  12,000

  7,300

  4,200

  Other vulnerable people

  65,000

  38,000

  27,000

  70,000

  45,000

  21,000

  of which:

  asylum seekers

  3,000

  2,300

  1,000

  1,200

  800

  300

  welfare benefits

  2,400

  2,000

  600

  4.700

  4,200

  400

  1National estimates based on 147 councils for form Al and 137 councils for form A5.

  2National estimates based on 149 councils for form Al and 147 councils for form A5.

  3Clients receiving a service include, 'some or all (new) services started,' 'some (new) services intended but none started' and '(new) service(s) offered but declined.'

  4Clients not receiving a service incluth. 'no (new) services offered or intended' and 'other sequel to assessment.'

  5Figures may not add due to rounding and differences between forms A1 and A5.

  Source:

  RAP Forms A5 and Al

  Table 2: Percentage of cfients that (a) received and (b) did not receive a service, broken down by client group

  Rounded numbers and percentage

  2000–011

  2001–022

  Client groups

  Total clients assessed

  Percentage of clients receiving a service3

  Percentage of clients not receiving a service4

  Total clients assessed

  Percentage of clients receiving a service3

  Percentage of clients not receiving a service4

  All primary client types

  1,008,000

  68

  32

  1,020,000

  68

  32

  Physical & sensory Disability/Frailty

  773,000

  70

  30

  780,000

  70

  30

  of which:

  Physical disability

  396,000

  71

  29

  351,000

  70

  30

  hearing

  23,000

  74

  26

  22,000

  75

  25

  visual

  45,000

  68

  32

  33,000

  71

  29

  dual

  5,500

  75

  25

  5,000

  71

  29

  frailty

  257,000

  70

  30

  278,000

  71

  29

  Learning Disability

  28,000

  61

  39

  28,000

  64

  36

  Mental Health

  131,000

  63

  37

  129,000

  60

  40

  of which:

  dementia

  31,000

  77

  23

  31,000

  74

  26

  Substance Abuse

  10,000

  72

  28

  12,000

  63

  37

  76W
  Service Delivery and Organisation National R&D Programme, which has commissioned an evaluation of outreach services in critical care.

  PAF PI E50
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of people in each of the last five years, broken down by client group, were assessed and (a) received and (b) did not receive a service as recorded in PAF PI E50. [130846]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The latest information available on the number and percentage of clients aged 18 and over that were assessed and received and did not receive a service is shown in tables 1 and 2 for 2000–01 and 2001–02. Data for previous years is not available.
  77W

  Table 2: Percentage of clients that (a) received and (b) did not receive a service, broken down by client group

  Rounded numbers and percentage

  2000–011

  2001–022

  Client groups

  Total clients assessed

  Percentage of clients receiving a service3

  Percentage of clients not receiving a service4

  Total clients assessed

  Percentage of clients receiving a service3

  Percentage of clients receiving a service4

  Other vulnerable people

  65,000

  58

  42

  70,000

  68

  32

  of which:

  asylum seekers

  3,000

  70

  30

  1,200

  73

  27

  welfare benefits

  2,400

  77

  23

  4,700

  91

  9

  1National estimates based on 147 councils for form A 1 and 137 councils for form A5.

  2National estimates based on 149 councils for form Al and 147 councils for form A5.

  3Clients receiving a service include, 'some or all (new) services started,' 'some (new) services intended but none started' and '(new) service(s) offered but declined.'

  4Clients not receiving a service include 'no (new) services offered or intended' and 'other sequel to assessment.'

  5Figures may not add due to rounding and differences between forms Al and A5.

  Source:

  RAP Forms A5 and A

  Pre-booked Hospital Treatment
  Dr. Evan Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of out-patient appointments and in-patient elective admissions are pre-booked; and what proportion were pre-booked at the start of 2000–01. [128907]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Information on day case booking rates from March 2003 can be found at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhsplanbookingsystems/booking.htm

  Information on out-patient and in-patient combined (day case plus ordinary in-patient admission) booking rates will be made available on the website in due course.

  Spectacles
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the efficacy of providing tinted spectacle lenses to assist children with reading difficulties; and what plans he has to make them more widely available. [130284]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: There are indications that some children in their teens may benefit from precision-tinted lenses.

  However, unless precision-tinted lenses are provided as part of a proper scheme of assessment and treatment, many children may receive them unnecessarily. There is a risk that more appropriate responses to their needs will be delayed while time is taken up investigating tinted lenses. Without proper evaluation of the therapy for each individual, which is less likely if provided outside the education network, there is no proper indication of its effectiveness.

  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children with a refractive error in their vision receive financial support for the cost of coloured glass spectacles. [130285]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: For 2002–03 in England, 8,850 pairs of spectacles with tints for 0 to 15-year-olds were reimbursed by primary care trusts.

  Student Nurses (Fees)
  Mr. Boswell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to extend the present remission for student nurses from higher education tuition fees to top-up fees incurred after 2006. [129701]

  Mr. Hutton:
  While the proposals contained in the Department for Education and Skills' White Paper include allowing universities to increase tuition fees, there is as yet no dear indication from the higher education sector of the scope or scale of any increased charges. The Department will take measures to ensure that any increase in the cost of university courses will not have an adverse impact on the supply, retention, diversity or quality of students undertaking nurse training.

  Thalidomide Trust
  Mr. Rooney:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings he has had with the Thalidomide Trust in the last 12 months; and what advice and assistance he has offered to the Trust. [131301]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Department has not had any meetings with the Thalidomide Trust over the past 12 months. The Government paid £5 million to the Trust in 1974 and £0.8 million in 1978, following misunderstandings about the tax treatment of the fund. In 1996, we made a further payment to the Trust of £7 million in recognition of the unique and tragic circumstances which surround the thalidomide disaster. The Department would always be happy to meet with the Trust if it so wishes.

  Urology/Gastrointestinal Surgery (Children)
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current situation whereby a child discharged from hospital following urology and gastrointestinal surgery receives no community paediatric support. [129293]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The level of support each individual child receives upon discharge from hospital is a matter for local decision. This will be based upon the child's degree of dependency and will involve the hospital concerned working in close liaison with local primary health care staff and the community nursing team.
  79W
  The forthcoming national service framework for children will set standards aimed at raising the quality of the health and social care services that children receive and will include consideration of the best means to support children post-discharge from hospital.

  Waiting Times
  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the (a) mean and (b) median waiting times were for (i) initial and (ii) follow-up appointments for physiotherapy care for each primary care trust for the most recent three quarters available; [131031]

  (2) what the (a) mean and (b) median waiting times were for (i) initial and (ii) follow-up appointments for (A) chiropody, (B) podiatry and (C) foot clinics for each primary care trust for the most recent three quarters available. [131036]

  Mr. Hutton:
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Peter Bottomley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it policy that no patient referred to an NHS hospital for a hearing test should wait longer than two months. [131668]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  While there are no targets for waiting times for audiology services, we are taking action to tackle the causes of longer waits as part of our programme to modernise hearing aid services in England. These are increased demand arising from public awareness of digital hearing aids and a recognised national shortage of audiologists.

  The modernisation project team at the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and the action on team from the modernisation agency are working with sites to help them reduce waiting times. We are introducing a new, more streamlined patient process in modernised sites. We are looking at ways to increase the number of trained audiologists in the longer term and are encouraging partnerships between national health service trusts and high street registered hearing aid dispensers to increase capacity and make NHS hearing aids available, free of charge, from an increasing number of convenient locations.

  Peter Bottomley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have waited more than (a) three, (b) six and (c) 12 months for an elective finished in-year admission in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. [131669]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The number of patients who waited for more than three, six and 12 months are shown in the table.

  Total patients waited

  1997–98

  2001–02

  More than 3 months

  1,149,122

  1,169,469

  More than 6 months

  608,276

  609,684

  More than 12 months

  185,956

  190,158

  Notes:

  1. Count of finished in-year admission episodes.

  2. Elective finished in-year admissions from waiting list and booked cases by time waited, NHS hospitals, England 1997–98 and 2001–02.

  3. Admissions are defined as the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. Please note
  80W
  admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  4. A finished consultant episode (FCE) is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. Please note that the figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year.

  5. Grossing—figures have not (yet) been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Walk-in Centres
  Dr. Evan Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards are in place to prevent patients using walk-in centres to gain access to prescription drugs without visiting or informing their GP. [128912]

  Mr. Hutton:
  All prescribing or supply of medicines at national health service walk-in centres is undertaken by qualified independent prescribers, or within clinical protocols set by patient group directions. In addition, clinical information is normally shared with the patient's general practitioner.

  Dr. Evan Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reviews he has commissioned into NHS walk-in centres and their impact on demand on other health services; and if he will place copies of the reviews in the Library. [128914]

  Mr. Hutton:
  An independent evaluation of national health service walk-in centres was published by Bristol University in July 2002. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Dr. Evan Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses have been employed in walk-in centres in (a) England, (b) each region and (c) each strategic health authority in each year since walk-in centres were first established. [128915]

  Mr. Hutton:
  National health service walk-in centres are managed locally by their host primary care trust or NHS trust. Information on staff numbers is not held centrally.

  Xenotransplantation
  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what factors underlay the decision of UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority not to publish the legal and ethics review of xenotransplantation produced by Professor McLean and Dr. Williamson; [129269]

  (2) if he will publish the useful discussion points identified by the UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority in their consideration of the ethics review of xenotransplantation produced by Professor McLean and Dr. Williamson; [129271]

  (3) what advice his Department gave to the UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority regarding the legal review by Professor McLean and Dr. Williamson, with particular reference to the question of its publication. [129272]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  While there are no plans to publish Professor McLean's legal and ethics review as a United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim

  81W
  Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA) document, UKXIRA and the Department have no objections to the review being published by the author. The Department encourages researchers to publish their findings in peer review journals and Professor McLean is contractually free to make the review and the discussions within it available to the public. As is customary, the summary of the review will be placed on the Department's research findings register (which is available on the Department's website) and the summary of the research papers will be placed on the UKXIRA website. Due to the interest shown in the review, a copy will be placed in the Library for information shortly.

  Abortion
  Jim Dobbin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to seek an amendment to the law on abortion to allow women undergoing medical abortion to self administer the prostaglandin at home; 131849]

  (2) how many abortions have been performed in the United Kingdom on the grounds of foetal handicap under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended); and what percentage of the total number of abortions performed under the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended) this constitutes; [131850]

  (3) how many abortions have been performed in the United Kingdom in order to save the life of the mother under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended); and what percentage of the total number of abortions performed under the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended) this constitutes; [131851]

  (4) when the Government last commissioned research on the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone. [131852]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Government have no plans to seek an amendment to the law on abortion. All abortions in England are currently carried out under Section 1(3) of the Abortion Act which states that any treatment for the termination of pregnancy must be carried out in an NHS hospital or an approved independent sector place. There is provision under Section 1(3a) for medical abortion to be carried out in an approved class of place but we have not yet determined what a "class of place" should be. No "class of place" will be approved unless we are content that a woman's safety is not at risk.

  The safety of mifepristone was fully evaluated on behalf of the Government at the time of granting a marketing authorisation in 1991 by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA). The use of mifepristone is continually monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (formerly the MCA) using spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports, periodic safety reviews and all other available safety data to ensure its continued safe use. Also, there have been a number of studies and reviews of the safety of mifepristone published in the scientific literatures since 1991.

  In the years 1968 to 2001 inclusive, there were 4.56 million reported abortions performed on residents of England and Wales. Of these, 63,897, or 1.4 per cent., were performed under section 1(l)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967 as amended. These are cases where there was a
  82W
  substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. 39,464, or 0.9 per cent., of the total were performed under section 1(l)(c) of the Abortion Act 1967 as amended. These are cases where the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman; greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.

  The Abortion Act 1967 applies to England, Wales and Scotland only. Abortions performed in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Peter Bottomley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions there have been, and what the annual percentage change has been, since 1996. [131666]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The total numbers of abortions performed on residents of England and Wales under the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended) for each year since 1996 and the annual percentage change are shown in the table.

  Total number of abortions

  Year on year percentage change

  1996

  167,916

  —

  1997

  170,145

  +1.3

  1998

  177,871

  +4.5

  1999

  173,701

  —2.3

  2000

  175,542

  + 1.1

  2001

  176,364

  + 0.5

  Information on abortions in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Executive. The Abortion Act 1967 does not apply to Northern Ireland.

  Ashford (Middlesex) Hospital
  Mr. Wilshire:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many treatments are planned to be provided at the new treatment centre at Ashford (Middlesex) hospital during the five year contract; and what proportion of these will be in addition to the number that would be provided during the same period in the facilities that will be used by Mercury Health Ltd. [130936]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 September 2003_1:The treatment centre at Ashford plans to provide treatment for 1,711 patients annually, a total of 8,555 patients over the five years of the contract.

  The treatment centre is a refurbishment of a facility that is currently out of commission. The development allows this capacity to be made available for national health service care.

  Cancer Nursing
  Dr. Gibson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent meetings Ministers (a)have had and (b) are planning with (i) nursing, (ii) clinical, (iii) voluntary sector and (iv) service user organisations about the development of cancer nursing to meet (A) current and (B) projected demand for cancer nursing within the NHS. [123249]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  I will be meeting my hon. Friend on 29 October 2003, to discuss cancer nursing.
  83W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting targets on cancer care. [129486]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Thanks to major additional investment and the hard work of those working in the national health service we are making real progress in implementing the NHS Cancer Plan. Patients are benefiting from improvements across all aspects of cancer care.

  For example there are an extra 1,000 cancer consultants compared with 1997; nearly 99 per cent. of people with suspected cancer are now seen by a specialist within two weeks of being referred by their general practitioner; we have improved the quality of breast screening by the introduction of two view mammography and have extended the breast screening service to include women aged 65 to 70 resulting in nearly 200,000 extra women being invited since April 2001. The introduction of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has meant that over 31,000 extra patients can benefit from new cancer drugs. We have increased the NHS funding of specialist palliative care by £50 million a year, an increase of nearly 40 per cent. and latest figures show a reduction of 9 per cent. in the death rate from cancer.

  Community Health Councils
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from community health councils in England about the operational difficulties they face from extending their activities beyond September 2003. [127683]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  Since the announcement of 4 June 2003 to postpone the abolition of community health councils (CHSs) until 1 December 2003, representations have been made by a number of CHCs highlighting potential difficulties. The exact number of cases could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Discussions have taken place with various stakeholder groups, including the relevant trades unions and the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, to gain a better understanding of the operational issues involved. Guidance and advice has been made available to local managers.

  Consultant Numbers
  Dr. Evan Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra consultants between 1999 and 2004 were already planned for when the target of 7,500 extra consultants was published in July 2000; and whether these consultants were included in the figure of 7,500. [128916]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department was already planning for a substantial expansion in consultant numbers. The NHS Plan target of 7,500 consultants was based on identified need for additional growth to meet the service targets.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Ruffley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the targets that his Department has set (a) Suffolk county council and (b) primary care trusts for delayed discharges in Suffolk. [131846]
  84W
  Dr. Ladyman:
  The Department does not set individual councils or primary care trusts targets for reductions in delayed discharges. The Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 has established a system of reimbursement, fully operational from January 2004, that provides an incentive for councils and health bodies to work closer together to reduce delays. Continued reductions in the levels of delayed discharges are therefore expected.

  Mr. Burns:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the national delayed discharges figures for each quarter in 2002–03. [129845]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 15 September 2003,]:Delayed discharge figures for each quarter of 2002–03 have been published and are available in the Library.

  E.coli
  Dr. Evan Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to the public on the risk of contracting E.coli while camping. [128927]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Chief Medical Officer, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson in his Annual Report for 2001 alerted the public to the risks of contracting Escherichia coli 0157 infection and provided advice as to how to avoid infection.

  The Department of Health works in close collaboration with other Government Departments, particularly the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and with the Scottish Executive in providing to the public, to farmers and others responsible for farmland that might be used for recreational purposes, information on the risks of E.coli 0157 and how to avoid infection.

  Following the recommendations of the joint FSA&sol; Scottish Executive Task Force on E.coli 0157 relating to access to and use of rural land, advice was issued nationally in 2001 by the Scottish Executive to relevant organisations, including the National Farmers Union, the National Scout Association and the Guide Association on how to avoid ill health during recreation on farmland. This advice was re-issued in 2003.

  The key points of this advice are that where possible, fields used for grazing or stockholding of animals should not be used for camping, picnicking, or play areas.

  If fields that have been used for grazing or stockholding animals are to be used for recreational purposes, the following precautions should be taken:
  keep farm animals off the fields for the three weeks prior to and during the event&sol;use;
  remove any visible dung&sol;faeces—preferably at the beginning of the three week period:
  mow the grass—keep it short and remove the clippings before fields are used for recreation;
  inform leaders of recreational&sol;leisure groups (for example scouts, guides etc.) of the need for good hygiene practice (such as hand washing) and to treat drinking or personal washing water taken from streams.

  The HSE produced specific guidance to farmers on how to avoid the risks from E.coli 0157 infection associated with recreational use of farmland and issued press notices to remind farmers and others responsible

  85W
  for farmland of this guidance in 2001. This guidance supplemented existing guidance, revised in 2001, for farmers contained in the HSE's Agricultural Information Sheet 23 "Avoiding ill health at open farms". The HSE has also produced a video which highlights the risk of contamination from farm animals, buildings and equipment and advises on the need for good hygiene and the importance of hand washing before eating and drinking in preventing infection with E.coli 0157. The advice and the video are available on the HSE's website.

  The Department of Health disseminated this advice through the website www.wiredforhealth.gov.uk.

  Advice for the public on the importance of handwashing prior to eating or drinking in preventing E.coli 0157 infection is reinforced through the FSA's five year Food Hygiene Campaign which reiterates seasonal food safety messages at regular intervals.

  Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome
  Mr. Pickthall:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (a) research effort and (b) clinical specialism is provided by the NHS to help sufferers from Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome; and if he will make a statement. [131441]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The Department keeps its priorities for research under review. Priorities for departmental research and development support for the development of policy are determined through discussion with policy colleagues and Ministers. In the national health service, priorities are identified through widespread consultation with those using, delivering and managing services. They take account of the burden of disease, potential benefits and departmental objectives, as well as the responsibilities and work of other funders—including the charities.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is not currently funding any research into Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, though it does fund a number of research projects into connective tissue and also into collagen physiology. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health.

  The provision of treatment for Ehlers-Danlos syndrome patients is part of the responsibility of health authorities. They must make arrangements for the health of their populations, as they are closest to the people they serve and so best placed to respond sensitively to their needs. People with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome have access to a range of specialists depending on the individual diagnosis. These include orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, cardiologists, vascular surgeons, neurosurgeons, dermatologists and clinical geneticists.

  Epsom and St. Helier Hospitals
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff, broken down by grade, work in the accident and emergency departments at (a) Epsom and (b) St Helier hospitals. [131633]
  86W
  Mr. Hutton:
  Data are only collected at national health service trust level. The following table shows hospital medical staff within the accident and emergency speciality by grade in Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust.

  Hospital medical staff within the accident and emergency specialty by grade in Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust

  As at 30 September 2002

  Numbers (headcount)

  All staff

  30

  Consultant

  1—

  Staff Grade

  10

  Associate Specialist

  1—

  Registrar Group

  1—

  Senior House Officer

  10

  House Officer

  1—

  Hospital Practitioner

  2—

  Clinical Assistant

  1—

  Other

  2—

  1Five or fewer than five.

  2Zero.

  Notes:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions were made in reaching the figure of £340 million capital spend in Option 4 of the Strategic Outline Case for the Epsom and St Helier Clinical Services Strategy. [131634]

  Mr. Hutton:
  This is a matter for south west London strategic health authority (SHA) and Surrey and Sussex SHA. I understand the latest position is that a strategic outline case for an Epsom and St Helier clinical services strategy is still to be finalised.

  All the assumptions will be tested carefully before a decision is taken on how best to take the scheme forward.

  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of patients treated in the accident and emergency departments of Epsom and St Helier hospitals in each of the past 24 months. [131635]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Information on the number of patients treated in the accident and emergency (A&E) department of Epsom and St Helier Hospitals is not collected centrally.

  Attendances at A&E departments, minor injury units and walk in centres. Epsom and St Helier national health service Trust for the period second quarter, 2001–02, to first quarter, 2003–04, is shown in the table as the closest available data. This information is collected on a quarterly rather than monthly basis.

  Quarter

  Attendances

  2003–04

  1

  32,934

  2002–03

  4

  29,895

  2002–03

  3

  26,871

  2002–03

  2

  27,839

  2002–03

  1

  28,379

  2001–02

  4

  29,297

  2001–02

  3

  29,931

  2001–02

  2

  30.557

  Total past 24 months

  235,703

  Eye Tests
  David Davis:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to encourage more regular and thorough eye tests for children to check for cancers, with particular reference to retinoblastoma. [131224]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  Doctors and opticians who test sight have a duty to undertake an examination of the eye and perform whatever tests they reel are necessary at the time. The examination undertaken has the purpose of detecting signs of injury, disease or abnormality in the eye and the doctors or opticians carrying them out will be aware of retinoblastoma and the signs to look for on the retina.

  Free sight tests are available under the National Health Service to large parts of the population, including all children and those aged 16–18 in full-time education. Sight tests are the ideal opportunity to review all aspects of eye health, including investigations for signs of disease. In 2001–02, 9.8 million NHS sight tests were paid for by health authorities. 2.4 million of those were for children.

  We have promoted a system of child health and development checks. The programme of home visiting and community development makes an important contribution to many areas of health education and fosters the early detection of problems, including those associated with eye sight in young pre-school children. The programme also provides the opportunity to develop closer relationships between the family and the primary care team. Work on developing the children's national service framework continues and the healthy child module will take into account the views expressed by the National Screening Committee (Children's Sub-Group) on the need for child eye screening.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Alan Williams:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of (a) providing fluoride to children through milk and (b) disbursing fluoride via the water supply. [131472]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The cost of implementing the seven trial milk fluoridation schemes under way in the United Kingdom has been relatively modest, due to the fact that existing school milk programmes have been utilised. The actual cost of fluoridating milk is minimal and in most schemes has been absorbed by the dairy. About one half day a week of an oral health promotion officer's time is required to administer each scheme. Information is not yet available to make any reliable estimates of the costs and cost effectiveness of any national scheme using fluoridated milk to tackle oral health inequalities.

  The cost of fluoridating water varies depending on the scale of schemes. Experience from current schemes indicates running costs, which are borne by health authorities, of about 40 pence per head of population per year.

  Food Poisoning
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work his Department is undertaking to develop a vaccine against campylobacter. [130082]
  88W
  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The Department of Health is not commissioning studies at present on vaccines against campylobacter. However, we know that the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) is funding some research on campylobacter to understand more about this organism.

  Free Fruit Scheme
  Joyce Quin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement about the operation of the free fruit scheme in schools; [131876]

  (2) what plans he has to extend the free fruit scheme for schools in the North East of England. [131880]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Following successful small-scale pilots in 2000 and 2001, the national school fruit scheme has been introduced over the last 18 months in four whole regions in England: the West Midlands, London, the North West and the East Midlands. The next region due to join will be the North East, starting in spring 2004. These region-wide pilots, which have been supported by £42 million from the lottery-funded New Opportunities Fund, will be evaluated to establish the impact on children's diets and the practicalities of the scheme, before rolling out nationally later in 2004.

  General Social Care Council
  Mr. Steen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much central Government funding is given to the General Social Care Council; and how many staff it employs. [131543]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The General Social Care Council (GSCC) will receive £15,195,000 in operating grant for the financial year 2003–04. The GSCC currently employs 119 members of staff: 113 full-time and six part-time.

  The total grant is £55,482,000, which also includes training support of £10,697,000 and student bursaries of £27,826,000. The last two amounts are Department monies, which are administered by the GSCC, ringfenced for their specified use and do not form any part of their operational costs.

  GP Referrals
  Mr. Hammond:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of GP referrals which were lost in the NHS system in the last year for which figures are available. [131508]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Grants
  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the grants made to outside bodies under the Section 64 general grants scheme; and the value of each grant. [129594]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The information about the grants approved for award in April 2003 for the year 2003–04 under the Section 64 General Scheme has been placed in the Library.

  The total amount was £21,451,211.
  89W
  Core grants are awarded as a contribution to an organisation's central administrative costs. "New" core grants are awards to organisations that have not had core funding previously, or after a break of not less than one year. "Renewal" core grants are awards to those organisations that have previously received core funding.

  Voluntary and community sector organisations have a range of expertise and knowledge of issues in their particular fields, which enables them to make a unique contribution to the development and delivery of services to NHS patients and their carers.

  Group B Streptococcus
  Bob Spink:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has conducted into group B streptococcus testing during pregnancy; 131562]

  (1) what advice his Department has given to health care professionals on Group B streptococcus testing during pregnancy; [131563]

  (2) If he will make it his policy to provide Group B streptococcus testing on the NHS near the end of pregnancy; and if he will make a statement. [131564]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The UK National Screening Committee (NSC) makes recommendations to Ministers on all aspects of screening programmes. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that routine screening of all pregnant women in the United Kingdom and the treating of those carrying group B streptococcus with intravenous antibiotics during labour would be beneficial. The NSC has commissioned a further assessment of the existing evidence on screening against the criteria used to assess potential screening programmes. At the adjournment debate on this issue on 9 July 2003, Ministers asked the NSC to review the position thoroughly as quickly as possible and to consider recommendations at its meeting in December 2003.

  The health technology assessment (HTA) programme considers research into screening for group B streptococcus to be a high priority for further research, add it will consider commissioning further research in more detail at its December meeting. The HTA programme is also currently considering detailed proposals for research into the effectiveness of a rapid test for group B streptococcus carriage that could be used during labour.

  The Royal College of Obstetricians (RCOG) is producing clinical guidelines on prevention and treatment of early onset neonatal group B streptococcal disease. The Department has commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to produce guidelines, due in October 2003, on routine ante-natal

  Admissions

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Age group

  Elective

  Emergency

  Elective

  Emergency

  Elective

  Emergency

  Elective

  Emergency

  Elective

  Emergency

  0–4

  5.8

  2.2

  7.9

  2.1

  5.5

  2.1

  5.8

  2.0

  7.9

  1.9

  5–14

  13.5

  2.6

  12.7

  2.4

  7.8

  2.3

  5.6

  2.4

  11.0

  2.1

  15–44

  8.5

  6.3

  7.2

  6.5

  6.4

  6.1

  6.4

  6.6

  6.2

  6.0

  45–64

  7.1

  10.6

  6.4

  9.7

  5.5

  8.8

  5.6

  10.3

  5.7

  9.4

  65–74

  8.4

  12.9

  7.2

  12.3

  7.2

  11.4

  7.4

  12.2

  7.1

  11.9

  75–84

  10.9

  15.7

  10.1

  15.5

  9.7

  14.8

  10.1

  15.1

  9.7

  15.6

  90W
  care. These will both make an important contribution to ensuring that healthcare professionals are better informed about this condition.

  Harefield Hospital
  Mr. Randall:
  To a sk the Secretary of State for Health when the last survey was conducted on staff attitudes at Harefield Hospital to the proposed move to Paddington Heath Campus; and if he will publish the results. [131864]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Staff retention and recruitment is a major priority in the planning process for the Paddington Health Campus. The most recent Harefield staff survey was conducted by the Royal Brompton and Harefield National Health Service Trust in February 2003. This is a trust document and a copy is available from them on request.

  Hospital Financing
  Lynne Jones:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 10 June 2003, Official Report, column 835W, on hospital financing, what additional powers foundation trusts will have to enter into joint venture arrangements compared to (a) other NHS organisations and (b) local authorities' social services departments; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for differences. [120150]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Subject to legislation, a national health service foundation trust will be able to enter into joint arrangements with local authorities social services departments where such arrangements are consistent with its primary purpose and terms of authorisation. This will allow for the organisation concerned to determine locally what the arrangements should be and is consistent with the Government's policy of decentralisation.

  Under current arrangements, NHS trusts can only enter into joint arrangements with private bodies in circumstances specified in directions given by the Secretary of State, and with his consent. While NHS foundation trusts are not subject to directions given by the Secretary of State and do not require his consent before entering into joint ventures (including the setting up of companies), they have no greater powers to do so than current NHS trusts.

  Inpatients (Length of Stay)
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of stay of in-patients admitted as (a) emergencies and (b) elective was in each of the last five years broken down by age. [131632]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  91W

  Admissions

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Age group

  Elective

  Emergency

  Elective

  Emergency

  Elective

  Emergency

  Elective

  Emergency

  Elective

  Emergency

  85+

  12.4

  17.2

  13.1

  17.9

  12.3

  17.6

  13.3

  18.6

  13.3

  18.6

  Not known

  17.4

  28.4

  18.5

  11.6

  16.8

  4.9

  3.7

  8.2

  6.8

  7.2

  All ages

  8.9

  9.9

  8.0

  9.7

  7.1

  9.2

  7.1

  9.9

  7.3

  9.6

  Notes:

  Grossing-figures have not (yet) been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the date are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Lung Disease
  Harry Cohen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are for a national service framework on lung disease; and if he will make a statement. [131775]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  There are no plans for a national service framework (NSF). We are, however, taking steps to improve services for people with lung disease. The children's NSF will include childhood asthma as an exemplar condition. The NSF for chronic heart disease already has a reduction in cigarette smoking as one of its major targets. We have also banned tobacco advertising and made smoking reduction aids available on national health service prescription.

  Additionally we have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to prepare guidelines for the management and diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We expect this guidance to be produced in 2004. Also, phase three of the national primary care collaborative (NPCC) focuses on chronic disease management, in particular COPD and diabetic care. The programme, which wild be rolled out to every primary care trust (PCT) in the country by April 2004, will support frontline NHS staff and primary care trust managers and will involve 20 PCTs and more than 100 general practitioner practices. It will help them to develop skills and techniques to deliver improvements in care and work with patients to maximise their self-care and help improve outcomes.

  Medicine and Management
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions he is taking following the report of the joint clinician&sol;manager working group entitled Medicine and Management. [127733]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Chief Medical Officer is taking forward this important area of work, working closely with patients' organisations and those responsible for standards in the medical profession.

  It is expected this work will be completed in early 2004.

  Methotrexate
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the (a) availability and (b) side effects of methotrexate. [127554]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  Methotrexate is a prescription only medicine widely available throughout the United Kingdom. The use of this disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) has increased in recent
  92W
  years. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended the use of methotrexate and other DMARDs as first line therapy prior to the use of the newer tumour necrosis factor (TNF-a) blockers for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

  As with all medicines the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) have continued to closely monitor the safe use of methotrexate. Reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to medicines are collected by the MHRA and the CSM through the spontaneous reporting scheme, the Yellow Card Scheme. To date the MHRA&sol;CSM have received 876 UK ADR reports associated with methotrexate. The most common side effects of methotrexate include nausea, abdominal pain, a reduced number of white blood cells and soreness of the mouth and lips. Other rare but more serious side effects include fibrosis and cirrhosis of the liver, bone marrow suppression and pneumonitis.

  In 1997 the product information was amended to advise that patients who receive methotrexate therapy are required to have a full blood count and renal and liver function tests measured on a regular basis. An article was also published in the MHRA&sol;CSM drug safety bulletin "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance (Vol. 23, September 1997).

  In September 2000 health professionals were advised, via another article in "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" (Vol. 26 September 2000), to exercise caution when prescribing and dispensing methotrexate. In 2001 the CSM established a working group to review medicines labelling in order to reduce the likelihood of medication error occurring and within the review advised that all oral dose preparations should prominently display a warning to check the dose and frequency of methotrexate on the front face of the carton.

  In September 2002 the CSM reviewed the increasing number of UK reports of pneumonitis which had been received by the MHRA in association with methotrexate. The CSM recommended updating the product information to provide clearer guidance to prescribers and patients, recognising that the increase was probably a direct consequence of the recent dramatic increase in methotrexate use in patients with early RA. The MHRA is continuing to work closely with the National Patient Safety Agency to reduce the risk of medication errors associated with methotrexate.

  Midwifery (Essex)
  Bob Russell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is he taking to fill vacancies for midwives in the area of the Essex Rivers Healthcare Trust; and if he will make a statement. [131613]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust has embarked on a recruitment campaign to obtain more midwives and expects to appoint five whole time equivalent midwives in the near future.

  A range of recruitment, retention and returner initiatives are in place to facilitate the NHS meeting the increase of 2,000 midwives by 2006. The NHS is striving to be an employer of choice and is in the process of developing and implementing modern recruitment practices. We are committed to increasing the numbers of midwives working in the NHS in order to expand service provision.

  Bob Russell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for midwives in the (a) Essex strategic health authority area and (b) Essex Rivers healthcare trust. [131612]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The total number of vacancies for midwives is not recorded centrally. However, the number of three month vacancies for registered midwives in the Essex strategic health authority area, as at 31 March 2003, is 16. Of these, three were within Essex Rivers healthcare national health service trust.

  MRI Scans
  Dr. Fox:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are eligible through the Berkshire Choice pilot for MRI scans. [131029]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Berkshire Choice Pilot in its first phase focused on patients waiting longer than six months including access to mirror resonance imaging (MRI) scans at the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospital. Last year an additional 40 orthopaedic patients received MRI scans.

  This year, the average waiting time for MRI scans is no more than four to six weeks with no patients waiting more than six months. Due to the reduction in waiting times, no patients are currently eligible through the Berkshire Choice Pilot for MRI scans.

  NHS Appointments Commission
  Mr. Norman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current appointment criteria used by the NHS Appointments Commission are for appointment to the positions of NHS trust (a) chairman, (b) chief executive and (c) board member; and whether these criteria have changed in the last two years. [131700]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The criteria for the appointment of chairs and non-executive directors to national health service boards have been placed in the Library. The only change made to the criteria over the last two years has been to reduce the time commitment expected of non-executives to 2.5 days per month. The reduction is in line with recommendations made in 'Governing the NHS— A guide for NHS Boards', which was jointly published
  94W
  by the Department and the NHS Appointments Commission in June 2003. A copy of the guide has also been placed in the Library.

  Chief executives are appointed by the chair and non-executives of NHS boards, not by the NHS Appointments Commission.

  NHS Land (Colchester)
  Bob Russell:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last discussed with the Secretary of State for Transport the proposed junction of the Colchester Northern Approach Road and the Al2 and the sale of surplus NHS land in the area; and if he will make a statement. [131820]

  Mr. Hutton:
  My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with the Secretary of State for Transport on these specific issues.

  NHSnet
  Mr. Todd:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to link pharmacies to NHSnet. [131426]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  The current contract for NHSnet is due to expire next year. It would be inappropriate to negotiate any amendment to this at the present time to enable community pharmacies to gain connectivity. The model of connectivity needs to take into account future requirements that may arise out of our wish to see community pharmacists as a more integrated part of the national health service, services that they may provide under the new community pharmacy contract currently under discussion and delivery of the national prescription service target outlined in "Delivering 21st Century IT Support for the NHS". The N3 networking project, which is responsible for procuring a successor network to NHSnet, is currently considering which N3 services could help meet these community pharmacy connectivity requirements.

  Paddington Health Campus
  Mr. Randall:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what stage of the statutory planning process the Paddington Health Campus is at. [131865]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The North West London Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has been working closely with Westminster Council on the scheme. The council gave approval to earlier planning proposals, but more detailed work showed that these would need adapting to meet the new and larger requirements. The SHA has been working on a revised scheme with the Westminster planners and anticipates making a new outline application in the next few weeks.

  Prescription Receipts
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of receipts from prescriptions paid for by recipients of incapacity benefit in each of the last five years. [131967]

  Ms Rosie Winterton:
  No information is collected on the financial circumstances of people paying prescription charges. Therefore, no such estimate can be made.

  Prisoners' Health
  Mrs. Helen Clark:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information is collected centrally on the health of prisoners; [131894]

  (2) if he will set targets to achieve improvements in the health of prisoners; [131895]

  (3) if he will make it his policy to collate centrally information regarding prisoner health sufficient to establish baselines from which improvements in performance can be measured. [131896]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  Information is routinely collected centrally on self-harm incidents, suicides and undetermined deaths and information on communicable diseases, such as hepatitis B, in the prison population. Survey work periodically captures further information on specific aspects of prisoner health, such as the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity.

  Prisoners are included within the scope of the Government's overall targets for improving the health of the population.

  Private Health Care (NHS Referrals)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients have been referred by the NHS in England to private healthcare providers (a) in Wales, (b) in Scotland, (c) in Northern Ireland, (d) in England and (e) abroad in each of the last five years; [131741]

  (2) how much money has been spent by the NHS in England to obtain healthcare from private healthcare providers (a) in England, (b) in Wales, (c) in Scotland, (d) in Northern Ireland and (e) abroad in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [131743]

  Mr. Hutton:
  This information is not held centrally, but we are embarking on a major capacity expansion programme including development of treatment centres run by the independent sector.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria is used by the NHS in England to decide when to refer a patient to a private healthcare provider for treatment. [131742]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Department has not set any criteria centrally to be used when referring national health service patients for treatment 10 private healthcare providers. Such decisions are taken locally by primary care trusts (PCTs). In such circumstances, the criteria applied by PCTs and under centrally funded choice pilots would usually include the length of time patients have waited, their clinical appropriateness and fitness for referral to an independent provider and value for money (taking into account the availability of alternative capacity). These criteria would also apply to referrals to the new independent sector treatment centres which we are procuring currently but in addition, these will be supplemented by clear clinical pathways, building on those developed as part of the London patient choice project.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital (Finances)
  Mr. Paul Marsden:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the forecast overspend for the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital is for financial year 2003–04. [132293]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals National Health Service Trust merged with the Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust on 1 October 2003. The newly formed Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust is expected to fulfil its financial obligations.

  All NHS trusts have been asked to plan for and achieve financial balance in 2003–04. Audited information for all NHS trusts will be published in their individual annual accounts and will be available centrally in autumn 2004.

  Silverlands (Chertsey)
  Mr. Hammond:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of converting Silverlands in Chertsey for use as a nurses' home. [131507]

  Mr. Hutton:
  Discussions are taking place with housing associations for the conversion of Silverlands in Chertsey for use as residential accommodation for nurses and other national health service key-workers employed in the area. It is not anticipated that there will be any cost to the NHS for this conversion, as this will be borne by the housing association.

  Single Sex Accommodation
  Mr. Spring:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish the names of NHS trusts which have not met government standards for (a) single sex accommodation and (b) separate lavatory and washing facilities; and whether West Suffolk Hospital NHS Trust has reached these standards. [131625]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The elimination of mixed sex accommodation is one of a number of indicators that determined the performance rating for national health service trusts in 2002–03. Details of the performance ratings, including figures for each NHS trust, are published by the Commission for Health Improvement.

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust is fully compliant with single-sex accommodation objectives. A small number of hospitals have yet to achieve these objectives on every ward. This is because a number of new hospitals and healthcare facilities are currently in construction, which will on completion bring all wards to the required standards.

  Smoking
  Peter Bottomley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new smokers there were (a) under and (b) over 21 in each year since 1997. [131667]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  In 2001, the General Household Survey's analysis of regular smokers found that 85 per cent. of men and 79 per cent. of women began smoking regularly when aged 19 or less. 15 per cent. of men and 21 per cent. of women began regular smoking aged 20 or more.
  97W
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to increase smoking cessation services to Asian men. [130061]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  As announced in the NHS Cancer Plan the Department is funding a network of local alliances for action on smoking. These alliances form the bridge between treatment services and local authorities, community groups, businesses, schools, churches etc. and will work with the most deprived sections of their communities to make a difference.

  Some local alliances, with Asian communities in their areas, are working to raise the awareness of the risk of smoking for example producing materials in ethnic languages, holding events in community centres and encouraging people to use their local cessation services.

  NHS stop smoking services are now well established across England, and are achieving good results. At a local level the services target their local ethnic minority populations. The services are available to help all smokers who want to stop. The services provide counselling and support to smokers in a variety of settings in primary or secondary care, and in the community, to complement the provision of smoking cessation aids such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and bupropion (Zyban).

  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to introduce legislation to ban smoking in sporting venues. [130170]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  We will continue to encourage the voluntary establishment of smoke-free public places, including sporting venues.

  Social Services (Elderly People)
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on provision of social services to the elderly. [131482]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  The Government are committed to improving access to health and social care services for older people. Examples include: enhanced cataract services; free national health service sight tests; free influenza immunisation; immediate access to information and advice through NHS Direct; the national service framework (NSF) for older people; and guidance on eligibility for adult social care—"Fair

  Access to Care Services". The then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) confirmed the Government's commitment to improving health and social care for older people in a statement to the House on 23 July 2002. He announced an overall figure of £1 billion for older people by 2006. Two thirds of the £1 billion will be ring-fenced for specific older people's services.

  The Government are committed to local health and social care services planning and working more closely together in respect of older people's services. It is important for agencies to be clear in their respective responsibilities. Regulations that permit health and social care services to pool resources or otherwise jointly commission or provide services, will help localities deliver integrated care.
  98W
  The Government are committed to ensuring that standards of health and social services are as high as possible, and variations in levels and quality of service throughout the country are minimised. The NSF for older people and the introduction of national minimum standards for specific services are key policy developments in this regard.

  The Government have introduced an independent and more consistent system for the inspection and regulation of residential care and nursing homes, and for the regulation of domiciliary care agencies. The National Care Standards Commission became fully operational on 1 April 2002.

  The Government emphasise that health and social care services should be, shaped around an individual's needs and not the other way round. Guidance on the single assessment process, published in January 2002, will place older people at the heart of the assessment of their needs and subsequent service planning and delivery.

  Unfair age discrimination in health and social care is not to be tolerated and will be addressed by the age-related policy audits introduced in the NSF for older people and "Fair Access to Care Services".

  The Government want health and social care services to be more responsive to the needs of older people from minority ethnic backgrounds. In social care, the project, "Developing services for minority ethnic older people", is demonstrating how services can be improved.

  The Government recognise that health and social care needs are often best understood and addressed in the context of other needs such as those for housing, lifelong learning and adequate income. For example, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Health published a strategic framework, "Quality and Choice for Older People's Housing", in 2001.

  The Government are committed to preventing and tackling abuse of older people in any form. Multi-agency codes of practice are now required from health and social care services. Additionally the Department of Health will establish a Protection of Vulnerable Adults list, which will comprise of a list of people judged unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults in the care sector.

  Specialist Stroke Units
  Mr. Baron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage he estimates of the specialist stroke units in operation by April 2004 will be fully operational and staffed. [131213]

  Dr. Ladyman:
  We monitor progress against the key milestones in the national service framework (NSF) for older people. From the information gathered so far, we know that 83 per cent. of the hospitals which have replied now have plans to have a specialist stroke service in place by April 2004.

  Our document, "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", which sets for the national health service a priorities and planning framework for 2003–06, makes clear that implementation of the NSF is a top priority and that the 2004 milestone around specialist stroke services is a key target.
  99W
  Tuesday 14 October 2003

PRIME MINISTER

  International Treaties
  Mr. Shepherd:
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the statement of 16 September by the Foreign Secretary, Official Report, column 794, when it became Government policy that international treaties take primacy over national laws; and if he will make a statement. [131483]

  The Prime Minister:
  It is an established principle of international law that a State may not plead its national law to escape its international law obligations, including its treaty obligations. As a matter of UK constitutional law, international treaties have effect in UK national law to the extent that they have been implemented in national law. The UK has given effect to the principle of the primacy of Community law through the European Communities Act 1972.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gordon Prentice:
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his practice to circulate to all Cabinet members papers relating to Iraq. [131682]

  The Prime Minister:
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose details of the circulation of Cabinet papers in line with exemption 2 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Flight:
  To ask the Prime Minister how many outsourced IT contracts have been signed by his Department in each year since 1997; how much each of these contracts is worth; with whom they are signed; how many have been renegotiated; how many are still in place; and if he will make a statement. [126202]

  The Prime Minister:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave him on 6 October 2003, Official Report, column 998–99W.

CABINET OFFICE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Steen:
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many executive agencies have been established since 1997. [131542]

  Mr. Alexander:
  Thirty-nine executive agencies have been established since 1997.

  Further information on existing agencies and former agencies can be found on the website http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/agencies-publicbodies under 'Executive Agencies and Non Ministerial Departments'.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  India-United Kingdom
  Mr. Pound:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and India. [132012]

  Mr. Connarty:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the bilateral India-United Kingdom relationship. [132002]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  Our relations with the Indian Government are now closer than they have been for a long time across a broad range of policy areas. UK development assistance will increase over the next two years (to £300 million). And there has been a marked increase in bilateral trade (£5 billion in 2001).

  Libya
  Sir Teddy Taylor:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Libya. [132013]

  Dr. Naysmith:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on future UK-Libya relations. [132014]

  Mr. Rammell:
  The United Kingdom has had full diplomatic relations with Libya since July 1999 and we continue to engage with the Libyans on areas of mutual interest and concern.

  Burma
  Vera Baird:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures he will take against the military Government in Burma to seek to compel them to release the NLD leadership and to take steps towards democracy. [132015]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  We are working closely with our EU and Asian partners and in the UN to bring pressure to bear on the regime for political change in Burma. We are considering carefully with our EU partners what further targeted measures could be taken if the Burmese regime does not fully release the NLD leadership and take genuine steps towards democracy.

  Iraq
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [132016]

  Mr. MacShane:
  David Kay, the senior CIA officer in the Iraq Survey Group presented an interim report on the activities of the group to a number of Congressional committees on 2 October. According to his report the ISG has produced further conclusive and incontrovertible evidence that the Saddam regime was indeed in breach of UNSCR 1441.

  The ISG has discovered "dozens of WMD-related programme activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002".

  Tony Baldry:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of progress with reconstruction in Iraq. [132020]

  Mr. Rammell:
  Good progress is being made with meeting immediate reconstruction needs in Iraq. Electricity generation has returned to pre-war levels, and oil production has recovered to 2 million barrels per day. The key economic institutions are being rebuilt, including the Central bank of Iraq which now has independence over key decisions. A budget has been agreed for 2003, Iraqi Ministries are planning their budgets for 2004, new bank notes are being distributed to replace the discredited Saddam Dinar, and a legal framework for commercial activity is being created. Iraq's longer-term reconstruction needs, arising from decades of misrule under Saddam, will be addressed at the international donors' conference in Madrid on 23–24 October.

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to his Department over possible Turkish military deployment in Iraq; who raised these concerns; and if he will make a statement. [131442]

  Mr. Rammell:
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and FCO and MOD officials have discussed a possible Turkish military deployment to Iraq with representatives of the Turkish Government and with the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC).

  We welcome the generous offer of Turkish troops, and the vote in the Turkish Parliament to approve this in principle. The practicalities of the potential deployment are a matter for the US and the Turkish Governments, taking into full consideration local sensitivities, including those raised by the IGC.

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had concerning the possibility of Turkish military deployment in Iraq; where these discussions took place; who initiated these discussions; and if he will make a statement. [131443]

  Mr. Rammell:
  The UK has a regular dialogue with the Turkish Government on matters relating to Iraq, including a possible military deployment. On 25 September, Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul

  103W
  gave my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary an update on the situation. The Chief of Defence Staff and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the armed forces also discussed this issue, among others, during their recent visits to Turkey.

  Joan Ruddock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many women have been appointed to the preparatory committee working on the drafting of the new Iraqi constitution. [132149]

  Mr. Rammell:
  We were disappointed that no women were appointed to the preparatory constitutional committee. In our discussions with the Governing Council and other Iraqi institutions we continue to stress the importance of women's issues being fully addressed in constitutional discussions to ensure that women are able to play a full role in public life. We are in regular contact with Songul Omar and Dr. Raja Habib Khurzai on the Governing Council and Nesreen Mustafa Sidiq Berwari, the Minister for Public Works.

  My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean met one of the women on the Governing Council, and the one woman Minister, during her recent visit to Baghdad.

  Joan Ruddock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many senior advisers from western countries have been appointed to work with Iraqi Ministers; and how many are women. [132151]

  Mr. Rammell:
  At present there are 21 senior advisers from western countries that provide help to all 25 Iraqi Ministries. Three are women who work with the Ministries of Foreign Affairs arid Displaced Persons, Trade, and Human Rights.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Cameron:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many (a)EU member states and (b)applicant states plan to hold a referendum on the proposed European constitution; and if he will make a statement. [132017]

  Mr. MacShane:
  A new EU treaty would need to be ratified according to the individual political and constitutional traditions of each of the member states. Current and future member states would be in exactly the same position: all 25 would have to ratify before a new treaty could come into effect. Four member states have formally declared that they will hold a referendum on the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC): Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg and Spain. Most countries have yet to make a decision. In the UK, EU treaties are only ratified after scrutiny and approval by Parliament, as has been the case with all previous treaties modifying the founding treaties of the EU.

  Israel
  Mr. Simon Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning military action outside their borders. [132018]
  104W
  Mr. Rammell:
  The Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser expressed the Government's concern to the Government of Israel about military actions, including in Syria, during his recent visit to the region. We recognise Israel's justified anger at suicide bombings, the latest one killing 19 in Haifa on 4 October. We urge all sides to exercise restraint. It is imperative that they recognise the implications for regional stability of the continuing use of force, and that only a political solution can deliver a comprehensive, lasting peace in the Middle East.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Bellingham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe. [132019]

  Mr. Jack:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. [132022]

  Mr. Mullin:
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), Official Report,column 20.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Caton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to help ensure that the Afghanistan elections in June 2004 are free and fair. [127130]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  We welcome the establishment on 26 July of the Afghan Interim Management Body. We are encouraging the Transitional Administration to ensure the necessary preparations are made for free and fair elections, including a law on political parties to encourage the formation of national political groupings which renounce violence and espouse democratic principles.

  £1 million of DFID funds and a further £2 million of joint FCO/DFID/MOD funding has been allocated so far to support the United Nations programme for voter registration in Afghanistan. We are also working with the European Commission to secure further support for Afghanistan's electoral process.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Simon Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether British Aerospace sought or obtained clearance from his Department for payment of agency commission in connection with the sale of defence equipment to Qatar. [132366]

  Mr. Rammell:
  I am not aware that British Aerospace has ever sought or obtained clearance from the FCO for payment of agency commission in connection with the sale of defence equipment to Qatar.

  Indian High Commission Visa Service
  Keith Vaz:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the Indian High Commission's visa services in the UK. [131750]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  I am advised that officials have no record of representations concerning the Indian High Commission visa service in the UK.

  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions (a)he and (b)members of his Department have had with representatives of the US Administration concerning the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. [131531]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, nor officials have had recent discussions with the US Administration specifically about the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does, however, have regular contact with the US Administration on human rights issues, including economic and social rights. Our discussions at official level in the margins of the UN General Assembly Third Committee and the annual Commission on Human Rights in Geneva include a range of discussions on economic and social rights.

  Pitcairn Island
  Mr. Beith:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements there are for hearing Pitcairn Island criminal cases in New Zealand. [131403]

  Mr. Rammell:
  On the advice of the Pitcairn Chief Justice, the Governor of Pitcairn signed an order on 28 March granting authority for criminal legal proceedings to take place in New Zealand. Necessary legislation has been passed by the New Zealand Parliament to enable such trials to be held in New Zealand under Pitcairn law. A final decision on the venue for trials in individual cases is however a matter for the Pitcairn Supreme courts.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bosnia
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many (a)casualties and (b)injuries in Bosnia were directly attributable to (i) mines, (ii) de-mining activities and (iii) cluster bomb submunition in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [131793]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas:
  According to "Landmine Monitor" the casualties recorded in the following table were landmine/UXO casualties in Bosnia and Herzegovina. DFID does not have figures for victims of cluster munitions nor can we disaggregate mine victims from victims of demining accidents.
  106W

  Number of casualties

  1997

  290

  1998

  149

  1999

  95

  2000

  100

  2001

  87

  1 January 2002 to 30 June 2003

  72

  Source:

  International Committee of the Red Cross

  Cancun Conference
  Mrs. Spelman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which Ministers attended the World Trade Organisation meetings in Cancun; how many (a)advisers and (b)staff accompanied them; at which hotel Ministers and their advisers stayed in Cancun; what the total cost of (i) hotel rooms and (ii) expenses was; in which aeroplane class advisers attending the World Trade Organisation meetings in Cancun travelled; and what the total cost of their flights was. [129728]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  I have been asked to reply.

  In addition to myself, my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and my noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the International Development attended the 5th WTO Ministerial Conference held in Cancun in September 2003. The length of stays varied.

  We were accompanied by 32 civil servants from the five Government Departments involved and by five advisers from t he CBI, the TUC, NGO's and Parliament. Other Members of Parliament attended and assisted with advice.

  Ministers and part of the delegation stayed in the Fiesta Americana Coral Beach Hotel, where the EU delegation and others were based. The remainder stayed at the Hotel Riu.

  The majority of civil servants travelled via a European Commission charter flight, for which special discount fares were negotiated. Ministers were accompanied on their flights by a small team of support staff, some of whom travelled in the same class as Ministers.

  Final accounts for the WTO ministerial are not currently available, and could be produced only at disproportionate cost at this stage. Once the costs have been finalised, we will inform the House.

  Darfur
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment the Department has made of human rights abuses in Darfur; what recent assessment has been made of their effect on the human rights situation in Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [131799]

  Hilary Benn:
  We are concerned about the human rights of the people of Sudan, including in Darfur. We continue to raise specific human rights cases in Darfur

  107W
  relating to the rights of minors and women and the application of the death penalty with the Government of Sudan as part of the EU/Sudan dialogue. In July, a member of the British embassy in Khartoum visited Nyala, South Darfur, and held meetings with the Wali, the South Darfur Security Committee, the Chief Judge, the Commissioner of Nyala, and Fur Tribal leaders. He also toured the prison. We are also supporting human rights monitoring and human rights awareness projects in Darfur through the Human Rights Project Fund.

  The Secretary of State welcomed the signing on 3 September of a 45-day ceasefire between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan Liberation Army and the launch of the UN Greater Darfur Initiative (UNDGI) which we hope will enable the provision of basic services and help to address basic human rights. The UK has pledged £1 million to UNDGI.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much has been spent in each year by his Department in preparing for UK entry to the euro; how much his Department plans to spend on preparations for UK entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates he has made of the total costs to his Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131596]

  Hilary Benn:
  Approximately £55,000 will have been spent this year on consultancy costs. These are the only separately identifiable costs incurred since 1999. Other costs comprise modest internal staff time and ensuring that IT system developments are euro compatible; these cannot be separately identified but are likely to have been modest. The costs of conversion in the event of a positive decision on UK entry are estimated at around £500,000.

  Foreign Aid
  Hugh Bayley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the Government intends to use the funds allocated for trade-related capacity building and technical assistance; over what period it will be spent; what support the Government will give to the G21 nations; and if he will make a statement. [131489]

  Hilary Benn:
  The UK trade related capacity building programme works closely with developing countries, including those in the emerging G21 grouping, to build the skills and knowledge they require to deal with trade issues as they relate to their country's specific needs. The programme will continue to be responsive to emerging developing country concerns. These include the effects of trade-distorting subsidies on West African cotton producers and technical assistance to poorer developing countries on a range of trade-related issues.

  The UK programme is delivered through a mixture of bilateral programmes with national governments; contributions to multilateral organisations working
  108W
  on Trade-Related Capacity Building; support to governments and to the private sector. The programme is a rolling one with new initiatives agreed as earlier programmes end. Most of the £160 million allocated to Trade-Related Capacity Building since 1998 will be spent over the next five years, although one programme will not finish until 2010.

  The UK TRCB programme includes:
  training government officials to analyse trade issues, develop trade policy and negotiate internationally. This can also involve improving systems linked to trade, such as customs and excise;
  helping governments and the private sector respond to opportunities arising from the multilateral trading system as well as cope with possible negative knock on effects;
  making sure that trade policy takes into account the impact of trade on the lives of poor people;
  support to regional trade groups as they work to increase regional trade opportunities;
  funding to organisations in Geneva offering legal, analytical and networking support, particularly to those developing countries without representation in Geneva.

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid the Department is contributing (a)directly, (b)through the EU, (c)through the UN and (d)through other organisations to the Chiapas region of Mexico. [131642]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas:
  The Department has no bilateral programme to Mexico, nor are we contributing anything currently to the Chiapas region through the UN or other organisations. The EC are planning future support to the Chiapas region with a €15 million poverty reduction programme, the UK share being 19.7 per cent.

  HIV/AIDS Programme
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what the aims of the Regional HIV/AIDS Programme of the Southern African Development Co-ordinating Committee are; how much funding has been provided to it by the Department in 2003; what assessment has been made of the Programme since 2002; and if he will make a statement. [131644]

  Hilary Benn:
  In 2000, DFID committed £7.65 million to support the Southern African Development Community's work on HIV/AIDS particularly in Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland. DFID provided about £1.5 million from this commitment before March 2003, and expects to contribute a further £1.25 million during 2003–04. The programme was reviewed in late 2002, and is now focused on promoting management of sexually transmitted infections especially at cross-border sites; strengthening programmes for social marketing of condoms; promoting behaviour change; and increasing capacity of national AIDS programmes.

  International Housing Rights
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had since January with representatives of the US Administration concerning international housing rights law; and if he will make a statement. [131627]
  109W
  Hilary Benn:
  I have not had any discussions with representatives of the US Administration, concerning international housing rights law, since I rejoined the Department for International Development as Minister of State in May 2003, nor do I currently have any plans to do so. DFID also has no record of contacts, with representatives of the US Administration, concerning international housing rights law.

  Liberian Refugees
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance the Department (a)has pledged and (b)is providing to Liberian refugees in Guinea; what programmes this assistance is going to; and if he will make a statement. [131643]

  Hilary Benn:
  We contribute £14 million per year to UNHCR although we are not directly supporting refugees from Liberia in Guinea.

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment the Department has made of (a)the number, and (h)the impact of refugees from Liberia entering Guinea since April 2003; and if he will make a statement. [131800]

  Hilary Benn:
  Refugees from Liberia have been entering Guinea for many years, fleeing hostilities and hardship. UNHCR report a new influx since 13 September of 4,500 arrivals into south-east Guinea. This brings the total number of Liberian refugees in Guinea to 116,000 refugees. The most recent refugees are temporarily housed in clinics and public buildings at the border, but UNHCR is transferring them away from the border to established refugee camps where they receive all basic services. So far, 1,500 have been transferred.

  The total number of refugees in Guinea is significantly reduced from 390,000 at the end of 2000 to 180,000 at the end of 2002 as a result of the improved security situation in Sierra Leone. UNHCR are managing to respond to the needs of the new Liberian refugees although the situation will be closely monitored.

  Reproductive Health
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the aims of the sexual and maternal health programme in Malawi are; how much funding has been provided to it by the Department in 2003; what assessment has been made of the programme since 2002; and if he will make a statement. [131640]

  Hilary Benn:
  The aim of reproductive health programmes in Malawi is to improve sexual and reproductive health for all men, women and children especially among the poor and vulnerable groups; and to reduce death and chronic ill health of women as a result of childbirth. DFID's total financial commitment to reproductive health in Malawi is £59.7 million for
  110W
  programmes that are currently being implemented. Of this, £6.7 million was spent in fiscal year 2002–03 and another £5.3 million in the first five months of the current fiscal year.

  The Malawi Ministry of Health and Population conducted a joint review in November 2002 with DFID and other development partners of the programmes that they support. The review reported some progress in all activities, but also noted that there were factors beyond the control of the programmes that inhibited progress. These included critical shortage of health personnel, under-resourced working environment, and the rising impact of HIV/AIDS. The international financial institutions and donors including DFID are working with the Malawi Government to address the underlying issues, such as wage policy and macro economic management, that cause the problems affecting the health sector.

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money the Department gave in support of the Russian Family Planning Association in 2003; what percentage that represents of the total expenditure for population reproductive health programmes; if he will list the activities of the Russian Family Planning Association in 2003; and if he will make a statement. [131639]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas:
  DFID has given no money in support of the Russian Family Planning Association (RFPA) in 2003; its last project with the RFPA finished in June 2002 and no further assistance is planned. This therefore represents 0 per cent. of total expenditure for population reproductive health services. The RFPA supports a range of activities on advocacy for reproductive health and rights, including training for health personnel, social workers and teachers and the provision of information and education, particularly for young people, through the development of its network of regional branches.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what population reproductive health programmes are directly run by the Department in(a)Africa, (b)South and Central America, (c)the Middle East, (d)Central and Eastern Europe, (e)Asia and (f)Oceania; what changes have taken place since 2002; and if he will make a statement. [131641]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas:
  A list of projects and programmes over £1 million with a policy marker for reproductive health services or HIV/Aids run by DFID's country or regional programmes is at Annex A. Those started after 2002 are shown in italic.

  DFID spent over £270 million on reproductive health and HIV/Aids programmes in financial year 2002–03. We regard reproductive health as an essential and inseparable element of good health. We believe that the best way to deliver this is for people to be given the right, freedom and support necessary to enable them to take

  111W
  full individual and personal control of their own fertility and reproductive health. Reproductive health continues to be a key priority for DFID and we remain firmly

  Annex A

  Project title

  Recipient

  Social Marketing of contraceptives

  Ethiopia

  Ghana HIV/AIDS programme

  Ghana

  Reproductive Health, Freetown and Newly Accessible Areas

  Sierra Leone

  Life Planning Education

  Nigeria

  Strengthening Nigeria's Response to HIV/AIDs

  Nigeria

  Promoting Sexual and Reproductive Health for HIV/AIDS Reduction

  Nigeria

  Partnership for Transforming Health Systems

  Nigeria

  Safe Motherhood Partnership Fund

  Kenya

  HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care Project I and II

  Kenya

  Social Marketing of Condoms

  Kenya

  HIV/AIDS Umbrella Programme

  Uganda

  Health Sector Programme

  Tanzania

  Family Planning Services and Supply Phase 2

  Tanzania

  HIV/AIDS MSF Bridging

  South Africa, Republic of

  Provincial reproductive Health

  South Africa. Republic of

  HIV/Aids Framework Support

  South Africa, Republic of

  Soul City

  South Africa, Republic of

  National Sexual and Reproductive Health

  South Africa, Republic of

  HIV/AIDS and Maternal Health Programme

  Mozambique

  Social Marketing of Condoms (PSI)

  Mozambique

  Zambia HIV/AIDS Programme

  Zambia

  Reproductive Health Support

  Zambia

  Sexual and Reproductive Health-Phase 2 (FA)

  Zimbabwe

  Social Marketing Project

  Zimbabwe

  Sexual and Reproductive Health Programme (SERPS)

  Malawi

  Banja La Mtsogolo—Sexual Health Programme

  Malawi

  Soul City Regional Programme

  Southern Africa

  Regional HIV/AIDS

  Southern Africa

  Regional AIDS Programme

  Southern Africa

  Contraceptives Supply and Logistics

  Bolivia

  Improving Sexual and Reproductive Health Services

  Central America

  Support to the Caribbean Epidemiology Centre (CAREC) for the Prevention and Control of HIV/Aids

  Caribbean

  Comprehensive partnership strategies for HIV/STI Prevention among Young People in the Russian

  Russian Federation

  Federation

  Knowledge for Action in HIV

  Russian Federation

  Open Health Institute: Harm Reduction Bridging Project

  Russian Federation

  Development of a Public Health-Based Approach to Sexually-Transmitted Diseases in Samara, including HIV Prevention in Togliatti

  Russian Federation

  HIV Prevention among Vulnerable Populations in Serbia and Montenegro

  Serbia and Montenegro and

  Western Balkan Region

  UPMRC Women's Health Project

  West Bank and Gaza

  Contraceptive Social Marketing

  Pakistan

  Marie Stopes International: Sindh Rep-oductive Health Services Project

  Pakistan

  National AIDS Control Programme Phase II: DFID Support

  India

  Reproductive Health Project, Orissa

  India

  Reproductive Health Programme

  Nepal

  West Bengal Reproductive and Child Health Project

  India

  Rights-based response to HIV/AIDS

  Nepal

  Marie Stopes CS Reproductive Health Care

  Bangladesh

  Strategic Investment in HIV/AIDS Prevention

  Bangladesh

  HIV/ AIDS Programme CARE Bangladesh

  Bangladesh

  Preventing HIV/AIDS: Social Marketing of Condoms

  Vietnam

  Strengthening Response to HIV/AIDS

  Cambodia

  Health Sector Support

  Cambodia

  HIV/AIDS Project

  China

  Programme for HIV/AIDS: Myanmar

  Burma

  Social Marketing of Condoms II

  Cambodia

  PSI—HIV and Reproductive Health

  Burma

  Innovations for HIV/AIDS

  Asia Regional

  HIV/AIDS Prevention in Asia

  Asia Regional

  112W
  committed to the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) target of achieving access to reproductive health for all by 2015.
  113W
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money the Department is giving to the Central American regional programme for improving sexual and reproductive health services; what percentage of the Department's 2003 expenditure for population reproductive health programmes that represents; and if he will make a statement. [131645]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas:
  DFID spent £800,000 from its Central America country and regional programmes in UK financial year 2002–03 on improving reproductive health. In addition DFID provides support for reproductive health through contributions to multilateral organisations and to non-governmental organisations, which cannot be broken down in this way.

  DFID spent over £270 million on reproductive health and HIV/AIDS programmes in financial year 2002–03. We regard reproductive health as an essential and inseparable element of good health. We believe that the best way to deliver this is for people to be given the right, freedom and support necessary to enable them to take full individual and personal control of their own fertility and reproductive health. Reproductive health continues to be a key priority for DFID and we remain firmly committed to the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) target of achieving access to reproductive health for all by 2015.

  £

  Projects

  Purpose

  Project allocation

  Actual spend in financial year 2002–03

  1. Development of a public health-based approach to sexually transmitted diseases and treatment in Samara including Togliatti

  To develop sustainable, high-quality STD services in Samara and disseminate successful approaches at federal level; and to reduce HIV transmission and associated risk behaviour among injecting drug users in Togliatti City

  1,000,000

  115,750

  2. Open Health Institute: harm reduction bridging project

  To reduce the transmission of HIV among injecting drug users and commercial sex workers in the 43 Open Health Institute-supported harm reduction sites in the Russian Federation

  4,200,000

  1,396,258

  3. Knowledge for Action for HIV/AIDS in the Russian Federation.

  To contribute to the knowledge needed to guide effective policy and intervention on HIV prevention in the Russian Federation

  1,500,000

  228,495

  4. Comprehensive partnership strategies for HIV/STI prevention among young people in the Russian Federation

  To reduce the incidence of HIV/STIs among young people, especially girls and young women, by ensuring the availability of and access to information, education, health services, counselling for HIV testing and commodities required for young people to develop and exercise effective life skills

  1,125,000

  38,536

  The European Commission, through the TACIS programme, is supporting two large-scale projects on HIV/AIDS prevention:

  a) HIV/AIDS Prevention and Combating: the project allocation is Euro 2,500,000;

  b) Preventive Health and Education: the project allocation is Euro 3,000,000.

  DFID contributes approximately 20 per cent. of these project budgets through its funding to the European Commission.
  114W
  DFID support for reproductive health is wide ranging. It covers HIV/AIDS programmes, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections and maternal and adolescent health. Reproductive health also encompasses the services for family planning, contraception and childbearing that make an important contribution to increasing women's choice and opportunity and to preventing unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. Family planning services also provide an important opportunity to improve sexual health and in particular to increase women's access to methods that help prevent HIV infection. DFID's total expenditure for 2002–03 cannot therefore be apportioned between HIV/AIDS and Family Planning, as many reproductive health programmes and projects contribute to both objectives (for example through the provision of information on family planning and HIV/AIDS prevention or the provision of condoms).

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the Department has given to the sexually transmitted disease programme in the Russian Federation in 2003; what percentage of the Department's total expenditure for population reproductive health programmes that represents; and if he will make a statement. [131796]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas:
  DFID has supported four projects related to the control of sexually transmitted diseases in the Russian Federation in financial year 2002–03. A particular priority is the prevention of HIV transmission among vulnerable groups, including injecting drug users and commercial sex workers.

  DFID spent over £270 million on reproductive health and HIV/AIDS programmes in financial year 2002–03. Spending on projects related to these issues in the Russian Federation in the same financial year accounted for less than 1 per cent. of the total.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question ref. 131645 for a general statement of DFID's policies on sexual and reproductive health issues.

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the aims are of the HIV/AIDS and reproductive health programme in

  115W
  Zambia; how much funding has been provided to it by his Department in 2003; what assessment has been made of the programme since 2002; and if he will make a statement. [131797]

  Hilary Benn:
  DFID is committed to the fight against HIV/AIDS and to giving people a choice in the number of children they have. Our support for HIV/AIDS and Reproductive Health is wide ranging, covering HIV/ AIDS programmes, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections and maternal and adolescent health. Reproductive health also encompasses family planning and contraception services that make an important contribution to increasing women's choice and opportunity, and to preventing unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. DFID has a number of programmes in Zambia, which address these issues.

  The DFID Reproductive Health Support Project aims to increase access to, and use of, condoms and contraceptives, and to secure improvements in the availability of family planning services provided at health centres and hospitals. The Project was approved in 2001 and will provide £2.9 million over three years. We expect to spend £1.579 million in financial year 2003–04. Annual DFID internal assessments of the Reproductive Health Support Project have been made and these, and other external reports and surveys, reveal an encouraging increase in accessing reproductive health facilities and commodities.

  A new DFID/Zambia HIV/AIDS Programme has just been approved (June 2003). It aims to provide an effective national multi-sectoral response to HIV/AIDS by reducing HIV/STD transmission and the socioeconomic impact of the disease. The Programme is supported by many donors. The DFID component of the Programme will provide £20 million over five years. We expect to spend £0.675 million in financial year 2003–04 and £4.265 million in financial year 2004–05.

  In addition to the above, DFID provides general support to the health sector in Zambia under a Sector Wide Approach Project (SWAP), which was approved in 2000, and will provide £20 million over six years. We expect to spend £6.068 million in financial year 2003–04.

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what sums were donated to the United Nations Family Planning Agency's Contraceptive Commodity Support programme in 2003; and if he will make a statement. [131801]

  Hilary Benn:
  The UK is providing £18 million core funding to UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) in 2003. This helps to support UNFPA's work to assist developing countries meet reproductive health commodity needs. No new contribution was made by DFID to the UNFPA's Contraceptive Commodity support programme in 2003. Various activities at country level continue to be funded until the end of 2003, utilising the balance from a £25 million one-off contribution to the programme made in January 2001.

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the Department has given to (a)the health and sexual education programme in Bolivia, (b)the Orissa Reproductive Health Project in India and (c)the reproductive health programme in Peru in 2003; what percentage each
  116W
  represents of the Department's expenditure for population reproductive health programmes; and if he will make a statement. [131802]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas:
  The following are the figures for bilateral expenditure by DFID on these programmes in UK financial year 2002–03, the latest year for which figures are available:

  Programme

  £ million

  (a)Bolivia Health and Sexual Education Programme

  10

  (b)Orissa Reproductive Health Project, India

  0.6

  (c)Peru Reproductive Health Programme

  0.1

  1The programme has been completed.

  In addition, the Department spent £0.69 million on Contraceptives Supply and Logistics in Bolivia, £0.13 million on the Andean Reproductive Health Initiative in Bolivia and Peru in 2002–03, £0.11 million on the Strategic Pilot Project in Sexual and Reproductive Health and £0.21 million on the Bolivia Post Abortion Care Project. These figures do not include any support provided through contributions to multilateral or nongovernmental organisations, which are not broken clown on a sectoral basis.

  DFID spent over £270 million on reproductive health and HIV/AIDS programmes in financial year 2002–03. We regard reproductive health as an essential and inseparable element of good health. We believe that the best way to deliver this is for people to be given the right, freedom and support necessary to enable them to take full individual and personal control of their own fertility and reproductive health. Reproductive health continues to be a key priority for DFID and we remain firmly committed to the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) target of achieving access to reproductive health for all by 2015.

  DFID support for reproductive health is wide ranging. It covers HIV/AIDS programmes, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections and maternal and adolescent health. Reproductive health also encompasses the services for family planning, contraception and childbearing that make an important contribution to increasing women's choice and opportunity and to preventing unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. Family planning services also provide an important opportunity to improve sexual health, and in particular, to increase women's access to methods that help prevent HIV infection. DFID's total expenditure for 2003–03 cannot therefore be apportioned between HIV/AIDS and family planning, as many reproductive health programmes and projects contribute to both objectives (for example, through the provision of information on family planning and HIV/AIDS prevention or the provision of condoms).

  Sri Lanka
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many (a)casualties and (b)injuries were recorded in Sri Lanka due to (i) mines and (ii) de-mining operations in each month since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [131790]
  117W
  (2) what assistance the Department has provided in each year since 1997 to de-mining operations in Sri Lanka; what de-mining projects in Sri Lanka are directly run by the Department; what assistance the Department has sought from the Ministry of Defence for de-mining operations in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [131791]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas:
  The recorded number of fatalities and injuries caused by land mines in Sri Lanka since 1997 are as follows:

  Fatalities

  Injuries

  1997

  12

  105

  1998

  3

  70

  1999

  7

  77

  2000

  18

  148

  2001

  22

  179

  2002

  27

  116

  2003

  11

  40

  Total

  100

  735

  Since 1997 there has been one recorded casualty resulting from de-mining activities. The significant decrease in injuries and deaths from mines in 2003 is extremely welcome.

  DFID has provided support for de-mining operations since the ceasefire between the LTTE and the Government of Sri Lanka came into effect last year. DFID has a two-year agreement with UNDP until the end of 2004 for support to de-mining operations. Under this, £697,000 from the allocated £2.6 million for quick impact activities in the North and East of Sri Lanka will be used to fund the early part of UNDP's 2003–06 mine action programme. This funding was approved in 2002. Further needs assessments are under way and we stand ready to make further commitments if necessary. DFID does not directly run any de-mining projects in Sri Lanka and has therefore not sought technical advice from the Ministry of Defence. However, DFID liaises closely with the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on our development programme to Sri Lanka.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Streeter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will monitor aid given to Tanzania to ensure that the Singida region receives assistance in alleviating famine in that area. [131414]

  Hilary Benn:
  DFID has made £60 million available as direct budget support (DBS) to the Government of Tanzania (GoT) in 2003–04 to support its Poverty Reduction Strategy, which includes action on food security. The first tranche of DBS has been released. We have received reports that the GoT has released food from its strategic grain reserve and is starting distribution to drought affected areas on the basis of its vulnerability assessment.

  Mr. Streeter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether a representative of the Department attended a meeting called by the Prime Minister of Tanzania on 14 August to request assistance to alleviate food shortages; and what response the Department has made to his request. [131417]
  118W
  Hilary Benn:
  The Head of DFID Tanzania and one of her staff attended the meeting called by the Prime Minister of Tanzania on 14 August. The Prime Minister asked the World Food Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organisation to co-ordinate the detailed appeal to donors. WFP is currently finalising the formal appeal for food assistance, which we will consider when we receive it. FAO issued an appeal for assistance for seed and fertilisers on 17 September which we are currently considering.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  EU Chemicals Policy
  Mr. Ruffley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the costs of the European Commission's REACH policy to small and medium-sized enterprises. [131844]

  Alun Michael:
  In May 2001, the Government prepared a preliminary partial regulatory impact assessment of the proposals in the European Commission's White Paper. A revised partial Assessment will be required when proposals for the European Commission's legislation are available and my Department is working closely with other interested Departments, the Devolved Administrations and concerned stakeholders to develop its scope and content. As set out in the guidance on conducting such an Assessment, consideration of the impacts on small to medium sized businesses will form a key part of this.

  As well as considering the benefits and costs of the proposals, the Assessment will include an analysis of the implications of the proposed legislation for the international competitiveness of the UK chemicals industry and other manufacturing sectors that use chemicals in their processes and products. In addition the Government will consider what further analysis may be needed, particularly for small to medium sized businesses to meet the demands of any new legislation. We have noted the results of other work undertaken for instance by the Commission and the Federation of German Industry (BDI) and this will be taken into account when carrying out our assessment. Getting these aspects right is a key element to achieve the Government's first objective for the new EU chemicals strategy of a fast, efficient and workable process.

  Urban Commons
  Janet Anderson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers are available to local authorities compulsorily to purchase land designated as an urban common under the Law of Property Act 1925 to ensure continued access to and use of the land by the general public for leisure and recreation and the protection of wildlife. [131671]

  Alun Michael:
  Powers are available under various enactments that may enable public authorities compulsorily to purchase common land to secure continued public access. Such powers are contained in, for example, section 76 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 and section 19 of the Local

  119W
  Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. It is for the local authority concerned to determine which powers might apply in the particular circumstances and, if so, whether it would be appropriate to use them.

  Under the provisions of section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the public already has a statutory right of access for air and exercise t o any common which was wholly or partly in a borough or urban district prior to 1 April 1974. Section 194 of this Act enables a county or district council, or any other person with a legal interest in the land, to make an application to the county court for the removal of works unlawfully carried out on common land that prevent or impede access, and the restoration of the land to its previous condition. This might be an alternative to compulsory purchase.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department has taken to encourage local councils to fulfil their obligation to clear rights of way. [131449]

  Alun Michael:
  Section 63 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced new powers that will enable members of the public to oblige local highway authorities to secure the removal of certain types of obstruction, unless it can show that there are good reasons for not doing so. Defra aims to make regulations implementing these powers later this year. In addition, the introduction of 'Best Value' from 1 April 2000, requires local authorities to seek continuous improvement in the way they carry out their functions. The Best Value performance indicator for rights of way includes a specific measure for ease of use of rights of way.

  Air/Light Pollution
  Mr. Chaytor:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to reduce light pollution; and if she will include light pollution in the proposed indicators of countryside quality. [131509]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  Defra considered the control of nuisance caused by lighting in its recent consultation "Living Places: Powers, Rights, Responsibilities". The paper sought opinions as to whether the Government should introduce new regulations for the positioning of external lighting (excluding street lights); and whether the remit of the statutory nuisance regime should be extended to include such lighting. The consultation period closed on 14 February. Copies of the summary report of the responses received have been placed in both Houses, and it is also available at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consult/pubspace/index.htm

  The House of Commons' Select Committee on Science and Technology recently held an inquiry into light pollution and astronomy. This focused on the effectiveness of measures taken to reduce the impact of light pollution on astronomy and considered what further steps, if any, are required. The outcome of the inquiry will be published in due course and will be made available on the House of Commons' website.

  The Government will consider their future course of action taking into account any recommendations and conclusions emerging from the Select Committee's inquiry and from Defra's recent consultation exercise.
  120W
  We are currently appraising, in conjunction with the Countryside Agency, the selection of indicators to be monitored as measures of 'countryside quality'. Light pollution is under consideration, but no decision has yet been taken. It is expected that the agreed list of indicators will be published next year.

  Mr. Wiggin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which chemicals are included in the measurement of air pollution. [131570]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  Defra measures approximately 180 air pollutants in the national networks, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, PMio particulate matter, PIVb.s particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, black smoke, 26 volatile organic compounds, 17 metals and trace elements (for example, lead, arsenic and chromium), 52 transboundary pollutants (for example, ammonium nitrate and sulphate), 42 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (for example, benzo[a]pyrene), 17 of the most toxic dioxins including tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) and 7 polychlorobiphenyls. The number of sites measuring each pollutant and their sampling frequency varies from just a few sites sampling on a weekly or monthly basis (for example, dioxins) to dozens of sites monitoring continuously (for example, nitrogen dioxide) depending on the characteristics of each pollutant. Monitoring data for each air pollutant can be found on the National Air Quality Information Archive (www.airqualitv.co.uk).

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Flook:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what actions the British Government is taking to secure compensation by the French Government for those directly affected by the ban on the import of British beef. [131294]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The UK Government cannot claim compensation as it has no direct commercial interest. Compensation for losses must be sought by those directly affected.

  However, the Government will provide information and practical assistance (although not financial support or detailed legal advice) to those who wish to pursue claims for compensation against the French.

  Bovine TB
  Andrew George:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of arrangements for valuing animals for the purposes of compensating farmers who have bovine TB reactors. [131874]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  We intend to consult on proposals to rationalise existing compensation arrangements for all notifiable animal diseases later this year. Our consultation will include proposals to address valuations of animals, particularly higher value pedigree animals.

  Andrew George:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the financial impact of bovine

  121W
  tuberculosis on (a) farmers and (b) her Department in each of the last five years for which records are available. [131897]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The information is as follows:
  (a) Defra has commissioned the University of Reading to carry out research into the economic impact

  Expenditure on TB in Great Britain 1998–99 to 2002–03

  GB expenditure on TB in £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Compensation

  3,491

  5,303

  6,632

  9,243

  31,146

  TB testing

  7,247

  8,329

  8,675

  3,571

  12,398

  Badger culling trial

  2,988

  4,392

  6,630

  6,001

  6,479

  Other research

  2,541

  4,114

  5,266

  6,112

  6,824

  Contracts with Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  1,926

  2,367

  3,467

  3,674

  4,101

  Staff costs

  6,691

  13,566

  5,529

  1,883

  12,954

  Total expenditure

  24,883

  38,072

  36,199

  30,485

  73,931

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Lidington:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the conclusions were of her Department's review of the indicative level of total administrative costs for 2003–04 and beyond. [129357]

  Margaret Beckett:
  We have not carried out a specific review of 'total administrative costs'. However my Department reviews its administrative costs on an annual basis as part of its Resource Allocation and Business Planning process. The results of this are reflected in the annual Departmental Report (Cmd 5919).

  Committee Meetings
  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the dates of meetings of the (a) Implementation Committee for Spirit Drinks, (b) Committee on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development, (c) Standing Forestry Committee, (d) Committee on the Conservation, Characterisation, Collection and Utilisation of Genetic Resources in Agriculture and (e) European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Committee and Working Party on Irregularities during the (i) Danish and (ii) Greek

  Date of Meeting

  Issues Discussed

  Number of Scottish Executive officials attending

  24 July

  Discussions on the rural development simplification exercise, and link with CAP MTR, Information Society and rural development, and SAPARD

  1

  4 September

  Modifications to regional rural development programmes (RDPs) for Germany, Portugal and Finland.

  —

  25 September

  Discussions on amendments to Italian and Swedish RDPs, SAPARD annual report, simplification, LFA data and EAGGF expenditure.

  2

  23 October

  Discussion and approval of modifications of German and Belgian RDP's. Discussions on SAPARD and LEADER +

  1

  18 November

  Modifications of RDPs from 5 accession countries and 2 member states (including Scotland) were presented and approved. General information on SAPARD funds was given by the commission.

  1

  18 December

  Modifications to several member state rural development programmes (RDPs), including the England RDP. Discussion on simplification of Regulation 445/2002 (Commission Regulation laying down detailed implementation rules for the rural development regulation), and LEADER +

  1

  29 January

  Modifications to Latvian and Polish SAPARD programmes, and Italian and Austrian rural development plans. Timetable set for simplification of Regulation 445/2002.

  1

  19 February

  Discussion on the proposed text to amend Regulation 445/2002.

  —

  122W
  of bovine tuberculosis. This work covers the cost to industry of TB breakdowns. The final report on the project is expected later this year.

  (b) Expenditure by the Government on the bovine TB programme from 1998–99 to 2002–03 is given in the following table:

  presidency; what issues were discussed; when the Scottish Executive was informed of each meeting; for what meetings requests for Scottish representation were made; and if she will make a statement. [131650]

  Alun Michael:
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Spirit Drinks Implementation Committee

  During the Danish presidency the Spirit Drinks Implementation Committee (SDIC) met on 8 and 22 October, and during the Greek presidency they met on 11 March and 28 May. They discussed the proposed amendments to the base Council Regulation 1576/89, mutual recognition of Tequila, enlargement negotiations, bilateral agreements with Switzerland, South Africa and Canada, the definition of 'bierbrand', prescribed quantities, and rum and cachaca. UK representation at SDIC is determined by the agenda and can include members of the Scottish Executive. However, following consultation with devolved administrations during the above presidencies, it was agreed that Defra would represent UK interests.

  (b) Committee on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development (STAR)

  The dates of the STAR Committee meetings for the Danish and Greek presidencies are listed as follows. A brief outline of the issues discussed and the number of Scottish Executive officials who attended each meeting is also given.
  123W

  Date of Meeting

  Issues Discussed

  Number of Scottish Executive officials attending

  19 March

  RDR simplification discussions concluded. Consultation on the proposal to evaluate systems established by MS for the management and control of rural development programmes funded by the EAGGF Guidance section.

  1

  9 April

  Approval of SAPARD programmes of Bulgaria, Romania and Latvia. Discussion on information of uptake of SAPARD, computer records, closure of 94–99 programmes, access to information and CAP-IDIM.

  25 June

  Approval to amendments to the SAPARD programmes of several accession countries the rural development programmes (RDP) of a number of member states. General uptake of SAPARD also discussed.

  I (am session)

  STAR meeting dates are known a year in advance and Scottish Executive officials are welcome to attend any meeting should they wish to do so. They and other interested parties are notified of each meeting as soon as the agenda is published on the commission's website which is usually between 7–10 days in advance of the meeting.

  (c) Standing Forestry Committee

  The Standing Forestry Committee met on 27 November and 4 December last year and 10 February, 7 April and 5 June this year. The committee covered a wide range of issues at these meetings, including forest fire protection plans, preparation of a community action plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade, monitoring forest health, and a proposal for a European Forest Information and Communication network. The Forestry Commission has full responsibility for representing Scotland, England and Wales, on the committee. The commission is the Government Department for forestry in Britain, and it reports direct to the Scottish, English and Welsh forestry ministers.

  (d) Committee on the Conservation, Characterisation, Collections and Utilisation of Genetic Resources in Agriculture

  The Committee on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture met on 24 February 2003, during the Greek presidency. There were no meetings during the Danish presidency. The issues discussed were a report on the state of projects funded under Council Regulation EC 1467/94 and an exchange of views on a commission working document on a revised proposal for a new council regulation on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture. Officials from Defra are in regular contact with officials in the Scottish Executive. UK representation varies according, to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved administrations where they consider that there are items of sufficient interest. No requests were made by the Scottish Executive for representation at this committee meeting.

  (e) European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund Committee and Working Party on Irregularities

  The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Committee met in the Danish presidency on 18 July, 20 September, 7 October, 22 October, 8 November, 19 November and 17 December. In the Greek presidency it met on 22 January, 20 February, 20 March, 22 April, 16 May, 21 March and 18 June. Issues discussed at the committee included the payment of monthly advances from the fund, decisions on the clearance of CAP accounts, the exclusion from
  124W
  community financing of certain expenditure as a result of disallowance decisions, and other matters relating to the control of CAP expenditure. Details of the agenda are available to the Scottish Executive before each meeting, the date of which is usually set many months in advance, and representatives are entitled to attend.

  The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Irregularities and Mutual Assistance-Agricultural Products Working Group did not meet during the Danish presidency and met only once during the Greek presidency, on 11 March 2003. The main agenda items were: formation of a temporary task force to audit all member states' outstanding cases of financial irregularity and attempts at recovery; difficulties experienced in the operation of the so-called 'black list' legislation; presentations on a variety of technical items, including electronic reporting systems; oral presentation, by commission experts, on visits to and cooperation with a number of third countries. Irregularity reporting and mutual assistance are the responsibilities that the Rural Payments Agency undertakes on behalf of the UK. As usual, Scottish representation was not sought for this meeting, but the Scottish Executive was briefed on the outcome.

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the dates of meetings of the committees on (a) Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, (b) certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs, (c) the farm accountancy data network, (d) organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs and (e) agricultural research during the (i) Danish and (ii) Greek presidency; what issues were discussed; when the Scottish Executive was informed of each meeting; for what meetings requests for Scottish representation were received; and if she will make a statement. [131769]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Committee on Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

  The Regulatory Committee on Protected Designation of Origin and Protected Geographical Indications of Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs met three times during the Danish and Greek presidencies: 22 July 2002; 5 February 2003 and 4 June 2003. The main issues discussed were: whether 'feta' cheese should be registered as a Protected Designation of Origin; the implications of WTO agreement on Trade Related Aspects of

  125W
  Intellectual Property Rights; the EU/Swiss bilateral agreement on protected food names and the implications of the European Court of Justice Judgment relating to Parma ham. The Scottish Executive were provided with the agenda prior to each meeting and given the opportunity to comment or request attendance.

  (b) Committee on the Certificates of Specific Character for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs

  The Regulatory Committee on Certificates of Specific Character for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs met once during the Danish and Greek presidencies: 22 July 2002. The committee discussed amendments to the Commission Regulation setting out the detailed rules for the administration of the scheme. The Scottish Executive were provided with the agenda prior each meeting and given the opportunity to comment or request attendance.

  (c) The Management Committee on the Farm Accountancy Data Network

  Within the periods of the Danish and Greek presidency, the Management Committee of the Farm Accountancy Data Network met on 30 June 2003, 7 April 2003, 20 November 2002. The Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network was set up to support the information needs of the Common Agricultural Policy, specifically for determining farm incomes, for analysing the state of farm businesses and to contribute to the annual report on the situation of agriculture in the community. Issues discussed include selection plans for the survey; results for the 2000, 2001 and 2002 data; typology regulations; comparison of FADN results with other sources; the FADN database projects; and the situation in accession countries. The Scottish Executive is informed of all FADN meetings and papers in advance by the European Commission directly and by the Defra representative. A representative of the Scottish Executive attended the meetings of 30 June 2003 and 7 April 2003.

  (d) The Standing Committee on Organic Farming

  The Standing Committee on Organic Farming and its associated working groups met during the Danish presidency on 8–10 July; 5 and 30 September; 1, 7 to 9 and 15 October; 13 November and 4 to 6 and 12 December 2002; and during the Greek presidency on 21, 22, 27 and 28 January; 4 to 6 and 27 February; 14 and 26 March; 1, 2 to 3 and 29 April; 14 and 21 to 23 May and 12 and 13 June 2003.

  A wide variety of issues was discussed, in particular inspection arrangements for feed for organic livestock, seeds for use in organic farming, additives permitted in organic food, imports to the EU from third countries, the use of conventional ingredients in feed for organic livestock, conversion of livestock for organic production and the proposed EU Organic Action Plan. Arrangements are in place for consulting the Scottish Executive. No requests for Scottish representation were made.

  (e) The Standing Committee on Agricultural Research

  The Standing Committee on Agricultural Research did not meet during the Danish or Greek presidencies. DEFRA officials keep their counterparts in the Scottish Executive informed about meetings of SCAR. There is no bar to their attending as part of the UK delegation as their needs and interests arise.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Hugh Bayley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she will make to the European Union for further reductions in agricultural (a) export and (b) trade distorting subsidies; whether the Government will press the European Union substantially to reduce expenditure on the Common Agricultural Policy; and if she will make a statement on the Common Agricultural Policy and the World Trade Organisation trade round. [131491]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The agreement on CAP reform which was reached by the Agriculture Council in June enabled the European Union to take a credible and constructive position on agriculture in the WTO negotiations at Cancun. Unfortunately the negotiations broke down before detailed discussion of agriculture was begun. However, in the forthcoming EU reviews of sugar, cotton, tobacco, olive oil and hops we shall be seeking decisions which further assist in reaching a satisfactory outcome to the Doha Development Agenda.

  Andrew George:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals on (a) smaller and more economically marginal full-time farm holdings and (b) tenant farms in the UK. [131888]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  No specific assessment has been undertaken of the impact of the CAP reform proposals on smaller, economically marginal or tenant farmers. However, we have assessed the impacts of the proposals on farming and other businesses generally, including an analysis by farm activity, and a summary of these is included in the Regulatory Impact Assessments which have been lodged in the House Libraries.

  For the first time, the bulk of farm subsidy will not be dependent on what or how much farmers produce. They will instead be free to produce what they judge the market wants and so be better able to cut costs and increase profits. Our analysis suggests that those farmers who are economically marginal at present are likely to be more disposed to take advantage of this freedom to alter their activity and thereby increase their income. Farmers will also be freed from some of the bureaucracy associated with the subsidy schemes which are being replaced by this new decoupled subsidy. The historic recipient, whether owner or tenant, will continue to hold the subsidy entitlement.

  Farmers whose subsidy is less than €5,000, which is likely to include many of the smallest holdings, will be exempt from the reduction in subsidies to fund rural development and environmental measures. This exemption applies to tenants as well as farmers who own the land.

  The UK also has the option to retain 10 per cent. of payments to establish a national envelope to address potential negative impacts of decoupling for specific types of farming. The detailed rules of how this will apply have yet to be developed by the European Commission.

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food arid Rural Affairs if she will list the dates of the joint meetings of management and regulatory committees in the field of agriculture on (a) promotion of

  127W
  agricultural products, (b) agrimonetary questions and (c) trade mechanisms, during the (i) Danish and (ii) Greek presidency; what issues were discussed; when the Scottish Executive was informed of each meeting; for what meetings requests for Scottish representation were made; and if she will make a statement. [131649]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  Agenda details of management and regulatory committees are provided to the Scottish Executive prior to each meeting with the opportunity to comment or request further information on any issue under discussion. The Scottish Executive is informed of the results of each meeting. No requests for Scottish representation were made for meetings of the Committee on the Promotion of Agricultural Products, the Agrimonetary Management Committee and the Trade Mechanisms Management Committee during the Danish and Greek presidencies. The dates of these meetings and a synopsis of the issues discussed is listed as follows:

  Committee on the Promotion of Agricultural Products

  The committee met monthly during the Danish and Greek presidencies with the exception of August and October 2002 and March 2003. The committee discussed amendments to and interpretation of the regulations, proposals submitted for funding and other issues relating to the implementation of regulations.

  Agrimonetary Management Committee

  The committee met in the Danish presidency on 16 October 2002 and in the Greek presidency on 9 April 2003. It discussed aspects of agrimonetary compensation and a minor amendment to the agrimonetary regulations.

  Trade Mechanisms Management Committee

  The UK is represented at the Management Committee by the Rural Payments Agency. With the exception of July and August 2002 and April 2003, the committee met monthly during the period of the Danish and Greek presidencies. The Committee is responsible for horizontal issues in respect of export refunds and CAP import and export licensing.

  Angus Robertson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the dates of meetings of the management committees of the common organistations of agricultural markets for (a) cereals, (b) dehydrated fodder, (c) sugar, (d) oils and fats, (e) natural fibres, (f) milk and milk products, (g) beef and veal, (h) sheep and goat, (i) pigmeat, (j) poultrymeat and eggs, (k) fresh fruit and vegetables, (1) products produced from fruit and vegetables, (m) hops, (n) seeds and (o) live plants and floriculture products, during the (i) Danish and (ii) Greek presidency; what issues were discussed; when the Scottish Executive was informed of each meeting; for what meetings requests for Scottish representation were made; and if she will make a statement. [131648]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The information requested is as follows.

  Management Committee for (a) Cereals

  The Cereals Management Committee normally meets on a weekly basis. Meetings are attended by officials from Defra and additionally, as necessary, by officials from other UK Agriculture Departments or the Rural Payments Agency. The Scottish Executive receives the agenda for each meeting at the same time as Defra,
  128W
  normally a week prior to the meeting taking place. During the period of the Danish and Greek presidencies, members of the Scottish Executive attended Cereals Management Committee meetings on 4 and 5 occasions respectively. Items under consideration included the regular adjudications for the export of cereals to third countries, the cereals harvest situation, the implementing rules for the import of cereal from third countries and the implementing rules for the trade in cereals with those applicant countries with whom the EU has negotiated reciprocal arrangements.

  Management Committee for (b) Dehydrated Fodder

  The Management Committee for dehydrated fodder met on 20 June 2003, under the Greek presidency. They did not meet during the Danish presidency. The Scottish Executive was informed once the date of the meeting was known, they did not ask to attend any Management Committee. The Committee considered the setting of the aid rate for dehydrated fodder.

  Management Committee for (c) Sugar

  The Sugar Management Committee normally meets on a weekly basis. Meetings are attended by officials from Defra and additionally, as necessary, by officials from other UK Agriculture Departments or the Rural Payments Agency. The Scottish Executive receives the agenda for each meeting at the same time as Defra, normally a week prior to the meeting taking place. During the period of the Danish and Greek presidencies, members of the Scottish Executive attended the Sugar Management Committee meetings on three and two occasions respectively. Items under consideration included the regular adjudications for the export of sugar to third countries, the sugar market situation, the implementing rules for the levies charged on the production of sugar in the EU, and the implementing rules for the trade in sugar with the Western Balkans.

  Management Committee for (d) Oils and Fats

  The dates of Management Committee meetings for oils and fats were:

  2002

  2003

  5 July

  22 January

  11/24 September

  12 February

  16 October

  19 March

  20 November

  9 April

  11 December

  19 May

  11 June

  The Scottish Executive was informed as soon as dates of meetings were known, they did not request to attend any Management Committee. The Committee considered matters relating to the management of the market for oils and fats.

  Management Committee for (e) Natural Fibres

  The dates of Management Committee meetings for Natural Fibres were:

  2002

  2003

  25 July

  18 March

  1 August

  28 May

  4 September

  13 November

  29 November

  129W
  The meetings on 1 August 2002 and 13 November 2002 took place in the margins of the Management Committees for Sugar and for Oils and Fats respectively. The types of issues discussed include harvest and market reports for cotton, flax, hemp and silk; estimating cotton production so that a provisional reduction of the guide price can be calculated; revising cotton production estimates; fixing actual cotton production; apportioning a National Guaranteed Quantity of 5000 tonnes of short fibre between 5 minor producing countries; and contributing to the design of a fibre industry questionnaire. The Scottish Executive is regularly informed of the dates of Natural Fibres Management Committees, usually about a week beforehand, in case a representative wishes to attend.

  Management Committee for (f) Milk and Milk Products

  The dates of Management Committee meetings for milk and milk products were:

  2002

  2003

  11/25 July

  16/30 January

  29 August

  13/27 February

  12/26 September

  13/27 March

  10/24 October

  10/24 April

  14/28 November

  15/28 May

  12 December

  12/26 June

  The Scottish Executive was informed a week prior to every meeting, they did not ask to attend any Management Committee. General subjects discussed at Milk Management Committees included, changes to annex I and non annex I export refunds, butter and skimmed milk powder intervention stocks, butter for food manufacture, butter for concentration, aid rates for casein, and the monthly market situation reporting. To view fully all items that were discussed at milk Management Committees please visit the following website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/milk/mancom/2002/Archives.htm

  Management Committee for (g) Beef and Veal

  The dates of Management Committee meetings for beef and veal were:

  2002

  2003

  12/26 July

  17/31 January

  30 August

  14/28 February

  13/27 September

  14/28 March

  11/25 October

  10/24 April

  15/29 November

  16 May

  13 December

  13/27 June

  The normal work of this Committee involves regular consideration of the market situation, including production, consumption, imports and exports. Its work also includes setting export refund rates, adjudicating intervention tenders (purchases and sales), opening import tariff quotas, consideration of technical aspects of beef carcase classification and price reporting and consideration of implementational aspects of the various producer support schemes and technical measures. The Scottish Executive was informed of these meetings at the same time as Defra, and it is for the Executive to decide whether or to not to attend as part of the UK delegation. An official from the Scottish Executive attended the Committee on 28 February.
  130W
  Management Committee for (h) Sheep and Goats

  The dates of Management Committee meetings for sheep and goats were:

  2002

  2003

  29 November

  13 January

  14/28 February

  28 March

  10/25 April

  13/27 June

  The normal work of this Committee involves regular consideration of the market situation (including production, consumption, imports and exports). Its work also includes opening import tariff quotas, consideration of technical aspects of sheep carcase classification, price reporting and consideration of implementational aspects of producer support schemes and other technical measures. The Scottish Executive was informed of these meetings at the same time as Defra, and it is for the Executive to decide whether or to not to attend as part of the UK delegation. No official from the Executive attended the Management Committee on Sheep and Goats.1nb

  Management Committee for (i) Pigmeat

  The dates of Management Committee meetings for pigmeat were:

  2002

  2003

  9 July

  21 January

  18 September

  18 February

  17 October

  8 April

  19 November

  21 May

  5/10 December

  17 June

  The Scottish Executive was informed a week prior to every meeting, and for training purposes attended the September meeting. General subjects discussed at pigmeat Management Committees included, changes to export refunds, the monthly market situation reporting, pig carcase grading classification and aids to private storage.

  Management Committee for (j) Poultrymeat and Eggs

  The dates of Management Committee meetings for poultrymeat and eggs were:

  2002

  2003

  9 July

  21 January

  18 September

  18 February

  17 October

  11 March

  19 November

  8 April

  10 December

  20 May

  17 June

  General subjects discussed at the eggs and poultry Management Committees included changes to export refunds for eggs, egg products (including non annex I products) and frozen chicken, representative prices, monthly market situation reporting, balance sheets and public stocks, arid proposed amendments to egg marketing legislation. To view the latest agenda and debrief for the most recent meeting please visit the following website: http://defraweb/foodrin/poultrv/mancom/brussels.htm
  131W
  Management Committee for (K) Fresh Fruit and Vegetables and (L) Products Produced from Processed Fruit and Vegetables

  The dates of Management Committee meetings for (k) and (1) fresh and processed fruit and vegetables were:

  2002

  2003

  16 July

  10 January

  17 September

  11/19 February

  15 October

  12 March

  12 November

  8/29 April

  10 December

  6/14 May

  13/23/24 June

  The Scottish Executive was informed as soon as dates of meetings were known, they did not ask to attend any Management Committee. The subjects discussed at fresh and processed fruit and vegetables Management Committees included the setting of export refunds, aid for certain products grown for processing and arrangements for assisting Producer Organisations.

  Management Committee for (m) Hops

  There were no meetings of the Management Committee for hops during this period.

  Management Committee for (n) Seeds

  The Seeds Management Committee met jointly with the Sugar Management Committee on 19 December 2002, and jointly with the Cereals Management Committee on 9 January 2003, to discuss a draft Regulation setting the minimum aid rate for certain agricultural products for the Outermost Regions (Canary Islands, Madeira and the Azores). The Scottish Executive receives the agenda for each meeting at the same time as Defra, normally a week prior to the meeting taking place.

  Management Committee for (o) Live Plants and Floriculture Products

  There were no meetings of the Management Committee for live plants and floriculture products during this period.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Jim Cunningham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Department has to encourage people to increase the installation of household energy-saving appliances. [131394]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The Energy White Paper details the steps being taken to encourage greater energy efficiency in the UK, and sets out an ambitious strategy for energy efficiency up to 2010 and beyond. Energy efficiency is expected to deliver about half the carbon savings needed to meet our goals for 2020. This will mean roughly doubling the rate of energy efficiency improvement of recent decades.

  Key measures proposed in the White Paper include extension of the Energy Efficiency Commitment beyond 2005 at possibly twice its current level of activity; revisions to the Building Regulations; faster improvements in the
  132W
  standards of new household appliances; and consultation on economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency.

  Tighter building regulations will have an impact on new homes, alterations to existing stock and all replacement windows and boilers. We have already begun work on the next major revision of the building regulations, which we will aim to bring into effect in 2005. Tighter building regulations will also encourage developers to use low carbon solutions such as solar water heating and photovoltaics.

  As announced in Budget 2003, following the initial consultation last year the Government are consulting in more detail on specific economic instruments to encourage greater energy efficiency by households, including the use of measures to change the price differential between efficient and inefficient products.

  Micro-CHP could also in due course provide a useful contribution towards improving household energy efficiency. An estimated 250–500MW could be generated from micro-CHP by 2010, although the Government do not have a specific target for the amount of electricity to be generated by micro-CHP technology.

  The Government intend to publish an Energy Efficiency Implementation Plan within a year of the White Paper's publication, which will provide further detail on all of these policies.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the cost of energy wasted by UK households each year; [131395]

  (2) what estimate has been made of the average potential financial saving to UK households through the implementation of energy-saving home improvements. [131396]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The Government estimates the potential for cost-effective improvements in energy use in homes at almost £3 billion a year or around 20 per cent. of current total expenditure. This is almost £120 per household. These figures are based on the installation of cost-effective insulation and the replacement, at the end of their useful lives, of boilers, lights and domestic appliances by the most efficient equivalent models available. Precise estimates vary, since new products reach the market and existing measures are installed but there is broad agreement on the 20 per cent. estimate.

  Mr. Wiggin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much energy was produced per person in 2002; and what estimate she has made of production levels in EU countries. [131077]

  Mr. Timms:
  I have been asked to reply.

  Energy production figures are shown in the following table. This information is for 2001, as this is the most recent date for which data for all the member states of the EU are available.
  133W

  Country

  Total Energy Production (Millions of tonnes of oil equivalent)

  Population (Thousands)

  Energy Production per capita (Tonnes of oil equivalent)

  Denmark

  27.17

  5,349

  5.08

  UK

  262.19

  59,862

  4.38

  Sweden

  34.38

  8,883

  3.87

  Netherlands

  60.44

  15.987

  3.78

  Finland

  15.16

  5,181

  2.93

  France

  133.19

  59,038

  2.26

  Germany

  133.74

  82,260

  1,63

  Belgium

  13.08

  10,263

  1.27

  Austria

  9.72

  8,121

  120

  Greece

  9.97

  10,554

  0.94

  Spain

  33.02

  40,122

  0.82

  Italy

  26.26

  57,844

  0.45

  Ireland

  1.73

  3,826

  0.45

  Portugal

  3.40

  10,263

  0.33

  Luxembourg

  0.06

  440

  0.14

  Total

  763.50

  377,993

  2.02

  Source:

  Figures for total energy production are from the International Energy Agency publication "Energy Balances of QECD Countries, 2000–2001" and relate to 2001. Population figures are from Eurostat and relate to 2001 (except Greece—2000).

  Farm Animals (Health)
  Andrew George:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to (a) review compensation arrangements for all notifiable diseases in farm animals and (b) review the information systems used to administer and record compensation payments for each notifiable disease. [131872]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  (a) We intend to consult on proposals to rationalise existing compensation arrangements for all notifiable animal diseases later this year. The main aim of the exercise will be to increase transparency and operational simplicity by creating a single approach for all notifiable diseases.

  (b) Work is in hand to improve business processes for bovine tuberculosis (TB) in Animal Health Offices and this includes the systems used to administer and record TB compensation payments.

  Andrew George:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the levels of compensation available for bovine TB reactors in the context of known market values over each of the last five years for which records are available. [131873]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  An internal audit review of compensation paid for animals slaughtered as part of the TB control strategy has found a steady increase in valuations in England since the compensation rate was changed to 100 per cent. of average market price in 1998. However, the auditors concluded that finding data against which TB valuations can be compared in a meaningful way is not a straightforward process.

  The total amount of compensation paid in GB from 1998–99 to 2002–03 is given in the table.
  134W

  Expenditure on TB compensation payments in Great Britain 1998–99 and 2002–03

  £000

  Financial year

  GB expenditure on TB compensation

  1998–99

  3,491

  1999–2000

  5,303

  2000–01

  6,632

  2001–02

  9,243

  2002–03

  31,146

  Farming Incomes
  Paul Flynn:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes have taken place in the annual (a) net and (b) gross incomes of farmers in each of the past three years; and what estimates she has made of income levels in the next three years. [129236]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The gross income of the UK agriculture industry, as measured by the gross value of production, and the net income measures of Total Income from Farming and Total Income from Farming per full time person equivalent, are given in the table for the years 2000–02:

  £

  Gross value of production

  Total income from farming

  Total income from farming per full time equivalent

  2000

  15.0 billion

  1.74 billion

  7,848

  2001

  15.3 billion

  2.04 billion

  9,298

  2002

  15.5 billion

  2.36 billion

  11,107

  Total income from farming is an aggregate measure of income across the whole farming industry. It is income generated by production within the agriculture industry, including subsidies, and represents business profits plus remuneration for work done by owners and other unpaid workers.

  Forecasts of the key drivers of future business prospects-in particular commodity prices and exchange rates—are highly uncertain.

  An increase in Total Income from Farming per full time equivalent of around one third is expected for 2003 due primarily to the effects of the exchange rate. There has been a recovery in the Euro so far in 2003 which has led to a rise in prices across a range of commodities and will result in higher direct subsidy payments.

  Beyond 2003, there is likely to be only a modest recovery in commodity markets over the medium term future.

  More detailed information may be found in a regular notice on the economic position of the farming industry published on the Defra website at http://statistics.defra.gov.u/esg/reports/repfi.pdf.

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Iris Robinson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will (a) seek to initiate a review of fisheries science by the

  135W
  EU and (b) commence an independent study into the Icelandic and Faeroese models of maintaining fish stocks and the fishing industry. [131787]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  I see no need to initiate an EU review of fisheries science, given the advisory role that the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries is already required to play in relation to EU fisheries management measures. I expect that the forthcoming independent report from the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit on its UK Fisheries Project will review among other things the fisheries management systems applied by other countries.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fishing vessels registered to other countries than the UK fished in each of the statistical fishing regions which fall within the UK's national waters in each of the last five years. [131786]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information held by Fisheries Departments in the UK relates only to the activity of foreign vessels when a landing has been made into the UK. It would be necessary to invite the various member states involved to supply the data.

  Harmful Chemicals (Household Items)
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the presence of harmful chemicals in household items; and if she will make a statement. [131500]

  Alun Michael:
  The Department has commissioned and evaluated research into chemicals in the environment. Some of these chemicals may also be present in household items and this has been considered where relevant, but this has not been the focus of the work as it is outside Defra's remit. The Department has also conducted reviews on chemicals, which have been shared with the United Nations Environment Programme and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. This is in addition to work which the Department conducts under the Existing Substances Regulation (EC) 793/93 to meet our regulatory responsibilities. This work is focused on the environment and also considers impacts on human health via the environment.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. O'Hara:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government intends to introduce legislation to allow people claiming the pension credit to be eligible for services under the Warm Front home energy efficiency scheme. [131465]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  On 4 September, Statutory Instrument, The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2003, amended the list of qualifying benefits for Warm Front to include Pension Credit. This came into effect on the 6 October.
  136W
  Alan Simpson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is meant by the phrase: the offer of services of products, in promotional material for Warm Front produced by the scheme managers. [131457]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  Reference to the use of client information for other services or products is included on the Warm Front application form, which is part of the Warm Front leaflet. This is to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Particulate Matter Emissions
  Mr. Amess:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of tonnes of particulates saved from emission to the atmosphere in the UK as a result of accumulated switching from conventional automotive fuels to (a) LPG, (1)) CNG, (c) LNG and (d) hydrogen. [131715]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  Industry sources suggest there are around 100,000 vehicles currently running on LPG. It is not possible to precisely estimate the particulate matter emissions savings (a) because there are no measurements of particulate matter emissions from LPG fuelled vehicles and (b) there are no records of which fuel, petrol or diesel, was replaced. It is however estimated that around one third of LPG fuelled vehicles were converted from diesel. In this case, there would be savings of particulate matter emissions of around 130 tonnes per year. This is out of a total of 30,000 tonnes of PM emitted from UK road transport in 2001.

  Industry sources suggest approximately 850 vehicles currently run on CNG/LNG. These are mainly heavy-duty vehicles that would otherwise be running on diesel. On the basis of this figure, it is estimated that 13 tonnes of PM have been saved in the UK by these conversions to CNG.

  While comparatively small, these emissions savings contribute to improved air quality and help the UK move towards meeting its air quality objectives.

  There are presently only a few prototype/demonstration vehicles in the whole of the UK running on hydrogen. Therefore, the particulate matter emission savings from converting to hydrogen are currently negligible. There is, however, long-term potential for significant particulate matter emissions savings by replacing conventional fuelled vehicles with hydrogen fuelled vehicles.

  Mr. Amess:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the monetary value to the (a) environment and (b) human health of averting the emission of one tonne of particulates to the atmosphere. [131716]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The external costs of air pollution is a subject where considerable research work is being undertaken to improve our scientific and economic understanding of the health and environmental damages of air pollution. This work is important to provide the evidence base on which policies are developed.
  137W
  The framework for estimating the external costs of one tonne of particulates to the atmosphere requires a detailed step-by-step analysis to assess the effect of emissions on local and regional air concentrations; quantify the health and environmental impacts using dose response functions and data on population exposed and value these health and environmental impacts in monetary terms where appropriate. Many factors including location of emissions will determine the extent of damages from a tonne of particulates.

  In September 2001, the Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits published "An Economic Analysis to Inform the Review of the Air Quality Strategy Objectives for Particles". This quantified a range of environmental and health effects arising from particulate emissions. Direct environmental effects of particles include damages from soiling of buildings. Evidence on the health effects of particles has been accumulating. Day to day variations in concentration of airborne particles are associated with day to day variations in a range of health end points. These include daily deaths, admissions to hospital for the treatment of both respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and symptoms among patients suffering from asthma. In addition, there is evidence from the United States that long-term exposure to particulate air pollution is associated with a decrease in life expectancy. In 2001, COMEAP (Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants) reviewed the evidence on the long-term effects of particles on mortality and concluded that it was more likely than not that a causal association existed between long-term exposure to particles and mortality. The IGCB Report took on board this advice in quantifying the long-term mortality effects of particles. However, the health benefits were not presented in monetary terms due to the uncertainties over valuation in the air pollution context where empirical studies are not yet available.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Jim Cunningham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies have been carried out into the contribution of functioning rights of way to income creation for rural economies. [131450]

  Alun Michael:
  The 1998 Day Visits Survey, which surveyed leisure day visits in both urban and rural areas, found that walking was a principal activity on approximately 930 million trips in England and Wales. It estimated that over one billion pounds was spent on trips where walking was the main activity. The 2002 Leisure Day Visits Survey will be published later this year.

  Sheep Farmers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of a voluntary early retirement scheme for tenant sheep farmers, funded from the surrender of sheep premia. [131326]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  Early retirement schemes have in the past been judged to provide poor value for money. For this reason, we have not used the provision in the EU Sheepmeat Regime permitting the Sheep National
  138W
  Envelope to be used to buy out sheep premium quota rights to establish an early retirement scheme; last year's Sheep Quota Purchase Scheme was intended to help address environmental problems caused by high sheep numbers in some upland areas. Direct payments under the Sheepmeat Regime will be made for one further year, but will be replaced from 2005 by Single Payments under the reform of the CAP agreed in June.

  Sustainable Energy
  Gregory Barker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding targets for sustainable energy usage by Government properties and the attainment of those targets. [126890]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  From time to time the Government have received representations both from the public, from environmental groups and from the energy sector concerning the use cf sustainable energy within their own estate.

  Most recently, correspondence on this issue has been concerned with the publication of the Sustainable Development in Government Report, the Energy White Paper consultation and the Sustainable Energy Bill 2001.

  Veterinary Surgeons Act
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the effects that proposals to amend the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 to enable non-veterinary surgeons to diagnose bovine tuberculosis may have on (a) the welfare of cattle, (b) the welfare of badgers, (c) the welfare of non-wild animals, (d) the welfare of other wild animals, (e) the workload of existing veterinary practices, (f) the cashflow of existing veterinary practices, (g) the standards of diagnosis by (i) veterinary surgeons and (ii) non-veterinary surgeons and (h) the rate of the spread of the disease in (A) the national cattle herd, (B) geographic areas currently unaffected and (C) non-cattle animals. [131588]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  We do not believe that the introduction of lay testers will have a detrimental effect on any of the elements listed.

  The role of the lay TB tester, set out in our consultation paper issued on 4 July 2003, does not include diagnosis. This will be the responsibility of the supervising Local Veterinary Inspector (LVI) or Veterinary Officer of the State Veterinary Service. It is proposed that 72 hours after the tuberculin injection, the lay tester would record skin measurements, together with a description of the type of reaction observed. This information will be passed to a veterinary surgeon for interpretation of the results.

  There is no intention of depriving LVI practices of their routine testing and no practice will be required to use lay testers. Those practices that chose to continue to use veterinary surgeons to perform TB tests would continue to receive fees at existing rates. A lower fee would be paid if a lay tester was used.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors underlay the proposal of the Environment Agency to reduce the number of water abstractions in the South East; what assessment she has made of the effect on water supplies in the South East of this proposal; and if she will make a statement. [131499]

  Mr. Morley:
  Proposals to reduce abstraction in the South East are aimed at improving the environment at important wildlife sites that are presently being damaged or are threatened with being damaged by abstraction.

  Water companies have been given the proposed list of sites and have been asked to identify the solutions that they would have to implement to make these environmental improvements.

  The Office of Water Services and the Environment Agency are scrutinising the companies' plans and I have asked them to report to me in November. From their reports I will identify the environmental improvement schemes that should be included in companies' final business plans for 2005–10, due in April 2004. Throughout this process, security of water supply to customers is paramount and the timing of any changes to abstraction will be arranged so that there is no risk to public water supply.

  Mercury Emissions
  Mrs. Helen Clark:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has made an assessment of the health benefits of reducing mercury emission from crematoria, using the methodology developed for assessing the health benefits of the National Air Quality Strategy. [131760]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  The methodology for the Air Quality Strategy is aimed at assessing the health impacts for pollutants where inhalation is the main route of exposure. It is not appropriate to use this methodology in this case because exposure through inhalation is negligable.

  Crematoria are a source of inorganic mercury. This is associated with tremors, gingivitis and/or minor psychological changes, together with spontaneous abortion and congenital malformation.

  Concern arises from the fact that this inorganic mercury can be transported over long distances and be transformed to methyl mercury in the bottom sediments of aquatic ecosystems. Methyl mercury can cause damage to the brain, kidneys and the central nervous system; as it readily crosses the placental barrier, foetal brain levels are approximately 5–7 times higher than in maternal blood. Foetal and postnatal exposures have given rise to abortion, congenital malformation and development changes in young children, with toxic effects in infants even when absent in the mother.

  The UK's long-standing policy approach is therefore to minimise, wherever practicable, the amounts of mercury entering the environment from all human activities. We have been discussing with the crematoria sector how they might mitigate any impacts.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Bob Spink:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the investment in the last five years in the UK economy generated by suppliers and distributors of (a) automotive LPG and LPG vehicles, (b) CNG and CNG vehicles, (c) LNG and LNG vehicles and (d) hydrogen and hydrogen vehicles. [131688]

  Mr. Timms:
  The best estimates are:

  (a) For LPG £250 million (being £200 million for vehicles and £50 million for fuel),

  (b) and (c) For CNG and LNG combined £50 million, and:

  (d) Estimates are not available for this technology which is in its infancy.

  South Sefton Partnership
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken by the South Sefton Partnership to improve support for businesses. [128880]

  Jacqui Smith:
  This is one of South Sefton Partnership's four key objectives. The Partnership has recently prepared a small booklet, "South Sefton Partnership-The Story So Far", which aims to illustrate steps taken to date on these four key objectives.

  The steps taken in respect of this objective are as follows:
  developing the South Sefton Investment Centre project, which will provide much-needed managed workspace for small businesses and generating income for community projects beyond the lifetime of the Partnership;
  creating the South Sefton Small Firms Loan Fund, a seedcorn finance scheme run through Merseyside Special Investment Fund;
  launching two grant schemes for local companies. Gateway to Growth supports investment in capital equipment and Improve Your Lot supports improvements to sites and premises;
  funding a major study into the redevelopment of Bootle town centre with the aim of attracting investment and jobs to South Sefton and supporting the first phase of the improvement work;
  supporting an important study into the regeneration of Crosby Marina, creating anew watersports and visitor centre;
  funding a project providing grant assistance to small retail businesses to enable them to improve the security of their premises;
  funding the new post of Business Liaison Officer to promote the further development of the South Sefton Business Forum and the Partnership funded grant schemes; and
  funding the demolition and clearance of the former Secrets nightclub in Litherland to create a site for possible future use for housing.

  British Energy
  Mr. Dobson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost will be to the taxpayer of the credit facility made available to British Energy. [132143]

  Mr. Timms:
  A credit facility (currently £200 million) has been made available to BE which will be repaid by the company under the terms of the restructuring plan at no cost to the taxpayer.
  141W
  Full details of the credit facility agreement are commercially confidential under Exemption 13: Third Party's Commercial Confidences of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information unless and until it is made public by British Energy.

  Broadband
  Mrs. Iris Robinson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will press BT to decrease the threshold numbers required for the instalment of Broadband in rural areas. [131780]

  Mr. Timms:
  Decisions about whether to reduce further the threshold numbers for activating exchanges are a matter for BT. The Government welcomes the reductions that have already been announced in recent months.

  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list those areas in the Lewes constituency capable of accessing broadband; to which areas there are plans to extend such a capability; and on what dates. [131827]

  Mr. Timms:
  This information is not currently held centrally within Government.

  However, BT's website (www.bt.com) includes a list of exchanges in the Lewes and the South East region showing which exchanges are already enabled for Broadband or are planned to be enabled with ready for service dates, which have trigger levels set and which do not.

  The local Regional Development Agency—South East of England Development Agency (SEEDA), have recently invited tenders for their Coastal Superhighway Programme. As a result of this programme, a new internet point of presence from a fibre optic network will be built in Lewes, which should improve the availability of broadband services in Lewes, by reducing the cost of backhaul and stimulating competition.

  In addition, any enterprises in the Lewes area and indeed the whole of the South East region, which cannot receive broadband from BT or from any other telecom or cable companies, may apply for a SEEDA satellite grant (http://www.rabbit-broadband.org.uk/)of up to £700, which covers an installation fee to contribute for the cost of a satellite broadband service.

  Mr. Ruffley:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the proportion of the population in (a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk, (c) Essex, (d) Cambridgeshire and (e) the UK who are unable to access broadband. [131839]

  Mr. Timms:
  The latest available data (June 2003) forecasts that, in October 2003, the proportions of the population who are unable to access broadband are:

  Percentage

  (a) Suffolk

  53

  (b) Norfolk

  57

  (c) Essex

  23

  (d) Cambridgeshire

  45

  (e) UK

  120

  1all broadband technologies

  Note:

  The data for figures a-d is only available for ADSL broadband
  142W
  The recent East of England Development Agency 'Connecting Communities Competition' has introduced significant use of wireless solutions and should significantly improve broadband access in the region.

  Car pets International
  Lady Hermon:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken to assist Carpets International (UK) Ltd. since it went into receivership; and if she will make a statement. [130399]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  Under the insolvency previsions of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Redundancy Payments Directorate may pay certain guaranteed debts (within limits) if the employer is legally insolvent within the meaning of that Act. Any outstanding contractual debts owed to employees' remain listed in the insolvency as unsecured debts. The Edinburgh Redundancy Payments office has received and paid redundancy and other insolvency claims for all the employees (over 400) who worked at the Bradford Hartlepool and Hull establishments. The Gwent establishment is still trading with a view to selling that part of the business.

  The Employment Services (ES) Rapid Response Unit—a flexible service, tailored to the needs of the particular area, sector and company—was notified and is liaising with local partners such as the Regional Development Agency, the Local Learning and Skills Council, the Local Authority, Chamber of Commerce, to take any appropriate measures to assist or retrain the employees in question. For example, the ES offers access to a range of support schemes, from the New Deal and the Jobseekers Allowance through to more focused schemes designed o help those caught up in restructuring. It provides information on job searching, compiling CVs, further education and training for individuals who need to develop new skills, and benefits.

  Coal Industry
  Paddy Tipping:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss the Large Combustion Plant Directive and its implications for the UK coal industry. [131215]

  Mr. Timms:
  Government decisions relating to consultation on the implementation of the Large Combustion Plant Directive were reached by ministerial correspondence following extensive contact between officials of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which leads on the Directive, this Department and others with relevant interests

  Combined Heat and Power
  Norman Baker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take steps to compel electricity companies to allow the installation into domestic accommodation of CHP units capable of feeding excess power into the grid. [131285]

  Mr. Timms:
  I have no plans to do so. It is unnecessary to compel network operators to allow the installation of domestic scale CHP units as, provided that certain technical and safety related requirements are met, they are not currently in a position to deny connection to the distribution networks. Through the work of

  143W
  the Distributed Generation Working Group, the Government and Ofgem are working to encourage the development of simplified connection and metering arrangements that will facilitate the development and integration of domestic scale CHP technology.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will ensure there is a reply to the letter dated 7 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Tarik Shaei, addressed to the Companies Investigation Branch in her Department. [131737]

  Ms Hewitt:
  My official replied to the letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Tarik Shaei on 3 October 2003.

  Debt Management
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the Office of Fair Trading's compliance review of debt management companies; and what measures she plans to introduce to ensure good practice among debt management companies. [129936]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  The Office of Fair Trading has carried out a thorough compliance review to check on the industry's compliance with its debt management guidance. A report on the compliance review will be published shortly.

  The guidance sets out minimum standards which debt management companies should adhere to—failure to do so could result in action by the Office of Fair Trading to question their fitness to hold a consumer credit licence. The Office of Fair Trading continues to take up any issues of non-compliance with individual companies, such action can range from advisory/warning letters to formal action i.e. licence refusal/revocation.

  Due to the restrictions in the Consumer Credit Act relating to disclosure of information, the Office of Fair Trading cannot disclose details about action taken or planned against individual companies. Details of formal action taken are usually publicised and placed on the Office of Fair Trading public register.

  Reinsured ECA

  Underlying insured party

  Risk status

  Coface

  Matra Marconi Space UK Ltd

  Corporate

  Coface

  Matra Marconi Space UK Ltd

  Public

  Hermes

  Matcon Limited

  Corporate

  Coface

  Cooper Rolls Ltd

  Corporate

  Coface

  MBDA UK Limited

  Sovereign

  Hermes

  Powergen UK PLC

  Sovereign

  Hermes

  VAI Industries (UK) Ltd

  Sovereign

  Coface

  Trane (United Kingdom) Limited

  Corporate

  Hermes

  Motherwell Bridge Engineering Limited

  Corporate

  Office National du Ducroire (OND)

  Kier Construction Limited

  Public and Corporate

  144W
  Since the guidance was issued there has been a considerable drop in complaints about Debt Management Companies to the Office of Fair Trading and to other consumer advice agencies.

  Direct Selling
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received about the need to improve the regulations relating to direct selling; what plans she has to bring forward legislative proposals; and if she will make a statement. [132135]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  The Office of Fair Trading is currently investigating the doorstep selling market as a supercomplaint within the terms of the Enterprise Act 2002. Its report is expected around the end of this year. Any recommendations will be carefully considered.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent in each year by her Department in preparing for United Kingdom entry to the euro; how much her Department plans to spend on preparations for United Kingdom entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates she has made of the total costs to her Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131599]

  Ms Hewitt:
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at column 142W.

  Export Credit Guarantees Department
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her Answer of 20 June 2003, Official Report, column 493W, on ECGD, if she will list the exposure under each reinsurance contract; what the split of business reinsured between defence and non-defence is; which claims have been (a) notified but not yet agreed and (b) agreed but not paid; and what projections have been made of expected claims payments. [130246]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  Since the start of 1997, ECGD has reinsured 22 deals with other Export Credit Agencies (EGAs) in respect of medium/long-term business. ECGD has received no claims and therefore paid no claims. ECGD does not currently anticipate receiving any claims in respect of any of these cases. Current Exposure refers to the amount that ECGD has reinsured which is still outstanding.
  145W

  Reinsured ECA

  Underlying insured party

  Risk status

  Hermes

  VAI Industries (UK) Ltd

  Corporate

  Sace

  Skanska Construction UK Limited

  Sovereign

  Sage

  Saipem UK Limited

  Corporate

  Oekb-Oesterreichische Kontrollbank

  VAI Industries (UK) Ltd

  Corporate

  Coface and Sage

  Demag Delaval Industrian Turbomachinery Limited

  Public and Corporate

  Sage

  Shell Research Limited

  Public

  Coface

  Alstom Power Plants Ltd

  Sovereign

  Export import bank of the United States

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Corporate

  Hermes

  Traffic Safety Systems Limited

  Sovereign

  Export import bank of the United States

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Corporate

  Coface

  MBDA UK Limited

  Sovereign

  Sace

  CRI Catalyst Company UK Ltd

  Sovereign

  Reinsured ECA

  Market

  Original value

  Current exposure

  Issue date

  Sector

  Coface

  Singapore

  10,022,063

  0

  1997

  Civil

  Coface

  Taiwan

  9,983,926

  0

  1997

  Civil

  Hermes

  Croatia

  1,799,326

  472,347

  1998

  Civil

  Coface

  United Arab Emirates

  9,584,759

  0

  1998

  Civil

  Coface

  Kuwait

  29,661,020

  0

  1999

  Defence

  Hermes

  Mexico

  2,625,958

  204,887

  1999

  Civil

  Hermes

  Croatia

  9,996,706

  9,996,706

  1999

  Civil

  Coface

  Turkey

  331,719

  88,440

  1999

  Civil

  Hermes

  Dominican Republic

  29,520,129

  20,114,522

  2000

  Civil

  Office National du Ducroire (OND)

  India

  47,386,230

  27,074,794

  2000

  Civil

  Hermes

  Brazil

  21,228,898

  18,614,705

  2001

  Civil

  Sace

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  40,140,469

  31,308,243

  2001

  Civil

  Sage

  Russian Federation

  108,855,581

  97,244,455

  2001

  Civil

  Oekb-Oesterreichische Kontrollbank

  Brazil

  2,439,928

  1,957,556

  2001

  Civil

  Coface and Sage

  Algeria

  119,365,812

  53,669,781

  2001

  Civil

  Sage

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  23,425,293

  23,425,293

  2002

  Civil

  Coface

  Turkey

  33,637,809

  32,406,342

  2002

  Civil

  Export import bank of the United States

  Israel

  5,595,278

  5,015,491

  2002

  Civil

  Hermes

  Romania

  1,046,965

  1,046,965

  2002

  Civil

  Export import bank of the United States

  Luxembourg

  16,453,233

  14,599,275

  2002

  Civil

  Coface

  United Arab Emirates

  39,505,804

  39,505,804

  2002

  Defence

  Sace

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  13,498,847

  0

  2003

  Civil

  The is no current exposure for all four short-term reinsurance cases as these deals have been fully paid. ECGD has received no claims and paid no claims on

  Reinsured short-term insurer

  Underlying insured party

  Risk status

  Market

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd

  Marconi Corporation plc

  Corporate

  Germany

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd

  Royal Ordnance plc

  Sovereign

  Singapore

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd

  BAE Systems (Defence Systems Ltd)

  Public

  United Arab Emirates

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd

  Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd

  Corporate

  Canada

  Reinsured short-term insurer

  Original value £

  Current Exposure £

  Issue date

  Sector

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd

  1,337,736

  0

  1998

  Defence

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd

  18,600,000

  0

  1998

  Defence

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd

  8,000.000

  0

  1997

  Civil

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd

  765,600

  0

  1998

  Civil

  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list reinsurance contracts underwritten by the ECGD; and in each case (a) who the

  (a) Reinsured ECA

  (b) Underlying insured party

  Risk status

  Market

  (e) Claims paid £

  Issue dale

  Sector

  Original value £

  (d) Current exposure £

  Coface (France)

  Matra Marconi Space UK Ltd

  Corporate

  Singapore

  0

  1997

  Civil

  10,022,063

  0

  Coface (France)

  Matra Marconi Space UK Ltd

  Public

  Taiwan

  0

  1997

  Civil

  9,983,926

  0

  146W
  these. The BAE Systems case in the following table refers to air traffic systems.

  reinsured party is, (b) who the underlying insured party is, (c) what cover is provided, (d) what the amount of the total exposure under the contract is and (e) what amounts have been paid in respect of these contracts for each year up to and including 1997. [129932]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  Prior to the end of 1997, ECGD provided reinsurance to other Export Credit Agencies (EGAs) under Co-operation Agreements on only two occasions in respect of medium/long-term business. The cover provided was reinsurance of all risks covered by the lead EGA.
  147W
  Current Exposure refers to the amount that ECGD has reinsured which is still outstanding.

  These cases are also referred to in PQ No. 130246 answered today and were the first cases under the first Co-operation Agreement (with France) that was signed in 1995.

  Reinsured short-term insurer

  Underlying insured party

  Risk status

  Market

  Original value £

  Current exposure £

  Issue date

  Sector

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd

  BAE Systems (Defence Systems Ltd)

  Public

  United Arab Emirates

  8,000,000

  0

  1997

  Civil

  However, it would incur disproportionate cost to list and detail every occasion that ECGD has provided short-term reinsurance prior to 1997 due to the very large numbers involved. When its short-term business was privatised in 1991, ECGD provided reinsurance on all exposure transferred to the commercial insurer (NCM Credit Insurance Ltd.)

  Extra-territorial Control
  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 16 May 2003, Official Report, column 463W, what assessment was made of the section of the Home Office report Raising Standards, Upholding Integrity: The Prevention of Corruption which states that the Home Office guidelines on extra-territorial control are not mandatory. [130177]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: I am aware that the Home Office guidelines on the application of extra-territorial jurisdiction are not mandatory.

  Food Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on food by her Department and by each agency for which it is responsible in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what proportion of that food by value was produced in the United Kingdom; what guidance she has issued to encourage the procurement of home-grown food; and if she will make a statement. [129381]

  Ms Hewitt:
  Approximately 85 per cent. of food purchased on behalf of my Department is provided by our in-house catering contractors, as follows.

  Year

  £000

  2001–02

  751

  2002–03

  1,037

  65 per cent. of this was spent on food produced in the United Kingdom.

  Acquiring similar information on the rest of the food purchased, which is provided by a large number of lesser supplies, would entail disproportionate cost.

  DEFRA guidance on sustainable good procurement has been circulated to the appropriate directorates in DTI and to our agencies and non-departmental public bodies.
  148W
  There is no current exposure for the reinsurance case issued in 1997 as this deal has been fully paid. ECGD has received no claims and paid no claims on this.

  I have asked the Department's executive agencies to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. Lidington, dated September 2003:

  You tabled a question on 9 September to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asking her how much was spent on food by her Department and by each Agency for which it is responsible in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what proportion of that food by value was produced in the United Kingdom; what guidance she has issued to encourage the procurement of home-grown food; and if she will make a statement.

  The direct purchase of food and drink by the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) consists solely of convenience refreshments for training events and meetings and was as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  9,597

  2002–03

  7,868

  Since the supplies in question are provided by an external retail supplier we have no knowledge of the provenance of the food and drink involved.

  ETS has not issued guidance on the procurement of homegrown food.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. Lidington:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to you on behalf of The Insolvency Service in respect to your question (2002/3851) requesting information on how much was spent on food by each Agency in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what proportion of that food by value was produced in the United Kingdom; what guidance has been issued to encourage the procurement of home-grown food.

  Expenditure on food in The Insolvency Service is generally limited to official hospitality provided by The Service in 2001–02 was £37,000 (including the cost of the closure of our London canteen facility) and in 2002–03 was £23,000. This took the form of buffet style services supplied by numerous small catering organisations across the country.

  The Agency does not hold any information on how much was grown or produced within the United Kingdom.

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Mr. Lidington:

  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.

  The total amount spent on food by Companies House in the year 2001/02 was £212,000 and in the year 2002/03 it was £221,000, of which approximately 55% was produced in the United Kingdom.

  The majority of our costs are recovered in the prices charged in the staff restaurant.
  149W
  Letter from Dr. J. W. Llewellyn to Mr. Lidington:

  The Secretary for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question on how much was spent on food by her Department and by each agency for which it is responsible in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what proportion of that food by value was produced in the United Kingdom

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory has spent (a) £5.8k in 2001–02 and (b) £5.2k in 2002–03 on entertainment. This covers the purchase of catering services for Agency events, biscuits, coffee and tea for meetings, consumables for working lunches and entertaining customers. Records are not kept in such a way that the amount spent on UK produce can be identified.

  Letter from R. J. R. Anderson to Mr. Lidington:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question about expenditure on food.

  Agency expenditure (ex-VAT) on food is as follows:

  FY 2001/02 £121,922 of which £75,592 was spent on UK produced goods (62%).

  FY 2002/03 £139,560 of which £87,913 was spent on UK produced goods (63%)

  We have been assured by our caterers Baxter and Platts that it is their Policy to purchase food in accordance with UK and EC legislation and to satisfy their clients requirements. The Agency encourages all its suppliers to procure all goods and services competitively and to deal with all parties in a fair and reasonable manner.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Mr. Lidington:

  House of Commons Parliamentary Question: 2002/3851.

  I am replying to this parliamentary question, tabled on 9 September 2003, about expenditure on food.

  Expenditure on food in the Patent Office is generally limited to the provision of official hospitality, some of which is supplied under a contract with an external food supplier. This contract is administered by the Office for National Statistics with whom we share a site. Our recorded expenditure is:

  £

  2001–02

  38,000

  2002–03

  46,000.

  Whilst no analysis of country of origin is available, it is estimated that the greater part of the food supplied was produced in the United Kingdom.

  Graffiti
  Siobhain McDonagh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with representatives of the statutory undertakers about graffiti on their street furniture or other property; and if she will make a statement. [118087]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 1 July 2003, Official Report, column 249W by my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety.

  Mineworkers' Compensation
  Adam Price:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money the Government has paid to Vernside Ltd. in legal costs for processing vibration white finger and respiratory coal health claims. [129207]
  150W
  Mr. Timms:
  In total the Department has made over 315,000 payments to VWF and respiratory disease claimants in full and part settlement, totalling £1.68 billion.

  Minimum Wage
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many successful prosecutions for failure to pay the national minimum wage there have been in Crosby. [129508]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 contains a number of provisions empowering enforcement officers to take civil action against non paying employers and the Inland Revenue always uses these in the first instance.

  In 2002–03, 1,996 employers in the UK were found by the Inland Revenue not to be complying with the minimum wage regulations. The north-west region accounted for 181 of these employers.

  In addition, the Inland Revenue identified over £3.5 million in arrears. The majority of employers complied without further action being needed and only 26 enforcement notices were issued. To date there have been no criminal prosecutions in relation to underpayment of the minimum wage.

  Model/Photographic Agencies
  Dr. Evan Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many spot check inspections on model agencies and photographic agencies were carried out by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate in each year since 1997; and how many prosecutions took place in each year. [129053]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  The total number of inspections and prosecutions undertaken by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate since 1997 are as follows:

  Inspections

  Prosecutions

  1997–98

  1,325

  14

  1998–99

  1,360

  3

  1999–2000

  1,319

  3

  2000–01

  1,124

  2

  2001–02

  854

  8

  2002–03

  950

  8

  Data broken down by sector of the private recruitment industry are not available for these years.

  Dr. Evan Harris:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce regulation in the child model agency and child photography industry, with particular reference to a requirement for compulsory registration with the Criminal Records Bureau. [129054]

  Mr. Sutcliffe:
  The Government have no plans to introduce a requirement for compulsory registration with the Criminal Records Bureau for the child model agency and child photography industry. However, a review of the legislation covering the private recruitment industry is currently under way and we propose to introduce revised regulations covering the conduct of all employment agencies and employment businesses.

  Offshore Wind Farms
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Crown Estate's plans to charge rent in respect of offshore wind farms. [131261]

  Mr. Timms:
  The Crown Estate owns the seabed around the United Kingdom to the limit of the territorial sea. The Crown Estates Act 1961 requires The Crown Estate Commissioners to maintain and enhance the value of the Estate and the return obtained from it, with due regard to the requirements of good estate management. Companies entering into lease agreements for wind farm developments with the Crown Estate will be charged an appropriate rental for the site. Following discussion with industry and the British Wind Energy Association, The Crown Estate has indicated that, up to 2010, the basis for calculating rentals for new wind farm site leases will be unchanged from the current 2 per cent. of gross revenue, with a rent review after 20 years.

  The Government have committed themselves to bringing forward legislation as soon as the Parliamentary timetable allows to facilitate the construction of wind farms beyond territorial waters in a Renewable Energy Zone (REZ). Our intention is that The Crown Estate will have powers to licence areas of the seabed in the REZ and will be able to charge a rental for use of the sea bed.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to urge the Post Office to organise public meetings (a) before decisions are made about closures and (b) for each individual closure proposal once the decisions are made on a particular area; and if she will make a statement. [131432]

  Mr. Timms:
  The development of post office closure proposals under the urban reinvention programme and the associated public consultation arrangements are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. within the framework of the Code of Practice agreed with Postwatch.

  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy on the (a) proposals by the Post Office to close post offices in South Portsmouth in 12 months and (b) closure by the Post Office of financially viable local offices. [131433]

  Mr. Timms:
  Post Office Ltd. has recently put forward to public consultation its post office closure proposals for Portsmouth, South constituency under its revised arrangements for the urban network reinvention programme whereby proposals are put forward on an area-by-area basis using Parliamentary constituencies as a guide. This will result in a 'once over the ground' approach bringing clarity and greater certainty to the future shape of the network in each area. Public consultation has been extended From four to six weeks.

  Post Office Ltd.'s area closure proposals are determined by a range of factors including the numbers of offices in close proximity to each other and current
  152W
  and projected business volumes. The aim of the programme is to create a sustainable network of viable urban post offices.

  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much compensation has been paid to the Post Office for their closure programme; and how much more is expected to be paid. [131434]

  Mr. Timms:
  Parliament has approved funding of up to £180 million for compensation payments under the urban post office network reinvention programme. To date, £38,554,936 has been paid to Post Office Ltd.

  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about the proposals by the Post Office to close local post offices in South Portsmouth; what has been her response; and if she will make a statement. [131435]

  Mr. Timms:
  Five letters have been received from the hon. Member from Portsmouth, South and one joint letter from Councillors Goble, Andrew and Bentley of Portsmouth city council. The responses explained the rationale for the urban post office network reinvention programme and that the process to determine the closure of individual offices is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. which they carry out in accordance with the formal public consultation process under the Code of Practice agreed with Postwatch.

  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make representations to the Post Office about the number of proposed closures of local post offices in South Portsmouth; and if she will make a statement. [131436]

  Mr. Timms:
  Proposals for post office closures and final decisions on them, following public consultation under the Code of Practice, are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. The Government do not have a role in the process to determine the closure of individual post offices.

  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many rural sub-post offices have closed since 1 March. [131484]

  Mr. Timms:
  I understand that Post Office Ltd. produces information on post office closures on a quarterly basis. For the quarter up to the end of March 2003, there were 61 net closures throughout the rural post office network with 43 net closures in the quarter to end of June 2003, the latest quarter for which figures are currently available.

  Keith Vaz:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices she has visited since she took up her appointment. [131721]

  Mr. Timms:
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State visits post offices regularly in her capacity as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in her capacity as a Member of Parliament, and as a customer.

  Power Failures
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effects of the recent power failures affecting London on the national economy; and what the possible causes of the power failures are. [132260]
  153W
  Mr. Timms
  The major power failure affecting London and parts of Kent on the 28 August 2003 occurred at 18:20 and lasted 41 minutes. Due to the timing and duration of the interruption there was transport disruption that affected a large number of people travelling home at the end of the working day, however the Department of Trade and Industry has not conducted a formal assessment of the impact of the event on the UK economy.

  According to National Grid Transco, the cause of the failure was the incorrect operation of a protective device at Wimbledon substation. My Engineering Inspectorate is currently carrying out a detailed investigation of the circumstances of the incident, including the impact on the transport infrastructure.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment her Department has made of the cost of the loss of power through overhead power lines in terms of transmission costs compared to underground transfer; and what research she has commissioned to assess the amount of energy lost overhead and the impact on the cost and efficiency of such lines. [132261]

  Mr. Timms
  The National Grid Company (NGT) has indicated that losses from overhead lines are approximately 50 per cent. greater than for underground cables for power flows at the same voltage.

  The cost of losses is not separately available for overhead lines and underground cables. However, NGT advise that total transmission losses (including overhead lines, underground cables and transformers) account for about 1.5 per cent. of energy transferred on the England and Wales transmission network or a cost of around £90 million p.a. (This compares with average losses on the distribution system of approximately 7 per cent.).

  The available data indicate that replacing overhead lines with underground cables could not be justified by gains in efficiency, due to the significantly higher capital cost of underground cables.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the risks to the United Kingdom of a major power failure in January to February 2004; and what plans are in place to prevent power incapacity at the coldest time of year. [132262]

  Mr. Timms
  Maintaining the reliability of energy supplies is one of four key goals set out in the Government's Energy White Paper.

  It is not Government's role to second-guess the electricity market. Rather, through competitive markets, participants have strong financial incentives to maintain reliable supplies of electricity. These incentives are backed by a number of licence conditions and statutory obligations on National Grid, electricity suppliers and generators, which are enforced by Ofgem.

  The Government do have a co-ordinating role to ensure that information is provided to the market. A major component of this is our work with Ofgem, through the joint energy security of supply working group to monitor energy security.
  154W
  National Grid also informs the market as to the forecast likely supply and demand position using a variety of publications and industry fora. In addition National Grid notifies market participants of tight reserve margins nearer to real time through a hierarchy of alert notices.

  National Grid Transco's report on the outlook for gas and electricity markets was published today by Ofgem, and a copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  National Grid has announced that it will be tendering for additional reserve capacity to enable it to mange the risks of short-term plant failure and changes in demand. These contracts would be in place prior to the winter period.

  In addition, NOT is considering with participants to the Gas Network Code proposals to reduce the risk of supply disruptions in the gas market and the potential impact of these on gas-fired generation to the electricity market. Any formal proposals for modification would need to be considered by Ofgem, in light of their statutory duties, prior to implementation.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost to the National Grid was of loss of power through(a) trees falling on a power line, (b) high winds causing interruption of power in high wires carried over pylons, (c) birds landing on such lines and (d) other major loss of power from other causes in the last 12 months. [132263]

  Mr. Timms
  The number of incidents on NGT's network, which caused an immediate loss of supplies in the 12 months to 30 September 2003, is 10.

  These incidents break down as follows:

  (a) Trees—none

  (b) high winds—none

  (c) birds—none

  (d)other—10 incidents (of which three are attributed to lightning strikes, one to a light aircraft colliding with an overhead line, four due to protection operations, one to plant failure, and one as a result of a construction incident—the losses of supply in these incidents range from under 1 minute to approximately 40 minutes).

  On average 0.0001 per cent. of the total energy transferred on the England and Wales transmission network is lost per annum due to faults on the transmission network. Consequently, the actual figure for the cost to NGT through the loss of power from these incidents is very small (of the order of a few thousand pounds per annum).

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of gross domestic product is accounted for by the output of (i) small and (ii) micro businesses in(a) Dumfries & Galloway, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK. [132320]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The percentage of gross domestic product accounted for by the output of small and micro businesses in the UK is not available.

  Supermarkets
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects the Office of Fair Trading to conclude its review of the Supermarket Code of Practice; and if she will make a statement. [131829]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Office of Fair Trading is expected to conclude its review of the Code of Practice governing supermarkets' relations with their suppliers this autumn. The OFT will then send its results to DTI for formal consideration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will wait for the results of that review before deciding if any action is necessary.

  Wind Farms
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who bears the cost of public inquiries into planning applications for wind farms. [131670]

  Mr. Timms
  Each participant bears his own costs and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recovers her costs, such as the employment of an inspector, from the developer.

  WTO (Cancun)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the(a) size and (b) cost of the EU delegation to the Cancun Summit was; [131250]

  (2) what the total cost of the United Kingdom delegation's travel and subsistence at the Cancun Summit was. [131251]

  Ms Hewitt
  Accounts for the World Trade Organisation ministerial are not currently available and can be produced only at disproportionate cost. The costs will be spilt over a number of different Departments. Each Department publishes its financial accounts after the end of the relevant financial year.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total cost was of Ministers' and civil servants' attendance at the Cancun Fifth World Trade Organisation ministerial, including accommodation and travel charges. [131260]

  Ms Hewitt
  Accounts for the World Trade Organisation ministerial are not currently available and can be produced only at disproportionate cost. The costs will be spilt over a number of different Departments. Each Department publishes its financial accounts after the end of the relevant financial year.

DEFENCE

  HMS Tireless
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of repair to HMS Tireless is; when he will return to service; what the result was of the inquiry into the incident; and if he will make a statement. [131934]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Tireless rejoined the Fleet earlier this month. The cost of the repair has still to be finalised, but is expected to be under £1 million.
  156W
  This incident was subject to a Royal Navy Board of Inquiry (BOI). A BOI is an internal fact-finding investigation into the circumstances surrounding a particular incident, undertaken by the Services for internal use. The main purpose is to establish the facts concerning an incident as quickly as possible and to make recommendations aimed at preventing a recurrence. The Board found no grounds for any disciplinary action.

  Alvis Vickers
  Mr. David Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Alvis Vickers personnel were dispatched to Kuwait in the period immediately preceding the invasion of Iraq to upgrade British Army vehicles; what assessment he has made of the contribution of the upgrades provided by Alvis Vickers to the performance of the British Army on Operation Telic; and what weight will be given to a proven ability to provide operational support and upgrade work when choosing a contractor for the Future Rapid Effect System. [130409]

  Mr. Ingram
  Some 60 AVL personnel went to Kuwait to support British troops on Operation Telic. Equipment availability is a key factor in any military operation, and we greatly value the contribution made by civilian contractors. The capacity to support equipment effectively when it enters service is a consideration for acquisition programmes, and this will be the case with FRES.

  Armed Forces (Modernisation)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy not to reduce the strength and establishments of(a) Royal Navy frigates, destroyers and submarines, (b) the Army Air Corps, (c) the Infantry, (d) the Royal Armoured Corps, (e) the Royal Artillery, (f) the Royal Engineers, (g) RAF squadrons and (h) RAF aircraft procurement programmes. [131694]

  Mr. Ingram
  In his speech to RUSI on 26 June this year (a copy of which is available in the Library of the House), the Defence Secretary made clear how we will continue to modernise our armed forces to respond to changes in society, technology and the strategic environment.

  Arms Sales Exhibition (Excel Centre)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of policing the arms sales exhibition at the Excel Centre in London. [130294]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 September 2003 Official Report, column 950W to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). The final cost remains to be established.

  Death-in-service Benefits
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the death-in-service benefits and pensions of servicemen and women. [131419]
  157W
  Mr. Caplin
  I refer my hon. Friend to my written statement on 15 September 2003,Official Report, columns 39–40WS.

  Defence Attaches
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence attaché staff there are at each diplomatic post abroad; what the roles of those based in the United States are; and what proportion of their working time was spent on each major activity in the last year for which figures are available. [131774]

  Mr. Ingram
  A total of 128 United Kingdom Defence attachés/advisors are currently deployed in 82 locations as follows:

  Country

  City

  Number of attachés at post

  Albania

  Tirana

  1 Army

  Angola

  Luanda

  1 Army

  Argentina

  Buenos Aires

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Australia

  Canberra

  2 (1 RN, 1 RAF)

  Austria

  Vienna

  1 Army

  Bahrain

  Manama

  1 RN

  Barbados

  Bridgetown

  1 RN

  Belgium

  Brussels

  1 RAF

  Brazil

  Brasilia

  2 (1 RN, 1 RAF)

  Brunei

  Bandar Seri Begawan

  1 RN

  Bulgaria

  Sofia

  2 (1 RN, 1 Army)

  Canada

  Ottawa

  2 (1 RAF. 1 Army)

  Chile

  Santiago

  1 Army

  China

  Beijing

  2(1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Colombia

  Bogota

  1 Army

  Congo DRC

  Kinshasa

  1 Army

  Croatia

  Zagreb

  1 Army

  Cyprus

  Nicosia

  1 Army,

  Czech Republic

  Prague

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Denmark

  Copenhagen

  1 RN

  Egypt

  Cairo

  2 (1 RN. 1 Army)

  Ethiopia

  Addis Ababa

  1 Army

  Finland

  Helsinki

  1 Army

  France

  Paris

  3 (1 RN, 1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Georgia

  Tbilisi

  1 RN

  Germany

  Berlin

  4 (1 RN, 2 Army, 1 RAF)

  Ghana

  Accra

  1 Army

  Greece

  Athens

  2 (1 RN, 1 Army)

  Guatemala

  Guatemala City

  1 Army

  Hungary

  Budapest

  2 (1 Army 1 RAF)

  India

  New Delhi

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Indonesia

  Jakarta

  1 Army

  Ireland

  Dublin

  1 Army

  Israel

  Tel Aviv

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Italy

  Rome

  3 (1 RN, 1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Jamaica

  Kingston

  1 Army

  Japan

  Tokyo

  1 RN

  Jordan

  Amman

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Kazakhstan

  Almaty

  1 Army

  Kenya

  Nairobi

  1 Army

  Korea

  Seoul

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Kuwait

  Kuwait City

  1 Army

  Latvia

  Riga

  1 Army

  Lebanon

  Beirut

  1 Army

  Lithuania

  Vilnius

  1 Army

  Macedonia

  Skopje

  1 Army

  Malaysia

  Kuala Lumpur

  2 (1 RN, 1 Army)

  Morocco

  Rabat

  1 Army

  Nepal

  Kathrnandu

  1 Army

  Netherlands

  The Hague

  1 RN

  New Zealand

  Wellington

  1 Army

  Nigeria

  Abuja

  1 Army

  Norway

  Oslo

  1 RN

  Oman

  Muscat

  2 (1 RN, 1 Army)

  Pakistan

  Islamabad

  2 (1 RN, 1 Army)

  Philippines

  Manila

  1 Army

  Poland

  Warsaw

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Portugal

  Lisbon

  1 RN

  Qatar

  Doha

  1 RAF

  Romania

  Bucharest

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Russia

  Moscow

  6 (2 RN, 2 Army, 2 RAF)

  Saudi Arabia

  Riyadh

  3 (1 RN, 1 Army, 1 RAF)

  158W

  Country

  City

  Number of attachés at post

  Serbia and Montenegro

  Belgrade

  1 Army

  Sierra Leone

  Freetown

  1 Army

  Singapore

  Singapore

  2 (1 RN, 1 RAF)

  Slovak Republic

  Bratislava

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Slovenia

  Ljubljana

  1 Army

  South Africa

  Pretoria

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Spain

  Madrid

  2(1 RN, 1 RAF)

  Sri Lanka

  Colombo

  1 Army

  Sweden

  Stockholm

  1 RAF

  Switzerland

  Berne

  1 Army

  Syria

  Damascus

  1 Army

  Thailand

  Bangkok

  1 Army

  Turkey

  Ankara

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Uganda

  Kampala

  1 Army

  Ukraine

  Kyiv

  2 (1 RN, 1 Army)

  United Arab Emirates

  Abu Dhabi

  1 Army

  USA

  Washington

  8 (3 RN, 3 Army, 2 RAF)

  Uzbekistan

  Tashkent

  1 Army

  Venezuela

  Caracas

  1 RN

  Zimbabwe

  Harare

  1 Army

  There are a total of four officers (2 RN, 2 RAF) employed in Canada, Russia, India and USA as Office Managers; these are not accredited diplomatic posts.

  The principal role of an attaché is to further the UK's Defence Diplomacy aims in his host country. This is articulated as six core attaché functions:

  Support to Defence Diplomacy;

  Provision of Operational Military Advice and Assistance;

  Provision of Politico-Military Advice;

  Support to Defence Intelligence;

  Support to Defence Exports; and

  Representation and Administrative Support.

  With the exception of Washington, the average percentage effort devoted to each core function by attachés employed in British embassy Defence sections is as follows:

  Support to Defence Diplomacy—38 per cent.

  Provision of Operational-Military Advice—16 per cent.

  Provision of Politico-Military Advice—12 per cent.

  Support to Defence Intelligence—8 per cent.

  Support to Defence Exports—16 per cent.

  Representation and Administrative Support—10 per cent.

  A similar breakdown of Washington's outputs against the same six functions is as follows:

  Support to Defence Diplomacy—33 per cent.

  Provision of Operational-Military Advice—16 per cent.

  Provision of Politico-Military Advice—15 per cent.

  Support to Defence Intelligence—14 per cent.

  Support to Defence Exports—4 per cent.

  Representation and Administrative Support—18 per cent.

  The main area of variance between Washington and the rest of the world is its support to Defence Exports. Within the British Defence Staff Washington there is a significant non-diplomatically accredited Defence Equipment Staff dedicated to supporting this core function.

  European Competition Policy
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with European partners on the development of European competition policy in the defence industry. [130807]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have had no discussions on this issue with European partners. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions represented the UK at the 13 May 2003 EU Competitiveness Council where the European Commission Communication of 11 March 2003, entitled "European Defence—Industrial and Market Issues: Towards an EU Defence Equipment Policy", was discussed. As a result, the European Commission plans to present its reflections on the application of competition rules in the defence sector for further discussion, possibly by the end of 2003.

  Firing Ranges
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what firing ranges, other than Tipner, are used by the Royal Navy; and how many days in each of the last three years these alternatives have been used. [131430]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Royal Navy has used the following ranges other than Tipner in the Portsmouth area:

  Firing ranges

  Days used

  MWS (Collingwood)

  549

  Army Cadet Range at Browndown

  90

  MWS (Dryad)1

  375

  Pirbright (Army)

  15

  Bisley (Army)

  60

  1Closes 2004.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days, in each of the last three years, the Tipner firing ranges have been used by(a) Royal Navy and (b) other agencies. [131429]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information requested is only readily available for the last 12 months, but there is no reason to believe that the pattern of usage has changed significantly over the last three years:

  RN—252 days

  Other Agencies—58 days

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future use of the Tipner firing ranges; and if he will make a statement. [131431]

  Mr. Caplin
  The ranges at Tipner are vital to maintaining military training for the Royal Navy in the Portsmouth area, and will remain in use for the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been a recent study into the use of Tipner firing ranges by Brent geese; and if he will make a statement. [131428]
  160W
  Mr. Caplin
  There has been no Ministry of Defence sponsored study into the use of Tipner ranges by Brent Geese. However, the MOD is aware of two recent studies, by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and Ecological Planning and Research.

  Future Rapid Effects System
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's planned expenditure on (i) the Future Rapid Effects System and (ii) all other armoured vehicle projects is over the next 15 years. [130620]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's financial planning processes focus on ten years ahead for equipment acquisition costs and four years ahead for other areas of expenditure. It is not therefore possible to provide the detailed cost information sought over a 15 year period.

  The Future Rapid Effects System project is still in its concept phase. We are therefore yet to endorse the acquisition cost of the project, although it could be in the region of £6 billion.

  Other armoured vehicle projects (which have passed their Main Gate investment decision point) are shown below, together with their post Main Gate expected acquisition costs:

  Future Beach Recovery Vehicle (£13 million);

  Viking (£73 million);

  Terrier (£365 million);

  Titan and Trojan (£407 million);

  Future Command and Liaison Vehicle (£238 million).

  In addition, two other armoured vehicle projects—the Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicle (ABSV) and the Warrior Mid Life Improvement—are still in their concept phases. Consequently, costs have yet to be agreed for these programmes.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether funding for other armoured vehicle projects has been changed as a consequence of the funding arrangements for the Future Rapid Effects System. [130621]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's annual planning round is used to balance levels of investment across capabilities to ensure that our acquisition plans are, in aggregate, affordable within the resources allocated to the future equipment programme. At the individual project level, there is therefore no direct or specific linkage between increased funding in one area and reductions in another.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on the Future Rapid Effects System; and if he will make a statement on its role in the future capability of the Army. [130623]

  Mr. Ingram
  FRES will be at the forefront of the Army's rapid intervention capability, across the spectrum of missions from warfighting to peacekeeping. It is expected that the capability will be provided by a system of air-transportable medium weight armoured vehicles and that it will operate as an integral part of future network-enabled forces.
  161W
  As part of the current concept phase of the FRES project, the MOD has been undertaking planning work in order to inform decisions on how best to take the programme forward. The MOD is now considering procurement options and we expect to make an announcement later this year on the way ahead for the project.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he estimates that the number of variants for the proposed Future Rapid Effects System will fall below 15. [130782]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) project is in its concept phase. The optimum make up of the FRES fleet will be determined by studies planned for the subsequent assessment phase of the programme. Only when these studies have been completed will we be able to finalise the number of variants required.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects the A400M to be compatible with the requirements of the proposed Future Rapid Effects System; and how this has been affected by the delays in the assessment phase for the Future Rapid Effects System; [130783]

  (2) what extra costs he expects to incur to the A400M programme to make it compatible with the requirements of the proposed Future Rapid Effects System. [130775]

  Mr. Ingram
  The requirements for the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) are still being developed as part of the project's concept phase. Studies are planned for the next phase of the FRES programme to examine coherence with associated programmes including A400M. These studies will ensure that the FRES requirements take into account the need for air portability. The contract for the A400M programme has now been signed. It is not currently expected that there will be any consequent adjustments to it, and therefore no additional costs have been identified.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effects of the timescales for(a)the A400M and the development of a strategic lift capability and (b)the awarding of the contract for the Future Rapid Effects System on (i) the development of a rapidly deployable medium force capability and (ii) the projected in-service date of the Future Rapid Effects System. [130804]

  Mr. Ingram
  In seeking a better balance in our deployable land forces, we plan to shift from the current mix of light and heavy forces representing the two extremes of deployability and combat power to a more graduated and balanced structure of light, medium and heavy forces, together with a greater emphasis on enabling capabilities such as logistics, engineers and intelligence. The introduction of the air-transportable, medium-weight Future Rapid Effects System family of vehicles is one part of this re-balancing. The ISD for FRES will be formally set at the Main Gate investment decision, however the planning assumption for its ISD remains around the end of this decade. A400M enters service in a comparable timeframe—its ISD is 2011.
  162W
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to purchase or lease further C-17s to provide a strategic lift capability for the proposed Future Rapid Effects System. [130781]

  Mr. Ingram
  The MOD is currently considering the retention in service of a small fleet of C17 aircraft. This is not specifically linked to the introduction of the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES), although C17s could have utility in this role alongside other airlift assets.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the Government has made to ensure that an accurate central list of Iraqi detainees in coalition-run prisons in Iraq, with names in Arabic, is kept. [130354]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: The names of all Iraqis held at the Theatre Internment Facility are held on a database which includes Arabic names that have been transliterated into English by an interpreter. A list of names of all UK detained Iraqis held in the Theatre Internment Facility, and for which the UK Military is therefore responsible, is passed onto the International Committee of the Red Cross every two weeks.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the estimated monthly cost of keeping British military personnel and equipment in Iraq and the surrounding region is, following the recent deployment of extra troops; [131510]

  (2) what the estimated total cost to date is of deploying British military personnel and kit to Iraq. [131520]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence identifies the costs of Operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. The costs which the Department would have incurred had the operation not been undertaken—expenditure on wages and salaries or on conducting training exercises, for example—are deducted from the total costs of the operation.

  Calculating all the costs of military action will take some time since they will include the cost of ammunition, bombs and guided weapons consumed in excess of peacetime levels and the cost of repairing and replacing equipment destroyed and damaged. We do however estimate the cost of preparatory activities in 2002–03 at around £700 million, less than the £1 billion set aside at Spring Supplementary Estimates 2002–03. This estimate includes the procurement or modification of equipment, increased maintenance and stock consumption, civil sea and air charter and provision of infrastructure in-theatre. A figure for total costs in 2002–03 including the cost of operations up to 31 March 2003 will be published in the Department's Resource Accounts at the end of October 2003.

  It is too early to estimate the costs likely to arise in 2003–04. Once these are known, additional funding will be sought in the normal way through Supplementary Estimates.
  163W
  Costs are not incurred on a regular monthly basis and force levels have fluctuated considerably during 2003–04. As a result, to attempt to provide monthly average costs would be misleading.

  Suez Canal (Medals)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he plans to issue qualification criteria for the medal for service in the Suez Canal Zone; how long the distribution of medals will take; and what factors underlie this timetable; [131437]

  (2) what measures he is taking to try to ensure that Suez Canal Zone veterans receive their medals before this year's Remembrance Day service; [131438]

  (3) what measures he will take to minimise the number of veterans who lose their eligibility to the Suez Canal Zone medal because of the lack of detail in service records of the 1950s. [131439]

  Mr. Caplin
  Final approval of the Suez Medal is now awaited. As soon as that occurs I will make a statement to the House. Prior to that officials are carrying out preparatory work on the applications already received, and aim to issue medals to eligible veteran's as soon as practicable.

  It is hoped that everyone who served in the Suez Canal Zone for the requisite number of days, within the designated dates and geographical boundaries which are in the process of being agreed, will receive a medal and/or clasp. However, on some individual Service records it might be more difficult to confirm eligibility from the limited information. In such cases, the files will be cross-referenced against the detailed Service records and maps that have been prepared by officials from contemporary historical documents. These will help to determine which Units, ships, regiments, squadrons etc. were deployed in the Canal Zone during the period specified in the White Paper. In rare cases where the evidence is insufficient to confirm eligibility for the medal, the medal offices may have to invite veterans to supply additional proof of entitlement in the form of contemporary official documentation, but it is hoped that this will not be necessary, I expect most veterans to receive their medals during the course of next year.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  14 to 19 Curriculum
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on working with(a) Sea Cadets, (b) Army Cadets and (c) Air Training Corps in the provision of greater curriculum flexibility for 14 to 19 year olds. [131812]

  Miliband
  Our policy document, 14 to 19: Opportunity and Excellence sets out how we intend to ensure that young people are offered greater choice, coherence and quality in their programmes. We explained that all 14 to 19 year olds should be involved in wider activities and experience beyond the curriculum which can enrich learning, while developing practical 164W
  skills and interests. Participation in the Sea and Army Cadets and the Air Training Corps is one positive form of such participation.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the pilot schemes for greater flexibility in the 14 to 19 curriculum. [131814]

  Mr. Miliband
  The 14 to 19 pathfinders, which are testing, among other things, greater curriculum flexibility and choice, are currently being evaluated. We plan to publish the outcomes in January 2004. In addition, the 'Increased Flexibility for 14 to 16 year olds' Programme has provided new vocational and work-related learning opportunities for this age group, including provision of the new GCSEs in vocational subjects. This Programme too is being evaluated and the findings are due to be published early in 2004.

  In the meantime, we intend to amend the National Curriculum at Key Stage 4 to give schools greater flexibility in responding to the needs of their pupils. The Working Group on 14 to 19 Reform has been asked to consider how there might be greater coherence in learning programmes for young people throughout their 14 to 19 education.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funds were allocated to(a)schools, (b) futher education colleges and (c) other providers in connection with pilot schemes for greater flexibility in the 14 to 19 curriculum in 2003–04. [131813]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available in the form requested. In the academic year 2003/04, £16 million has been allocated to the 14–19 pathfinders which are testing, among other things, greater curriculum flexibility and choice.

  All the 14–19 pathfinders involve partnership and collaboration among a variety of different institutions and providers including schools, colleges, training providers, employers and higher education institutions. Funding is allocated and monitored at partnership level through the pathfinder lead body, which may be, for example, the local education authority, Local Learning and Skills Council, a school or an FE college.

  The 'Increased Flexibility for 14–16 year olds' Programme is also providing new vocational and work-related learning opportunities for this age group, including provision of the new vocational GCSEs. During 2003–04, this Programme is providing £38.3 million via the Learning and Skills Council to the lead partners, which are mainly FE colleges, to support provision in schools and colleges.

  We also expect schools and FE colleges to use their mainstream funding to provide greater curriculum flexibility.

  Access Agreements
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when it will be possible to approve access agreements for higher education institutions for incorporation in their prospectus for potential students; and what assessment he has made of the implications for a student who is accepted for entry by a higher education institution of cases where(a) an access

  165W
  agreement has not been concluded and (b) an access agreement has been reached and promulgated but is subsequently modified. [131541]

  Alan Johnson
  We expect the Office for Fair Access to approve access agreements in time for universities to inform prospective students' applications to higher education. We therefore expect agreements to be in place before students are accepted for places and would not expect the agreement to change in respect of a students already committed to a course once it has been approved.

  Class Sizes (Suffolk)
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class size is in Suffolk schools for(a) 5, (b) 6, (c) 7, (d) 8, (e) 9, (f) 10 and (g) 11-year-olds in each year since 1997. [131836]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Average class size by national curriculum year group (first collected in 1998) is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary schools': average class size taught by one teacher by year group2 Position in January each year—Suffolk Local Education Authority

  National curriculum year group

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  1998

  26.1

  26.5

  27.3

  27.1

  26.2

  25.7

  1999

  26.6

  26.1

  26.5

  26.9

  26.6

  27.4

  2000

  26.0

  26.4

  27.0

  27.0

  26.5

  26.2

  2001

  25.4

  25.8

  26.6

  26.8

  27.3

  26.0

  2002

  24.9

  25.4

  26.5

  26.7

  27.4

  26.7

  2003

  25.8

  25.4

  26.7

  26.8

  26.3

  26.1

  1Includes middle deemed primary schools.

  2Classes as taught during a single selected period in each school on the day of the census in January.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent per primary school pupil, using figures adjusted for inflation, in(a) Suffolk, (b) Norfolk, (c) Essex, (d) Cambridgeshire and (e) the UK in each year since 1997. [131835]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is only available from 1999–2000 onwards. Due to changes in the school funding system, it is not possible to provide corresponding figures for previous years. My Department collects data for schools in England only. The information available is contained in the following table:

  Expenditure per primary school pupil

  LEA name

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Cambridgeshire

  2,247

  2,413

  2,561

  Essex

  2,280

  2,519

  2,678

  Norfolk

  2,275

  2,489

  2,792

  Suffolk

  2,447

  2,634

  2,803

  England

  2,402

  2,572

  2,781

  Notes:

  1. Figures calculated using Net Current Expenditure (after recharges) which includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA's.

  2. Real terms figures used are adjusted to 2002–03 prices using 27 June 2003 GDP deflators.
  166W
  3. Figures are as reported by the LEA.

  4. Financial data is drawn from the DfES Section 52 outturn statements.

  5. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.

  Education Standards
  Mr. Mike Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) boys and (b) girls reached the required standards in (i) English and (ii) maths at key stage (A) 1, (B) 2, (C) 3 and (D) 4 in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority, using value added data. [131467]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested in this question has been placed in the Library in answer to PQ 127922.

  The tables show, for each local education authority, the number of boys and girls in maintained schools who achieved the expected level in each year from 1997 to 2002. The figures shown are based on:

  Pupils achieving level 2 or above at Key Stage 1 in reading and in maths

  Pupils achieving level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 in English and in maths

  Pupils achieving level 5 or above at Key Stage 3 in English and in maths

  Pupils achieving good grades (A*—C) at GCSE in English and in maths.

  Educational Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the progress of the pilot schemes on the Education Maintenance Allowance scheme. [131408]

  Alan Johnson
  An independent evaluation of EMAs has been taking place since 1999. Evidence from the second year of the pilots, which was published in July 2002, shows that EM As have increased the number of eligible young people in full time education in year 12 in pilot areas by 5.9 percentage points compared to local authority areas without EMAs. The EMA scheme will be available across the whole of England from 2004 and the pilot scheme will continue until then.

  Evaluation of the pilots has also provided information on which features of the different variants are most effective. This has informed development of the national model.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time students in British higher education came from countries which are(a) about to be admitted to the EU and (b) in the European Economic Area, in the last year for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of the likely loss of income to higher education institutions from fees revision when enlargement takes place. [129986]

  Alan Johnson
  In 2001/02, 3,258 full-time undergraduate students in British higher education came from countries which are about to be admitted to the EU, and 55.356 came from the European Economic Area.
  167W
  Assuming that international students would pay an average fee of upwards of £6,500 in 2004/05, then the likely loss of income to higher education institutions from those students admitted to the EU would be at least £17 million. Students studying in England would become eligible for funding from HEFCE; the amount depending on the course of study.

  European Higher Education Reform
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the conclusion of the Berlin Conference on the Bologna Process for higher education institutions, held in September 2003. [131534]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government welcome the outcomes of the recent Berlin ministerial meeting on the Bologna process of European higher education reform. The process of reform will make it increasingly easy for students and researchers to gain the social and educational benefits from studying in another European country. In Berlin, Education Ministers set clear goals for 2005 on making progress across Europe on degree structures, on credit systems and on quality assurance. This will ensure that there is no danger of the process of reform slowing down.

  In addition, another seven countries joined the Bologna process in Berlin. This raises to 40 the total number of countries committed to working together to build a successful and attractive European higher education area by the end of the decade, an important plank of the Lisbon agenda on competitiveness.

  Food Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on food by his Department and by each agency for which it is responsible in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what proportion of that food by value was produced in the United Kingdom; what guidance he has issued to encourage the procurement of home-grown food; and if he will make a statement. [129382]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In 2001–02 DfES recorded expenditure of £448,893 on hospitality and £71,829 on contract payments. The figures for 2002–03 were £531,494 and £19,487 respectively. Expenditure on food in DfES is generally limited to official hospitality and canteen subsidies/contract payments. Records of spend on food provided at external conferences and like events are not kept centrally and so have not been included. Unfortunately, we are unable to breakdown this expenditure further. Our service provider is encouraged to purchase fresh UK produce wherever possible. Guidance produced by Defra on "Integrating Sustainable Development into Public Procurement of Food and Catering" has been issued to our service provider and associated action plan completed.

  GCSE Pass Marks
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of changes in GCSE examination pass-marks in the last(a) five and (b) 10 years. [131807]
  168W
  Mr. Miliband
  QCA as the statutory regulator for public examinations has responsibility for the maintenance of standards. The Chief Executive of QCA will write to the hon. Member providing details of the assessments the Authority has made.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the impact of Reshaping in the Learning and Skills Councils on the delivery of the organisations functions. [131733]

  Alan Johnson
  The Learning and Skills Council is undertaking a reshaping exercise which is designed to build on its existing strengths to enhance its capacity to work with partners to develop and to implement the strategies necessary to achieve national targets for skills and learning, while streamlining routine administrative arrangements. The reshaping programme will not damage the LSC's ability to deliver. It will improve the organisation's overall efficiency and effectiveness. The reshaping programme is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council, and I have therefore asked Mark Haysom, the council's chief executive, to write to my hon. Friend with further information. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much he estimates will be saved by the exercise Reshaping in the Learning and Skills Councils; [131734]

  (2) how many staff he estimates will leave their posts as a result of the exercise Reshaping in the Learning and Skills Councils; [131735]

  (3) what the timetable is for the completion of the exercise Reshaping in the Learning and Skills Councils. [131736]

  Alan Johnson
  These are matters for the Learning and Skills Council. Mark Haysom, the council's chief executive, will write to my hon. friend with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Non-EU Students
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the 50 further education colleges with the lowest percentage of non-European Union students successfully completing their courses, giving(a) the percentage for each institution and (b) the number of non-EU students at each institution in the last year for which figures are available. [131727]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is not available. 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

  169W
  misleading. In 2001/02, less than 15 further education institutions in England had more than 500 LSC funded non-European Union students.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list for each school in Shrewsbury and Atcham the average number of hours for which schoolchildren undertake physical education. [132286]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This information is not currently held in the format requested and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of schools provide a minimum of two hours physical education per week for school children. [132287]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Government are investing more than £1 billion in England to transform physical education (PE) and school sport. This funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared by DfES and DCMS, to increase the percentage of school children who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006. Currently, about a quarter of schools provide this entitlement at key stage 1, two-fifths at key stage 2 and a third at key stages 3 and 4.

  School Catering
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham allow the sale of drinks with a high added sugar content to schoolchildren. [132285]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills does not collect this information.

  School Curriculum (Music and Dance)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is towards including the promotion of English folk songs and English folk dances in the school curriculum; and if he will make a statement. [131611]

  Mr. Miliband
  We believe that a broad range of high quality music and dance experiences should be available to all our young people, whatever their background and wherever they live.

  Opportunities for pupils to sing, dance and make music from a range of times, places and cultures are firmly embedded within the National Curricula for Music and Physical Education. In England, we have a rich folk tradition which teachers can draw upon. However, it is for the individual teacher to select their repertoire, based on their own professional judgement and expertise.

  School Funding
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on school funding in(a) York and (b) North Yorkshire. [131477]
  170W
  Mr. Miliband
  Between 1997–98 and 2003–04, North Yorkshire's total funding per pupil has increased in cash terms from 2,340 to 3,460 an increase of 48 per cent. York's funding has increased from £2,290 to £3,290, an increase of 44 per cent.

  School Opening Hours
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the implications for parental choice for schools of the announcement of proposals to stagger the school day; and if he will make a statement. [131618]

  Mr. Miliband
  School governing bodies will continue to set school opening hours to suit the circumstances of parents and pupils at their school. The recent publication "Travelling to School: an action plan" encourages school to work with their local authority and transport providers to consider whether staggered school opening hours can allow pupils to access a wider range of school based activities, cut costs and improve services by allowing the same number of buses to provide a service to many more pupils. Decisions on school session times are and will remain a matter for individual schools. If schools in their local area adopt different times, parents with reasons to prefer one school's opening hours to another's will no doubt take this into account in choosing a school.

  Skills Gap (Suffolk)
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the skills gap in the Suffolk work force aged over 16 years old. [131837]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department measures skills gaps in the Employers Skills Survey. The 2001 survey indicated that 8 per cent. of establishments in Suffolk reported skills gaps within their current work force. This was slightly above the England average of 7 per cent.

  Up to date information will be available through the LSC National Employers Skill Survey which will provide assessments of skills gaps in the current work force for individual LSC areas. It will be available in December 2003.

  Teacher Redundancies
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school teachers have been made redundant in each local education authority in each year since 1997. [131847]

  Mr. Miliband
  Statistical First Release 23/2003, released on 9 September, provides teacher numbers at regional and LEA revel for each year since 1997. Provisional national and regional figures for January 2004 are due to be published next April. Definitive statistics on teacher redundancies are not collected centrally.

  University Tuition Fees
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was paid in tuition fees for higher education in UK universities by citizens of British Overseas territories in each of the last five years,
  171W
  broken down by territory; and what proportion of the fees were (a) reimbursed by the government of that territory and (b) borne by the individual. [131809]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC Licence Fee
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received on the future of the BBC television licence. [131471]

  Estelle Morris
  Representations on the future of the television licence fee are not recorded separately from other representations about television licensing received by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In the year from April 2002 to March 2003, the Department received 268 letters from Members of Parliament and 527 letters from members of the public about all aspects of television licensing.

  The forthcoming review of the BBC's Royal Charter will include public consultation on the Corporation's funding arrangements.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether her Department plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the United Kingdom. [132107]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS is not an organisation that operates a call centre.

  Cinemas (Sub-titling and Audio Description)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 15 September,Official Report, column 520W, on subtitled films, what steps her Department is taking to ensure initiatives are introduced to supply cinemas in (a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland with subtitling and audio-description equipment to improve access to cinemas by people with hearing and sight impairments. [131560]

  Estelle Morris
  The UK Film Council, the Government's strategic adviser for film, is in discussion with the national screen agencies, the Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission, Scottish Screen and Sgrin Cymru Wales about improving access to cinemas for people with hearing and sight impairments. I am writing to the devolved Administrations to express my support for this very valuable initiative.

  Community Sports Coaches
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 19 June,Official Report, column 343W, on community sports coaches, what the current Budget allocation for the community sports coaches schemes is; and whether it is sufficient to meet the target of 3000 coaches by 2006. [131630]
  172W
  Mr. Caborn
  Of the £28 million that DCMS is investing to implement the key recommendations of the Coaching Task Force, the Community Sports Coach scheme has been allocated a total of £16.1 million: £0.5 million in 2003–04, £5.0 million in 2004–05 and £10.6 million in 2005–06.

  This is sufficient for 3,000 full-and part-time community sports coaches by 2006. I have today written to my hon. Friend with more detail about progress with the scheme. I am arranging for copies of the letter to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many consultancies were commissioned by her Department in the last two years for which figures are available; and what the cost of those contracts was. [130906]

  Mr. Caborn
  In 2001–02 11 contracts were awarded at a cost of £323,820, while in 2002–03 16 contracts were awarded at a cost of £693,000.

  Digital Curriculum
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport (1) what discussions she has had with the BBC on the delay in announcing its outline plan for the digital curriculum; [131526]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the timetable for the BBC's (a) announcement of an outline plan regarding and (b) launch of the digital curriculum; [131527]

  (3) what discussions she has had with the BBC on the content of its outline plan for the digital curriculum, with particular reference to the commissioning of content from the independent production sector. [131528]

  Estelle Morris
  The conditions on the approval of the Digital Curriculum require the BBC to publish a five-year commissioning plan, no less than 15 months before the launch of the service. The European Commission announced on 1 October 2003 that the Digital Curriculum was compatible with European state aid rules. The BBC is therefore now able to pursue its work on the service, and has announced that it intends to launch the full service in 2006, following a series of pilot projects. In accordance with the conditions, half of all content will be commissioned from external producers.

  English Folk Songs/Dance
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what her policy is towards promoting English folk songs and English folk dances; and if she will make a statement; [131607]

  (2) what action she (a) has taken since 1997 and (b) plans to take in future years to promote English folk songs and English folk dances; and if she will make a statement. [131608]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport recognises the particular contribution of folk arts to rural life regeneration and cultural tourism. In March 2003, Arts Council England announced increases in core funding to contemporary music, including folk music, of £1.7 million. This included an
  173W
  increase of over £100,000 to Folk Arts England to support the development of a dynamic English folk music sector.

  Arts Council funding for the Colchester Arts Centre, which provides a diverse programme of folk music will also rise over the next three years by 16.5 per cent. to £104,000.

  Football Grounds (Standing Areas)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made as to the safety implications of introducing small sections of standing areas at football grounds. [132402]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's position on standing at football grounds has not changed. Whatever their size, standing terraces are implicitly more dangerous to spectators than seated areas. As such, there are no plans to revise the all seater policy, which applies to all Premier and First Division grounds.

  I have made it clear to those who seek changes to that policy that it will remain in place unless or until compelling technical evidence is produced that it is no longer necessary. My officials regularly discuss the Government's position on this issue with the Football Supporters' Federation and other interested parties. No technical evidence in favour of the re-introduction of standing areas has been produced to date.

  Grade I Listed Buildings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make list the Grade I listed buildings in England which are classified as at risk; and if she will make a statement. [131683]

  Mr. Caborn
  288 Grade I listed buildings are included in English Heritage's Buildings at Risk Register 2003, which was published on 18 July, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Register is also available as a database on English Heritage's website: www.english-heritage.org.uk/bar

  Iraq (Heritage/Conservation)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her support for training conservation and heritage professionals in Iraq since 15 September. [130812]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government are committed to supporting the Iraqi people in securing the long-term well being of Iraqi collections and antiquities. We believe that the most sustainable way of achieving this is to ensure that the museums have Iraqi conservators, curators and restorers who have the necessary and up-to-date skills to look after the collections. The British Museum, English Heritage and other organisations funded through my Department are consequently providing initially six secondment scholarships to help train Iraqi Board of Antiquities staff in the skills which the board most urgently needs. A number of staff have already been identified who will come to the UK to undertake secondments in the British Museum as soon as possible. In addition, my Department has compiled a174W
  database of offers for help and support by a number of UK-based heritage bodies and will match these offers with future needs identified by the Board of Antiquities.

  Irish Art/Culture/Sport
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support her Department has given to the promotion of Irish art, culture and sport in this country since 2001. [131732]

  Estelle Morris
  DCMS does not directly support the promotion of Irish art, culture and sport. This is a matter for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, the Arts Council (Republic of Ireland), the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and the Irish Sports Council. However, art organisations, whose work incorporates Irish art and culture, have received grants from our sponsored body for the arts in England, Arts Council England.

  Licensing Act 2003
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department will publish details of the(a) fees that will be charged under the Licensing Act 2003 and (b) subordinate legislation under the Act explaining (i) the prescribed forms of application and (ii) the building plans that will be required. [132155]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government intend to introduce all of the secondary legislation that will be required for transition to the new licensing regime, including that on fees, forms and plans, as soon as possible.

  Sports Facilities (Modernisation)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on how the money earmarked in the Budget statement for a pilot scheme of capital modernisation of sports facilities has been spent. [131579]

  Mr. Caborn
  This is not a pilot scheme. The Government are making £60 million available to 16 governing bodies for capital work at affiliated amateur sports clubs over the period 2003–04 to 2005–06. £20 million of this is coming from the Capital Modernisation Fund, as announced earlier this year.

  This money is being made available to governing bodies to make a real difference to community sport. Each will submit a strategy document before the end of October 2003, detailing how the money will be used, and building work on new and improved facilities is expected to begin in April 2004.

  Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the number of households that will not be able to access terrestrial television following the decision to stop the free to air access on Sky television in(a) the UK, (b) Suffolk, (c) Bury St. Edmunds constituency, (d) Norfolk, (e) Cambridgeshire and (f) Essex. [131842]
  175W
  Estelle Morris
  Estimates of terrestrial television coverage are not available in the requested form. The estimated coverage of analogue terrestrial television services is 99.4 per cent. of the UK and currently 73.1 per cent. of UK households can receive Freeview's services via digital terrestrial television. Information about analogue coverage and digital terrestrial coverage based on post code, can be obtained from the BBC and the Independent Television Commission. BBC services on digital satellite can be viewed free-to-air without the need for a viewing card. ITV, Channel 4 and Five are now considering a scheme to enable viewers to continue receiving these services, with a viewing card.

  Tyntesfield Estate
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her Answer of 26 June 2003,Official Report, column 212W, on the Tyntesfield Estate, what the level of the further grant award which has been agreed in principle by the Heritage Lottery Fund to be made to Tyntesfield is; and whether that grant has been made. [131453]

  Mr. Caborn
  The level of award which has been agreed in principle for Tyntsfield by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is £20 million. The grant will be awarded subject to the receipt and favourable assessment of a fully worked up application which meets HLF's priorities. The National Trust is currently working up this application in accordance with standard HLF procedures. The application is expected to be submitted to the HLF in December this year.

  US Embassy (11 September)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements she made for(a) access by US citizens to the US Embassy and (b) access to Grosvenor Square by members of the public offering their condolences on 11 September when the Square was closed. [131412]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department liaised closely with the US Embassy throughout the organisation of this event and access to the Embassy was available on 11 September 2003. The opening of the garden was a ticket-only event for the families of the UK victims. It would not have been appropriate to allow other members of the public to participate in this very private moment. Furthermore, permitting members of the public to access the site on the day of the event would have compromised the extremely tight security which was required for such a high profile event.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Leader of the House on how many occasions in financial year 2002–03 his special advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity; which places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [131705]

  Mr. Hain
  My special advisers made no trips abroad in an official capacity in 2002–03.
  176W
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Leader of the House what the total cost was of special advisers to his office in financial year 2002–03, broken down by(a) salary and related expenses and (b) other costs. [131706]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is set out in the table and covers the period of my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when he was President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons.

  £

  Salaries

  Other costs

  115,450.50

  281.55

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Assaults (Minicab Drivers)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent representations she has received on assaults committed against women by illegal mini-cab drivers; and when she will next discuss such assaults with the Secretary of State for Transport. [127788]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have not received any representations recently on this subject and have no plans to raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, the Government are committed to reducing crime and the fear of crime wherever it occurs in the transport system.

  The Government are fully aware that many people (particularly women) are concerned about using public transport, especially at night. We are working with transport operators, local authorities, the police and others to improve personal security for both pedestrians and public transport passengers.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Employment Tribunal Appeals
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the average wait before an appeal is heard against the decision of an Employment Tribunal has been in the last 12 months. [128333]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I have been asked to reply.

  For appeals received in the last 12 months ending August 2003 the average time between receipt of the appeal and first hearing was four months.

  Presently, appeals are on average being listed for a hearing within three months.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Approved Development Programme Funding
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 17 September (129309), if he
  177W
  will give his reasons as to why Approved Development Programme funding is not available for local authorities. [131617]

  Keith Hill
  The Approved Development Programme is the main source of public subsidy supporting the development of social and keyworker housing by registered social landlords (RSLs). Resources for the Programme are limited and not all RSLs are successful in obtaining a share.

  Local authorities have an enhanced strategic housing role and they have access to revenue and capital resources separate from the Approved Development Programme to address local housing needs.

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the consultation documents issued by his Department in each of the last four years; what the cost was of producing each of these; how many documents were issued in each consultation; and how many responses were received in each consultation. [124578]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government recommend that policy development should be done in close consultation with stakeholders. Formal consultation documents are one part of this process, which can also include:

  Stakeholder meetings

  Listening events/public meetings

  Web forums

  Public surveys

  Focus groups

  Regional events

  Free-phone and freepost surveys and events

  Targeted leaflet campaigns

  Road shows and exhibitions.

  It is standard practice for Departments to evaluate the policy development process, including the use of consultation. The specific information requested is not collated on a central basis and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, details of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's recent consultation exercises are available at www.ODPM.gov.uk.

  Criminal Records Bureau (Fees)
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the financial impact of recent Criminal Records Bureau fee increases on education and social care budgets in local government. [131818]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Responsibility for paying the fee for a criminal record Disclosure rests with the individual applicant, although it is open to the employer to reimburse the cost. A Regulatory Impact Assessment, which assesses the impact of the fee increase across all sectors, is available in the Library of the House.

  It has always been the intention that the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) should be self-financed by means of the charges that it makes of those using the service, and that the cost of the service should not be a drain on the Exchequer. That remains the objective.
  178W
  However, in the short term, the costs of the CRB will continue to be met by a combination of fee receipts and contributions from the Home Office (HO), the Department of Health (DH) and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). In 2003–04 the HO will contribute £4 million and DH and DfES a further £7.4 million each.

  Empty Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which 20 local authority areas have the highest percentage of empty housing; and if he will make a statement. [131413]

  Keith Hill
  Information relating to the number of empty housing is reported annually by local authorities on their Housing Investment Programme returns. The latest available data for the 20 local authority areas that have the highest percentage of empty housing are reported at 1 April 2002 and contained in the following table.

  Vacants as percentage of stock at 1 April 2002

  Vacants

  Local authority

  Region

  Total dwelling stock

  Total

  As percentage of stock

  South Hams

  SW

  40,600

  4,900

  12

  Burnley

  NW

  40,600

  3,400

  8

  Kingston upon Hull

  YH

  115,200

  8,800

  8

  Hastings

  SE

  40,800

  3,400

  8

  Blackburn with Darwen

  NW

  58,400

  4,000

  7

  Hyndburn

  NW

  35,700

  2,500

  7

  Liverpool

  NW

  206,500

  15,400

  7

  Manchester

  NW

  194,900

  13,700

  7

  Salford

  NW

  100,800

  6,800

  7

  Richmondshire

  YH

  20,700

  1,500

  7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  L

  88,300

  6,300

  7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  NE

  120,700

  7,300

  6

  Wear Valley

  NE

  28,500

  1,700

  6

  Preston

  NW

  57,200

  3,500

  6

  Calderdale

  YH

  88,400

  5,400

  6

  Scarborough

  YH

  52,400

  3,300

  6

  West Lindsey

  EM

  35,900

  2,200

  6

  Great Yarmouth

  E

  43,600

  2,700

  6

  Tendring

  E

  64,200

  3,800

  6

  Shepway

  SE

  52,100

  3,400

  6

  Note:

  Figures rounded to nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister HIP Returns.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total expenditure on advertising by the Department was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the level of planned expenditure is for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [114430]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. The total expenditure on advertising by the Office in(b) 2002–03 was 3,346,943. The majority of this advertising spend was on the Fire Safety Campaign. The level of planned expenditure for (i) 2003–04 is £3 million; and for (ii) 2004–05 is £3.3 million. The majority of this advertising spend will also be on the ongoing Fire Safety campaign.

  Fire Service Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to reform fire service pensions in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [126413]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced in the White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service", published on 30 June, our plans for changes to the pension arrangements for firelighters. As a first step, on 17 July a document, for consultation, detailing our proposals to amend the existing Firefighters' Pension Scheme was published.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also planning to introduce a new scheme more suited to the service of the future as well as pension arrangements for retained firefighters. We will consult fully on our proposals in due course.

  Gross Credit Approvals
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's expenditure limits for total gross credit approvals are for the 2003–04 financial year; and of those sums how much(a) has been committed, (b) is planned to be committed and (c) remains uncommitted. [126122]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's budget for credit approvals in 2003–04 is £1,227,062,000. Of this(a) £1,221,462,000 has been committed; (b) £5,600,000 is currently planned to be committed; and (c) none remains uncommitted.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportions of his Department's expenditure limits for total gross credit approvals for financial year 2002–03 were unused in that year. [126123]

  Yvette Cooper
  Six per cent. of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's budget for gross credit approvals in 2002–03 remained unused at the end of the financial year although end year flexibility arrangements allow unspent budgets to be carried forward from one year to the next.

  Homeless People
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless families there are in the UK. [129451]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on local authorities' activities under homelessness provisions in England is published in a quarterly Statistical Release, "Statutory Homelessness: England". Table 3 of the Statistical Release presents a summary of those households accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Housing Act. Tables 6 and 7 summarise the number of homeless households in accommodation arranged by local authorities on the last day of the quarter.

  Copies of the Statistical Release are available in the Library of the House and the latest edition, published on 10 September, presents statistics up to and including the second quarter of 2003. In the period April to June 2003, local authorities accepted 36,230 households as homelessness, and as at 30 June 2003 there were 93,480
  180W
  households in accommodation arranged by local authorities under homelessness provisions of Housing Acts.

  For information about other parts of the United Kingdom, I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The March 2002 report, 'More than a roof', set out the Government's approach to tackling and preventing homelessness. Specific measures included investment of £125 million in 2002–03 to support local authorities and voluntary agencies working with them to support new approaches to tackling and preventing homelessness. The Homelessness Directorate within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has a revenue budget of £70 million and a £23.5 million capital budget for 2003–04. These resources will help to support the Government's commitment that by March 2004 no homeless family with children should be placed in a bed and breakfast hotel other than in an emergency, and even then for no more than six weeks.

  Funding will also support new approaches that help people tackle the problems that are making and keeping them homeless and help to sustain the Prime Minister's target to reduce rough sleeping by two thirds of 1998 levels.

  While the latest quarterly statistics show increases in homelessness acceptances and the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation, there has been a significant reduction in the number of homeless families with children placed in bed and breakfast accommodation. The number of such families has fallen by 22 per cent. over the last quarter and 44 per cent. compared with a year ago. In addition, the latest rough sleeping figures for England, also published on 10 September, estimate that 504 people were sleeping rough on any one night—the lowest ever recorded level.

  The rising trend in homelessness is the result of numerous complex factors, many of which are outlined in "More than a roof". In addition, the Priority Needs Order has extended the criteria by which people are assessed to have a priority need if they are homeless.

  The Homelessness Act 2002 placed a duty on local authorities to have a strategy in place by the end of July 2003 to tackle and prevent homelessness, based on a review of homelessness in their district. While the number of homelessness acceptances is likely to continue to increase in the short term, improved housing supply and increased investment in prevention should lead to reductions in the longer term.

  Housing Renewal Pathfinder Project
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment his Department has made of the progress of each Housing Renewal Pathfinder Project; and if he will make a statement. [131415]

  Keith Hill
  On 6 October 2003 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced the allocation of £125 million to the Manchester Salford pathfinder over
  181W
  the next two and a half years for the implementation of its scheme (Official Report, column 16W). The Newcastle Gateshead pathfinder has submitted its scheme and it is being assessed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and by the Audit Commission who are independently scrutinising each of the pathfinder schemes. We will announce the outcome of the negotiations on the scheme once they are complete.

  On present plans we expect to have agreed the remaining schemes by the end of March 2004, with the exception of the Hull and East Riding pathfinder which received its pathfinder status on 9 September 2003 and which expects to submit its scheme to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by October 2004.

  IT Projects
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what major IT projects with a value in excess of £10,000 he authorised expenditure on in each of the last three financial years. [125722]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since its creation, the Office has approved a number of major IT projects jointly with the Department for Transport in the 2002–03 financial year, consequently there may be some overlaps between the two departments. These projects have been identified separately in the following list.

  2002–03: ODPM Centre—joint projects with DfT

  Next Generation Website

  DfT/ODPM Intranet Strategic IT Enhancement

  Windows XP Migration

  Personnel Improving Services and Modernisation

  BS7799

  Data Communications Service

  Corporate Information Infrastructure

  Corporate Intranet

  ETHOS End-to-End Performance Monitoring

  GSI Upgrade

  PC Replacement

  Remote Access Upgrade

  Single Sign On Implementation

  2002–03: ODPM Centre—ODPM-only projects

  GOSAP financial systems for Government Offices

  BVPI website upgrade and e-survey

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated level of saving to the Department is from the use of market testing in 2002–03. [107766]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at a disproportionate cost.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government is doing to encourage research and development in the North East. [130733]
  182W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Government are committed to encouraging investment in research and development throughout the United Kingdom. Last year, the Government allocated the largest sustained increase in the Science Budget for more than a decade; total science spending by 2005–06 will be £1¼ billion higher than in 2002–03.

  To encourage commercial investment in Research and Development, the Government have a range of policies including the new Grant for Research and Development, Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) and Research and Development tax credits to encourage companies in the North East to invest in new technologies.

  Research funding for the region's five universities was £19.7 million in 2000–01 which represents 0.7 per cent. of the region's GDP.

  The Government also fund ONE North East, the regional development agency. They have put in place a "Strategy for Success" which, with the support of the regional Science and Industry Council will be investing very significant amounts of Government and European funding in to the Research and Development of key emerging technologies via newly established centres of excellence. ONE North East is investing £60 million in supporting regional science, engineering and technology, some £23 per head of population, above the national average of around £5 per head.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the Government has spent on research and development in(a) the North East, (b) each of the other regions and (c) the UK in each year since 1997. [130734]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Government research and development spending—both within higher education institutes and outside of higher education institutes—is tracked regionally through the ONS regional trend series. The most recent figures available—for 2001—are provided in Tables 1 and 2 as follows, together with figures for the years 1997–2000 inclusive.

  Table 1:

  Estimated GOR breakdown of expenditure on Intramural R&D performed within Government Establishments (GOVERD), 1997–2001

  £ million

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  United Kingdom

  2,018

  2,079

  2,072

  2,134

  1,829

  North East

  3

  3

  2

  2

  4

  North West and Merseyside

  56

  59

  56

  57

  66

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  30

  31

  46

  48

  50

  East Midlands

  53

  51

  56

  56

  68

  West Midlands

  195

  182

  190

  196

  65

  Eastern

  276

  257

  246

  259

  277

  London

  184

  202

  229

  258

  238

  South East

  753

  700

  644

  635

  515

  South West

  259

  330

  299

  307

  254

  England

  1,810

  1,815

  1,767

  1,816

  1,537

  Wales

  20

  51

  60

  65

  49

  Scotland

  175

  201

  231

  238

  226

  Northern Ireland

  12

  12

  14

  15

  16

  183W
  Table 2:

  Estimated GOR breakdown of expenditure on Intramural R&D performed within Higher Education Institutions (HERD), 1997–2001

  £ million

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  United Kingdom

  2,891

  3,040

  3,341

  3,633

  4,035

  North East

  101

  105

  113

  122

  142

  North West and Merseyside

  228

  238

  260

  287

  322

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  229

  241

  270

  284

  317

  East Midlands

  151

  159

  182

  204

  224

  West Midlands

  156

  167

  180

  192

  207

  Eastern

  214

  211

  255

  324

  366

  London

  729

  775

  837

  895

  980

  South East

  434

  460

  493

  515

  562

  South West

  129

  138

  148

  160

  178

  England

  2,372

  2,494

  2,737

  2,984

  3,297

  Wales

  111

  113

  129

  139

  155

  Scotland

  357

  375

  411

  440

  510

  Northern Ireland

  52

  57

  64

  70

  73

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship in the last financial year; who the sponsor was in each case; what the nature of each project was; what time period was covered by each project; what the total cost of each project was; how much money was involved in each sponsorship deal; and if he will make a statement. [112405]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Urban Summit was held on 31 October and 1 November 2002 at a net cost of £450,0001. English Heritage paid £4,000 to sponsor the drinks reception. English Partnerships sponsored the Urban Summit newspaper that was produced at the end of the first day at a cost of £5,250. Advantage West Midlands and the Birmingham and Solihull Connexions Services sponsored the Cyber Cafe at a total cost of £5,000. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not have any information on 'sponsorship' of the delegate dinners on the first night of the Summit as these were organised and paid for direct by the dinner hosts themselves: Advantage West Midlands, Birmingham and Solihull Learning and Skills Council, Birmingham Chamber with Business Link, Birmingham City Council, English Partnerships and West Midlands Local Government Association.

  The Fire Safety Campaign is designed to raise awareness of fire safety issues. In 2002–03, two campaigns were launched—The Fire Action Plan in September 2002 and Kitchen Safety in February 2003. In each case, around £750,000 in the form of in-kind support was provided by the sponsors/ Woolworths, Homebase, Argos, Currys, E1 Electronics, B&Q, Comet, Robert Dyas, Wickes, Energizer, Duracell, Fire Angel and Kidde Safety sponsored both campaigns and in addition the National Union of Students, Wilkinson's, Tefal and Morphy Richards sponsored the Kitchen Safety Campaign.
  1Estimated net cost, after taking account of income from ticket sales, sponsorship and exhibition sales. This figure includes the cost of contractors, consultants and agency staff recruited to work on Summit organisation.
  184W

  Travellers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will make it his policy to give local authorities the power to seize the assets of travellers who camp illegally in order to recoup the cost of clearing sites on their departure; what guidance he gives to local authorities; what plans he has(a) to alter this advice and (b) to propose amendments to the law; and if he will make a statement. [125984]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are no plans to give local authorities additional powers to seize the assets of illegally camped Gypsies and Travellers in order to recoup the cost of clearing sites. Local authorities if they choose to do so, are able to use their powers under Section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to remove unauthorised campers from land.

  The police are also able to use their powers under Section 62 of the same Act to seize and remove any vehicles parked on illegal sites if a Section 61 Direction has already been served, and the owners have failed to remove them.

TRANSPORT

  Air Travel Trust Fund
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the scope of the financial cover under the insolvency protection provisions of the Air Travel Trust Fund. [R] [131515]

  Mr. McNulty
  Customers purchasing package travel including a flight are protected financially in the event of failure of the travel organiser concerned. Customers abroad at the time of failure will be repatriated at the end of their holiday, and those who have yet to travel will be fully reimbursed for what they have paid. Under the terms of the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers' Licensing) Regulations 1995, in the event of failure of a licensed travel organiser the bond established with the Civil Aviation Authority would be used to cover the repatriation and reimbursement costs. If the bond is insufficient to meet these costs the Air Travel Trust Fund would be used to make up the difference.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will bring forward legislation to change the scope of the financial protection of the Air Travel Trust Fund. [R] [131516]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government have no plans to change the scope of the financial protection provided by the Air Travel Organisers' Licensing scheme, backed up by the Air Travel Trust Fund.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend financial protection to those booking accommodation through an on-line airline facility. [R] [131517]

  Mr. McNulty
  Accommodation booked on the same on-line facility as that used for the purchase of an airline ticket is already covered by the provisions of the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers' Licensing) Regulations 1995 and is therefore protected financially. If the accommodation is booked on a different website
  185W
  the two transactions are legally distinct, and the two transactions do not constitute a package for the purposes of Council Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays and package tours. The Government have no plans to amend the ATOL Regulations to extend the financial protection to cover this type of purchase.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of protection is extended under the Air Travel Trust Fund to those booking airline tickets and separate accommodation on the same website. [R][131518]

  Mr. McNulty
  A company offering both air travel and accommodation on the same website is obliged to have an ATOL licence, thereby financially protecting customers who buy a package. If flight and accommodation were booked separately there would be no financial protection for the accommodation; the flight, however, would be financially protected unless the vendor issued the ticket within 24 hours of payment being made. If the flight and accommodation were linked, albeit booked separately, the vendor might recognise the linkage and issue a single invoice, thereby conferring financial protection on the resulting package.

  Automotive Fuels
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce demand targets for LPG as a road fuel. [131686]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Chancellor announced in Budget 2003 that the Government would be consulting stakeholders on how best to ensure that future support for road fuel gases, including LPG, continued to reflect environmental and other policy objectives, with a view to announcing decisions on future duty rates and other forms of support in the 2003 pre-Budget report. A joint Department for Transport, Treasury and Customs and Excise consultation document "Road fuel gases and their contribution to clean low-carbon transport: Establishing a consistent and durable framework of Government support" discussed the issues and invited comments by 17 September. The Government are now considering the responses received.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles in the United Kingdom were propelled by(a) LPG, (b) CNG, (c) LNG and (d) hydrogen in the last year for which figures are available. [131707]

  Mr. Jamieson
  DVLA statistics do not provide a breakdown by fuel type, only vehicles that are dedicated gas or petrol/gas combinations. DVLA statistics also do not distinguish between Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Natural Gas vehicles and hydrogen vehicles. Statistics from the DVLA for June 2003 show that there are 41,361 vehicles running on road fuel gases (Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) and Hydrogen).

  But this understates the number of vehicles because not all conversions to alternative fuelling are notified to DVLA. Industry sources suggest there are around 100,000 vehicles currently running on LPG, around 850
  186W
  on natural gas (CNG and LNG) and there are presently only a few prototype/demonstration vehicles in UK running on hydrogen.

  Mr. David Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many automotive refuelling points there were in the United Kingdom for(a) LPG, (b) CNG, LNG and (d) hydrogen in the last year for which figures are available. [131708]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information supplied by the Energy Saving Trust show that there are currently around 1,300 LPG, 19 CNG and 7 LNG refuelling sites in the UK. There are currently no public access hydrogen refuelling points. However, a refuelling point will be available to support the Clean Urban Transport for Europe (CUTE) hydrogen fuel cell bus project.

  Balloons
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the effects of introducing a domestic airworthiness standard for tethered balloons for passenger transport in advance of the introduction of a European standard, with particular reference to the effects on UK manufacturers of balloons; [131218]

  (2) what options are open to manufacturers of tethered balloons for passenger transport to attain certification. [131219]

  (3) when he first received reports that, under single market provision, a certification of airworthiness would be required for tethered balloons for passenger transport. [131220]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 29 September 2003,Official Report, 6 October 2003 columns 1057–1060W.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the funding necessary to enable the UK to meet the EU targets of(a) 2 per cent. biofuels by 2005 and (b) 5.75 per cent. by 2010. [131717]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The EU's Biofuels Directive requires member states to set their own indicative targets for sales of biofuels to be met in the years 2005 and 2010. The Government will be consulting early next year on the level of targets that might be appropriate for the UK, and on the steps that we might take to meet them. In doing so, we will take full account of the likely costs and benefits to the UK, and of the level of Government support that might be necessary.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funds he has provided for the promotion and development of(a) sustainable liquid biofuels and (b) fossil gas fuels for road transport in the last three years. [131718]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have supported biofuels since July 2002 by means of a 20 pence per litre duty incentive which has resulted in sales of biodiesel increasing to over 2 million litres a month from virtually nothing before that date. Biodiesel is used mainly in a 5 per cent. blend with conventional diesel, and bio-blend
  187W
  fuel already represents some 2 per cent. of diesel sales. Vehicles do not need to be converted to run on 5 per cent. bio-blend diesel.

  In addition to this, the Government have funded a number of research projects into aspects of biofuels, including their emissions performance. The Government will be consulting early in 2004 on possible targets for biofuels sales in the UK and on how best to meet these targets.

  In the last three financial years. 2002–01 to 2002–03, the Energy Saving Trusts' TransportEnergy Powershift programme has provided grants of around £12.6 million for the purchase or conversion of vehicles to run on road fuel gases (natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas). The duty rate for the gases has since Budget 2001 been 9 pence per kilogramme. The Government have been consulting key stakeholders on how best to ensure that future support continues to reflect environmental and other policy objectives, with a view to announcing decisions in the 2003 pre-Budget report.

  Coach Safety
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice his Department has given to British coach drivers on adhering to French regulations on coach travel during coach accident memorial days. [131692]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department is aware that the French authorities place a restriction on coach travel during a weekend in late July or early August, annually. The date of the ban changes year-to-year, but during the 24-hour period of application, coach groups of more than 15 children under the age of 16 years are prohibited from travelling. The restrictions were originally put in place due to a number of serious coach accidents occurring at this time of year, which is traditionally the busiest weekend for transporting French children and heavy holiday traffic.

  The French authorities notify the British Embassy in Paris once the date of the ban is confirmed. They in turn pass this information to the UK trade association, the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT), for further dissemination amongst the UK coach industry. This information would also be available from the French Embassy and industry publications. Therefore, the Department does not pass this information to UK coach operators.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Minister of State will reply to the letter of 10 September from the hon. Member for North Shropshire regarding Mr. Per Lindstrand of Lindstrand Balloons Ltd. [131217]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my letter to him on this subject of the 22 September 2003.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 15 September 2003,Official Report, columns 499–500W, on deep vein
  188W
  thrombosis, when the Aviation Health Unit will come in to existence; what its composition will be; and if he will make a statement. [131932]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Aviation Health Unit, based at the Civil Aviation Authority's Gatwick offices and funded by this Department, will be a centre of expertise on health issues affecting air passengers and crew. The Civil Aviation Authority will announce the appointment of the Head of the Unit, and the start date of the Unit's work, shortly. The Head of the Unit will help determine its composition.

  Derailment (King's Cross)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the action to be taken as a result of the derailment of a train at King's Cross station on 16 September. [131729]

  Mr. McNulty
  The derailment remains the subject of an on-going Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation. HSE's HM Railway Inspectorate is still gathering evidence to inform its decision about bringing any possible enforcement action.

  Network Rail has launched a formal investigation into the cause of the accident.

  Disabled Parking Permits
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the level of crime associated with the theft of blue badge disabled parking permits; what steps his Department is taking to deal with such crime; and if he will make a statement. [132085]

  Mr. McNulty
  Vehicle crime is a matter that the Government continues to take very seriously and many initiatives are being taken forward to reduce levels of crime and theft in particular. Indeed, in recent years there has been a fall in such crime and we are on track to meet our target to reduce vehicle crime (thefts of and theft from vehicles) by 30% by March 2004.

  Theft of Blue Badges and abuse of the Blue Badge Scheme is of concern to the Department. These are issues that were considered during a recent comprehensive review of the Scheme, which concluded with 47 recommendations (including a number of enforcement measures) from our statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee. These have been accepted by the Government and are being taken forward. The enforcement measures include an important power for the police, traffic wardens and local authority parking enforcement officers to inspect badges to check details and the photograph of the badge holder. We are also looking at the feasibility of establishing a national database of badge holders; the introduction of smartcard technology; increasing penalties for abuse and misuse of the Scheme.

  The power to inspect, and a number of other measures, will need to be introduced through primary legislation and we are looking for a suitable legislative opportunity to do so. We aim to implement the changes at the earliest opportunity.
  189W

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which countries' passports(a) are and (b) are not accepted by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency as proof of identity from individuals applying for a replacement driving licence; for what reasons the latter are not acceptable; what other form of documentation is acceptable to the DVLA; and if he will make a statement. [131501]

  Mr. Jamieson
  DVLA will consider passports from all countries in support of a driving licence applicant. In some cases, additional evidence of an applicant's identity may be required before a licence can be issued. A wide range of documents can be considered including birth certificates and appropriate papers issued by the Home Office. DVLA will not grant a driving licence until the identity of the applicant has been clearly established.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent in each year by his Department in preparing for United Kingdom entry to the euro; how much his Department plans to spend on preparations for United Kingdom entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates he has made of the total costs to his Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131606]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary (PQ reference 131597), at column 142W.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many official speeches he has made since June supporting entry into the euro. [131848]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary (PQ reference 131748), at column 142W.

  Flight Paths (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes have taken place in the last three years in the number of aircraft on flight paths above Walthamstow. [131581]

  Mr. McNulty
  Records are not kept of the numbers of aircraft routed over Walthamstow. Approximately 20 to 25 per cent. of Heathrow arrivals overfly Walthamstow or adjoining areas. Aircraft inbound to London City overfly Walthamstow only occasionally.

  There are no Heathrow departure routes over Walthamstow. A London City departure route passes over the south of the area.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what altitude restrictions apply to aircraft on flight paths above Walthamstow; and how these have changed in the last five years. [131582]

  Mr. McNulty
  The airspace over all of Walthamstow above 2,500 ft has been classified as 'controlled' for many years. Over the southernmost quarter of Walthamstow the airspace has been controlled to 190W
  ground level since the opening of London City Airport. Aircraft using Heathrow and City operate within this controlled airspace. Aircraft inbound to Heathrow will normally be above 5,000 ft.

  Over the remainder of my hon. Friend's constituency below 2,500 ft, helicopters and general aviation aircraft from smaller aerodromes can determine routes and altitudes according to their particular requirements. Such flights are subject to the Rules of the Air Regulations, notably Rule 5, which means most will be above 1,500 ft.

  There have been no changes to the airspace over Walthamstow in the last five years.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for which airports(a) inbound and (b) outbound flight paths overfly Walthamstow; and how this has changed in the last three years. [131583]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is as follows.

  Inbound—There are no fixed paths over Walthamstow for arriving aircraft although they tend to follow a regular pattern that varies depending on wind direction and how busy Heathrow airport is at the time. Aircraft over-flying Walthamstow comprise mainly those descending from the Lambourne holding stack en route to the final approach to Heathrow, and occasionally aircraft inbound to London City. Exceptionally, aircraft inbound to Stansted may be routed over Walthamstow.

  Outbound—There are no Heathrow departure routes over Walthamstow, but air traffic controllers are permitted to use all controlled airspace, and so a small number of Heathrow departures may overfly Walthamstow above 4,000ft. Any London City departures over Walthamstow will normally be above 3,000ft. Aircraft departing from other south-east airports can be routed over the Walthamstow area, but will be at much higher altitudes and probably not be heard.

  There have been no changes to these airspace arrangements in the last three years.

  Heathrow Airport
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consultation his Department has undertaken with the Environment Agency on the risk of flooding in the Thames Valley resulting from the potential development of a third runway at Heathrow; [131730]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the development of (a) a third runway and (b) the fifth terminal at Heathrow airport on the risk of flooding in (i) the Thames Valley and (ii) the London borough of Hillingdon. [131731]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East consultation closed on 30 June 2003. We are currently analysing over 400,000 responses to the consultation. It would not be appropriate to comment on any of the responses while the analysis is being undertaken. However, all options considered in the South East and
  191W
  East of England Regional Air Services Study (SERAS), including the option for a third runway at Heathrow, were appraised for potential impacts on the water environment including any contributory risk to flooding.

  The appraisal system took account of national guidance including the Environment Agency's 1 in 100 year flood plain mapping and the Flood Estimation Handbook. The option for a third runway at Heathrow Airport was assessed as having a low adverse impact on flooding.

  There was a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment including flood risk for Terminal 5. The Secretary of State took account of the inspector's conclusions on environmental impacts in reaching his decisions in November 2001. The issue of the impact of the development on the Twin Rivers was unresolved at that time and a condition was imposed requiring BAA to secure planning permission for a scheme to address it. The London borough of Hillingdon has now granted permission for such a scheme.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of a third runway at Heathrow on flooding in the area; [131868]

  (2) what assessment he has received from the Environment Agency on the flooding implications of building a third runway at Heathrow. [131869]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East consultation closed on 30 June 2003. We are currently analysing over 400,000 responses to the consultation. It would not be appropriate to comment on any of the responses while the analysis is being undertaken. However, I can confirm that all options considered in the South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study (SERAS), including the option for a third runway at Heathrow, were appraised for potential impacts on the water environment including any contributory risk to flooding.

  The appraisal system took account of national guidance including the Environment Agency's 1 in 100 year flood plain mapping and the Flood Estimation Handbook. The option for a third runway at Heathrow Airport was assessed as having a Low Adverse impact on flooding.

  Horley Station
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of building a rail tunnel under Horley Station; and if he will make a statement. [131502]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is responsible for promoting and securing the development of the rail network, including improvements to stations and infrastructure. The SRA has not made an estimate of the cost to public funds of building a tunnel under Horley Station and has no plans to carry out such works.

  Maritime Transport Funding (Republic of Ireland)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what progress his Department has made 192W
  in renegotiating the funding contributed by the UK for navigational aids used solely by vessels using ports in the Republic of Ireland; [131536]

  (2) what plans he has to end the Irish Light Dues subsidy. [131540]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK is seeking to renegotiate the current agreement to require Ireland to meet the full costs of their aids to navigation. Discussions with FCO and Irish Government are ongoing but progress is slow.

  We are working with the General Lighthouse Authorities to review the future requirement of marine aids to navigation. The review will examine the provision of existing and future aids in Ireland and determine whether all existing aids are required.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was contributed by the UK authorities for navigational aids in the Republic of Ireland in each of the last five years. [131537]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The contribution of the General Lighthouse Fund to navigational aids in the Republic of Ireland in the last five years is assessed as follows:

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  4350.5

  5520.7

  4597.9

  473.6

  4915.5

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much subsidy was paid by the UK Government for each vessel using ports in the Republic of Ireland, in the last year for which figures are available. [131538]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We do not hold the information in the form requested in respect of the costs of providing aids to navigation for vessels using Republic of Ireland ports. Once a merchant vessel has paid light dues, there is no further liability for a period of one month from that date. Furthermore, no more than seven payments are required in any fiscal year. We therefore do not hold information on merchant vessel movements beyond the seven voyage limit. Neither do we hold records on fishing vessel or tug activity.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he(a) last raised and (b) next intends to raise the issue of light dues with the Irish Government; what discussions his Department has had with the Irish Government over the last three years regarding light dues; and what representations he has received from the Irish Government on the reform of the light dues. [131539]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In seeking to renegotiate the current funding agreement, light dues issues are discussed throughout the year with representatives of the Irish Government. No representations have been received on the reform of the light dues structure.

  Rail Franchises
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requirements he has placed on the
  193W
  Strategic Rail Authority to consult passengers in determining which applicant is to be awarded the Greater Anglia Franchise. [131610]

  Mr. McNulty
  As with all franchise competitions, the onus is on the bidders to consult local stakeholders. They are required to supply the Strategic Rail Authority with a summary of the consultation undertaken and how the outcome was included in their bid.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many train paths were allocated to the Royal Mail in each week in the last year for which figures are available. [131680]

  Mr. McNulty
  In the summer 2002 timetable 62 paths each weekday were allocated for Royal Mail services. Paths have been given up at various dates since then. As of 30 September 26 were still operative.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the mail trains and other facilities associated with the transport of mail by rail are to be mothballed following the decision of Royal Mail to send mail by road; and if he will make a statement. [131684]

  Mr. McNulty
  That is a matter for the owners of the trains and facilities concerned.

  School Hours
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills before 16 September on proposals to stagger the school day; and if he will make a statement. [131619]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Secretaries of State for Transport and for Education and Skills have discussed staggered school opening hours on a number of occasions. Experience in some local authorities has shown that small changes to school opening hours can make a major difference to the economics of dedicated school bus services and can also improve services by allowing the same number of buses to provide a service to many more pupils. But this is a matter for individual schools and local authorities to take a view on, in developing comprehensive school travel plans.

  Shipping Safety
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British ships were(a) lost and (b) damaged whilst at sea in each year since 1997. [132288]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The numbers of United Kingdom registered merchant vessels of 100 gross tonnes1 and over lost and damaged while in coastal or high seas since 1997 are set out in the table. This table is based on accidents reported to the Marine Accident Investigation Branch of the Department for Transport.
  1"British Ships" has been defined as United Kingdom Merchant Vessels of 100 gross tonnes and over.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Constructive Total Loss1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Damaged

  29

  19

  21

  29

  23

  13

  134

  Total

  30

  19

  21

  29

  24

  13

  136

  194W
  1The term "constructive total loss" is used by insurance companies. It describes the situation where the ship insured is reasonably abandoned on account of its actual total loss appearing to be unavoidable, or because it could not be preserved from actual total loss without an expenditure which would exceed its value when the expenditure had been incurred.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the minimum strength standard that British ships are built to for(a) the hull and (b) the aft. [132289]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The detailed designs of structural elements of British ships are to standards which are maintained and published by those classification societies to which this responsibility has been delegated under the Merchant Shipping Acts. Such standards govern the hull and fittings, superstructures and machinery of ships and take into account hull form, speed, operational restraints and geographic area of operation. Minimum strength standards are dependent on the role of the specific vessel.

  The International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) exists as a forum for the unification of such standards. IACS publishes a number of unified requirements related to ship's structures.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of British ships are built to withstand freak waves while at sea. [132290]

  Mr. Jamieson
  British vessels are designed to meet the worst waves reasonably expected in service. The International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) has tables showing what wave loadings are to be used for differing service requirements. Standards for ship's structures are based on known wave environments expressed statistically and incorporate appropriate safety margins. Freak waves by definition are in excess of these expectations and therefore no ship is specifically designed to meet them.

  Transport (Concessionary Fares) Bill
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to accept the proposals outlined in the Transport (Concessionary Fares) Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on 16 September; and if he will make a statement. [131498]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have ensured that older people aged 60 and over and disabled people are entitled to a free bus pass allowing half-fare travel on local buses, as a minimum. Local authorities may already run more generous schemes, such as free travel and cross boundary concessionary travel, if they wish. We have also introduced a half-fare for older people (aged 60 and over) and disabled people on many long distance scheduled coach services, in return for the operators of those services receiving grant from the Department for Transport.

  Walking Strategy
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much money has been spent on the development and production of a draft Walking Strategy; and when the final strategy will be published; [132357]
  195W
  (2) what initiatives his Department has implemented to reverse the decline in people choosing to walk their journeys as a means of travelling: [132358]

  (3) what plans the Government has made to establish a National Walking Board to implement the findings of the draft walking strategy; [132359]

  (4) what plans the Government has made to establish a walking website as a resource for promoting walking as an alternative way of travelling short journeys. [132360]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department issued a discussion document to inform our strategy on walking on 30 June. "On the move: by foot" sought views on how we might improve conditions for pedestrians and increase levels of walking. The consultation period closed on 26 September. We shall consider carefully all responses received to determine the need for future resources, institutions and additional specific guidance. It is not possible to quantify accurately the costs to Government and to list the many organisations and individuals who have contributed to the development of our strategy on walking to date. We aim to publish a follow-up document before the end of this year.

  My Department has implemented a range of initiatives which support sustainable travel options, including walking journeys. These focus on school and workplace travel and traffic management measures.

  My Department has pledged, part-funding to an alliance of Living Streets, London Walking Forum and the Ramblers Association for the development of an interactive website for practitioners and the public. It will bring together news on publications, conferences, training and good practice, as well as providing a forum for advice and exchange of views.

  The Government's 10 Year Transport Plan and Liveability agenda fully recognise the benefits to the environment of more journeys on foot. The recently-established cross-Whitehall Activity Co-ordination Team is also considering how best to promote the health benefits of routine physical activity such as walking.

  Wind Farms
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce offshore wind farm safety legislation to create a safety zone around the Robin Rigg Offshore. [131473]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government hope to bring forward legislation to create a comprehensive legal framework which applies to all marine renewable energy developments as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons he decided to legislate for offshore wind farm safety for Scotland; and whether he consulted the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland before deciding to legislate in this area. [131474]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government hope to bring forward legislation relating to renewable energy developments as soon as parliamentary time allows. Officials in the Department of Transport are in regular contact with those in the Scotland Office and Scottish Executive about a range of issues concerning renewable 196W
  energy developments. This will ensure fully effective provisions dealing with navigational safety in the vicinity of all offshore renewable energy developments located around the UK.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

  Official Engagements
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Advocate-General for Scotland, pursuant to her Answer of 8 September 2003,Official Report, column 17W, on engagements, if she will list the Scotland Office official engagements she has undertaken over the last 12 months. [131559]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  It is not practice to list the individual engagements.

SCOTLAND

  Airport Expansion
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on airport expansion in Scotland. [131479]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government will publish an air transport White Paper later this year which will include consideration of issues relating to airport capacity in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent in each year by his Department in preparing for UK entry to the euro; how much his Department plans to spend on preparations for UK entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates he has made of the total costs to his Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131589]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at column 142W.

  Food Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on food by his Department and by each agency for which it is responsible in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what proportion of that food by value was produced in the United Kingdom; what guidance he has issued to encourage the procurement of home-grown food; and if he will make a statement. [129380]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Scotland Office expenditure on food is minimal, is generally limited to catering associated with official hospitality and supplied by external contractors. Information on the cost or the source of food supplied is not held centrally.

  Holyrood Project
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will make a submission to the Fraser inquiry into the Holyrood project. [131487]
  197W
  Mrs. McGuire
  Invitations to make written submissions to the inquiry are a matter for Lord Fraser. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, the Scotland Office will provide any information he may request.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department(a) has met and (b) will meet Lord Fraser to discuss (i) the inquiry into the Holyrood project and (ii) the evidence to be provided by Her Majesty's Government for the Scottish Office. [131488]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Scotland Office Ministers and officials have received no invitation to meet Lord Fraser in the context of his inquiry into the Holyrood project.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government intends to allow the Fraser inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building access to information relating to internal advice and decisions made by government on this matter, and in particular information which would normally be subject to Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [131490]

  Mrs. McGuire
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear to the Scottish Affairs Committee on 17 June, the Government will co-operate fully in providing information requested in connection with the inquiry.

WALES

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent in each year by his Department in preparing for United Kingdom entry to the euro; how much his Department plans to spend on preparations for United Kingdom entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates he has made of the total costs to his Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131600]

  Mr. Touhig
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave him at column 142W.

  Licensing Fees
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was paid to Microsoft in licensing fees by his Department in each of the last three years; and how much has been budgeted for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [130676]

  Mr. Touhig
  IT equipment is currently supplied to the Wales Office by Siemens Business Services under their contract with the National Assembly for Wales. Relevant licences are held by Siemens.

  In the coming year, Wales Office IT equipment will be supplied by Liberata under their contract to the Department for Constitutional Affairs DCA. Relevant licences will be held by Liberata.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 707W, on asbestos, if he will list the buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [130950]

  Mr. Pearson
  Two schedules, one of which lists those buildings within the Northern Ireland Civil Service office estate which contain asbestos, and one of which lists the specialist buildings owned by NICS departments which contain asbestos, have been placed in the Library.

  Assembly Elections
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will announce the date of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections which were originally scheduled to take place in May. [129711]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government hopes that it will be possible for elections to be held during the autumn. No date has yet been set, nor has a date been set by which an announcement will be made.

  Asthma
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children have been diagnosed with asthma in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [130269]

  Angela Smith
  The majority of persons suffering from asthma have their condition diagnosed and treated by a general practitioner and this information is not available centrally. The Department does however fund a project managed by the Department of General Practice at Queens University of Belfast. This project collects data from a representative sample of general practitioners' practices across Northern Ireland.

  Provisional figures from this data retrieval project suggest there are approximately 150 cases of asthma diagnosed per 1,000 persons in the population for the under 15 age group. This equates to approximately 1 in 7 children.

  The National Asthma Campaign estimate that the prevalence of asthma is on the increase with approximately 1 in 7 children in the UK receiving treatment for it. This reflects a worldwide increase in asthma prevalence.

  The primary cause of most cases of asthma is unknown; however, there is evidence that parental smoking exacerbates asthma in children.

  Benefit Payments
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Branch of the National Federation of Sub-postmasters to discuss issues arising from the direct payment of pensions and benefits into bank accounts. [131243]
  200W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Social Security Agency and the Post Office have worked closely in developing the Direct Payment programme which is aimed at providing a safer, more convenient, modern and efficient method of paying social security benefits. However, I have no plans to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Branch of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters.

  Child Care Initiative
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what measures have been introduced by Northern Ireland government departments to support the child care initiative; [128292]

  (2) what measures have been introduced by the Northern Ireland Office to support the child care initiative. [131524]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Government have a significant role as an employer in Northern Ireland and recognise the importance of maintaining and reviewing the measures in place to help civil servants balance their work and family responsibilities. Child care was one of the issues closely examined in the recent NICS dependant care review. This major review was carried out by an Interdepartmental Working Group and consultation with Central Trade Union Side is now due to begin. A number of key recommendations impacting on child care issues have been made and will be taken forward by DFP. At present there are various child care arrangements in place within individual Departments and Agencies.

  Chronic Diseases
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made by each local health and social care group in Northern Ireland to encourage the development of systematic and evidence-based approaches to the prevention, identification, management and follow-up of people with chronic disease, with particular reference to(a) coronary heart disease, (b) diabetes and (c) COPD. [130801]

  Angela Smith
  Local health and social care groups are working closely with all primary care professionals in their areas to encourage the development of systematic and evidence-based approaches to the prevention, identification, management and follow-up of people with chronic disease. In particular, the groups are currently undertaking three coronary heart disease projects, 14 diabetes projects and 9 COPD projects.

  Class Sizes
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many primary schools in(a) North Down and (b) Northern Ireland had class sizes of more than 30 pupils in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [129815]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested (which relates to 2002–03) is as follows:

  Area

  Class size

  North Down

  5

  Northern Ireland

  166

  Diabetes
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will make it his policy that the Department of Health Services and Public Safety implement the CREST Taskforce Report on Diabetes in full; [129902]

  (2) when a regional implementation group, as outlined in the CREST Taskforce Report on Diabetes 2003, will be established; [129903]

  (3) what resources will be allocated to take forward the implementation of the CREST Report; and on what timescale. [129904]

  Angela Smith
  The Department recognises the importance of the need for high quality care and early detection for people with diabetes and the need for prevention, and welcomes the publication of the CREST report. The report contains a wide range of recommendations covering the full spectrum of the condition from screening for people with a higher risk of developing diabetes to the prevention and treatment of the disease.

  The prevention of diabetes through the health promotion message of healthy eating, physical activity, not smoking and greater public awareness of diabetes, its symptoms and associated health risks is extremely important. I am confident that existing health strategies such as Investing for Health, the Physical Activity Strategy and Nutrition Strategy will contribute significantly to this. I have also emphasised the need to secure improvements in the management of chronic disease and I have asked local health and social care groups to develop projects within their locality to secure improvements in conditions such as diabetes. I have also made resources available to improve the detection and treatment of diabetes-related eye disease and this is being taken forward by a regional working group. These significant steps underline my desire to improve services for people with diabetes.

  My Department is currently considering how it can best address the other recommendations in the CREST report within the current and planned resources available to it.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what cross-border co-operation projects have been planned on improving the quality of life for people with Type II diabetes. [130799]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland and the Department of Health and Children in the Republic of Ireland are to jointly support a project aimed at improving the management and quality of life of Type II diabetic patients through community pharmacies and raising public awareness of the condition.

  The project, which is expected to run until December 2005, is to be funded through the INTERREG IIIA Community Initiative.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of each local health and social care group plans in relation to diabetes as outlined in Priorities for Action 2003–04. [130800]
  202W
  Angela Smith
  One of the key actions set out in Priorities for Action 2003–04 was a requirement for each of the 15 local health and social care groups to develop at least one project to increase the capacity of primary care to address chronic diseases such as asthma or diabetes in the primary care setting and reduce pressures in the hospital sector. It is a matter for each group to decide which area of chronic disease management should be targeted in the light of local priorities. In the event, 14 groups are taking forward projects which focus on diabetes. The exact nature of the projects varies from group to group and they are at different stages of development.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of those waiting for digital hearing aids in Northern Ireland have been issued with a digital hearing aid; what action he is taking to increase this figure; and if he will make a statement. [131758]

  Angela Smith
  Preparatory work for the provision of Digital Hearing Aids (DHAs) is at an advanced stage and introduction, on a phased basis, will commence in early November. An additional £1 million has been allocated for this purpose, to cover the revenue costs of recruiting additional audiologists, training in fitting DHAs, purchasing the new aids and the capital costs of installing computer based testing equipment necessary to support introduction.

  It is estimated that there are over 100,000 hearing aid users in Northern Ireland. Evidence based research suggests that DHAs may benefit 80 per cent. of users. It is not possible at this stage to say what numbers of new and existing users might be assessed for DHAs per year. Given that introduction is on a phased basis, it will take a number of years 'or the entire hearing aid user population to be assessed for digital aids.

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action(a) has been taken and (b) will be taken in order to reduce waiting times for MOT appointments at the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency. [131781]

  Angela Smith
  The principal cause of the present difficulties is a significant increase in demand: applications are up by around 11 per cent. over the previous year. Allied to this is the fact that the Agency's test centres have been closed on a phased basis for the installation of much needed new vehicle test equipment. I regret that despite careful planning it has not been possible to cope as effectively as I would have liked with this additional demand in recent months.

  The Agency has taken a number of measures to reduce waiting times. These include increasing productivity, introducing a more efficient booking programme, making maxim um possible use of overtime, redeploying staff from non-urgent duties to testing, introducing extended working at a number of

  203W
  centres, recruiting additional staff and postponing non-urgent training. It has also improved the provision of information and guidance to the public and is in the process of extending its new telephone booking service.

  These and other measures have brought about a gradual improvement. Average waiting times have dropped from 43 days in early July to around 35 days. The positive trend is expected to continue over the next few months.

  Educational Psychology
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many pupils are(a) being attended to by educational psychologists and (b) waiting to be attended to by educational psychologists in each of the education board areas in Northern Ireland; [131777]

  (2) how many pupils (a) requested an appointment with an educational psychologist and (b) succeeded in obtaining such an appointmenst in each of the education board areas in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; [131778]

  (3) what the average waiting times for a child to get an appointment with an educational psychologist in each of the Education Board areas in Northern Ireland was in each of the past five years. [131779]

  Jane Kennedy
  This information is not available from the Education and Library Boards within the time scale. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many educational psychologists are employed by each of the Education and Library Board areas in Northern Ireland; and how many(a) were employed, (b) retired and (c) recruited in each board area in each of the last five years. [131783]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have been informed by the Education and Library Boards that the number of Educational Psychologists employed by each Board area, in each of the past five years, is as follows.

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  BELB1

  17.9

  21

  22

  23.5

  26

  NEELB1

  17.5

  20.5

  22

  23

  23

  SEELB1

  17.5

  20

  20

  22.3

  22.6

  SELB1

  N/a

  22.75

  24.8

  26.26

  24.1

  WELB1

  13

  14.5

  20.5

  22.5

  24.5

  1 Full time equivalent

  In the time scale available it is not possible to provide recruitment and retirement data correlating with the data in the table above. I will write to the hon. Member later with these figures once they have been confirmed with the Education and Library Boards.

  Energy Efficiency
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent steps he has taken to promote energy efficiency in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [131393]
  204W
  Mr. Pearson
  The Consultation document 'Towards a New Energy Strategy for Northern Ireland', published by DETI in April 2003, highlighted the continued importance of energy efficiency and renewable energy as the primary means of reducing the carbon footprint of the energy sector in Northern Ireland and enhancing sustainability. The final Strategy, which will be published later this year, will further sharpen the focus on energy efficiency and help co-ordinate efforts towards securing further substantial improvements.

  Government are committed to promoting energy efficiency and approximately £16 million will be committed this year on energy efficiency programmes sponsored by a number of Government Departments in Northern Ireland.

  For example, the Department of Social Development has lead responsibility for energy efficiency in the domestic sector, using the Northern Ireland Housing Executive as a delivery partner, and has secured a 13 per cent. saving in energy consumption since 1996 in occupied stock across all tenures. This level of saving was achieved from a broad range of schemes, such as the Warm Homes Scheme, the Housing Executive's heating replacement programme and renewable energy pilot schemes. The energy efficiency levy, which was increased by the Northern Ireland Assembly to £5 per electricity consumer was used to further underpin household energy efficiency with over 80 per cent. of this benefit being specifically targeted towards disadvantaged householders likely to be at risk of fuel poverty.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will establish an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [131244]

  Angela Smith
  In April 1996, the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) was set up as a Next Steps Agency. The Agency was significantly under-resourced in its initial years. However, following devolution, the Executive accorded environmental protection a high priority, and funding increased significantly.

  There are no specific plans at present to establish an independent Environment Protection Agency. However, it is anticipated that the role of Next Steps Agencies, will be examined as part of the proposed Review of Public Administration. The review team are due to consult on their findings shortly.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-departmental policies to tackle(a) gender inequality and (b) racial inequality in Northern Ireland. [128289]

  Jane Kennedy
  We are committed to bringing forward cross-departmental gender and race equality strategies during 2003. These will strengthen work being done under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

  A gender strategy is being developed in consultation with the Equality Commission and voluntary and community sector groups. The first draft of the strategy

  205W
  has been circulated to Departments for comments and a second series of consultation workshops with the Equality Commission and voluntary and community sector groups has been scheduled for early October 2003. The aim is to publish a draft Gender Equality Strategy for consultation by later autumn 2003.

  A race strategy, which will be the overarching Government policy document in relation to racial equality in Northern Ireland, was launched for consultation on 25 February 2003. The consultation period which included both public seminars and focused seminars with minority ethnic communities, closed on 31 July 2003. The consultation responses are currently being assessed and the finalised strategy and Action Plan, which will be developed in partnership with the Northern Ireland Race Forum, will be published by the end of the 2003–04 financial year.

  Equality Commission
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason the Equality Commission has not yet established a consultative council as required by section 74 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [130403]

  Mr. Spellar
  Section 74 of the Northern Ireland Act confers a power on the Commission to establish consultative councils. If this power is exercised, the Commission has a duty to have regard to the advice offered by the council(s).

  The Commission's first Corporate Plan included an intention to consider and consult on options on this issue and the report of a pre-consultation exercise was considered by the Commission in 2002. I understand that little interest was expressed on the establishment of a consultative council(s) in this exercise. The Commission decided to defer a decision on a formal consultation until 2003–04 business year and this remains the position.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many fair employment cases the Equality Commission is assisting through the provision of funding; and how many of these also involve discrimination prohibited on other grounds; [131420]

  (2) when the Equality Commission produced a strategic plan for investigations following reviews under Article 55 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998; [131462]

  (3) how many employers the Equality Commission has referred to the Fair Employment Tribunal because of a failure to abide by undertakings made as a result of investigations under Article 11 of the Fair Employment and Treatment Order (Northern Ireland) 1998 in each year; [131879]

  (4) how many applications for assistance in terms of funding of fair employment cases the Equality Commission received (a) in the last financial year and (b) in this financial year; and how many of these also involved discrimination prohibited on other grounds; [131463]

  (5) how many cases the Equality Commission is assisting through the provision of funding; [131421]
  206W
  (6) how many applications for assistance in terms of funding of cases the Equality Commission has received in the (a) current and (b) last financial year; [131422]

  (7) what external research the Equality Commission has commissioned on fair employment since its foundation; [131464]

  (8) what (a) external and (b) internal research the Equality Commission has published on fair employment since its foundation; [131470]

  (9) how many investigations under Article 11 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 have been initiated by the Equality Commission in each year since its foundation; [131460]

  (10) if he will confirm when the Equality Commission produced a strategic plan for investigations under Article 11 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998; [131461]

  (11) how many investigations under Article 11 of the Fair Employment and Treatment Order (Northern Ireland) 1998 have been initiated by the Equality Commission in each year since its foundation; and how many of them were against an employer as a result of a finding by the Fair Employment Tribunal against that employer; [131761]

  (12) what external research the Equality Commission has published on fair employment since its foundation; [131762]

  (13) with how many employers the Equality Commission has agreed undertakings following investigations under Article 11 of the Fair Employment and Treatment Order (Northern Ireland) 1998 in each year since its foundation. [131881]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to write to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Food Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on food by his Department and by each agency for which it is responsible in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what proportion of that food by value was produced in the United Kingdom; what guidance he has issued to encourage the procurement of home-grown food; and if he will make a statement. [129379]

  Mr. Pearson
  Expenditure on food in NICS Departments is generally limited to official hospitality and staff catering subsidies of approximately £700,000 per annum in both 2001–02 and 2002–03. Staff catering services have been contracted out since the early '90s and the purchase of food is therefore the responsibility of the private sector catering service providers.

  Departments do not have detailed information to identify what proportion of that food by value was produced in the Untied Kingdom other than statements from catering service providers that, where possible, the majority of fresh food would be sourced in Northern Ireland.
  207W
  No guidance has been issued encouraging the procurement of home produced food; however, my Department is liasing with the Departments of Environment and Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland and nationally with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in developing policy and best practice guidance on food procurement to ensure quality standards and value for money. This process has also involved consultation with stakeholders including the World Wildlife Fund, Livestock Marketing Commission and Ulster Farmers Union.

  Forensic Service
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding he intends to make available, following the completion of the evaluation phase, to support the acquisition of new premises for the Forensic Science Agency. [130335]

  Mr. Spellar
  I await the outcome of the current accommodation review before making decisions on the most appropriate funding and procurement routes to secure necessary facilities for the Agency.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent steps have been taken(a) to put an adequate maintenance and refurbishment programme in place for and (b) to replace the current premises and facilities of the Forensic Science Agency. [130336]

  Mr. Spellar
  FSNI continues to service and maintain its facilities. Following the outcome of the current accommodation review, I will be making decisions on the future accommodation requirements of the Agency. Alongside this, consideration will also be given to any further action needed to maintain facilities in the interim.

  Foster Carers
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what allowances are made available by local authorities for foster carers in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [131372]

  Angela Smith
  In Northern Ireland, Health and Social Services (HSS) trusts pay fostering allowances, which are agreed each year in consultation with the four HSS boards. The standard rates known as the 'Model Scheme' in Northern Ireland are currently lower than the average amount paid by local authorities in England. However, boards and trusts have increased allowances within the Model Scheme by 5.5 per cent. for 2003–04. Different rates are payable for children of different ages ranging from £285.88 per four weeks for children aged 0–4 to £513.52 per four weeks for children aged 16+. The scale of foster care allowances is set out in the following table. Enhanced allowances are also available to cover, for example, expenses incurred at Christmas and birthdays and the cost of school uniforms and educational holidays.

  My Department is currently developing a Strategy for Children in Need which will include children in foster care. It is intended that we will work closely with HSS boards, trusts and the fostering network to develop a three-year plan for fostering in Northern Ireland. This will have regard to the issues raised in the Strategy for
  208W
  Foster Care Services in Northern Ireland which has already been developed by the four HSS boards in association with the fostering network, including those which relate to remuneration of foster carers.

  Scale of foster care allowances

  £

  Age group

  Per week

  Per four weeks

  Per annum

  0–4

  71.47

  285.88

  3,716.44

  5–10

  81.41

  325.64

  4,233.32

  11–15

  101.36

  405.44

  5,270.72

  16+

  128.38

  513.52

  6,675.76

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many registered foster carers there were in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement on the recruitment of foster carers in Northern Ireland. [131374]

  Angela Smith
  The routine collection of data by my Department on the numbers of registered foster carers in Northern Ireland commenced in 2001 and the returns from that date are presented in the following table. In addition a figure is available for 1997 from a fostering inspection report published by the Social Services Inspectorate. This, too, is presented in following table.

  There are difficulties with the recruitment and retention of foster carers. Despite numerous recruitment campaigns by Health and Social Services (HSS) Boards and Trusts, problems with the recruitment of foster carers continue to exist.

  The success in recruitment and retention of foster carers is dependent on many factors including remuneration, training, the status that foster carers receive and support, particularly in times of crisis. My Department is currently in the process of developing a strategy for all children in need including those in foster care. It is intended that, as part of that strategy, the Department will work in liaison with HSS Boards and Trusts and the Fostering Network to develop a three year costed fostering plan. The plan will, of course, take account of the issues raised in the Strategy for Foster Care Services developed by the four HSS Boards in conjunction with the Fostering Network, which I understand will be published soon.

  Registered foster carers in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997

  Number

  1997

  1,380

  1998–2000

  1—

  2001

  1,155

  2002

  1,132

  2003

  1,192

  1 Data not routinely collected.

  Further Education
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he plans to allow all children who wish to remain in education until age 19 to do so. [130256]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government encourage young people in Northern Ireland to continue in full-time education beyond the compulsory school leaving age of
  209W
  16 and as far as possible facilitate the decisions of those who wish to do so subject of course to the entrance requirements of the specific institution.

  Gransha Road, Dundonald
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on claims made by members of the public in 2002 about tarmac laid on the Gransha Road, Dundonald. [130986]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 25 July 2002 routine surface dressing work was carried out on behalf of the Department at Gransha Road by its measured term contractor, Tullyraine Quarries Ltd.

  On 29 July 2002 reports were received about the failure of the surface dressing and of a substantial number of vehicle damage claims caused by this failure.

  The failure was investigated by the Department and these investigations led to the Department referring all the Gransha Road vehicle damage claims then known, approximately 400, to the contractor, Tullyraine Quarries Ltd., in accordance with proper legal and audit practice and procedure.

  The Department maintains its position that legal responsibility for the claims lies with its contractor, Tullyraine Quarries Ltd. The contractor has not to date conceded responsibility and the claims remain outstanding.

  One of the motorists, who sustained vehicle damage on 29 July 2002, issued legal proceedings on 22 July 2003 against the Department, Tullyraine Quarries Ltd. and Lagan Services Ltd. This on-going court action shall proceed as a test case.

  The Department cannot comment any further as the legal issues are now sub judice.

  Health Service (Sick Leave)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the longest time is that an employee has been on sick leave in each of the health trusts in Northern Ireland. [130862]

  Angela Smith
  The information is not readily available in the format requested. However the following table contains information, which Trusts were able to provide. The entitlement for paid sick leave for any employee is a maximum of 12 months, six months full pay and six months half pay. Employees can remain on the Trust payroll for a number of reasons; these include applications for ill health retirement, where the recovery period is longer or where a member of staff is terminally ill.

  HSS Trust

  Reply

  Altnagelvin

  Details not available

  Armagh and Dungannon

  11 months (continuing)

  Belfast City Hospital

  2 years

  Causeway

  2 years 5 months

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community

  1 year 1 month

  Craigavon Area

  1 year 5 months

  Down Lisburn

  2 years 5 months (continuing)

  Foyle

  2 years 4 months (continuing)

  Green Park

  3 years

  Homefirst Community

  Details not available

  Mater Infirmorum

  1 year

  210W

  HSS Trust

  Reply

  Newry and Mourne

  2 years

  North and West

  Details not available

  NI Ambulance Service

  2 years

  Royal Group HSS Trust

  Details not available

  South and East Belfast

  Details not available

  Sperrin Lakeland

  1 year 8 months (continuing)

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust

  3 years 5 months

  United Hospitals

  2 years 3 months

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sick leave days were taken in Northern Ireland by(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) other health professionals and (d) other employees in (i) 1998, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1988. [130863]

  Angela Smith
  Information on sick absence is not held centrally and not all trusts were able to supply full details in the required format. However, information supplied by individual trusts is set out in the following table.

  HSS Trust/Staff type

  1988

  1993

  1998

  Altnagelvin

  Nursing

  1—

  13,301

  11,830

  Medical

  1—

  346

  434

  Healthcare

  1—

  2,373

  3,707

  Professionals

  1—

  6,492

  6,299

  Other

  1—

  Armagh and Dungannon

  Nursing

  1—

  1—

  17,312

  Medical

  1—

  1—

  222

  Healthcare

  1—

  1—

  1,898

  Professionals

  1—

  1—

  13,128

  Other

  1—

  1—

  —

  Belfast City

  Nursing

  9,433.6

  17,462.4

  17,851.9

  Medical

  1—

  —

  325.9

  Healthcare

  1,766.0

  442.6

  4,261.7

  Professionals

  7,792.1

  3,051.2

  18,469.0

  Other

  —

  18,579.9

  —

  Causeway

  Nursing

  4,550.0

  8550.8

  7,439.8

  Medical

  25.0

  41.0

  143.2

  Healthcare

  296.5

  853.5

  557.8

  Professionals

  7,517.8

  26,433.6

  17,608.4

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  Nursing

  1—

  2,198.8

  2,915.2

  Medical

  1—

  56.5

  117.6

  Healthcare

  1—

  4,150.1

  4,448.1

  Professionals

  1—

  10,807.5

  6,567.3

  Other

  1—

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  Nursing

  6,037.9

  12,482.7

  7,808.9

  Medical

  0

  306

  322

  Healthcare

  450.6

  1,509

  1,100.3

  Professionals

  3,911.4

  6,304.5

  4,083.5

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  Down Lisburn

  Nursing

  3,610

  13,242

  18,533

  Medical

  1

  68

  430

  Healthcare

  266

  933

  1,370

  Professionals

  4,059

  17,606

  20,423

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  211W

  HSS Trust/Staff type

  1988

  1993

  1998

  Foyle

  Nursing

  1—

  1—

  886.4

  Medical

  1—

  1—

  15.5

  Healthcare

  1—

  1—

  514.8

  Professionals

  1—

  1—

  1,313.8

  Other

  1—

  1—

  —

  Green Park

  Nursing

  1—

  1—

  9,225

  Medical

  1—

  1—

  95.40

  Healthcare

  1—

  1—

  1,411.90

  Professionals

  1—

  1—

  4,692.5

  Other

  1—

  1—

  —

  Homefirst Community

  Nursing

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Medical

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Healthcare

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Professionals

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Other

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Mater Infirmorum

  Nursing

  —

  —

  11,197.54

  Medical

  —

  —

  2—

  Healthcare

  —

  —

  2—

  Professionals

  —

  —

  2—

  Other

  —

  —

  2—

  Newry and Mourne

  Nursing

  1—

  1—

  8,836

  Medical

  1—

  1—

  186

  Healthcare

  1—

  1—

  1,465

  Professionals

  1—

  1—

  8,748

  Other

  1—

  1—

  —

  North and West Belfast

  Nursing

  1—

  7,612.30

  6,953.4

  Medical

  1—

  99.10

  380.2

  Healthcare

  1—

  2,641.30

  3,223.4

  Professionals

  1—

  26,266.7

  26,723.1

  Other

  1—

  —

  —

  NI Ambulance Service

  Ambulance staff

  1—

  1—

  18,748

  Royal Group

  Nursing

  1—

  17,981.6

  8,725.4

  Medical

  1—

  793.6

  213.4

  Healthcare

  1—

  1,916.8

  1,014.1

  Professionals

  1—

  48,855.2

  25,369.2

  Other

  1—

  —

  —

  South and East Belfast

  Nursing

  2,952.6

  13,742.9

  12,583

  Medical

  1.5

  347.1

  75.4

  Healthcare

  287.6

  8,519.9

  7,794.5

  Professionals

  3,104.3

  27,777.8

  15,486.9

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  Sperrin Lakeland

  Nursing

  623.2

  17,030.6

  21,848.5

  Medical

  0

  300.9

  573.6

  Healthcare

  124

  1,655.1

  4,467

  Professionals

  175.4

  18,255

  17,137

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  Ulster Community

  Nursing

  5,037.4

  18,922.1

  14,048.9

  Medical

  19.2

  356.4

  368.2

  Healthcare

  2,4118

  2,239.1

  8,740.7

  Professionals

  9,337.1

  21,741.7

  18,572.7

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  212W

  HSS Trust/Staff type

  1988

  1993

  1998

  United Hospitals

  Nursing

  1—

  1—

  16.167

  Medical

  1—

  1—

  597

  Healthcare

  1—

  1—

  1,781

  Professionals

  1—

  1—

  26,409

  Other

  1—

  1—

  —

  1N/A

  All grades—breakdown not available

  Note:

  All figures are working days lost.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many general practitioners in Northern Ireland are on sick leave; and for what length of time each has been on sick leave. [130864]

  Angela Smith
  As a general practitioner is entitled to his or her full normal remuneration during absence on account of illness, not all GPs report when they are unable to attend work due to sickness. The total number of GPs on sick absence is therefore not known. However it is known that at 31 August 2003, 31 general practitioners have reported absent from their practice on account of sickness.

  Number of weeks

  Number of GPs

  Under 2 weeks

  5

  2–4 weeks

  3

  5–13 weeks

  11

  14–26 weeks

  7

  Over 26 weeks

  5

  Bill of Rights
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has spent on the drafting of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. [128326]

  Jane Kennedy
  The consultation process on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland was launched on 1 April 2000. The total costs to date are £503,800. These costs include advertising (circa 40 per cent.) and publications (also circa 40 per cent.) together with a range of other costs relating to events, conferences, work with children and young people, public opinion surveys and education and training events and materials.

  Implementation Group
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which parties comprise the Implementation Group in Northern Ireland. [131578]

  Mr. Spellar
  The political parties who are invited to the Implementation Group are parties committed to securing the full implementation of the Agreement.

  Integrated Education
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many integrated education school places there were in(a) North Down and (b) Northern Ireland in each year since 1997; what action he is taking to increase the number of integrated education places; and if he will make a statement. [131373]
  213W
  Jane Kennedy
  The total approved enrolments for North Down Integrated Schools—Primary and Post-Primary since 1997 are:

  School year

  Total approved enrolment numbers

  1997–98

  0

  1998–99

  856

  1999–2000

  918

  2000–01

  934

  2001–02

  944

  2002–03

  944

  2003–04

  944

  The total approved enrolment number for all Integrated Schools—Primary and Post-Primary since 1997 are:

  School year

  Total approved enrolment numbers

  1997–98

  9,462

  1998–99

  12,507

  1999–2000

  13,470

  2000–01

  14,508

  2001–02

  15,356

  2002–03

  16,088

  2003–04

  16,341

  The Department of Education funds the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education to promote the development of integrated education and also contributes to the Integrated Education Fund which provides assistance with the capital costs of new schools.

  In December 2000 the Department reduced the viability criteria for the establishment of new integrated school to intakes of 15 pupils for primary schools in Belfast and Londonderry and 12 pupils for developments elsewhere in Northern Ireland. Changes to the viability criteria for integrated post primary schools were announced in October 2001. Integrated post primary schools which achieve a year eight intake of 50 pupils a now eligible for recurrent funding from the Department.

  New Integrated Primary Schools have recently been announced in Randalstown, Glengormley and Antrim, bringing to 50 the number of integrated schools operating in Northern Ireland.

  International Bodies
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all international members of bodies set up in Northern Ireland since 1998 in connection with the Belfast Agreement. [131675]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are two bodies established or to be established by International Agreement in connection with the Belfast Agreement. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning was established by International Agreement between the British and Irish Governments in September 1997. Its current members are General John de Chastelain (a Canadian national) and Mr. Andrew Sens (a United States national). The Independent Monitoring Commission will be established by an International Agreement between the British and Irish Governments. The membership will comprise two United Kingdom 214W
  nationals (Mr. John Grieve and Lord Alderdice); one Irish national (Mr. Joe Brosnan) and one United States national (Mr. Richard Kerr).

  Irish Hare
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received the report on the status of the Irish ha re for the review of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985; and if he will make a statement. [131696]

  Angela Smith
  I refer to the answer I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on the 16 September 2003,Official Report, column 117W.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on educational opportunities for those aged 16 and above with(a) severe and (b) moderate learning disability. [130255]

  Jane Kennedy
  Pupils with special educational needs are assessed by education and library boards (ELBs) on an individual basis.

  Pupils with severe learning difficulties, because of the nature and complexity of their special educational needs, generally remain in full-time education in special schools until the end of the term following their nineteenth birthday.

  Pupils with moderate learning difficulties, whether placed in an ordinary school, a special unit or a special school, generally leave school at the statutory school leaving age but usually move on to placement in training or further education. In a small number of cases and depending on their special educational needs, they may remain in school beyond statutory school leaving age.

  ELBs are required, in conjunction with other relevant agencies, to draw of a transition plan for all pupils with Statements of Special Educational Needs to set out appropriate post-school opportunities, including further education.

  The Department for Employment and Learning's (DEL) Careers Service provides impartial advice and guidance to young people with severe and moderate learning disabilities on all available opportunities in education, training and employment. These include the DEL funded Jobskills training programme within further education colleges which provide a range of courses suitable for people over 16 with learning difficulties. DEL also funds a range of support services for these young people to assist in their achievement of qualifications.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to ensure that a statement provided for a child with special needs in one board area is acceptable in all education and library board areas in Northern Ireland when the child transfers from one board area to another; and if he will make a statement. [131822]
  215W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education's Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs gives clear guidance to Education and Library Boards and Schools on meeting the special educational needs (SEN) of all children who require such provision.

  when responsibility for a child with a statement of SEN changes from one Board to another, the statement mu be transferred to the new Board, together with any opinion which may have been provided under the Disabled Persons (NI) Act 1989 that the child is disabled. Upon the transfer of the statement, the receiving Board becomes responsible for maintaining the statement, and for providing the special educational provision specif in the statement.

  The receiving Board may, on the transfer of the statement, bring forward arrangements for the review of the statement, and may conduct a new statutory assessment regardless of when the previous assessment took place. It must tell the parents, within six weeks of the date of transfer, when it will review the statement, and whether statutory assessment is proposed.

  Linguistic Diversity
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are employed in the Linguistic Diversity Branch of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure; how many have competence in the Irish language; and how many have competence in the Ulster Scots language. [98197]

  Angela Smith
  Linguistic Diversity Branch of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has 10 members of staff comprising 9 permanent employees and one casual. These staff belong to the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) general administrative grades and have been recruited in accordance with NICS competencies and procedures. Expertise in specific languages is not among the core competencies which are required of general service administrative staff in the NICS.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to which trustees the draft linguistic diversity policy of the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland has been presented; and for what reason. [98199]

  Angela Smith
  A new Board of Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland was appointed in July 2002. The board has not yet seen

  Table 1: Number of patients from each Health Board Area referred for private treatment under the ECR scheme

  Health Board of Residence

  Northern Ireland

  Abroad

  England

  Scotland

  Wales Mainland GB

  Total

  19991

  Eastern

  2

  4

  9

  0

  0

  9

  15

  1999–2000

  Northern

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1999–2000

  Southern

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  20001

  Eastern

  1

  6

  37

  8

  3

  48

  55

  2000–01

  Northern

  0

  3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12

  15

  2000–01

  Southern

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  216W
  the draft linguistic diversity policy, but it is hoped that its, members will have an opportunity to consider and formally adopt the draft shortly.

  One member of the outgoing board was actively involved in the development of the draft policy, through chairing the working group that was established by the board to take the process forward. However, the other members of the outgoing board did not consider the draft before the end of their term of office.

  NHS Patients (Private Health Care)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients have been referred by the NHS in Northern Ireland to private healthcare providers(a) in England, (b) in Northern Ireland, (c) in Scotland, (d) in Wales and (e) abroad in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [131744]

  Angela Smith
  (a)-(e) Information on the number of patients referred to private health care providers across the United Kingdom and abroad is detailed.

  Patients may be referred to private health care providers under two schemes

  1. Extra Contractual referral scheme (ECR)

  2. Waiting List Initiatives

  Under the ECR scheme patients are referred to private health care providers, as the specialist treatment they require is not available locally in a NHS hospital.

  Patients may also be transferred to private healthcare providers to reduce waiting lists at NHS hospitals.

  There are four Health and Social Services Boards in Northern Ireland. Each Board has not been able to provide the data in the same format and in some instances data was not available (n/a). To obtain complete and consistent data would require a manual exercise, the costs of this would be disproportionate.

  Table 1 details the number of patients transferred by Eastern, Northern and Southern Health Board Areas under the ECR scheme.

  Table 2 details the number of patients transferred by Eastern, Northern and Southern Health Board Areas as part of Waiting List Initiatives.

  Table 3 details the number of patients transferred by Western Health Board Area under both ECR schemes and Waiting List Initiatives.

  The figures are for patients referred to private health care providers within the acute programme of care. A number of patients from the elderly, learning disability and mental health programmes of care are treated in nursing and residential homes managed by private health care providers.
  217W

  Table 1: Number of patients from each Health Board Area referred for private treatment under the ECR scheme

  Health Board of Residence

  Northern Ireland

  Abroad

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Mainland GB

  Total

  20011

  Eastern

  0

  2

  22

  3

  1

  26

  28

  2001–02

  Northern

  0

  1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  9

  10

  2001–02

  Southern

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  20021

  Eastern

  0

  12

  13

  0

  0

  13

  25

  2002–03

  Northern

  0

  5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  20

  2002–03

  Southern

  3

  1

  1

  0

  20031

  Eastern

  0

  3

  10

  0

  0

  10

  13

  2003–042

  Northern

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2003–042

  Southern

  4

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  5

  1Eastern Board figures are supplied for calendar years

  2Data for 2003–04 covers the period 1 April 2003 to 22 September 2003

  Table 2: Number of patients from each Health Board Area referred for

  Health Board of Residence

  Northern Ireland

  Abroad

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Total

  2000–01

  Eastern

  4

  129

  0

  45

  0

  178

  2000–01

  Northern

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2000–01

  Southern

  204

  98

  0

  30

  0

  332

  2001–02

  Eastern

  66

  1,200

  0

  88

  0

  1,354

  2001–02

  Northern

  53

  0

  0

  54

  0

  107

  2001–02

  Southern

  39

  0

  0

  48

  0

  87

  2002–03

  Eastern

  551

  163

  0

  13

  0

  727

  2002–03

  Northern

  196

  86

  0

  30

  0

  312

  2002–03

  Southern

  197

  62

  0

  6

  0

  265

  2003–041

  Eastern

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  9

  2003–041

  Northern

  0

  100

  0

  0

  0

  100

  2003–041

  Southern

  138

  39

  0

  0

  0

  177

  1Data for 2003–04 covers the period 1 April 2003 to 22 September 2003

  Note:

  Treatment as part of Waiting List Initiatives

  Table 3: Number of Patients from Western Health Board Area referred to

  Health Board of Residence

  Northern Ireland

  Abroad

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Total

  1999–20001

  Western

  0

  10

  8

  90

  1

  109

  2000–01

  Western

  158

  9

  13

  28

  0

  208

  2001–02

  Western

  227

  5

  6

  73

  0

  311

  2002–03

  Western

  648

  15

  28

  32

  0

  723

  1Figures for transfers under waiting list initiatives were not available for 1999–2000

  Note:

  Data supplied for the Western Board Area includes all transfers to private healthcare providers

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria is used by the NHS in Northern Ireland to decide when to refer a patient to a private healthcare provider for treatment. [131745]

  Angela Smith
  The decision to refer a patient to a private healthcare provider for treatment is based on a variety of factors, including the availability of the treatment on the health and social services in Northern Ireland or on the NHS in Great Britain and how long the patient may have to wait for such treatment, as well as the cost. Private health care providers also have to satisfy the appropriate Health and Social Services Board as to the quality of care that will be provided, including arrangements for the provision of any necessary aftercare.
  218W
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been spent by the NHS in Northern Ireland to obtain healthcare from private healthcare providers in(a) in England, (b) in Northern Ireland, (c) in Scotland, (d) in Wales and (e) abroad in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [131746]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Miss McIntosh
  T o ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards re-establishing the Northern Ireland Assembly. [131480]
  219W
  Mr. Spellar
  As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made clear to the House in the debate on the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Bill, 17 September 2003,Official Report, column 901, we are working hard to rebuild trust and confidence necessary for elections to the Assembly, and the restoration of devolved institutions, as soon as possible.

  Pre-school Education
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Pre-school Education Advisory Group's places have been allocated to each nursery school and playschool in the South Eastern Education and Library Board for 2003–04. [129899]

  Jane Kennedy
  I understand from the Chief Executive of the South Eastern Education and Library Board that the following allocations of PEAG places have been made to voluntary and private sector pre-school centres in the Board area. The process of the PEAG reallocating unused places is still under way. The figures shown below may not, therefore, represent any individual centre's final allocation for the year.

  Ards Borough Council Area

  Ward

  Provider

  Places Allocated 2003–2004

  Ballygowan

  Ballygowan Community Playgroup

  24

  Ballywalter

  Ballywalter Playgroup

  18

  Glen

  Bees Nees Early Years Centre

  18

  Carrowdore

  Carrowdore Community Playgroup

  24

  Ballywalter

  Chirpy Chicks Playgroup

  15

  Loughries/

  Chuckles Playgroup

  19

  Carrowdore

  Killinchy

  Kilmood Playgroup

  24

  Kircubbin

  Kircubbin Pre-school Playgroup

  26

  Scrabo

  Little Doves Community Playgroup

  15

  Vlovilla

  Movilla Abbey Playgroup

  26

  Vtovilla

  Play-&-Way Childcare Centre

  20

  Portaferry

  Portaferry Playgroup

  18

  Central Ards

  St. Finian's Playgroup

  18

  Scrabo/Loughries

  The Playcentre at Manor Court

  24

  Comber East

  The Shell Playgroup

  18

  Total

  307

  Castlereagh Borough Council

  Ward

  Provider

  Places allocated 2003–2004

  Enler

  Ballybeen Women's Centre Pre-School

  16

  Grahamsbridge

  Bumbles Playgroup

  18

  Carryduff East

  Carryduff Pre-school Playgroup

  48

  Cregagh

  Cregagh Pre-School Playgroup

  24

  Carryduff

  Millennium PG

  18

  Newtownbreda/Knockbracken

  Mount Oriel Playgroup

  24

  Wynchurch

  St. Bernard's Pre-school Playgroup

  18

  Carryduff East

  St. Joseph's Pre-school Playgroup

  18

  Moneyreagh

  Toddle-In Playgroup

  24

  Total

  208

  Down District Council Area

  Ward

  Provider

  Places allocated 2003–2004

  Ardglass

  Ardglass Community Pre-School PG

  16

  Seaforde/Killough

  Ballykinlar Community Pre-School

  18

  220W

  Down District Council Area

  Ward

  Provider

  Places Allocated 2003–2004

  Castlewellan

  Castlewellan Community Playgroup

  10

  Crossgar/ Ballymote

  Crossgar Community Playgroup

  18

  Drumaness

  Drumaness PS Playgroup

  18

  Dunmore

  Drumaroad Cross Community PG

  16

  Dundrum

  Dundrum Cross Community PG

  12

  Kilmore

  Glasswater Pre-school Playgroup

  18

  Ballykinlar

  Great Oaks Playgroup

  24

  Tollymore

  Kilcoo Playgroup

  12

  Castlewellan

  Hickory Dickory Dock

  10

  Killough

  Killough Playgroup

  16

  Killyleagh

  Killyleagh Community Playgroup

  24

  Kilmore

  Little Sunbeams Playgroup

  12

  Drumaness

  Loughinisland Playgroup

  20

  Cathedral

  Naiscoil Dhun Padraig

  12

  Castlewellan

  Naiscoil Uachtar Tire

  10

  Donard

  Newcastle Playgroup

  19

  Quoile

  Rathkeltair Cross Community PG

  16

  Strangford

  Saul Cross Community Playgroup

  16

  Drumaness/ Kilmore

  Teconnaught Playgroup

  24

  Ardglass

  Tiny Toons Community Playgroup

  14

  Total

  355

  Lisburn Borough Council

  Ward

  Provider

  Places allocated 2003/2004

  Dromara

  Anahilt Pre-school Playgroup

  18

  Glenavy

  Ballymacward Pre-School Playgroup

  15

  Hillsborough

  Busy Bees

  23

  Derriaghy

  Chatterboxes Playgroup

  12

  Dromara

  Dromara Playgroup

  36

  Seymour Hill

  Drumbeg PG

  11

  Seymour Hill

  Dunmurry Community Playgroup

  24

  Dunmurry

  Kinders Daycare

  10

  Ballymacbrennan

  Legacurry Playgroup

  18

  Harmony Hill

  Little Oaks Pre-School

  20

  Seymour Hill

  Mickey Mouse

  15

  Derriaghy

  Oakwood Pre-school Playgroup

  20

  Vlaghaberry

  Poppins Day Nursery

  16

  Moira

  Rainbow Corner Playgroup

  24

  Ballymacoss

  Rhyme Times

  24

  Harmony Hill

  Rumble's Playgroup

  16

  Twinbrook

  Scoil Na Fuiseoige

  26

  Ballinderry

  Sunshine Playgroup

  20

  Total

  348

  North Down Borough Council

  Ward

  Provider

  Places allocated 2003–2004

  Ballymagee

  Ballycrochan Playgroup

  24

  Churchill

  Ballyholme Presbyterian Church Playgroup

  20

  Bangor Castle

  Bangor Abbey Playgroup

  13

  Springhill

  Bangor West Nursery Playgroup

  24

  Springhill

  Bo-Peep Corner Playgroup

  18

  Crawfordsburn

  Crawfordsburn PG

  13

  Ballycrochan

  Early Days Playgroup

  22

  Craigavad

  Glencraig Playgroup

  18

  Rathgael

  Little Acorns Pre-School Playgroup

  32

  Rathgael/Clandeboye

  Little Flower Playgroup

  11

  Rathgael/Bloomfield N

  Paddington Corner Playgroup

  13

  Loughview

  Redburn Community Playgroup

  20

  Springhill/Bryansford

  St. Comgall's Playgroup

  10

  221W

  North Down Borough Council

  Ward

  Provider

  Places allocated 2003–2004

  Ballyholme

  Tiddli-Winks Playgroup

  18

  Holywood

  Tiggers Palace

  15

  Total

  271

  The total of PEAG places currently allocated in the SEELB area is 1,489.

  Nursery schools and units are not allocated places by PEAGs, but have a standard class size of 26 pupils. The schools in the South Eastern Board area have the following capacities:

  School Name

  Capacity

  Abbey PS, Newtownards—Nursery Unit

  52

  Academy PS, Saintfield—Nursery Unit

  52

  Ballymacash PS, Lisburn—Nursery Unit

  52

  Ballymacrickett PS, Glenavy—Nursery Unit

  26

  Bangor Nursery School

  78

  Barbour Nursery School, Lisburn

  78

  Belvoir Park PS, Belfast—Nursery Unit

  78

  Bloomfield Road PS, Bangor—Nursery Unit

  52

  Braniel PS, Belfast—Nursery Unit

  78

  Brooklands PS, Dundonald—Nursery Unit

  78

  Cairnshill PS, Belfast—Nursery Unit

  52

  Castlereagh Nursery School, Belfast

  52

  Cedar Integrated PS, Crossgar—Nursery Unit

  26

  Christ the Redeemer PS, Belfast—Nursery Unit

  78

  Comber PS—Nursery Unit

  52

  Convent of Mercy Nursery School, Downpatrick

  78

  Donaghadee PS—Nursery Unit

  52

  Downpatrick Nursery School

  52

  Fort Hill PS, Lisburn—Nursery Unit

  52

  Glenbrook Nursery School, Newtownards

  78

  Good Shepherd Nursery School, Poleglass

  52

  Harmony Hill PS, Lisburn—Nursery Unit

  52

  Holy Trinity Nursery School, Lisburn

  52

  Holywood Nursery School

  52

  Kilcooley PS, Bangor—Nursery Unit

  26

  Killowen PS, Lisburn—Nursery Unit

  52

  Kilmaine PS, Bangor—Nursery Unit

  52

  King's Road Nursery School, Belfast

  52

  Knockbreda Nursery School, Belfast

  78

  Lisburn Central PS—Nursery Unit

  52

  Maghaberry PS, Moira—Nursery Unit

  26

  Millisle PS—Nursery Unit

  26

  McKinney PS, Dundrod—Nursery Unit

  26

  Newcastle PS—Nursery Unit

  52

  Newtownards Nursery School

  78

  Old Warren PS, Lisburn—Nursery Unit

  26

  Our Lady Queen of Peace PS, Kilwee—Nursery Unit

  52

  Pond Park Nursery School, Lisburn

  104

  Portavogie PS—Nursery Unit

  52

  Rathmore PS, Bangor—Nursery Unit

  52

  St. Aloysius PS, Lisburn—Nursery Unit

  26

  St. Colmcille's Nursery School, Downpatrick

  78

  St. Joseph's PS, Carryduff—Nursery Unit

  52

  St. Kieran's Nursery School, Poleglass

  52

  St. Luke's Nursery School, Twinbrook

  52

  St. Malachy's PS, Bangor—Nursery Unit

  52

  St. Malachy's PS, Castlewellan—Nursery Unit

  26

  St. Mark's PS, Twinbrook—Nursery Unit

  52

  St. Mary's PS, Newcastle—Nursery Unit

  52

  St. Mary's PS, Portaferry—Nursery Unit

  26

  St. Patrick's PS—Magheradroll Nursery Unit, Ballynahinch

  52

  St. Therese Nursery School, Belfast

  52

  Towerview PS, Bangor—Nursery Unit

  52

  Trinity Nursery School, Bangor

  78

  West Winds PS, Newtownards—Nursery Unit

  26

  Total

  2,938

  Racial Assaults
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many racial assaults there were in each Northern Ireland parliamentary constituency in each of the last three years, broken down by ethnic group; [128291]

  (2) how many racial assaults, broken down by ethnic group, have occurred in each of Northern Ireland's parliamentary constituencies in each of the last three years. [131523]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table details the total number of racially motivated assaults recorded in each of the last three years in Northern Ireland. Current recording methods do not break these figures down by parliamentary constituency or ethnic group.

  Year

  Number of physical assaults

  April 2000 to March 2001

  58

  April 2001 to March 2002

  39

  April 2002 to March 2003

  50

  Respite Care
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision there is for respite care for adults with special needs in the Northern Health and Social Services Board Area; and what plans there are to increase provision in the constituency of East Antrim. [131038]

  Angela Smith
  The Northern Health and Social Services Board advises that the provision of respite services to support adults with special needs differs between the two Community Health and Social Services Trusts in its area.

  In Causeway Health and Social Services Trust service provision is almost exclusively through the Trust's own family based respite care scheme. In Homefirst Health and Social Services Trust the model of provision is slightly different, drawing mainly on services provided through a family based scheme run by the voluntary sector, while also using a limited amount of statutory sector provision. This year the Northern Health and Social Services Board provided additional resources to increase family based respite, in conjunction with the voluntary sector, in the East Antrim area.

  Senior Civil Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Senior Civil Service Review. [131878]

  Mr. Pearson
  The independent review of Appointment and Promotion Procedures for the Senior Civil Service of the Northern Ireland Civil Service was conducted under the chairmanship of Lord Ouseley. The review report was published in 2002 and contained 25 specific recommendations, two of which related to reserved matters.

  An action plan was developed to address the recommendations made, and was put out for public consultation. Considerable progress has since been made against its objectives. The consultation also

  223W
  sought views on recommendations on open recruitment and work/life balance, and it is intended that an announcement on these matters will be made later in the autumn.

  Teachers
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many qualified teachers were working in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [129823]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested (expressed as full time equivalents) is as follows:

  Qualified teachers working in primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997

  Number

  (a) Primary Schools

  1997–98

  9,012

  1998–99

  8,810

  1999–2000

  8,751

  2000–01

  8,741

  2001–02

  8,780

  2002–03

  8,753

  Preparatory Departments

  1997–98

  181

  1998–99

  186

  1999–2000

  172

  2000–01

  170

  2001–02

  160

  2002–03

  154

  (b) Secondary Schools

  1997–98

  10,336

  1998–99

  10,358

  1999–2000

  10,548

  2000–01

  10,747

  2001–02

  10,809

  2002–03

  10,840

  Telecommunications Industry
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in place to support Northern Ireland's existing and new high technology and telecommunications industry and entrepreneurs; and if he will make a statement. [131525]

  Mr. Pearson
  Invest NI employs a broad range of measures to assist existing companies and entrepreneurs in the hi-technology and telecommunications sectors. The principal form of support available to assist significant new investment proposals (by new or existing businesses) is Selective Financial Assistance, which may contain elements covering capital and revenue grants in addition to loans and equity participation. Invest NI also operates a comprehensive series of schemes and programmes aimed at providing support which can be tailored to the needs of individual companies or entrepreneurs.

  These measures assist Invest NI to achieve the objectives set out in its Corporate Plan 2002–05. They therefore focus on promoting innovation and stimulating higher levels of R&D and knowledge transfer; helping companies to achieve higher levels of growth; promoting a more enterprising culture; raising the number of business starts; and attracting new inward investment.
  224W
  Invest NI has achieved a highly credible performance in its first year of operation. Key Innovation targets have been met or exceeded; Growing Existing Businesses and Business Start-up targets have been substantially achieved; and performance in attracting new inward investment has been encouraging, despite the continuing global downturn in foreign direct investment. In particular, Invest NI has assisted the setting up of 74 new, potentially high growth companies in the hi-tech and telecommunications sectors. Its offer of £14.3 million support towards business proposals by companies in these sectors represents a total investment of £109 million.

  Invest NI has also played a key role in establishing the Northern Ireland Science Park and has provided £26 million to support the establishment of 17 Centres of Research Excellence, the majority of which are focused on high technology sectors. In addition, Invest NI has been highly active in drawing up a series of sector strategies aimed at maximising the economic development potential for a range of sectors including hi-technology and telecommunications.

  These excellent first year achievements offer a very sound platform on which Invest NI can build in the future. They demonstrate the success of the measures which Invest NI has developed to provide support schemes and programmes which are both comprehensive and sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of existing businesses and entrepreneurs in a wide range of industrial sectors, including hi-technology and telecommunications.

  Teletech Redundancies
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he has implemented to assist those workers at TeleTech in North Belfast made redundant recently. [131575]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Employment and Learning's North Belfast JobCentre contacted TeleTech immediately after the company's announcement on 3 September that approximately 60 workers would be made redundant. An offer of assistance to help find alternative employment for those workers facing redundancy was made. The company decided not to take up this offer at this time as it is hoping to reduce the numbers to be made redundant by redeploying some of those affected to other contracts within TeleTech.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, against how many people successful prosecutions have been taken for the non-payment of television licence fees in the past five years. [123999]

  Estelle Morris
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information for England, Wales and Scotland relates to all offences under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts of 1949 and 1967, though the great majority of these involve licence fee evasion.
  225W
  Figures for Northern Ireland, provided by TV Licensing, relate specifically to unlicensed use of a television receiver. The number of convictions recorded in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years for which information is available was:

  Year

  Number of convictions

  1997

  179,898

  1998

  78,804

  1999

  256,929

  2000

  108,680

  2001

  86,118

  1 Excludes Northern Ireland, for which figures for 1997 are not available.

  2 1999 returns for Scotland may be incomplete.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prosecutions proceeded in relation to TV licensing in 2002 in Northern Ireland, broken down by constituency. [131574]

  Estelle Morris
  I have been asked to reply.

  As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member on 8 September 2003, Official Report, columns 30–31W, the total number of prosecutions proceeded with by TV Licensing in Northern Ireland in 2002 for installation or use of television without a licence was 1,448. I understand that TV Licensing does not record prosecutions by constituency.

  Ulster Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients are awaiting(a) elective admission and (b) out-patient assessment at the Ulster hospital. [130860]

  Angela Smith
  The most recent waiting list figures available reflect the position at the 30 June 2003.

  At 30 June 2003 there were 5,925 patients waiting for in-patient treatment at the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust. 21,264 patients were awaiting a first out-patient appointment at Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust, at 30 June 2003.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Employers Liability Insurance
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received concerning increases in employers' liability compulsory insurance in respect of small companies; and if he will make a statement. [131475]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department has received a number of representations concerning increases in Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) from small businesses both directly and via representative organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). The Government continue to work closely with such business representatives and the Small Business Service in the work of the second stage of the 226W
  ELCI review. Government will report in the autumn on the progress that has been made with the review and further steps we intend to take.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many consultancies were commissioned by the Department in the last two years for which figures are available; and what the cost of those contracts was. [130890]

  Maria Eagle
  In the two year period from September 2001 to September 2003 DWP let 824 consultancy assignments with a total value of £248 million.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent in each year by his Department in preparing for United Kingdom entry to the euro; how much his Department plans to spend on preparations for United Kingdom entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates he has made of the total costs to his Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131602]

  Mr. Pond
  Details of expenditure on changeover planning were included in the third outline National Changeover Plan, published on 9 June 2003. Copies of the document are available in the Library.

  It is difficult to estimate with any accuracy how much any changeover would cost. It would depend on the approach taken. In particular, many IT systems will be euro compatible as a result of our modernisation programme, which would reduce the costs of any euro changeover.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average time taken to deal with applications to the Social Fund was over the last 12 months, broken down by individual office. [130517]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 17 September 2003]: Information on the average time taken to deal with applications to the Social Fund broken down by individual office is currently unavailable. I will write to my hon. Friend when the data requested becomes available and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Industrial Injuries
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many industrial injuries disablement benefit appeals have been lodged since 1997; and how many were(a) found in favour of the claimant, (b) found against the claimant and (c) were abandoned due to time constraints. [130858]

  Mr. Browne
  Appeals are not abandoned due to time constraints. If an Appeal, listed for hearing before a Tribunal, is unable to be heard, or the hearing is unable to be completed because of lack of time, it will be rescheduled for hearing at the next available date.
  227W
  The available information is in the table.

  Year

  Lodged at first tier agency

  Received by the Appeals Service

  Cleared at hearing

  Found in Favour of appellant

  Decided against appellant

  Decision upheld

  1998

  20,030

  24,630

  13,510

  5,140

  415

  7,420

  1999

  22,070

  17,320

  17,305

  6,895

  450

  9,300

  2000

  21,525

  22,390

  19,170

  7,665

  90

  10,735

  2001

  22,885

  23,110

  17,985

  7,300

  55

  10,150

  2002

  18,355

  18,565

  17,170

  6,550

  45

  10,030

  January to July 2003

  7,800

  11,250

  9,110

  3,530

  20

  5,265

  Source:

  DWP Information and Analysis Direct orate Information Centre, 100 per cent sample.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available.

  Figures for the latest months will rise significantly as information feeds through to the Appeals Service.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  3. Appeals cleared in one year will not be the same appeals received in that year.

  4. An appeal may have more than one clearance in a year and each clearance will be counted. For example, an appellant may not be happy with the outcome of the original hearing and apply to the district chairman for leave to appeal and subsequent hearings may occur as a result.

  5. Not all appeals that are received by the Appeals Service continue through the process to reach a hearing or conclusion. For example, an appeal may be invalid or withdrawn prior to hearing.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his meeting with Ros Altmann on 17 September. [131659]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  On 9 September 1 met various people with an interest in the ASW and Dexion pension schemes, including Ros Altmann. During that meeting, I reiterated that I am examining the position and would listen to sensible and constructive suggestions for dealing with compensation, not only for members of the ASW and Dexion pension schemes, but also for others in a similar position. But I also stressed that while I will listen to proposals, I do not wish to provide people with false hope that the Government will step in to help members of defined-benefit pension schemes which have already started to wind-up.

  During the meeting on 9 September, I agreed that my officials should meet Ros Altmann to discuss her suggestions. This was the meeting that took place on 17 September, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) also attended. The meeting focussed on Ros Altmann's proposals for providing assistance and the assumptions on which her proposals are based. No minister attended the meeting on 17 September.

  Pension Advice Surgeries
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the locations of the local pension advice surgeries are. [128742]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Pension Service provides a wide range of information and support on benefits to older people through our network of local service surgeries.

  Local Pension Service surgeries are held on a regular basis across all areas of the country, often in partnership with other organisations such as local authorities and Age Concern. The latest data available indicate that there are currently 2,650 regular drop in and appointment surgeries in place nationally.
  228W
  Details of the most convenient surgery for individual pensioners and their carers can be obtained by telephoning 0845 60 60 2 65.

  The Pension Service wrote to all hon. Members at the end of July providing a full list of surgeries and opening times in individual constituencies; however I am happy to list here the regular surgeries that take place in the Northavon area:

  South Gloucestershire Deaf Association

  Kingswood Library

  Patchway Community Centre

  Pucklechurch Sheltered House

  Thornbury Library

  Yate Library

  Frenchay Hospital

  Southmead Hospital

  Avon Crescent Sheltered Housing

  Marshfield Church Hall

  Withymead

  The Brockridge Centre.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his oral briefing to pensioners of 3 September on the pension credit,(a) what the total advertising budget is, (b) how many pensioners will receive pension credit in October, and, of that number, how many will be former minimum income guarantee claimants; and if he will estimate the (i) number of calls that can be dealt with per (a) hour and (b) day by the pension credit telephone application line and (ii) average time to complete an application using the pension credit telephone application line. [131580]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 17 June 2003,Official Report, column 157W. There are now around 1.9 million pensioner households on our systems being paid pension credit. We intend from November to publish monthly reports on the progress of pension credit take-on, which will include a more detailed breakdown of this

  229W
  figure. Our planning assumes that on a typical weekday the pension credit application line will be handling around 18,000 calls a day, although if necessary the application line has the capacity to answer up to 14,000 calls per hour for a limited time during exceptionally busy periods. The level of resources will ensure that customers who wish to make an application using the application line can do so. The average time to complete a pension credit application for customers using the application line is currently about 20 minutes.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in The Wrekin he estimates will benefit from the pension credit. [131689]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, an estimated 350,000 pensioner households are eligible for pension credit in the West Midlands.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates were calculated for all pensioners using the Department's Policy Simulation Model based on the Family Resource Survey data for 2001–02 projected forward to 2003–04. This shows around 3.6 million households entitled to pension credit.

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

  Travel to Work Areas
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the top and bottom 100 travel to work areas by average wage; and if he will make a statement. [129159]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who is writing to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 17 September 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the top and bottom 100 travel to work areas by average wage. I am replying in his absence.

  Proposed future roles and responsibilities for children and families policy DFES/DCA

  DfES

  DCA

  Domestic violence

  Contributing re impact of domestic violence on children

  Stays (with HO leading cross-Government 'Virtual Unit' on consultation paper and prospective Bill)

  Civil partnerships

  Contributing re issues affecting children if registering/dissolving same-sex partnerships

  Stays (with DTI leading on consultation paper and prospective Bill)

  (Opposite sex) cohabitation

  Contributing re specific needs and vulnerability of children of cohabitees

  Lead, (DCA leading cross-Government exploration of information campaign)

  International

  Interest in possible domestic impact

  Lead, (DCA leading on range of international legal treaty commitments, and Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (REMO) casework)

  Family justice system

  'Powerful customer' specifying desired priorities and outcomes for children involved in system

  Lead, (implementation of new legislation (eg Adoption and Children Act 2002) and maintenance/development of existing legislation. On-going delivery through the courts, with Legal Services Commission (re legal aid) and new Family Justice Council)

  230W
  Information on average weekly earnings for travel to work areas is taken from the New Earnings Survey (NES) for 2002, the latest year for which data are available. Publication criteria for NBS state that all estimates with a sample size less than 30 or a relative standard error greater than 5% must be excluded from published analyses since they are not accurate enough.

  A large number of the earnings estimates for travel to work areas have been excluded as a result of these criteria, and there are a total of 150 areas for which estimates can be given. I am placing in the House of Commons library a single table showing the estimated average weekly earnings for each of these 150 travel to work areas.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the total cost to the Department was for accountancy services in 2002–03. [109494]

  Mr. Lammy
  My Department entered into a nine year PFI contract with Liberata UK Ltd., (formerly CSL Group Ltd.) in January 1998. This contract covers a wide range of services including providing accounting systems, making payments, receipting and accounts production. The cost of accountancy services provided to the Department by Liberata under the contract, and from other external firms of accountants or their management consultancy arms where the assignment was connected with financial matters, in 2002–03 was £6.4 million.

  Family Law
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what aspects of family law continue to be the responsibility of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. [131404]

  Mr. Lammy
  The schedule lists all areas of family law and family policy which had been the responsibility of the former Lord Chancellor's Department prior to the Machinery of Government changes which were announced on 13 June 2003.

  The schedule indicates which responsibilities remain with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and which have been transferred to the Department for Education and Skills.
  231W

  Proposed future roles and responsibilities for children and families policy DFES/DCA

  DfES

  DCA

  Divorce

  Transfers (delivery of information comparison/products for parents and children affected by separation/divorce)

  Part transfer (staying: policy maintenance of Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, repeal of (unimplemented) Part n Family Law Act 1996. Monitoring of delivery of Family Advice and Information Service (FAInS) by the Legal Services Commission)

  Child Contact

  Lead, (implementation of Government response to Children Act Sub-Committee (CASC), "Making Contact Work", Development of child contact services)

  Contributes (through effective implementation of Section 8 Children Act 1989 in courts)

  Child Safety

  Lead, (implementation of CASC response in areas of Facilitation, enforcement and safety)

  Contributes (through commencement of revised forms/rules in Section 8 proceedings)

  Children's Private Law

  Lead, (provision of information and other (non-court based) services to parents and children

  Contributes (through court-based services)

  CAFCASS

  Lead, (both delivery by CAFCASS and operation of sponsor unit), and Lead (as link Minister) to CAFCASS Inspectorate in MCSI

  Contributes (through courts, judiciary, magistracy (legal practitioners and other stakeholders)

  Marriage and Relationship Support (MARS)

  Lead, (through delivery of grant programme)

  Contributes (informed by civil partnerships and cohabitation responsibilities)

  Lay Magistrates
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, if he will take steps to ensure that lay magistrates are not discouraged by advice from their clerks from accepting invitations to accompany police patrols to experience crime and disorder at first hand. [131660]

  Mr. Leslie
  Successive Lord Chancellors have warned magistrates of the risks of participating in activities which might appear to undermine the independence of the bench. However, one of the strengths of the magistracy is that its members will have a wide range of experience of their local communities. Magistrates are encouraged to keep their knowledge up to date, and visits to areas with particular problems can do much to help. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State does not wish to discourage magistrates from seeing at first hand how the police work within the local community. This must, however, be achieved in ways which minimise the risks of their impartiality being called into question.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what the cost was to his Department and its predecessor of mobile phones supplied to ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123145]
  232W
  Mr. Lammy
  My Department has spent the following each year on mobile phones supplied to ministers and officials:

  1997–98—n/a

  1998–99—n/a

  1999–2000—n/a

  2000–01—n/a

  2001–02—£3,632

  2002–03—£7,610

  2003–04–44,944 (6 months April 03-September 03)

  Figures are not available for the periods 1997-March 2001 without incurring disproportionate costs.

  The figures shown above are from April 2001 and for each subsequent financial year. They include the cost of equipment, call charges and line rental fees.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, if he will list the(a) number of staff employed by and (b) budget of each regulatory body for which his Department is responsible in each year since 1997. [117779]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on regulatory bodies is available in "Public Bodies", a publication produced annually by the Cabinet Office. This publication provides information on the size, spend and membership of public bodies in the UK and includes non-departmental public bodies. The current edition of the publication "Public Bodies 2003" is available in the House of Commons Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Search and Rescue Dogs: Quarantine
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Priorasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider the need for search and rescue dogs to undergo six months' quarantine following their return from deployment in countries not included in the pet passport scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, following the deployment of British search and rescue dogs in Algeria, the Government considered their case for exemption from quarantine. We concluded that such exemption would not be consistent with our policy of maintaining a high level of protection from rabies. However, we would consider favourably proposals from search and rescue organisations to provide suitable facilities at quarantine kennels so that the dogs can maintain their training work, provided these facilities satisfy the normal requirements.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's response but point out to him that because dogs are in quarantine for six months, they are no longer available for search and rescue missions in this country should they be required. Furthermore, they may lose their skills because of lack of reinforcement. In these present times, is that not an unacceptable risk when search and rescue dogs may be required for disasters in the United Kingdom?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly, search and rescue dogs undergo a high degree of intensive training. Therefore, it is important that we maintain that source of support, whether we are talking about disasters here or overseas. Normally, only a small number of dogs go overseas; I believe that there are seven dogs in Algeria.
We have some sympathy with the noble Lord's second point about training. We are discussing the issue with search and rescue personnel to determine whether we could maintain some training facilities within the quarantine requirement.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as well as looking at facilities that might be available within quarantine kennels, could the Government be more flexible about allowing a form of home quarantine for these animals? Is not the risk involved remote in the extreme? These animals would be of a very small minority if vaccination did not work, they then came into contact
136
with rabies and then were not covered by home quarantine. This situation, which threatens search and rescue activities, has been going on for a long time. Could the department be more flexible than it has been in the past?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although my noble friend is right about aspects of the risk, the risk is nevertheless enhanced because rabies is endemic in many disaster areas. That is why we have taken a precautionary view. My colleague, Ben Bradshaw, is looking at this issue to determine whether there are ways in which we could be more flexible, either within the quarantine arrangements or otherwise. We have not yet reached a solution on the issue.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a French dog has been awarded the Croix de Guerre? Unfortunately, the only thing that seems to happen to our dogs is that they come back and are put into quarantine.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, regrettably, I was unaware of this particular aspect of the French honours system. I think we may have to look into that a little more closely. After all, the quarantine system has protected this country from rabies for many decades. Any relaxation must be considered very carefully.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how many dogs are involved? At the last count, to cover the millions of people going in and out of this country bearing curious parcels of meat, only two dogs were working and 600 were training. The Australians have infinitely more dogs for the same job. Surely, it is a very serious matter that people can carry the infective material for disasters such as foot and mouth.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that there are some viruses that can be carried on food and some which cannot. I am therefore unsure that we are dealing with an identical situation when we talk about rabies, other animal diseases and illegally imported meat. As regards the situation on imported meat, Customs and Excise, which now takes responsibility for this area, is deploying six teams of dogs. The assessment of the effectiveness of the dogs has been positive so far and we may extend that scheme. But it is only part of the enhanced protection against illegally imported meat, which has been discussed in this House on a number of occasions.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further on the Government's consideration of the issue of quarantine. I gather that guide dogs going abroad do not have to comply with the restrictions when they come back into this country. If that is so, and if it is also true that rabies symptoms show themselves within 10 to 15 days, will the

137
Government consider allowing search and rescue dogs a shorter time in quarantine, which might be of help to the search and rescue venture?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some exemptions are made in relation to guide dogs and in relation to certain other dependent situations on a case-by-case basis. However, extending such exemptions to dogs in the search and rescue category must be considered bearing in mind that such dogs go to several different destinations. Although the dogs may be used by search and rescue personnel, they are not necessarily owned by them. The position is not quite so contained.
Turning to the point made by the noble Baroness about the incubation period, I think that she may be misinformed. The average length of incubation is between five and eight weeks. However, the Kennedy committee pointed out that it could be up to 125 days— 18 weeks—because some symptoms of the disease show after that period. It was for that reason that the original six-month period was adopted in rabies prevention.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, given that it was a unanimous resolution by the agriculture committee in the other place which led directly to the change in the law in this area—against the opposition of many civil servants within the department as well as politicians and members of the Government—is this not an appropriate area for that same committee now to review? Perhaps, in a spirit of co-operation between the two Houses, my noble friend could prevail on the chairman of that committee to do so.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my relations with the Select Committee of another place are extremely cordial and constructive, but I do not think that I can prevail on the chairman of that committee to do anything. As I have said, within the department my colleague Ben Bradshaw is looking at this issue to see whether a constructive way forward can be found. We should leave it to the department to examine the position further and perhaps come back to it.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further. I gather that this issue was first raised back in February. We are now in October. How soon can we expect a response?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the position is that the veterinary advice is fairly clear. However, we recognise the need to ensure that we have available an adequate number of dogs to provide support for search and rescue operations. Those two considerations must be balanced. I cannot give a time-scale for when we shall reach a final decision, but clearly we shall be in touch with all the organisations concerned in order to reach a conclusion.
We understand what lies behind this Question. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, we are trying to find ways around the problem.

Foreign Direct Investment
2.45 p.m.
Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to reverse the decline in foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, inward investment responds to world economic growth. When that slows down, so do flows of investment. A global decline in mergers and acquisitions and the flat US market are the major factors. Against those global trends, it is not possible to identify whether non-membership of the euro is also a factor in the decline in inward investment flows.
Stock figures are a more complete measure of inward investment than foreign direct investment inflows. These show that the United Kingdom has retained its number one position in Europe, with 22.5 per cent of total EU accumulated stocks.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, do the Government agree that this is a matter of grave concern? The role of foreign investment in this country has been disproportionate in improving productivity. Is not the decline in investment in this country, as one can tell from warnings given by the heads of foreign companies, something clearly related to the Government's prevarication over the euro?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I sought to indicate, the best figures for measuring foreign direct investment are those for the accumulated stock of inward investment rather than inward flows. The arguments in support of that are simple and set out on page 52 of the Treasury's report on its study of EMU and the business sectors. I am sure that the noble Lord has read it; indeed, he may be the only noble Lord in the House to have done so.
Inflows are a poor measure of foreign direct investment. On the basis of accumulated stock, we increased that stock by £86.5 billion in 2002. As a result, our accumulated stock for that year, as a percentage of the EU total, was 22.5 per cent, the highest figure since 1991 other than the figure for 2001. Those figures do not indicate that there is yet any reason to attribute our performance in any way necessarily to the euro.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some companies continue to be concerned about the activities of animal rights terrorist groups and that this is having an adverse impact on certain inward investment decisions, in particular within the pharmaceutical industry? Will my noble friend redouble his worthy efforts to ensure that we take all possible action against these groups?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend. There is not yet a great deal of evidence that this issue is being taken into account in

139
investment decisions because it represents only one factor. However, that such activities are taking place is a matter of great concern to the Government. We have spent much time seeking to provide further protections and, indeed, legislation is to pass through both Houses to ensure even more protection. I confirm that it is a matter of great concern and we shall continue to provide as high a level of protection as possible.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, given that the growth of GDP in the United Kingdom is likely to be four times faster than that in the rest of the euro-zone, while there may be a reduction in direct investment from the United States, surely one of the greatest attractions for inward investment to this country is our flexible labour market. Can the Minister give an assurance that that is likely to remain the status quo in this country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, today a whole range of factors are taken into account by companies when they look at inward investment. The general economic climate is one of those, as is flexible labour which we intend to keep that way because it is important. However, many other considerations are taken into account. The science and technology base has become increasingly important, along with the availability of skilled labour at both graduate and intermediate levels.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, in order to assist the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, can the Minister confirm whether the figures for unemployment are higher in the principal economies of the euro-zone than in this country, which is outside the euro-zone?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have a very low unemployment rate. Indeed, at the moment, the majority of our macro-economic indicators are stronger than those for most European countries. Clearly, when considering the whole question of entry into the euro, it is of the greatest importance that we do not put in jeopardy any of those factors. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the announcement that he did on 9th June.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, at the time of a most important debate in June, my noble friend the Minister was in America trying to obtain inward investment. Was his visit successful? In other words, has there been an improvement in inward investment, not only from around the world but from America in particular?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, only once on any of my inward investment visits have I been able to point to a direct result within a few months of such a trip. That involved establishing relationships with some high-tech clusters in America, where we see opportunities to make arrangements whereby they would put high-tech investments into the UK when they want to expand into Europe. It is a very important area which will yield important results in due course. It has not yet done so and, given the present climate,
140
we shall not see a rapid change in that situation. However, it is significant that the latest Office for National Statistics balance of payments figures, released on 27th June, show that foreign direct investment stock in the first quarter of 2003 was at a record level of £398.8 billion, an increase of 6.8 per cent on the same quarter last year. So there are some signs that it is going the right way.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, apart from the decline in inward investment—for which the Minister and other noble Lords have given reasons— does the noble Lord agree that there has been at the same time a great increase in outward investment, which has resulted in many UK large industrial organisations taking their operations overseas into more business-friendly regimes? That has meant a greater number of job losses in this country.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I had hoped to indicate that, if one looks at the stock of inward investment, there has not been a decline. In fact a very considerable increase has taken place. As regards outward investments, there are all kinds of reasons for companies taking their operations abroad. Quite often it has to do with wanting to export to other parts of the world; quite often today it has to do with low labour costs. It is not possible to say which of those are affected by the business climate in the UK. There will be good reasons for some companies taking jobs abroad in terms of exports or labour costs, but it is impossible to separate that out from their view of the general economy.

Iraq: Cabinet Meetings
2.53 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many times the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee met to discuss Iraq and the Middle East in thez six months leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, there was no meeting of the Cabinet Defence and Overseas Policy Committee during this period because Iraq and the Middle East were the subject of regular Cabinet discussion from September 2002 until after the conflict. Indeed, Iraq was discussed at every regular Cabinet meeting in that period. Additionally, during the course of the conflict, an ad hoc group of Ministers, chaired by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, met 28 times.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As I have the privilege of being the first Member of the House to have a

141
Question answered by the Minister in her new position, perhaps I may add my personal congratulations.
Noble Lords: Hear! Hear!
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that after the Falklands war the Franks report drew attention to the failure to call meetings of the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee—which was called the Defence Committee in the Franks report— with the implication that had that committee met before the war there might have been a better appreciation of the threat from Argentina? Does she agree that if there had been prior meetings of the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee before the Iraq war, the Government might have had a better appreciation of the real and present threat from Iraq?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his good wishes. I thank all noble Lords for the support and best wishes that I have received since the announcement yesterday.
There were a number of Cabinet discussions before and during the conflict. In fact, every regular Cabinet meeting discussed this subject and the ad hoc ministerial committee discussed this subject. I am aware of the recommendation of the Franks report but the threat posed to this country and to the international community by Iraq was well understood across government.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I add my good wishes to the noble Baroness on her new appointment. She has referred to a great many Cabinet meetings and discussions. Does she accept that, from what I can recall, these so-called very full Cabinet discussions are not always all that they are cracked up to be and may not give everyone a chance to express their opinion?
Does the Minister further accept that while there were, in our view, many excellent reasons for getting rid of the Saddam regime, which posed a permanent and dangerous threat to peace in the region—and, indeed, to world peace—not all of those reasons received priority during the run-up to the Iraq invasion? Does she agree that there is a great deal of confusion about what were and are the real and basic reasons and about what is the strategy behind government thinking now as we move forward? Would it not be useful to repeat the experience of the Franks report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, referred, and to have a full report on which were the valid reasons and which were the invalid reasons? That may help us to avoid making further mistakes in the future.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as regards Cabinet discussions not being all they are cracked up to be, I can answer only on the basis of the Cabinet discussions in which I have been involved. I can confirm that at no stage during a Cabinet meeting have I ever felt, if I had a point to make, that there was neither the time nor the
142
possibility to make that point. It is difficult for me to report on Cabinet discussions that took place before I was a member of the Cabinet.
There is no confusion across government about why we engaged in this conflict. It is absolutely clear that it was on the basis of the flouting of the authority of the UN and, in particular, the concern about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. That was absolutely consistent and clear in all the debates and discussions. If noble Lords care to look at the debates that we had during that period, they will see that consistency.
As regards where we now stand, we are absolutely clear that we need to work with the UN and the people of Iraq to rebuild Iraq as quickly as possible. We need to ensure that the people of Iraq take control of their country, in a time-scale to be set out, and have responsibility for rebuilding and reconstruction as quickly as possible.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, in adding my personal congratulations, does the Lord President agree that there is a world of difference between general Cabinet discussions and the discussions of a proper sub-committee, appointed and set up for that purpose and containing a number of people with direct and much more accurate knowledge of the issue than, with great respect, many members of the Cabinet would have had?
Was the ad hoc committee officially appointed? Were the names of its members officially published? Was it the same ad hoc committee that met on a regular basis to discuss these issues? Did the ministerial committee on intelligence meet at all during this period?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am afraid I will have to write to the noble Lord on his final point about the Intelligence Committee.
The members of the ad hoc group of Ministers were the Prime Minister, who chaired it, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Secretary of State for International Development, the Leader of the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Attorney-General. That ad hoc group of Ministers met 28 times. I take the point about having a general discussion in Cabinet as opposed to a more detailed discussion. That was the purpose of having a smaller group of Ministers meet on a regular basis.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the seriousness of the decision to go to war requires, in a constitutional democracy, that one goes through the appropriate procedures very carefully? Many of us have been rather worried by the indications in the Hutton inquiry's evidence so far that the advice of officials to Ministers was not always accepted and that a number of Ministers were left extremely unhappy with the way in which the political debate was going.

143
The Cabinet and its committees are supported by a substructure of official committees. Does the Minister accept that it might be helpful if there were a further inquiry into how far the political drive pushed further than the available information and advice would support?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, going to war is an extremely serious decision for any government and any Prime Minister to make. It is not at all an easy or straightforward decision, and it certainly was not in this case. The facts were looked at and weighed up very carefully.
On the noble Lord's second point that advice from officials was not always accepted, it is my experience that advice from officials is not always accepted. In my own case, I know that in wanting to make progress on certain issues, if I had accepted official advice, we would not be moving forward. I am sure that that has been the experience of those on the Opposition Benches who have been Ministers as well.
I accept the point about the seriousness of the decision which was taken. I am absolutely confident that the discussions undertaken at the Cabinet table and elsewhere and the information that was available to Ministers were very seriously considered. Putting our troops in a situation in which they faced the possibility of dying for this country is a very serious thing to do, and the decision was taken by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet in that full knowledge.

Euro: Stability and Growth Pact Rules
3.3 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many countries which have adopted the euro are in breach of the financial rules underpinning the currency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Mclntosh of Haringey): My Lords, since the start of the third stage of European monetary union, Portugal, Germany and France have been subject to excessive deficit procedures.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that factual answer. However, given that the Government—or most of them, anyway—wish the United Kingdom to join the euro when the time is right, what effort are they making to persuade the Commission to enforce the stability pact?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the enforcement of the stability and growth pact and of the excessive deficit procedures is a matter for ECOFIN. We do not comment on the financial situation of individual member states.
We are encouraged by some of the developments in ECOFIN. For example, because we believe in multilateral surveillance, we are encouraged that the
144
broad economic policy guidelines now take into account labour market flexibility and structural economic reform, which we have been urging for many years. So our influence on ECOFIN has been entirely positive.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that whether we are inside or outside the euro-zone— and I would personally prefer it if we were inside— there is a greater case for a more flexible approach to the rigid rules that at present exists? Will he suggest to others in the Treasury that they should be making representations along those lines?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that in some sense I had already answered that point in my response to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. Yes, we have always believed in a prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact. We have always thought that it should take account of the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment. As I said, we are encouraged by movements within ECOFIN towards that greater flexibility which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and I want.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the stability and growth pact was enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty and would thus need a treaty change to alter its terms, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the stability and growth pact and the excessive deficit procedures are indeed included in the Maastricht Treaty and therefore were approved by Parliament in 1993. That agreement is fleshed out in Council regulations 1466 and 1467 of 1997, both of which were adopted by this country before the 1997 election.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in terms of increased flexibility on the stability and growth pacts, it would make sense to provide for flexibility to allow member states to deal with long-term structural problems?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: Again, my Lords, I think I have already answered that question. Yes, we think that there should be a degree of flexibility to allow member states to deal with long-term structural problems. That is exactly why our definition of a prudent interpretation includes issues of the economic cycle and sustainability. I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is advocating, and I agree with it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that one of the ways—in fact, the main way—of enforcing the rules of the growth and stability pact is to impose swingeing fines on those who have broken the rules? Would that not make matters worse?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, that is certainly the last stage of a series of procedures. There is a procedure which starts with an early warning and goes on to a recommendation that a particular member state is in breach of the excessive deficit procedures. If that continues, ECOFIN has the power in the last resort to impose very substantial fines—that is, a proportion of gross domestic product. That has not been necessary in the past, and I agree that it would have very serious implications for the economy of the member state concerned.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question of my noble friend Lord Willoughby on whether it would need another treaty to change the conditions of the pact?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that was implicit in my answer. It is in the Maastricht Treaty and to change it would require a change to the Maastricht Treaty. However, that does not apply to the implementation of the Council resolutions, to which I also referred in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, what are the implications of too much flexibility in the case of France?
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we do not comment on the financial state of other member states. I understand that France is seeking to claim that there are exceptional circumstances. That is not for this country but for ECOFIN as a whole to judge.

Ship Breaking
3.9 p.m.
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the environmental implications of permitting the towage of 13 redundant United States Navy ships through United Kingdom waters and breaking them up in Hartlepool.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has undertaken surveys and checks, in consultation with neighbouring states and the United States authorities, to ensure that the ships are seaworthy. They would not be permitted into UK waters if they presented a specific risk of environmental pollution. Once here, the Environment Agency will ensure that the residual waste will be handled correctly and consigned to a suitably licensed facility.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, but is he aware that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency report states that the 50 year-old supply ships have serious corrosion of rivets and seals and contain carcinogenic PCBs? Is he aware that the EU has classed the ships as toxic waste? Can he confirm that the British Government have
146
relaxed hazardous waste import laws to allow the ships to come to Hartlepool, yet again encouraging the view that this country is the dustbin of the world?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the ships contain some toxic waste in relation to asbestos and other materials, although less than 1.5 per cent of their total bulk could be so described. Imports of asbestos are normally banned, but the HSE grants exemptions, and it did so in this case. With regard to the noble Lord's last point, the fact that changing rules of maritime safety will require the break-up of a significant number of European ships indicates that we need the ability in this country to deal with break-up and recycling of maritime material.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that this is simply the operation of the free market? Is it our Government's view that we are simply very good at breaking up ships and that the Americans are not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the ships are government owned, and it was an American government contract for which Able UK, which is based in Hartlepool, bid and won. In order for the ships to come here, the American authorities, in conjunction with our authorities, need to deem the ships seaworthy, so that there is no marine hazard. There are pretty tight regulations on that, and there are pretty tight regulations here and with other countries close to whose coasts the ships may pass on how they may get here. Once they are here, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive have very tight regulations on how they are dealt with, broken up and recycled. Therefore, while the matter may relate to free competition and a free market, the market is very heavily regulated.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, given that the ships are rusty hulks that will be in territorial waters in the stormy time of autumn— which is in itself regrettable—will the Secretary of State consider using the special post created in 1999 for situations of maritime emergency? Under that measure, all power is vested in one person to take control of the entire question of routing and emergency planning, rather than leaving the matter in the hands of several agencies. After something had gone wrong, it would be too late—we need action now to ensure that nothing goes wrong, and it would be better to have one person in command of the situation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is responsible for agreeing the route, which may vary according to weather conditions and temperature. If an emergency arose as a result of this situation or anything else, a centralised command for dealing with it would be put in place. However, this is not an emergency; it is dealing sensibly with some ships that are coming here to be recycled, when British expertise—based, in this case, in

147
Hartlepool—is able to do the job to the satisfaction of the American Government. In some sense, we should take some pride in the fact that we are able to engage here in the break-up of such otherwise dangerous material.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, we may be better at breaking up ships than the Americans, but does my noble friend agree that with the enormous risks that exist in bringing ships 3,000 miles across the Atlantic, the situation is an absolute nonsense? Does he not believe that the Americans should break up their own ships in their own country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is an argument for that, but the American authorities decided to put the contract to international tender and to limit consideration of tender to those countries and firms capable of meeting the environmental and other safety standards necessary. In other cases, with private ship owners, such ships have occasionally been broken up in west Africa or South America, in countries where those standards are not met and where the environmental hazard would be substantially greater.
There are 60 of these ships altogether—not 13—and not all of them are likely to prove seaworthy. In that case, the Americans will have to take on the responsibility themselves.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the Minister say on how many previous occasions similar ships have been towed across the Atlantic?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, I do not believe that I can. The technology is of course quite new but the ships are very old and the American Government kept them for 50 years for an emergency situation. They have rarely been used. Therefore, we are dealing with a unique situation. However, it is the case with some ships that are towed around the oceans for destruction or disposal— often in a developing country—that their materials are not recycled and the conditions in which they are broken up may cause a very serious environmental hazard. We are avoiding that by this arrangement.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, were American companies allowed to bid to break up the ships in the United States?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, American companies were allowed to bid, but there was no appropriate American bidder. That is a problem for the American authorities, as I do not believe that all the fleet will prove to be seaworthy. In that case, the Americans would have to undertake to deal with some of the ships themselves.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, could we not find an alternative solution and propose to move the skills and manpower of Hartlepool to do the job in the United States?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one reason why there is such a highly skilled and appropriate work force in Hartlepool is clearly the attraction of the place and where it is in this country, bringing skills, jobs and income to the United Kingdom.

Select Committees
3.17 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord President (Baroness Amos) be appointed a member of the following committees, in the place of the Lord Williams of Mostyn, deceased: House, Liaison, Privileges, Procedure and Selection.— (The Chairman of Committees).
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness on her appointment. Will she use her influence as Leader of the House and in leading the committees in enforcing the convention that the Questions for Written Answer are replied to within two weeks? I ask her that in view of the fact that this morning, disgracefully, there are 52 Questions that have been sitting there for between three and 12 weeks.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as it is my Motion on the Order Paper, it is for me to answer that question. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, may be disappointed in my reply. The House will have to put up with me answering for the committees. However, I am assured by the Lord President, beside whom I was sitting just a moment ago, that she will do her best, as her predecessor did, to ensure that Questions are answered in timely fashion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Household Waste Recycling Bill
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Gale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

149
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Warner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the
Chair.]
Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"NHS AGENCY FOR ENGLAND
(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the NHS Agency for England (referred to in this Act as the "English Agency") for the purpose of carrying out the functions transferred or assigned to it by or under this Act.
(2) The functions of the English Agency are performed on behalf of the Crown."
The noble Baroness said: I start by declaring an interest. I am employed by the NHS, sometimes in a voluntary capacity, sometimes paid. I serve as a trustee on several charities. I chair St George's Hospital Medical School Council and am a senior unpaid associate of the King's Fund.
In moving Amendment No. 1, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6. I speak in the knowledge that these amendments may have the familiarity of a dear and much loved but sadly in the past rejected friend. Some noble Lords may remember that I moved similar amendments 18 months ago when the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill was before this House. Your Lordships were generous and my amendments received a good deal of support but, sadly, not from the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, our current Minister, will be of a different mind and acknowledge the undoubted value of these proposals, which actually enhance the Government's drive to devolution.
I should like to thank the noble Lords who have put their names to these amendments, including the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who both work in the NHS and experience the daily frustrations of the current arrangements. With the noble Lord, Lord Desai, a past Labour spokesman on health and an internationally distinguished economist, they cover all sides of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, one of the original architects of the concept I am promoting, chaired a group established by the King's Fund. Although he is a strong advocate of these amendments, sadly, he is unable to be here today. Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the King's Fund and its inspirational director, Rabbi Julia Neuberger. I have been working on these amendments with her team.
In the intervening 18 months we have examined the arguments of those who feel that these proposals are at worst misguided or at best are impractical, and we agree with them. We think that it is naïve to think that it is possible, or indeed appropriate, to exclude politicians from taking responsibility for the NHS. Rather, we seek to put politics into its rightful place. We seek to strengthen the role of Parliament, increase accountability
150
and ensure that decisions are made in a transparent way. We want to separate the responsibility for making policy from the responsibility of implementing policy.
The foundation of medicine is based on the Hippocratic oath. One of the key elements of the oath is that all people engaged in the provision of medical services should be bound by it, and that is a good principle. However, in providing medical services, successive governments have selfishly served party political dogma to the great resentment of those who work in the NHS. They and the majority of users believe that we need a service that is above party politics but subject to the most rigorous examination by Parliament and its elected politicians.
One of the great tenets of the Hippocratic oath is that a doctor should do his patients no harm. In the past, it is the party divisions that have done the NHS great harm—never I believe maliciously, but sometimes misguidedly or by pursuit of short-term political gain. We have used the most powerful and emotive issue of life and death for base reasons and that should stop. We should cease playing party games with the NHS. We should have a common oath subscribed to by every party. I believe that now is the time, in the words of the former chief executive of the NHS, Sir Alan Langlands,
"for a serious re-evaluation of the argument for putting the NHS at arms length from government".
That is what these amendments seek to do.
The clauses I am moving today do not further disrupt the delivery of services to patients. They do not give birth to another quango. Rather, they build a new relationship between the public, Parliament, government and the NHS staff. They seek to re-establish trust in the NHS, to strengthen commitment and to ensure that we have a service that is efficient, timely, compassionate and above all well managed with a minimum of interference. The NHS does need improvement; it is not very well. Is it not a disgrace that not only do we have to scour the world for doctors and nurses to work in this country, but that we export our sick to be treated in other countries? That is no way for a rich, civilised nation to behave.
Just over three years ago, many of us welcomed the NHS Plan. Good will was created by including all parties in drawing it up. However, that good will has now evaporated, largely because new policies have been developed without open debate or collective agreement. That is a view shared by the Government. Only last week, on the BBC's "World at One" programme, John Reid, the Secretary of State for Health, acknowledged that the concept of foundation hospitals would have been better received if there had been consultation in the form of a White Paper. I, too, believe that much of the opposition would have been diffused if this particular Exocet had not exploded without warning.
Throughout the history of the NHS there has been a pull between central direction and local autonomy. Sir Roy Griffiths, in his 1983 report, said:
"The centre is still too much involved, in too many of the wrong things, and too little involved, in some that really matter".
Today the NHS would resonate with that. We need to define the roles of Parliament, government and the NHS, coupled with a strong mechanism for accountability. I believe that an agency would do just that.
So my first amendment inserts a new clause before Clause 1. This clause establishes a new corporate body, to be known as the,
"National Health Service Agency for England",
whose functions are performed on behalf of the Crown. An NHS agency would put politicians and parliamentarians in their rightful and authoritative place, working in public to develop and refine health policy. It would bring transparency to the way in which the Government are managed and it would increase their accountability. It would give greater ownership of targets by staff working in the NHS, and it would avoid the Exocets that explode when Ministers are under pressure from the media and feel that they have to do something.
An agency which puts the responsibility for implementing policy at arm's length from the Government creates a new space—a new space between government and those who manage and provide health services. This space could be used to construct a system for holding the Government and the NHS agency to account for their respective responsibilities. From time to time the Secretary of State would be required to put before Parliament an agreed framework defining the boundaries within which the agency should work, its targets and the details of its funding. The agency would report at least annually to Parliament and be subjected to a regular review by parliamentary Select Committees. Parliament would hold the chief executive to account for the performance of the service.
Using Parliament as the forum for agreeing the tasks of the agency and the targets of the service would ensure greater openness and more vigorous debate over standards, targets and the impact of implementing policy. This in turn would allow Parliament and the public to focus their scrutiny of government on questions of strategic direction, funding and the coherence, quality and effectiveness of policy. It would enable governments to broaden their horizons away from a preoccupation with accountability for each and every action within the NHS towards a more general concern for the impact on health of poverty, environment, food, housing and education, all factors which have a far greater impact on the health of the nation than any healthcare service.
The second clause sets out the composition of the agency—with 12 members, a chairman, a deputy chairman and five non-executive and five executive members. The chairman of the agency will appoint a chief executive, the appointment to be approved by the Secretary of State. This proposal seeks to get the commitment of both the board and the Secretary of State. Without that—the confidence of both parties— the chief executive simply could not hope to succeed. Since this agency is going to be pivotal in managing the NHS, I have given the Secretary of State the power to prescribe its constitution by regulation.
The third new clause prescribes the functions of the English agency and gives powers to the Secretary of State to amend the functions through affirmative regulation and the power to give directions on strategic matters relating to its functions. The fourth proposed new clause concerns the transfer of property, rights and liabilities that is necessary for the discharge of its functions. The fifth proposed new clause concerns the financing of the agency and the accountabilities necessary for a body spending public money and the sixth and final proposed new clause ensures that the agency is accountable to Parliament, which will have a greater responsibility to scrutinise the agency's activities.
In the past few months several annual reports have been published by public bodies including the Audit Commission, the Commission for Health Improvement, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the Department of Health, and possibly several more that have passed me by. These are public bodies carrying out serious activities that affect our daily lives. The reports enter the public domain and yet they are seldom, if ever, debated in Parliament. Those bodies should be held to account and there should be a systematic process whereby their activities are debated in Parliament. Healthcare scrutiny is rich in reports yet poor in accountability. The national service frameworks are major influences shaping the NHS. They are often welcomed but there is no required parliamentary system to scrutinise their progress and ensure that they fulfil their promise. So there is a piece missing in our accountability structure, and the agency is that missing piece.
I am under no illusions that the proposed new clauses could be improved, and we have many models on which to build. There are now 192 established executive non-departmental public bodies in the country from which to learn: the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Medical Research Council, the Food Standards Agency, the Audit Commission, the BBC—perhaps not the BBC—and so on. Each one is unique and tailored to its purpose, which should not prevent Ministers in the department using their skills and imagination to do the same for the NHS. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed the nation when he gave away Treasury powers to the independent Bank of England, it is the political will which is necessary.
In conclusion, governments have a pretty disastrous record of managing organisations. They are poor at it because the majority of members have no experience of running an organisation, although I recognise that the Minister is an exception. They have to work with an impossible electoral cycle and they are nomadic. Ministers and Secretaries of State do not last so there is no continuity. The speed of change in medicine is a huge challenge. Change needs a robust organisation to manage it. We need a separation of powers. We as parliamentarians have a role, the Government have a role and the NHS has a role. However, the picture is confused. An agency would introduce clarity and enhance Parliament's duty of scrutiny, and the Government's role of strategic direction and funding.

153
I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these amendments, consider them carefully, recognise the purpose behind them, discuss them with his colleagues and initiate the work necessary to bring them to fruition. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: In supporting with some enthusiasm this group of amendments, I declare an interest as a part-time consultant psychiatrist working in Northern Ireland health and social services. Although I and some others involved in the debate may declare a professional or other interest, there is no one in your Lordships' House or, indeed, in the country who does not have a very personal interest in the health and welfare of health and social services.
Over the past 50 years or so health has become such an important and central issue, and its delivery so crucial, that no one can seriously consider it to be outside the province of government. It is not something that can be left simply to the market or to chance. The question is not whether government are involved but how government are involved in this area and in many others too. Few of us do not have a sense of concern that government are not as appropriately involved in this area as they might be. It seems to me that there are at least three important areas of discontent and concern about how government deal with important matters such as health. It is, of course, health that we are considering today.
The first of these matters for all parliamentarians and all Members of your Lordships' House is the question of the accountability of the executive to Parliament. That seems to consist largely of tabling Written and Oral Questions and initiating debates. There is a general sense that those are no longer entirely satisfactory ways of holding the executive to account. Parliament, and indeed most Members of your Lordships' House, are not happy that the executive is being held appropriately to account. The extraordinarily complex area of health cannot be satisfactorily explored or dealt with by simply tabling Questions.
Secondly, although there is a sense in which the executive is more untrammelled than previously, it is also less powerful in terms of making a change than it was previously. For that reason Ministers tend to involve themselves in more and more micro-management and detail because they are less and less sure what to do about the bigger picture. To some extent that is made worse in our parliamentary system, particularly in the other place, because Members are elected as constituency Members. As time has gone on, due to the laudable development of community politics, they have become increasingly concerned to show their connection with the population by dealing with specific local agenda items. Ministers are expected to deal with the specifics of healthcare delivery in a particular constituency—and that is repeated some 650 times in the other place—rather than deal with the broader issues. Indeed, we even notice during elections that sometimes the accosting of
154

a Minister or a Prime Minister by a particular individual in a particular constituency results in a very dramatic announcement to address that particular matter. That is not the best way to deal with the extraordinarily complex National Health Service which we have. The tendency towards micro-management is not very satisfactory.
The third concern was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, towards the end of her remarks; that is, the problem regarding continuity. All of us who are involved in patient care know perfectly well how unsatisfactory it is for a patient as an individual if their carer changes all the time. One of the complaints we frequently hear at outpatient clinics is a patient saying, "I come along and every six months there is a new junior doctor. The first one says, 'It is nice to get to know you'. The second time you see him or her, they say, 'I shall see you again'. The third time you ask whether there will be a different doctor the next time". In those cases there is some continuity but in others an endless stream of locums deal with patients. We all know that healthcare needs a degree of continuity. It is the same for the service that delivers the healthcare; it needs a degree of continuity. When change takes place—in every system it needs to take place from time to time—it needs the opportunity to bed down and to develop and for people to assess the outcome of the change or reform.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones pointed out at Second Reading on 8th September that this Government had introduced some five or six health reform Bills. But in a sense this Bill is no different from its predecessors as health service reform has been repeated time and time again. Every time there is a difficulty the answer is to change the whole board. That often is not the answer but it seems to be the most ready answer. If it is not a radical enough change or proposal, the next time it will be even more radical. "Radical" usually means changing the name and putting in more administrators. Is it possible to address these three problems of the lack of accountability to Parliament, the question of overinvolvement and micro-management and the difficulty regarding continuity?
In the six amendments, we have some move in that direction and, at the very least, an encouragement to think of it. The agency would not be determined or dependent for its staffing on the electoral cycle or Cabinet reshuffles. It is no reflection on any individual Minister—indeed, in some cases it may be because of their sterling value to the Government or the Prime Minister—that they move from one post to another, but it is not satisfactory for a service. Every Minister who comes in wants to make an impact and impression on his or her portfolio and service. The tendency for change on the basis of the electoral cycle or the presence of a particular Minister is enormous, and it is not satisfactory. If it were possible to have an agency with a staff who had some continuity right at the very top, there would be a possibility of some continuity in flow and an absorption of any reforms.

155
Some of the other amendments, particularly Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which describe the functions and membership of the agency, give the flavour of an agency that could see more professionalisation of the administration in the health service, rather than the politicisation and sometimes managerialisation that there has tended to be. It might even be possible to have a professional healthcare worker as the chairman or chief executive of the agency. Just think that we might actually have a doctor or nurse or someone like that running the health service. What a radical thought.
Of course, it is not that some of those who have been involved have not been doing their best. However, there is a fundamental difference between a person who decides at a relatively early age to devote their whole life, professional time and career to healthcare delivery, and who at some later stage then takes a very senior responsibility for it, and someone else who happens to have been in a finance department, or even a position such as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who then comes in to be the head of a complex organisation such as the National Health Service. It would be an improvement to have someone there who had actually spent a great deal of their life working in the service and being at a very senior level in running it.
One of the most appealing suggestions is the notion that we might improve parliamentary accountability. Amendment No. 6 in particular, but also proposed new subsection (3) in Amendment No. 3, indicates how much better parliamentary accountability might be if an agency were required to produce at least annual reports, and perhaps other reports on specific developments or areas, and lay them before Parliament. Under proposed new subsection (3) in Amendment No. 3, any change would require resolution of each House of Parliament and, under Amendment No. 6, Parliament itself would have the opportunity to explore, discuss, debate and hold to account in a more thoroughgoing way the operation of the health service.
There is a real opportunity for us to improve accountability and continuity, and to ensure a change to the temptation of politicians to either make their name or improve their local popularity for the next election by over-involvement in the particularities of the health service. Politicians would do what they are much better at doing, which is making the broad strategy, deciding the wider policy, conveying the general views of the population, and leaving the professional development and service delivery to people who have committed themselves to that, in the context of an arm's-length agency. I am delighted to support the proposals.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I have added my name to the amendments, and have thought them through in great detail. I also must declare an interest as a working clinician in palliative medicine. Of course, I work in Wales, which is not directly covered by the amendments. I have not tabled amendments specific to Wales because, quite simply, I have not had a chance
156
to do the amount of research that I would need to do on the way in which the devolved administrations would handle an NHS agency in order to table comprehensive amendments at this stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, pointed out two major truths. The first is that, in medicine, the first principle is do no harm. The second is that all is not well in the health service. The health service does a lot very well, but sometimes it does not do things well. It is sad to say that at the moment the staff are demoralised. I spoke to as many people working in the NHS in England as I could prior to adding my name to the amendments. No one working as a front-line clinician disagreed with the idea that staff were demoralised, or with the principle that somehow the running of the NHS needs to be taken away from the electoral cycle and the pressures of the ballot box.
There is a need for long-term planning and strategy in the NHS. That strategy needs to be enacted at a local level. The clinician faced with 40 patients coming into an out-patient clinic and then faced with targets has a huge dilemma. The person in front of him or her may not fit into any target sector, but may have very complex and time-consuming clinical needs that far outweigh the, say, five people who fit neatly into some target package. At times, the clinicians find themselves torn in half in different directions, with the pressure of still trying to take ethically sound decisions for the patients in front of them.
Resources are limited. It always was so and always will be so. There will never be infinite resources to meet the needs and demands of the population. However, the agency as proposed would have very specific responsibility in delivering healthcare in the longer term. That would then free up the Minister and the Department of Health to look at the overall strategic direction to be given to the NHS. It would allow information from NICE to be delivered to the NHS in a more planned way than is currently available. It would mean that the inspectorate systems proposed through the new CHAI and so on would inform the NHS agency, Parliament and the Minister. It would also mean that, if the agency did not deliver, it could be called to account immediately.
The NHS would not be part of a list of items on a ballot paper that influence how people vote, perhaps affected by foreign policy or whatever, as we do not have a separate referendum on how the NHS is to be run. The NHS agency would also be allowed to enter a long-term and consistent dialogue with clinicians and with those concerned about the strategic direction of clinical services, such as the royal colleges responsible for education, to make sure that the process has long-term, staged planning. Such an agency would allow the principles of subsidiarity to be adhered to, and would re-establish some concept of trust between the patient and the clinician, the clinician and the part of the service in which he or she works, and that part of the service and the greater whole within the concept of a national health service.

157
It was with great pleasure that I added my name to the amendments. I have also read the report from the King's Fund and heard the people who have been involved in thinking the issues out. Those issues have been thought out to a careful degree.
Lord Desai: I, too, am very privileged to have been able to add my name to the amendments. I have been thinking about de-politicising the National Health Service for a long time. Recently, there was a notice in many newspapers about a supermarket chain withdrawing a certain kind of food that it sold because it was not quite right. If that had happened in the NHS, there would have been a riot in the press. The Secretary of State for Health would have to come to Parliament and propose another target, another programme or another committee. The whole thing would have got completely out of proportion because the Secretary of State is supposed to be answerable for the slightest problem in the NHS. That is not the way it should be run.
Apart from the Chinese Army, the NHS is the largest public sector enterprise run by a single person. It is the last monument of Stalinism in the world, and it illustrates all the problems. We continue to hear that staff are demoralised—and during the past 38 years I have been in this country, I have heard nothing else— because they do not feel that they own the service in which they work. The service is supposed to be the most popular we have, but it is the most criticised we have. Everyone agrees that whether one gives too much or too little money, the staff are demoralised.
To put it simply, the present system is not viable. The proposal put forward in this set of amendments is, first, that we should de-politicise the NHS. While maintaining serious and proper parliamentary accountability, we ought to de-couple the office of the Secretary of State for Health from the day-to-day running of the NHS and the strategic decision taking.
I was sorry to see that Dr Liam Fox, shadow Secretary of State for Health has picked up my idea. I am not responsible if some of my ideas and those of other people are picked up by the Opposition. I can say only that anyone who picks up my ideas does nothing good for his own career! That is life. Health is important. The way in which we have structured decisions in health has brought about the crisis in the NHS. The fault does not lie with the input; it does not lie with the professional services; and not even with the patients. The fault lies with the way in which the system is administratively run.
Instead of there being proper devolution of power and responsibility, even as we set up primary health centres, every arrow points back to the Secretary of State for Health. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, mentioned, every little problem points back to him. Anyone can stop the Prime Minister or Secretary of State for Health in the street and blame him for the delay in their mother's operation. Although the Prime Minister knows nothing about that person or the
158
mother or the operation and there is nothing he can do to speed up the operation because it is not his problem, we somehow have that notion in our system.
Aneurin Bevan's proposition that every time there is a problem with a bed pan under a bed in the NHS the Secretary of State for Health should feel its tremors is the most absurd notion of how to run an organisation. No organisation can be run like that. It is time we decided that 55 years, or whatever, is long enough for the bad model and that we ought to improve it.
The interesting point about the proposal put forward in the amendments is that the model for setting up an independent agency is neither revolutionary nor new. It was used for nationalised industries. It is the Morrisonian model and the one that Willie Robson, former professor at the London School of Economics, proposed a long time ago. Unfortunately, the NHS did not fall into the category of "nationalised industry" and it was therefore taken to be more centralised.
Perhaps also the politics of those days, with strong opposition from the medical profession, led to centralisation, but we no longer have that strong opposition. The medical profession is committed to the NHS. We are all committed to the NHS, so that political difference no longer exists. We can now relax and experiment and say, "Yes, Parliament will have scrutiny. Yes, the Secretary of State for Health will have an oversight. However, let professionals and people committed to the NHS run it". I am not sure that like the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I would go as far as letting a health service professional be chairman of the committee. I prefer politicians and radical former Ministers such as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whose chances I will do no good by naming him.
It is important, however, to think seriously about dovetailing responsibility. I am not sure how my noble friend on the Front Bench will respond. He will probably pour cold water over our ideas because this is not a good season for doing anything. There never is a good season for doing anything with the National Health Service. However, I hope that the idea enters his bloodstream and comes out in a transformed way. Some kind of de-politicisation of the NHS is most urgent, especially now that we no longer have the excuse that the NHS is not working because it is starved of funds. It is no longer starved of funds—that is not the issue. The issue is quite clear. Given sufficient funds, there are still problems—problems with morale and other complaints. If they exist, it is connected with the way in which the NHS is organised.
I welcome this set of amendments and I am happy to put my name to them.
Lord Walton of Detchant: Until I was compulsorily retired from clinical practice in the NHS 11 years ago on the grounds of age, I spent my entire professional career working in the NHS and in academic medicine and I am one of its most fervent supporters. In my professional lifetime, I have seen more than 20 different reorganisations or reforms of the NHS under

159
governments of all political complexions. I confess that in recent years I have been disturbed by the increasing degree of regulation to which the health service has been subject. There has been an obsession with targets, statistics and so forth to an extent that many healthcare professionals have been diverted from their primary role of caring for patients in order to collect information to satisfy the Department of Health.
Furthermore, when 1 first read the report from the King's Fund its idea struck me as unattractive. It suggested that there might be established a new quango within the NHS—and quangos are sometimes to be deplored. Indeed, the idea is not completely new. I well recall that almost 40 years ago there was a highly publicised radio debate between my predecessor as Dean of Medicine at Newcastle University—the late Dr Henry Miller who was subsequently vice-chancellor of the university—and Mr Enoch Powell, then a Minister for Health but not Secretary of State. Henry Miller suggested the establishment of an independent foundation at arm's length from the Department of Health to run the NHS and to handle its finances. Ultimately, his argument was effectively demolished by Enoch Powell for all the wrong reasons. He said that it would destroy the absolute primacy of the Department of Health, which was at the heart of government as a part of government and so the idea foundered.
But the more I read the King's Fund report, the more I listened today to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and others, and the more I read these amendments, the more attractive they became. After all, the Government's idea behind introducing foundation hospitals is to devolve the decision-making machinery to a local level and to take away those hospitals from the direct control of the Department of Health. I believe very firmly that that idea has such merit that it deserves a fair wind, and I hope the Government will take it on board. I support the amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I support very much the noble Lord, Lord Walton, whom I have known for many years and who has almost unrivalled experience of the whole field that we are discussing. As we have already been reminded this afternoon, this is the fifth or sixth bite that the Government have had at a fairly substantial cherry. Over the long period that I have been a politician, I have wondered whether governments have any appreciation at all of the labour and pain caused by constant reorganisation. It ends with people being totally demoralised and having not the slightest idea what is expected of them.
In a very distinguished and able speech, which has been widely and deservedly supported, my noble friend commented on just how much damage party politics have done to the health service. In the amendment she calls for some degree of separation from the Secretary of State. However, one thing that I did not understand in her excellent speech was why she preserved the power of the Secretary of State in so many important fields. The Secretary of State will have
160
the power to appoint the chairman, deputy chairman and 10 other members; he will approve the appointment of the chief executive; he will be able to prescribe by regulations the constitution of the English agency; and he will have the power to amend by regulation the functions of the agency. What more powers can the Secretary of State possibly have? He can have as many people in the agency as he wants, and those who owe their position to his patronage are likely to be concerned about what the Secretary of State wants.
I do not want to make a very long speech. However, when my noble friend comes to reply to the debate on the amendment, I ask her to explain as clearly as she can for those who, like me, applaud much of what she said how anyone persuaded her to leave such huge powers in the clammy and unskilled hands of the Secretary of State. The only reason I can see for doing so is to satisfy the desire on the part of the Government Front Bench to perpetuate the long tradition of the bungling amateur.
Lord Chan: I listened carefully to those who put forward the amendment and I was particularly taken with what they said about continuity and long-term planning. As I have already stated in this House, because the NHS has been in a process of continuing change over the past three or four decades due to edicts from Ministers, there has been no opportunity for those of us who work within the NHS to ensure that the changes deliver what they are supposed to deliver. Here 1 declare my interest, having been not only a clinician in paediatrics in the National Health Service but also on the board of a mental health trust and now in a primary care trust.
Therefore, the first important issue for those of us who work in the NHS is that we need time to ensure that the changes deliver what they should. However, I fear that that has not been the case because change has occurred so rapidly. Before one has time to assess what is happening, another change is imposed. Therefore, if a new agency, separate from government and politicians, observed long-term planning and continuity and allowed things to settle and to be assessed carefully, then—I say this on behalf of all of us who work within primary care trusts—I would certainly be in favour of it.
However, we believe that two issues are vital and fundamental to the success of the National Health Service. The first—what patients want in our community—is access to care, particularly from general practitioners. That has come about, certainly where I am based on the Wirral, through a decision, following discussion on the PCT board, which includes doctors, nurses and lay people, to change the appointments system completely. We said that the only appointments that should be accepted should be those which allowed the patient to be seen within 48 hours. We will not take any appointments beyond that time. As a result, 100 per cent of our patients are seen within 48 hours, and that change has taken place in only six months.

161
However, because that has been so successful, we are now faced with another dilemma because patients say, "Ah, on the other hand, those of us with diabetes, high blood pressure and a whole lot of other conditions would like to have appointments in the general practitioners' register to be seen in three months' time". We are not sure how to solve that dilemma because at present the 48-hour appointments system is particularly good and places the onus on patients to remind the system when they want to be seen.
The second issue which is absolutely essential is that of co-operation and collaboration between primary and secondary care. At present, there appears to be too much competition between primary care and secondary or hospital care due to the questions of funding and, of course, control. Although it is true that the Government have increased funding by a large amount—up to 9 per cent a year—the issue for those of us who operate a primary care trust is that one-quarter of that money still sits in Whitehall in the Department of Health. In other words, we receive three-quarters of what is given to us, and that is certainly not a good measure. Therefore, if we had an agency at arm's length from politics, we would certainly hope that boards would be trusted by management to receive almost 100 per cent of the funds allocated to them.
Co-operation between primary care and secondary care can come about only if time is given for primary care boards and hospital boards to sit down and work out what is best for patients, particularly with local representation. At present, primary care trusts must pay the salaries of hospital consultants, and all our time seems to be taken up discussing the dispersal of money rather than deciding how to work better in order to improve the situation and care of our patients.
I hope I have not given the impression that professionals cannot decide how to behave professionally for the benefit of their patients. However, this type of difficulty arises when the system that we have is tinkered with every now and again by political expediency. Therefore, if those issues can be solved by an independent agency, we should certainly welcome that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: First, I should declare a number of interests that are in the Register of Interests, but for the purpose of this debate I shall mention the King's Fund, Cumberlege Connections, KPMG and Beachcroft Wansbroughs.
This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on allowing us to discuss once again the nature of the organisation of our National Health Service. The King's Fund has done an excellent job in producing its pamphlet. As one of those bungling amateurs, so beloved of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I have to hold up my hands and say that I agree with many of the criticisms that noble Lords have made about the way in which the Department of Health has traditionally approached
162
the management of the health service. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, suggested, I too would suggest that my own Government are not the only government who have been guilty of such a charge.
We can see that traditionally the NHS has suffered from being a political football; we have seen the impact of "targetitis", as it has been called, micromanagement and constant restructuring. I have indulged in, and thoroughly enjoyed, setting hundreds of targets, micromanagement and constant restructuring.
I have two things to say about that. First, it is clear that the Bevan structure, as opposed to the Bevan principles, is showing its age. Equally, in the rush to change the system that we have, we should be aware of simply saying that politicians should get out of the strategic direction of the NHS. Even some targets are justifiable. Without targets on waiting times, I believe that the health service would never have tackled the issue of cutting waiting times. I have worked in the health service for many years so I know that the NHS has never taken the issue of waiting times sufficiently seriously. Because of the very tough targets that have now been set we are at last seeing dramatic reductions in the amount of time that people have to wait for treatment.
Secondly, I am doubtful that the public corporation model is the right way to improve the way in which we manage the NHS from Whitehall. That has been looked at three times by government commissions of inquiry. First, there was the Guillebaud report in 1956; there was then the Royal Commission report in 1979; and most recently we have had Roy Griffiths's excellent general management report of 1983. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, quoted from Roy Griffiths's report, although she did not say that he considered the question of the NHS being run by a public corporation and he rejected that option. He said that the NHS is so important, so politically important, that it would be naïve to think that a public corporation would ever be allowed to operate in the way in which noble Lords have suggested today.
I understand why people are critical of political involvement in the NHS, but without politicians the NHS would never have been created in the first place. Without the political process and the political accountability to Parliament I doubt that the NHS would now be enjoying the huge increase in resources that it has been given.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said that the agency would not be another quango, but reading the amendment it appears to be very like a quango to me. Far from creating the space that she desires from political involvement, it would simply replicate and duplicate what is already there. Yes, there would be a national agency, but the risk is that it would simply act in a way in which the department has acted over the past 50 years. What is the guarantee that such an agency would not micromanage, as the service has been micromanaged over the past two decades? In addition to such a national agency, there would still be the Department of Health, and Ministers would still be accountable to Parliament. I worry that such a

163
national agency, far from creating the kind of freedom and space that the noble Baroness desires, would constrain the NHS even more than it is constrained today.
I also worry about the current trend to place as much of the work of government into independent agencies as possible. I have legislated to do that. But I worry that in doing so we undermine the democratic process. I agree with the noble Baroness that in terms of parliamentary accountability very few such agencies, if any, could be said to come under strong parliamentary scrutiny. For all the criticisms that can be made of the way in which we legislate and ask questions, the fact is that at the moment parliamentarians have the right to question and to scrutinise Ministers daily and they do.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said that he accepts that government will always be involved. The question is what is the best way for government to be involved. I agree with him. I believe that the structure of the Bill shows us the way forward because for the first time we now have national standards and we have an independent regulator. The room to give the NHS much more discretion has now been created. That is the importance of foundation trusts: locally owned organisations but in the NHS, operating according to national standards and subject to independent regulation.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Desai: Does my noble friend agree that foundation trusts have been emasculated in the course of the debate in the Commons precisely because there is too much central control? Had they been set up by an agency they would not have had that much interference.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, I do not believe that that follows. If they had been set up by a national agency, the national agency would still have been subject to the kind of pressures to which my noble friend refers.
On the general point, on whether the Bill before us contains sufficient freedoms for foundation trusts, I believe that the answer is that it does not. Compromises have been made and I am disappointed that foundation trusts will be so constrained. In the NHS we have learned that it is better to take one or two steps at a time and then build on that. I believe that what is before the Committee is certainly the right way to go forward; that foundation trusts will allow us, in time, to introduce many more freedoms; and I am sure that this is the better approach than setting up a public corporation which, frankly, belongs to the thinking of the 1940s rather than to the current day.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have listened with enormous interest to what the noble Lord has said. He knows all about the matter. I also listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and found myself imagining the agency, sitting in all its splendour,
164
chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. One wonders exactly what would go on. I think that would be extremely revealing to us all.
I want to ask my noble friend Lady Cumberlege a couple of questions. I see the strength in what she says and it has been backed up by many people who work in the health service and who know all about it 1 have no interest to declare, so I look at the matter as a patient of the National Health Service.
My first question is based on my recollection as a member, many years ago, of the Manpower Services Commission, which was placed in the same position as my noble friend suggests the agency should be. The commissioners had responsibility for many areas of employment, particularly unemployment and the measures to combat high unemployment at that time. While I was a member of the commission I came to this House and sat on the other side behind the Government, knowing everything that there was to know about the issue with which we were dealing in the Manpower Services Commission. Questions were constantly asked by noble Lords and the answers came from the Department of Employment; they could not come from the Manpower Services Commission as that was not its job. I knew that the answers were almost always inaccurate because the Department of Employment did not know the position; the Manpower Services Commission did. The department could not answer detailed questions. Under this situation what would be the position when questions were asked in Parliament about the National Health Service? Would the department know the answers, which would really be in the hands of the agency? That is a big question about answerability. I ask it in a general way, because it is an important issue.
Members of the Committee will not be surprised that my other question is about Scotland. The amendments concern England; the Bill is largely concerned with England and Wales, although part of it concerns Scotland. But the Scottish National Health Service simply cannot be separated from the rest of the United Kingdom, despite the fact that its running is devolved. It cannot be separated partly because services go cross-Border and standards need to go cross-Border; but also because funding implications for the National Health Service in England hugely affect the funding of the Scottish bloc, and so of the National Health Service in Scotland. That is because, through the Barnett formula, Scottish funding is related to English funding.
Does my noble friend know whether the King's Fund has been in consultation with the National Health Service in Scotland about how the proposals would affect Scotland? We must ask that, because it has much bigger implications than those who have not thought about the matter carefully would suppose. So those are my two questions: answerability to Parliament and where the proposal would leave Scotland.
Earl Howe: It does not surprise me in the least that my noble friend should have wished to focus our minds once again on an idea that excited a lively debate in

165
March last year. She has to be commended for doing so because, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, observed, the concepts embodied in her amendment are a natural development of the philosophy underpinning the Bill. I say that they are a natural development because trying to distance the NHS from the Department of Health, as her amendments would do, is clearly not the same as devolving decision-making downwards in the NHS. We could create an arm's-length agency and still have a centralised decision-making structure.
If one reads the list of functions of the proposed agency set out in Amendment No. 3, it appears to be a rather top-down body. I hasten to add that that is not a real criticism because we all know that my noble friend would not regard the amendments as a stand-alone set of proposals. Indeed, her views on instilling a spirit of innovation from the bottom up and on motivating staff by good leadership are ones that she has articulated persuasively more than once. The two ideas are complementary. We can debate the merits of the amendments without passing judgment on whether Part 1 has been sensibly put together.
When we last debated this topic, several noble Lords, of whom I was one, referred to the succession of structural changes imposed on the NHS by governments of both parties ever since the 1960s. It is natural for elected politicians who have promised the voters a better health service to believe that the way to deliver on those promises is to reform the way in which the NHS is organised.
As several noble Lords have reminded us today, NHS reorganisation has been a constant feature of this Government's term of office, of the previous Conservative government's term of office and of that of the Labour government before that. It was all well intentioned and some of it has been beneficial, but change is always highly disruptive and sometimes its benefits are at best marginal. That is why the idea of an NHS agency has been around in one form or another for some time. Why has it so often been rejected?
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us of the Guillebaud committee in the 1950s, the Royal Commission of 1979 and the subsequent work of such eminent individuals as Sir Roy Griffiths, all of whom came down against the idea of an NHS agency. They did so primarily because of what they saw as a need to maintain proper parliamentary accountability for a service that costs a great deal of public money. There is no denying that that is an important concern, but, like my noble friend, I question whether it is a show stopper. The world has moved on in several significant ways since the most recent serious, high-level review of the agency concept.
One way in which it has moved on is that, although the current Government tend to face in two directions, all three main political parties have accepted that a centralised NHS will no longer work and that politicians should not micromanage. That presupposes a lesser role for the Secretary of State in determining the direction in
166
which the ship is steered. So the argument is now how far that devolutionary process should go; no longer is it about preserving the old Bevanite top-down structure.
The fact is that if you ask people what they most want politicians to do to the NHS, the answer is, "Please stop treating it as a political football". That cry must resonate with us loudly. We ought to be looking for ways to finesse the argument for those who historically have opposed the idea of distancing politicians from the NHS, simply because there is now a public hunger to do just that.
My noble friend reminded us that when this Government came to office, they did something very bold, which was to transfer decision-making on the setting of interest rates to an independent monetary committee bound only by an inflation target set by the Chancellor. That devolution of decision-making has been a triumphant success. The charge levelled at successive Chancellors—often unjustly, but levelled nevertheless—was that decisions on interest rates could never be immune from considerations of party-political advantage. That charge—just or unjust— cannot now be made. The success of the monetary committee is the reason why I believe that the ideas propounded by the King's Fund and my noble friend deserve a lot more air time.
Of course Ministers need to account to Parliament for how public money has been used, but they also need to be able to reduce to the minimum the kicking around of the NHS football, whether through allocation of funds, the appointment process, inappropriate target setting or whatever.
Earl Russell: Is it an appropriate way of making the delimitation that the noble Earl has suggested to stick to the existing rule that politicians do not make clinical judgments and to scrutinise targets to see how many of them contain a concealed clinical judgment?
Earl Howe: The noble Earl makes an extremely important point. To a large extent, I would go along with him. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said in its favour, the trouble with a lot of target setting is that it conceals many clinical judgments, which it is no part of politicians' remit to make.
I simply conclude by saying that I am very pleased that my noble friend has started our Committee proceedings in this way. She has surely put our minds on to a most appropriate track as we discuss the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones: Having listened to the speeches in this debate, I have considerable sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. Members of the Committee spoke of their response and that of NHS staff to the micromanagement of successive Secretaries of State. Several times in this House I have used the analogy of Groundhog Day when once again, for the fifth or sixth time, we are faced with a new NHS reform Bill that the Secretary of State at the time believes will solve the problems of the NHS. We have a new set of political targets; we have a new body to add to the 40 already entitled to inspect NHS

167
hospitals. To add to the feeling of Groundhog Day, when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was giving his panegyric in support of the Government's policy, I felt that we were back to the good old days of the second or third NHS reform Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is it not a fact that most of the interventions that the noble Lord has made from the Front Bench over the past five years have been to call on the Government to take central action and to issue yet more targets for the health service?
Lord Clement-Jones: That just shows that the noble Lord was too busy studying his brief to notice the interventions that I made. If he listens very carefully, he will notice that my current intervention will be entirely of the devolutionary kind of which I am sure he will approve.
One might say that the rot set in with the merging of the roles of Permanent Secretary and NHS chief executive under Sir Alan Langlands. The report of the King's Fund, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, claimed that the NHS had become far too politicised. But the term "political football", which was used by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has been the allegation made consistently. Probably the first time that I heard it was over Keith Joseph's reforms of the NHS in the early 1970s. This is not a new phenomenon. The allocation of resources is often a highly political act.
That said, many of us object to the fact that the Secretary of State has a huge and inordinate amount of power in relation to the NHS. There is common ground on that issue between nearly all Members of the Committee who spoke in the debate. The Bill is meant to be devolutionary, but the powers granted to the Secretary of State are yet again increased. I would hate to think how many additional powers the Secretary of State is taking under the Bill.
There is a very good case for much looser political control over the NHS. But we believe in a much more radical form of devolution for the health service. That is the bone of contention with the current amendments. We believe in a much more devolved system. We believe in national standards, but we believe in regional strategic management of the NHS whereby, regionally, voters can increase the resources available for the NHS if they need or wish to do so.
We believe in locally accountable commissioning, closer to patient needs and tied into local government. That leads in turn to the integration between health and social care, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chan, referred. We believe in a mixed economy of providers, including mutual providers and public benefit organisations. We believe in an independent regulatory system of fewer but effective regulators. We believe in a genuinely plural system of devolution. That is where we differ from the terms of the amendment.
168
The essence of any new devolved system must be greater public engagement in the commissioning process and in the prioritisation of public health, preventive health and the marriage of health and social care.
Lord Desai: I agree with much of what the noble Lord says, but is he not confusing depoliticisation and devolution? The amendments under debate refer to depoliticisation of the NHS. Devolution is a separate issue that comes later in the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones: I am arguing the case for devolution, but, at the same time, it is impossible to devolve without political resource allocation. That is what the amendment is all about. We need to be persuaded that this will not be a monolithic organisation that is unresponsive to patient needs. That is the crux of the argument.
In conclusion, we agree very much with the diagnosis of the Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate and the amendments tabled. But we do not agree with the prescription set out in the amendments.
Lord Warner: The new clauses would place the responsibility for the management of the NHS in England in the hands of a new agency set up for that purpose. Let me say at the outset that that is not what the NHS or the public need. I fear that I will disappoint the noble Baroness as much as did my noble friend Lord Hunt when he stood at the Dispatch Box previously, and as he did successfully earlier.
I sympathise entirely with the noble Baroness's wish to avoid excessive central interference in the running of the NHS. I am sure that we can all agree with that overall intention. But the primary purpose of the Bill is to do just that. I do not doubt the sincerity of the noble Baroness's view on the subject, and she has been consistent in her advocacy of the agency approach. The King's Fund continues to promote the idea, which I freely acknowledge has had appeal in many quarters over many years. Trying to interpret events in Blackpool yesterday, I believe that Dr Liam Fox now seems to want to go down that path, although I note that the Opposition Front Bench in this House seem to be more cautious on the subject.
The King's Fund report and the amendment are only the latest in a succession of so-called attempts—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not think that the Minister can quite get away with that remark. What makes him think that our Front Bench in this House differs from my right honourable friend Dr Fox?
Lord Warner: I did not hear the Front Bench spokesman say that he would support the amendment if a vote was taken on it. My understanding was that the noble Earl was rather more cautious on the matter.
Earl Howe: It may assist the Committee to know that the amendment does not correspond to what Dr Liam Fox announced in Blackpool yesterday.
Lord Warner: We are still trying to puzzle out what Dr Fox was suggesting in Blackpool yesterday. His

169
comments sounded remarkably similar to many of the ideas advocated in the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege; hence my remark. I am grateful for the noble Earl's clarification. It will be very interesting to find out the Conservative Party policy on the issue as the Bill proceeds.
The King's Fund report and the amendment are only the latest so-called attempts to deal with the problem of the NHS being a political football. Many Members of the Committee have talked about the unreasonableness of British citizens approaching their politicians to have their grievances about the NHS addressed. They seem to suggest that putting in place a board would prevent that happening. There is no evidence whatever from the events of the past 50 years that people would not still expect elected politicians to address seriously problems raised by them.
The idea of an agency, board or commission— whatever we call it—has emerged under governments of different political persuasions and at different times. But the rationale for the idea has always been the same: to improve the quality of NHS management by removing it from nefarious political micromanagement. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who has attached his name to the amendments, made that point not only today but at Second Reading.
The difficulty is that it is nothing like as easy as the noble Baroness has suggested to separate policy from management. Her right honourable friend Michael Howard demonstrated the problem in relation to the Prison Service in a previous administration.
The Guillebaud committee considered the idea in the mid-1950s and rejected it as flawed. The Royal Commission on the NHS considered the idea again in 1979 and rejected it. I shall give a short quotation from that report:
"A commission might act as a buffer between the NHS and parliament but the NHS would remain dependent on the willingness of parliament to vote funds. The effect, therefore, might be to duplicate functions that at present are carried out, however unsatisfactorily, by the health departments and the top tier of health authorities".
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he understand that it is impossible to avoid the dangers of excessive centralisation while we have only one purchaser, and that that is the thought underlying the proposal for regionalisation?
Lord Warner: I understand the case, but I do not accept the argument put forward by the noble Earl's party that that is the only way of solving the problem.
In 1983, the late Sir Roy Griffiths, a staunch advocate of good NHS management, came to a similar conclusion to Guillebaud and the Merrison commission:
"A case could be made for an independent corporation … this has a variety of defects, not least that one would have to formalise unnecessarily the role of the corporation vis-a-vis the Secretary of State, which would be extremely difficult in such an intensely politically sensitive operation".
170
I look forward to hearing how the Conservative Front Bench will address that problem if they wish to pursue the argument. Sir Roy, respected across party lines and with a gift for the pithy, said it all. Although a public corporation has some superficial attractions, it has as many disadvantages as it has advantages. It would mean another reorganisation, which so many in this Committee seem to abhor.
First, and most important, is the issue of accountability. Those who advocate the removal of the NHS from the political arena have never fully satisfactorily explained how proper political accountability would be maintained in a publically acceptable way. As I said, the various expert committees and commissions over the years have all concluded that this is the crux of the matter. Until the advocates of a separate corporation deal satisfactorily with that point, we must treat with the utmost caution any proposals that might interfere with the ultimate route of accountability through Ministers for the NHS. I do not think that those who have spoken in favour of the amendment have done that today. Dr Fox yesterday showed his own confusion by trying, in the same speech, to argue for a contentious health vouchers policy that would undermine the NHS and then claiming that he wants a board to reduce political interference in the NHS.
There is another respect, however, in which these new clauses are defective and which goes right to the heart of what the Bill is about. There is absolutely no guarantee that removing the NHS from under the purview of ministerial control would remove the risk of over-centralisation. A body such as these new clauses would establish would be able, and in my view quite likely, to impose a centralised model of control over the whole system. That would be a return to the nationalised industry territory, which until yesterday, I thought had been vacated by all the political parties and is surely not something the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and her supporters would regard as desirable. It is certainly pretty difficult to square with Liam Fox's aspiration to reduce bureaucracy. It is the exact opposite of what the Government are trying to achieve through this Bill and their practical actions on a day-to-day basis.
A million-strong health service should not be run from Whitehall or any other central point. The NHS is not the Red Army. For patient choice to thrive, it needs a different environment in which there is greater diversity and plurality in local services which have the freedom to innovate and respond to patients' needs. Within a framework of clear national standards, subject to common independent inspection—provided for in the Bill—power needs to be devolved to locally run services. These amendments would not achieve that.
The Government have devolved day-to-day administration of the NHS to 28 strategic health authorities in England, similar to the regional approach argued for earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. They oversee the work of local NHS trusts, PCTs and private providers. They have become the local headquarters of the NHS. Their chief executives account, both nationally and locally, for the performance of local health services.

171
The real power and the huge additional resources that we have provided to the NHS are moving to the NHS frontline. Since April last year, locally-run primary care involving professionals and patients has been up and running in all parts of the country. The reports from Blackpool yesterday strongly suggest that that news has not yet reached Conservative Central Office.
We need to stick to the purpose of this Bill, which establishes NHS foundation trusts as a new type of NHS organisation that will provide local ownership and greater involvement of local communities in the NHS, alongside the huge injections of resources that the Government have made. This may be the first time that the NHS has been allowed to run with an adequate provision of resources. This Bill shifts power to the front line. The amendments would not do that or achieve many of the benefits wished for by their advocates. I recommend that the House does not accept the amendments.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: I thank the Minister very much for his reply. I had hoped that he would have a warm feeling towards the amendments, but I suspect that it has been a cold shower. However, I would like to thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate. With one very notable exception and a few minor reservations there has been whole-hearted support for the amendments, for which I am very grateful.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, brought some additional strengths that enhanced the agency concept still further. It is extremely good to have the expert advice of the noble Lords, Lord Chan and Lord Walton of Detchant. Those who work or have worked in the health service really bring home the reality of what it is like and what this agency could do. I echo the tribute paid by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. I sense that he has had a modest conversion, for which I am extremely grateful.
My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked about the role of the Secretary of State. If the agency were established, it would be most important for the Secretary of State to have confidence in the agency. As I said before, we have 192 different role models from which to build and which are succeeding. None would succeed, however, if the Secretary of State did not have confidence in them, so some accountability to the department, Ministers and, ultimately to the Secretary of State, is essential.
On the appointment of members to the agency, the chairman is appointed through the well-established independent appointments commission. Likewise, the appointments commission would appoint the non-executive members. However, when it comes to the appointment of the chief executive, the appointment is made by the chairman, but it is important that the Secretary of State has some say about whether he or she has confidence in that individual. Clearly, the agency would fail without that.
172
The other mentions of the Secretary of State in my amendments also relate to accountability. However, I wish to stress that in no way do we have all the answers. It takes a long time to work through something as fundamental as this. I appreciate that the amendments are not perfect, as I said at the beginning of the debate. They need more work and I will not press them to a vote this afternoon. I am trying to build a case, over time, that I believe to be irrefutable. It took me 17 years to get neighbourhood nursing recommendations adopted by the government as a national scheme, and to get something as simple as nurse prescribing to happen within the National Health Service.
When we debated similar amendments 18 months ago, I warned your Lordships that I would bore for Britain, which is exactly what I intend to do. I believe that change will not happen overnight. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is absolutely right that we cannot suddenly do something like this: it needs a lot of working through. That is why I am grateful to have an organisation such as the King's Fund which has considerable intelligence and brainpower in its team to work on the problem.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour asked about the Manpower Services Commission. Clearly, the agency would have the answer to such detailed questions. Whether the department could answer for the agency depends entirely on the rules of engagement. That is something that would need to be worked out. With regard to the National Health Service in Scotland, I do not know whether the King's Fund has approached the Scottish Parliament. I shall let my noble friend know.
I thank my noble friend Earl Howe for his welcome to the debate and for his careful analysis and wish to give the concept a further push forward. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I agree with him that the rot set in when the role of chief executive merged with that of the Permanent Secretary. I welcome his endorsement of at least the thrust to devolution and to the amendments.
The Minister made a point about the Prison Service, which is an interesting parallel. He is right that in the mid-1990s, there was a considerable hiccup within the devolved Prison Service and we all remember the issue that followed in terms of the chief executive's position. However, the devolved Prison Service is still there. That framework still exists. It exists because there is clarity about who is responsible for what. We are getting better at working with non-departmental government bodies because we are beginning to clarify which role is whose and where the responsibilities lie.
The National Health Service is a candidate for that approach. It is wrong that politicians should be involved in the day-to-day running of the service. Politicians have a serious role, but it is not a role in micro-management or in "targetitis", however enjoyable it might be for past Ministers who have taken part. The role of politicians is strategic; it relates to the sense of direction, and they should not be distracted from that. Our present system does not

173
allow that to happen, and the National Health Service is in serious danger when we come to elections. Only one issue need blow up, and, suddenly, there are different strategies and different policies. Politicians shoot from the hip, and nobody has worked it through because we have aggressive media that prompt such things to happen.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We should take the example of an issue that arises in an election. Is it not likely that, if such an issue arose, Ministers would have to answer for it and involve the Department of Health in a great deal of investigation, as well as the agency? That is the dilemma: the noble Baroness's amendments are well intentioned, but I cannot envisage a situation in which the agency would simply be given or would have the freedom that the noble Baroness suggested, without proper parliamentary accountability. Ultimately, MPs will continue to ask questions that Ministers will have to answer. The risk is that the agency will duplicate that, rather than taking its place.
Baroness Cumberlege: That depends on how the agency is set up. It depends on how the law is fashioned in order to prevent that happening. Of course, Members of Parliament must be interested in their constituency, but I am trying to get a space around the legitimate political activities of parliamentarians that allows the National Health Service to be well managed and to operate correctly.
I am grateful to noble Lords who took part. I am not sure that I mentioned my noble friend Lord Desai—I mean "the noble Lord, Lord Desai"; I think of him as a friend, but I am not allowed to call him that in the Chamber—who, I sense, suggested that he needed a government health warning. That is not true. I am sure that, when he mentions his colleagues and friends, it furthers their career, rather than diminishes it. Perhaps, however, the noble Lord does need a government health warning: he is not just new Labour, he is shining new Labour. His philosophy is that we cannot have a national health service run on Stalinist principles. We all say, "Amen" to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 7:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"CONSIDERATIONS APPLYING TO THE EXERCISE OF POWERS
(1) This section applies to the exercise of all powers and functions under this Part of this Act by—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the regulator,

(c) an NHS foundation trust,

(d) the governors of an NHS foundation trust,

(e) the members of a foundation trust,

(f) an applicant under section 4 or 5,

(g) any trustees appointed under section 22.

174
(2) The paramount consideration for those mentioned in subsection (1) above in the exercise of all powers and functions under this Part of this Act shall be the securing and advancement of the health and welfare of the people of England and Wales through the provision of an equitable accessible comprehensive health service free at the point of delivery and integrated with social services.
(3) The persons mentioned in subsection (1) must have regard to the following matters (among others)—

(a) the health needs of those who have received or may receive health services provided by the applicant or NHS foundation trust in question,

(b) the health needs of those who have received or may receive health services provided by other trusts within the area of the same Strategic Health Authority or by a clinical network of which the applicant or the foundation trust is a part,

(c) the views of the public constituency of the applicant or NHS foundation trust in question,

(d) the direct or indirect health impact of the exercise of any powers or functions on the health of the population served by the applicant or the NHS foundation trust in question,

(e) the equitable distribution of resources across the health
service.

(4) For the purposes of this section "clinical network" shall mean a network of different NHS providers working together within a single supervisory structure to agreed protocols and standards of care.""
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 112 and 115. The amendments have a common theme, which is to try to establish some general principles to be applied to the exercise of powers by foundation trusts and by the regulator.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is not in her place. During the passage of the Adoption and Children Bill, we found it helpful that broad general principles were set out at the beginning. That was helpful to all concerned with working out how the powers of the various bodies referred to in that Bill were to be applied. The same should apply to this Bill. That is particularly important because of the way in which foundation trusts are being set up.
Amendment No. 7 would set out a framework of principles to guide the exercise of powers and functions relating to foundation trusts. Its purpose is to ensure that local autonomy in a foundation trust does not undermine the coherent development of comprehensive health services to meet local need. As I said, that mirrors the approach taken in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and ensures that the intention behind the legislation is more clearly defined.
The persons named in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause are all those with functions or powers relating to foundation trusts. The amendment covers powers and functions exercised before and after individual foundation trusts are created, irrespective of whether the body applying is an NHS or non-NHS body. Under Clause 5, a body other than an NHS trust can apply to be a foundation trust. Although the department has asserted that that clause would be used only to allow hospices, for example, to apply for foundation trust status, it is clear that the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to entertain

175
applications for public benefit corporation status and subsequent foundation trust status, under Clause 7, from a wider group of organisations. It is important that such bodies use their powers in accordance with the principles set out in the amendment to avoid any disruption to the overall objectives of the NHS. Currently, only the regulator is bound by a version of those principles set out in Clause 3.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause is a restatement of NHS principles derived from existing NHS legislation and policy, together with the objective of securing and advancing the health and welfare of the population. That objective is taken from Section 27(2) of the Health Act 1999, where it is identified as the purpose of co-operation between health authorities and local authorities. It seems to be a fitting and consistent objective for the greater plurality of provision that foundation trusts are meant to introduce. Subsection (3) would ensure that strategic NHS objectives were not in conflict with the autonomy to be given to foundation trusts.
What would that mean in practice? First, local needs—the needs of the population for primary care— would need to be taken into account as well as the needs of the hospital as an institution. Needs throughout a strategic health authority area and the interests of patients served by non-NHS foundation trusts in the same area must be considered by foundation trusts. That would, for example, avoid the poaching of staff by foundation trusts. There are also needs within a clinical network. Clinical networks may not be coterminous with the boundaries of strategic health authorities, so they must be dealt with separately. The clinical network is a vital way of ensuring clinical governance throughout a network of NHS institutions and of guaranteeing capacity in scarce resources, such as intensive care beds and renal transplant services. Decisions on such matters must be made throughout a large area, containing, perhaps, 2 million or more people. The interests of those in the intermediate area of the foundation trust must not override those in further-flung parts of the network.
The views of local communities must be taken into account, but they are given insufficient prominence in the Bill. There is the health impact. Providing care in a less accessible location creates health disadvantage for those who must travel further at their own expense. Health impact must, therefore, be considered over institutional interests.
There must be equitable distribution of resources throughout the NHS. The amendment addresses the risk of inequitable access to capital through unregulated borrowing by foundation trusts. The fact that such borrowing counts against the overall capital spend of the NHS means that non-foundation NHS trusts may find their spending curtailed by what the foundation trusts decide to borrow. The amendment would require equity with the rest of the NHS to be considered.
There is a definition of clinical networks, which is derived from the report of the neo-natal intensive care review, published by the Department of Health in
176
2003. The networks are particularly vital in ensuring that the right patient is offered care in the right place. Patients must be treated in hospitals with the capacity and expertise to treat their conditions. That is particularly important in the treatment of cancer. Patients with complex cancers must be referred to specialist hospitals. It would not be in the patient's interests if a clinical network for cancer is undermined by the autonomy of a foundation trust, perhaps wanting to provide specialist services which are better provided elsewhere.
Amendment No. 112 states that one of the objectives of the regulator is to ensure,
"specifically that adequate numbers of training posts are provided in the new foundation trusts and that their relationships with deaneries [are] maintained".
The Minister is well aware from questions asked on previous occasions that there is considerable concern about the role of teaching hospitals and whether resources will be available if and when foundation hospitals take root.
Finally, on Amendment No. 115—and this is specific to the regulator rather than relating to foundation trusts as well—we believe that the proposed arrangements for the regulator are ill thought through and could have an adverse impact on the NHS. In particular, we are concerned that the regulator will be unaccountable and that he will be free to take decisions that do not reflect the values and principles of the NHS.
We are concerned that in Clause 3 the general duty on the regulator is unclear and fails to place a legal obligation on him to act in accordance with the values and principles of the NHS. Clause 3 requires only that the regulator acts in a way that is consistent with the performance by the Secretary of State of his duties under Sections 1, 3 and 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977, rather than requiring the regulator to act in pursuance of those duties. That could mean, for example, that the regulator could authorise the withdrawal of a particular service by a foundation trust, leaving it to the Secretary of State to make good any gaps that might result in the local provision of services.
Furthermore, while Section 1 of the 1977 Act makes it clear that NHS services must generally be provided free at the point of use, no mention is made of other important principles at the heart of the public's understanding of the nature of the NHS, such as the principle of equality of access to treatment. For instance, would the regulator be under an obligation to prevent cherry-picking of patients by foundation trusts? These issues of principle raise a great many questions for the Minister. I look forward to his reply. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I support the group of amendments. In particular, I have added my name to Amendment No. 115.1 reiterate the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the importance of equity for patients.

177
Clinical management has become increasingly complex. Patients move between different providers of care within the context of clinical networks. It is becoming increasingly difficult for a patient with a complex clinical problem to be managed solely within the confines of one NHS trust. There are, therefore, very important principles of equity. Patients must be able to be moved to and to receive care from clinicians employed by one trust although they have had their principal treatment instigated in another trust. There must be close collaboration and co-operation between trusts to ensure uniform standards of care and management of patients.
I must also declare an interest as a vice-dean of a medical school. Aspects relating to research and teaching are incredibly important. If we do not teach adequately the next generation, we shall not produce competent clinicians. The juniors of today need good role models. The power of role models as teachers cannot be underestimated. Such teaching is much more powerful than sitting people down in a lecture theatre, sending them on a course or giving them something to read. Juniors need to work with people who have time to teach them. They also need to learn how to do research and to do it well, as opposed to wasting time on badly done research that delivers inconsequential results.
However, academicians within the teaching hospitals have multiple pressures on them. They have pressures to deliver research for the RAE, and to teach both undergraduates and postgraduates. They are clinicians also and have clinical pressures with the immediacy of the patient before them. It would be very easy for management to increase that pressure further, which is already excessive on many clinicians, to deliver against set targets, particularly if some performance targets risk that trust losing its star status or however else the targets are to be measured in the future. Therefore, there is a very important principle of equity. There is also a very important principle enshrined in the amendments; that is, that we look forward to educating and researching for the next generation and not simply to providing for today's care.
Lord Warner: As I explained in our previous debate, a key part of the policy for NHS foundation trusts is that they have operational freedom and are free from direction from Whitehall. However, it is equally important that these trusts remain fully a part of the NHS and that their actions continue to be in the interests of the wider NHS. So I can well understand the thinking behind the noble Lords' amendments.
We have decided to tackle this issue through a mechanism whereby the independent regulator should be required to exercise his functions in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of State's performance of his general duties under the 1977 Act, including his duties to promote and provide a comprehensive health service in England and to provide clinical facilities to universities with medical or dental skills. The Bill, as drafted, achieves that. For reasons which I shall
178
explain in more detail, these amendments are largely unnecessary and in one case inappropriate and may actually achieve an objective which the noble Lord does not intend.
Perhaps I may take them in some kind of order. Amendment No. 115, which deals with changing the general duty, introduces a requirement to act, "in pursuance" to the Secretary of State's performance of those duties. The duties imposed by Sections 1 and 3 of the 1977 Act should be overriding ones because they will help to ensure that the NHS remains an integrated, coherent and effective national service.
The Secretary of State retains overall responsibility for the NHS. It is right that he should determine the broad direction of travel. It is therefore important that the independent regulator and the Secretary of State should work in an integrated fashion, but without the Secretary of State giving directions to the regulator. However, it would not be appropriate, as I have suggested, for the Secretary of State to have even a backdoor power of direction over the regulator. For a Minister to say that may reassure some Members of the Committee.
I ask the noble Lord to rethink the issue. He might find that his amendment may give the Secretary of State an effective power of direction when the regulator is not operating in pursuance of the Secretary of State's performance of his duties. That duty placed on the regulator means that he should strike the right balance between ensuring consistency with the requirements for the NHS as a whole and retaining his independence. We believe that Clause 3, as currently drafted, achieves that. The independent regulator will be required to take account of the wider interests of the NHS by ensuring that he acts consistently with how the Secretary of State will achieve his duties under the NHS, but it is for the regulator to determine how to achieve that.
The Government's view is that the inclusion of the words, "pursuance of instead of "consistent with" the performance of the Secretary of State's duties removes the regulator's discretion to determine what is or is not consistent with the Secretary of State's policies. The regulator could be required to comply with the Secretary of State's interpretation of his duties, which effectively amounts to a power of direction and undermines his independence. I have tried to say that to the noble Lord as helpfully as I can.
Amendment No. 112 is on the protection of training. We absolutely agree with the spirit of the amendment: it is vital that education and training continues with NHS foundation trusts. However, the Bill includes ample provision to ensure that this is the case. First, under Clause 3, the regulator is required to exercise his functions in a manner consistent with the Secretary of State's duties under the 1977 Act, including the duty in relation to university clinical teaching.
In addition, under Clause 14, an NHS foundation trust's authorisation must authorise it and may require it to provide education and training and to carry out health-related research. For example, foundation

179
trusts will be expected to provide clinical learning opportunities and placements for nursing, medical and dental students, cadets and staff undertaking National Vocational Qualifications, post-graduate training for junior, medical and dental staff and placements for pre-registration students in the other health professions. The specific contributions of individual NHS foundation trusts would be negotiated through local workforce development confederations. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
I turn to Amendment No. 115 dealing with fairness and universal coverage. These requirements are superfluous to the Secretary of State's duties already established under Sections 1, 3 and 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977. These require the Secretary of State to provide a comprehensive health service which is free of charge and to make provision for clinical training and research. The principles of fairness and universality are therefore fully established. Again, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 7 deals with the exercise of powers. This new clause should also be rejected. Only the Secretary of State has the power needed to secure the advancement of the health of the population as a whole and to ensure that there is a comprehensive health service free at the point of delivery. He sets the policy and provides the funding for the NHS as a whole. The duties in the NHS Act 1977 already provide for the advancement of health and for the provision of a comprehensive service free at the point of delivery.
There are also provisions in the Bill that will ensure that the independent regulator and NHS foundation trusts must act in support of these aims. The independent regulator's duty under Clause 3 means that he must ensure there is a comprehensive delivery of care and that NHS foundation trusts are as fully integrated as possible. NHS foundation trusts are themselves under a duty to act in co-operation with other NHS bodies as a result of Clause 29. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised that particular issue, which he will find covered in Clause 29.
Paragraph 25 of Schedule 4 places NHS foundation trusts under a duty to work in co-operation with local authorities. They also have powers to work jointly with local authorities. That will ensure that they continue to be fully integrated with the local health economy, including social care. There is nothing in the Bill which will allow NHS foundation trusts to change the fact that NHS patients receive care that is free at the point of use and delivered on the basis of need, and not on the ability to pay. The Bill also states that public and patient constituency members will elect representatives to the board of governors to represent the interests of the various stakeholders. Taken together, all the provisions outlined make this group of amendments unnecessary.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive gallop through the appropriate legislation incorporated, as he says, into the Bill. That was a very interesting overview. Obviously, the Minister is extremely confident that foundation trusts
180
are carefully bolted into the NHS and the 1977 Act. However, few observers share his confidence. Obviously, he believes that the Bill achieves the bringing of foundation trusts within the general principles of the NHS. The argument that Amendment No. 115 could be counter-productive demonstrates that there are very sophisticated minds at work in the Department of Health as to how there could be a back-door way of getting the regulator to conform to the Secretary of State's policy. Be that as it may, I shall examine what he said in Hansard and decide whether I agree.
I accept the Minister's reassurance regarding Amendment No. 112. There is ample reference in the Bill to protect university teaching. It seems that there is that reassurance to insist research takes place, particularly in Clause 14. Integration with the local health economy is precisely the area where we harbour the greatest doubts: I suspect that that is where further argument will arise. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [NHS foundation trusts]:
5.15 p.m.
Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 7, leave out "England" and insert "the United Kingdom"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 8, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 160. This is a probing amendment designed to address a straightforward but serious concern about the Bill as drafted. Would people in areas of Wales, such as Powys, who are reliant on English hospitals for their acute services, still have access to those services if the hospital they tended to use became a foundation trust?
Last year, some 43,000 Welsh patients were treated in English hospitals. Some English hospitals, such as those in Chester, Shrewsbury and Hereford, are the prime point of referral for many Welsh residents. Under Clause 14, foundation trusts will be required to provide,
"goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England".
However, there is no equivalent requirement relating to patients from Wales or Scotland. As regards Welsh patients, we are led to believe that it will be a matter for negotiation between the commissioning body in Wales and the foundation trust. I question whether that provides sufficient comfort to those potentially affected. Given the commercial imperatives under which foundation trusts will be operating, there is a worry on the part of many people, including the BMA, that Welsh patients may no longer be able to access services in England as they have in the past or may be able to do so only at a disproportionate cost to the Welsh commissioning bodies.
We cannot turn the clock back on devolution and health is a devolved matter. Nevertheless, all of us— English, Welsh or Scots—like to regard the NHS as a national and not a regional service. British nationals should have equal access to treatment, no matter

181
where they live in the country. The same concern applies to patients who travel to England from other parts of the UK to receive specialist care in national centres of excellence. I hope that the Minister can resolve these concerns in a satisfactory way. If, for some reason, my amendments are not acceptable, I hope that he may be able to suggest alternatives that are. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: Amendment No. 168 may be strangely grouped with the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but the common factor is to substitute "United Kingdom" for "England". The amendment deals with the limitations in Clause 15 as regards private health care. On reading Clause 15(1), the limitation of restriction to,
"provision, for purposes other than those of the health service in England, of goods and services by an NHS foundation trust",
seems to be providing a loophole as regards the rest of the United Kingdom.
As I read the clause, it could be argued that an NHS foundation hospital could provide goods and services on a private basis for patients in Scotland and Wales— or, for that matter, overseas—but not for those in England and not be subject to any restriction or any power of the Secretary of State to prevent it. That seems to be a rather large coach and horses on which the Minister may care to comment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I rise to support my noble friend on the Front Bench and to express my concern about the interests of the people of Wales. My noble friend has put the case strongly; namely, the particular concern that those Welsh people currently served by English hospitals will continue to be so served.
However, we have further concerns arising from the fact that Wales is excluded from the NHS foundation trust concept. I have spoken briefly with Jane Hutt, the Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services, about this. She takes the view that the NHS in Wales is in the process of being reorganised on different lines and that further change is unnecessary at this stage. I can well understand her point of view; the NHS seems to be in a state of perpetual reorganisation.
Health commissioning in Wales is to be dealt with through our 22 local health boards, which comprise local authority representatives as well as health professionals. The local health board system is anchored in the idea of partnership and seeks to harness the powers of local authorities to healthcare promotion and appropriate provision. It represents a holistic approach.
The Minister is convinced that the different system that is to operate in Wales will work well and bring about much-needed improvements. I am bound to say that our inordinately long waiting lists in Wales, with over 5,000 people currently waiting longer than 18 months for hospital treatment, are certainly proof
182
of the need for improvement. So I trust that the Assembly Health Minister is right in expressing the hope that the new system will work.
Nevertheless, the Welsh system was heavily criticised by Labour as well as Conservative Members as being overly bureaucratic when it was pushed through this Parliament and subsequently. It is not as directly geared towards obtaining better health outcomes as the foundation trust system appears to be. I accept that it is too early to pronounce judgment on the performance of the new system in Wales, but let us suppose that it does not come up to the Minister's expectations and that the NHS in Wales continues to perform below par. Of course, voluble expressions of regret will be made that Wales did not follow the English lead and embrace the foundation trust concept, especially since some 15 trusts are already in place. Some, I understand, are already envious of the new possibilities and independence opening up under this legislation for English trusts.
I believe that statutory provision could be made for major Welsh hospital trusts to achieve foundation status where that is patently desirable without unduly disrupting the local health board system. I seek to avoid the growth of the disparity between the NHS services available in Wales and those in the rest of the United Kingdom with no prospect, let us remember, of correction without fresh legislation being brought forward in Parliament.
The Government may say that all this is an inevitable consequence of devolution, but that, I suggest, is a dangerous argument. Devolution was sold to the Welsh electorate on the basis that public services would improve rather than deteriorate, but many would argue that, since devolution, the health service has deteriorated.
To reiterate, I think it would be a mistake to close off the possibility of establishing foundation hospitals in Wales and I therefore support my noble friend's probing amendment in the hope that the Minister may be able to give me some comfort.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I rise briefly to support the amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has outlined eloquently the problems encountered by people from Wales. When this point was raised in another place, reassurances were given by the Minister. However, many people in Wales fear that those reassurances were not strong enough.
It may be extremely difficult to prove that patients coming from Wales to be treated within a managed clinical network for the provision of care are receiving anything other than equal care to that offered to patients arriving from England. If patients are made to feel that they are a bit of a nuisance simply because they have come from across the border, either that of Wales or of Scotland, that may be impossible to prove. Further, patients will be reluctant to complain about such attitudes because they will feel vulnerable.

183
There must be enshrined in the legislation a principle of equity that is made very clear in law. Reassurances may not be adequate to deal with the subtleties of the ways in which people might be made to feel that they are unwelcome.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: The longer that I listen to the speeches in this part of the debate, the more I feel that this amendment needs to be considered with care. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has just said about the difficulties in the present system.
Lord Warner: As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has just pointed out, Ministers in another place have already given assurances on this issue and I sought to repeat those assurances as forcefully as possible in my remarks at Second Reading.
Clause 14(2) provides that the principal purpose of an NHS foundation trust must be the provision of healthcare services to NHS patients in England; services are to be provided according to NHS standards and principles free at the point of use. The powers set out in Clause 15(1) provide that the independent regulator can ensure that the requirement in Clause 14(2) is met, so I do not think that we have the loophole that concerns noble Lords.
It would be totally inappropriate to make the principal purpose of these new trusts the provision of healthcare across the UK. As noble Lords have pointed out, healthcare is a fully devolved area. The devolved administrations were consulted on the proposals on NHS foundation trusts and were content for them to be England-only bodies. I am surprised, therefore, to see amendments that seek to give responsibility in relation to foundation trusts across the whole of the United Kingdom. In effect, they would reverse devolution on healthcare.
If I have understood the noble Earl, Lord Howe, correctly, the amendments aim to ensure that NHS foundation trusts can treat patients from Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, in our view that is unnecessary. Under Clause 14(1), all NHS foundation trusts must be authorised to provide,
"goods and services for purposes related to the provision of health care",
including services to the NHS in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. So this would be part of the authorisation from the independent regulator.
Where an NHS foundation trust provides cross-border services of the kind referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, it is likely that that trust will continue to provide those services as before, provided that the local health board in a devolved administration area continues to contract with that NHS foundation trust. Ultimately, it is a question of whether the commissioning body wants to continue to receive services from an NHS foundation trust located, from the Welsh perspective, on the wrong side of Offa's Dyke.
184
The regulator will not and should not be able to protect the provision of services to Welsh patients. That is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, and the Bill tries to make that separation.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: The Minister has raised a concern in my mind which he may perhaps be able to clarify. I had always understood, and therefore was not concerned, that people in Scotland and Wales who needed specialist treatment—for example, for single ventricle heart conditions in children—could go to specialist hospitals within the foundation trust concept because many will be foundation trust hospitals. I was concerned when the Minister said that it will depend on the commissioning body. One of the concerns that I have about the whole set up is that the commissioning body may decide not to support this kind of specialist treatment. I seek reassurance that that is not so.
Lord Warner: The example given by the noble Baroness is no different from any other kind of specialist care. There is nothing in the Bill to stop NHS foundation trusts from continuing to provide specialist services from an England base to people from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
The point I was trying to make, without worrying the noble Baroness, is that on all these issues the commissioning authorities in the devolved administrations will have the ultimate responsibility for providing healthcare for their citizens. Where they get that healthcare from is a matter for them to decide in relation to the specialist services that are available across the whole of the UK—or, indeed, increasingly in future, possibly across the EU and elsewhere. Increasingly, there is no requirement always to get healthcare from within the UK.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: In the event of a trust having greater demands on its services than it has the capacity to deal with, it will have to ration. If a form of wording is not contained within the Bill to stipulate that there is equality between England and Wales—if I may take that as an example, with due deference to Scotland—the trust may decide to ration on the basis of geography rather than on the basis of clinical need. It may decide to break its contract to provide for the patients of a local health board in Wales even though their clinical need may be greater than that of patients provided for under a contract with a primary care trust in England.
Can the Minister reassure me that there will be safeguards to ensure that those with the greatest clinical need will have their contracts respected preferentially over those with less clinical need, irrespective of the geography of where they live?
Lord Warner: With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness—I pay all due deference to her long experience in this area—and given the previous debate, I cannot see how in primary legislation we can prescribe for every conceivable circumstance of every

185
conceivable case. There is nothing in the Bill that suggests that people from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be discriminated against. There are equity provisions in the Bill. We would be going down an extremely dangerous path if in primary legislation we tried to prescribe for every kind of individual healthcare circumstance that might happen at some time on some day in the future.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for the reassurance that he has tried to give, although I am not totally reassured. It has been brought out in the debate that Welsh patients are already finding it difficult to access elective facilities in England. The concern is that, with the greater degree of autonomy to be enjoyed by foundation trusts, there would be nothing that anyone could do if a trust decided to turn away Welsh residents for its own reasons—perhaps under the circumstances outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
It may be that nothing in the Bill precludes Welsh patients from receiving treatment in England and that, indeed, Clause 14(1) permits that to happen. The issue, however, is whether Welsh patients are on a different and less advantageous legal footing than patients living in England. That is the only conclusion one can reach from reading Clause 14(2). We are talking about the need for equality of access and equality of provision for all British citizens.
I shall read carefully what the Minister said today. I reserve the right to bring the issue back at Report stage. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Blackwell moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ", including provision by means of commissioning other organisations"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 9 is a simple but potentially very significant amendment which seeks to ensure that the Bill has the scope to secure the decentralising of NHS services that it sets out to achieve.
At present, foundation trusts are defined in Clause 1 as providing goods and services. Depending on how the word "providing" is interpreted, it could be taken to exclude NHS organisations that provide by means of commissioning other organisations. That would exclude, for example, primary care trusts from being designated as foundation trusts.
As I and others argued at Second Reading, it is desirable that the framework of the Bill should be extended to allow PCTs to be in the same position as foundation trusts. This would allow their commissioners of services the same freedoms from central control as are offered under the Bill—perhaps inadequately—to NHS hospital trusts. It is argued that if we relax only the monopoly of supply by freeing NHS hospitals from the central NHS structure, but still retain tight control over the purchasing organisations, that will continue to be the means by
186
which the central NHS exercises the same control over priorities and targets imposed through the central control of funding. As long as the PCTs, through that control, are the mechanism for central initiatives, central control, central targets, we will not get the level of devolved decision making and responsiveness to local needs and priorities that everyone, in discussing the Bill, sees as a key requirement if we are to achieve innovation and the proper interests of patients are to be served.
It is important that it is made clear in the Bill that the commissioners of services should be able to apply for and receive the same freedoms, within the same constraints, as the providers of services in hospitals. If the Government are serious about relaxing the command and control culture, they must sooner or later offer PCTs a route to a similar foundation status. Amendment No. 9, therefore, seeks to extend the definition of "provider" to make clear—not only in Clause 1 but, by implication, wherever the word "provider" appears throughout the Bill—that it is intended to include providing by means of commissioning from other organisations. Amendment No. 117, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Howe and is grouped with Amendment No. 9, provides that PCTs explicitly should be able to apply for foundation trust status.
Even if the Government are not prepared to commit to doing this immediately—they may want to take a more gradual route—it surely makes sense to avoid having repeat legislation coming back to this House by ensuring that this Bill provides scope for that as a follow-on activity, although I, and no doubt others, would argue that it should be done sooner rather than later.
In moving Amendment No. 9, I wish to explore whether the Government accept in principle that foundation trusts should accommodate commissioning organisations, including PCTs. If so, is this widening of the definition a necessary requirement in the Bill to make it clear that this can take place? I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I would like to speak to Amendment No. 117, standing in my name. I very much support my noble friend in all that he has said. Much has been said today and at Second Reading about creating a sense of local ownership of foundation trusts as a means of engendering better accountability and responsiveness to patients and local people. These are all good concepts, and I have no quarrel with them in themselves—quite the opposite. But if democratic processes are to be introduced into the NHS, the question is where they should most logically be applied. I agree with my noble friend that logic dictates that they should be applied to the commissioning bodies—the primary care trusts—which are the mechanisms for delivering patient choice and which directly control 75 per cent of the NHS budget.
The argument for allowing PCTs to become foundation trusts is, if you like, the opposite side of the coin to the argument that I shall be making later that the democratic apparatus devised for foundation hospitals is both misconceived and futile. PCTs are

187
where the real decisions about health spending get taken and local priorities are decided. The Government are creating a sense of expectation by going down the democratic path, and if that is really the route down which we are going, it is very important that those expectations are fulfilled, not disappointed. In the case of foundation hospitals, they will inevitably be disappointed, but the same thing may not necessarily happen if, at the commissioning end, people are allowed to feel that they have a stake in the decisions being taken on their behalf.
The Government have accepted the logic of foundation status for PCTs but they do not yet think that the time is ripe for it. I am prepared to bow to their judgment on that. The issue, though, is whether we take the opportunity provided by the Bill to enable PCTs to apply for foundation status at some time in the future. If we do not, it is clear, as my noble friend said, that further primary legislation will be required. That seems an unnecessary complication, given that Ministers have already accepted the underlying principle of what I am suggesting.
The irony of the Bill is that it is likely to result in less autonomy and less flexibility for PCTs than they enjoy at the moment. That is because of the long-term contracts that Ministers want to see established between PCTs and foundation hospitals in order to secure the financial stability of foundation trusts. To my mind0, this artificial rigging of the market works directly counter to all the much trumpeted initiatives to enhance patient choice. Patient choice will in practice be trimmed back in the higher cause of bolstering up foundation hospitals.
There is, therefore, an immediate downside for PCTs as regards Part 1 of the Bill unless they are brought within its umbrella via these amendments. They will no longer have the same flexibility to commission services where they want them or to bring some services into the primary care sector, let us say, where they deem that to be appropriate. That is another reason for saying that the democracy in the NHS should feature not at the provider end but in the area where decisions are made about the purchasing of care and local priorities.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have some sympathy with both amendments. I well understand the arguments that one wishes to see as much devolution to primary care trusts as possible. However, I do not follow the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the impact of long-term contracts. My reading of the choice mechanism is that primary care trusts will have less to do with discussions on elective procedures in the future because the main discussion will be between the individual patient choosing at which hospital to be treated. That is a very good development.
On the general principle, it must be right to seek to devolve to primary care trusts. The problem with the argument that foundation trust status should apply to primary care trusts is threefold. First, there is the
188
argument about whether primary care trusts are ready for further change. At the moment, they are having to put a lot of energy into simply making the system work. To ask them now to consider seeking foundation trust status would be a divergence from their main task.
Secondly, the noble Earl has said that 75 per cent of the budget of the NHS is to be devolved to PCTs. That is about 75 per cent of £60 billion at present, going up to £90 billion in 2008. That is an awful lot of resource voted by Parliament. One has to think very carefully about the implications of devolving that kind of resource to a non-fundraising organisation.
The third reason for caution is that I am not convinced that the foundation-type structure in the Bill should apply to primary care trusts. They are different organisations; primary care trusts are population-based. It would be just as attractive to look to local government, for instance, to commission services for the NHS in the future as to the kind of membership structure proposed in the Bill. I understand the point about having enabling legislation to allow PCTs to take advantage of this at some time in the future, but I am not convinced that the membership structure in the Bill ought to apply to population-based organisations. Quite clearly, all the people living within a primary care trust area ought to be members or voters within a primary care trust structure.
Lord Warner: Let me be clear that the structure and model set out in the Bill were designed specifically for provider organisations, as my noble friend Lord Hunt has reminded us. It requires the principal purpose of any NHS foundation trust to be the provision of NHS services. Moreover, the Bill does not provide any framework for dissolving a PCT and transferring its staff, assets and liabilities to an NHS foundation trust. Noble Lords cannot achieve even their objective by this particular amendment.
We have no objections in principle, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, indicated, to applying democratic and foundation principles to PCTs, but I suggest that now is not the right time to do this. That is not just a standard Government line on the principle of unripe time. PCTs are new and embryonic organisations which are not ready to go through this stage of change. They are taking on a very major set of new responsibilities, as my noble friend Lord Hunt has suggested. I gently say to noble Lords that I find it surprising that this House, which often criticises the legislation coming before it for not being thought through and properly prepared, is suggesting slipping in a few amendments here possibly to introduce change on the hoof without having thought through the model that we want to use. My noble friend Lord Hunt made those points very eloquently and I will not repeat them. This is not the way to make legislation; if there is a case for changing PCTs over to a different basis, that change has to be thought through and not rushed and imposed on the NHS without proper thought—the very criticisms that were made in an earlier part of our debate this afternoon.

189
In terms of long-term contracts for providers, I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is being a bit unkind. Those long-term contracts would also provide the reassurance to patients of the kind that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was anxious about in the previous discussion.
Lord Blackwell: I thank the Minister for that response, and my noble friend Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for their thoughtful comments.
The principle that we must free up the purchasing as well as the supply side of the NHS should be addressed sooner or later. That is a bridge that must be crossed, and no reform will secure the Government's objectives until they eventually achieve that. I take the point that the Minister made that these amendments may not be the most effective way in which to do that. The Bill may be too complex for us to introduce such amendments to it, but I should like to consider what has been said before I decide whether we should bring the amendments back in a different form at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: This is not an occasion to repeat our debate at Second Reading. Nevertheless, there is value in setting down some markers for our forthcoming debate in Committee. I do not intend to take long, but some key points need to be made.
Whatever side of the line one is on in the great foundation trust debate—whether one is for it or against it—one fact should trouble all of us. I refer to the lack of public consultation and discussion that has gone into these policies. We on this side of the House have always sought to encourage the Government to move in the direction of freeing up the NHS from central control and giving more autonomy to local managers and clinicians. However, we have never suggested that the most radical departure for the NHS in 50 years should be mapped out as a desk exercise in Whitehall—but that is broadly speaking what has happened. It has resulted in a Bill full of really controversial detailed provisions; that detail, if we get it wrong, could sink and discredit the whole vision.
None of us is in the business of wanting to jeopardise the future of the NHS, and we are not in the business of tabling amendments out of a sense of devilment or party political needling. The details of the Bill really matter if the bold concept contained in Clause 1 is to take wing with everyone cheering it on.
I admit that I am a cautious sort of person. After the BSE crisis, the National Audit Office said:
"There are risks involved in doing things differently and new forms of service delivery need to be implemented in a way that minimises the risk of them failing or the quality of public services being maintained or improved".
That message should resonate with us as we debate this part of the Bill.
190
There is a curious antithesis in what the Government have done in their proposals for foundation trusts. As regards governance arrangements, they have been much too bold. As for the freedoms to be granted to foundation trusts, they have been much too timid. The risk of getting the governance arrangements wrong is that they could ruin the whole concept; once in place, they will be very difficult to reverse or radically amend. The risk of getting the balance wrong between freedom and regulation is that one might expend vast efforts in charting a new course for the NHS without much tangible benefit at the end. In the process, one may also gloss over very damagingly some of the wider dimensions of the NHS as a cohesive and co-ordinated entity.
Some will argue—including, no doubt, some of my noble friends—that, taken as a whole, half a loaf, in the form of Part 1 as it stands, is better than none. With great respect, I do not agree with that. The one thing that we should not do to the NHS is to subject it to yet another reform, and a big one at that, without being as sure as we can be that we have got it right for the long term. It is not satisfactory for the plans underlying the Bill to be half-baked or still at the planning stage. As our debates proceed, I for one shall study very carefully what the Minister tells us for any signs that the grand facade of the building now being shown us may actually conceal a half-completed and poorly designed collection of rooms.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support the proposition of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It must be admitted that the Bill contains an incredibly complex set of provisions to set up this new creature. However, the whole argument is that there are also an incredible number of objections that are equal and opposite to so many of those complex provisions.
I do not intend to repeat all the points made at Second Reading. Heaven knows, there were enough. I thought that one of the more amusing remarks made by the Minister came in response to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on the subject of governance. The Minister said that he was glad that the noble Lord was not making a speech against the Bill, after the noble Lord had made a devastating critique of the Government's provisions. Those arguments in themselves would be enough to justify voting against Clause 1—and, indeed, Part 1—as they show the half-baked nature of the foundation hospital proposals, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out.
The lack of equity underlying foundation hospitals is probably what sticks in the gullet of most commentators, more than other issues. The basis for selection—the star-rating system—is subject to considerable criticism, but that is the basis for the choice of foundation hospital status. When one has that status, there will be the possibility of further inequity in the local health economy, whether by terms and conditions, borrowing powers or a range of other aspects. They may even affect the viability in other areas.

191
No one argues with the principle that more devolution is necessary; that is a view of the NHS held in common between all political parties. The issue is whether foundation hospitals do that.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, the process is probably unique. We have had consultation paper after consultation paper in the NHS. I think back to the idea of getting ahead of the curve, and to all the devolution proposals in other areas that have been debated in consultation papers over a period of time, often as precursors to NHS reform Bills. Yet there was a deafening silence on the subject of the clause, apart from speeches by the Secretary of State. No consultation has taken place whatever. That has been compounded by the lack of local consultation taking place in the run-up to the formation of these foundation hospitals. I suspect that the Minister will reassure us that consultant will take place, that foundation hospitals will be required to do so, and so on. However, the consultation to date has been grossly inadequate.
Then there is the whole issue of whether the proposals will genuinely provide a better model for patient and public consultation in localities that have foundation hospitals than the arrangements that were fought for so hard in previous NHS reform Bills. To find that no patients forums are being established for foundation hospitals is another addition to objections to the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said at Second Reading, the governance system will be a nightmare of bureaucracy. Spending public resources wisely has been a mantra that all Chancellors and all governments are so keen to repeat. However, something like £250,000 could be spent on the governance of some of the foundation hospitals, to maintain their membership. That is a staggering figure when we consider for what other purposes the money could be used. All of that will not lead to better performance or more democratic accountability. In fact, by and large, the membership of foundation trusts will be self-selecting. I think that that is another cause for considerable concern. It will be open to people to come forward and make themselves members by paying their £1.
So we have very strong objections to a huge number of aspects of the proposals. Ultimately, we believe that this is treating the wrong end of the NHS—in complete contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, who moved an amendment on foundation status for commissioning bodies and PCTs. We believe that the accountability of commissioners, and bolting that into local government, should be the first priority, not whether provider bodies have a local membership, however artificial, and a governance system which seems to be based on some sort of two-tier Dutch company structure. I do not know whether that was the result of health tourism by the Secretary of State, but it seems fairly outlandish to seek to introduce it into the NHS. 1 do not think that any DTI body has ever suggested that we should have two tiers in any commercial body.
192
So, at the risk of coining a phrase, this proposal for foundation hospitals is not even a curate's egg, it is a rotten egg.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: I am the chairman of an NHS trust. I declare that interest now and, if I may, for all the occasions on which I hope to take part in the debate. I support the opposition to clause stand part. This is probably our only opportunity to comment generally on the NHS foundation trusts and specifically on the governance issues. Those issues are not a curate's egg, they are a complete nonsense. Those currently trying to establish foundation trusts, and I have spoken to a number of them, are labouring against the background of insufficient information and insufficient knowledge of what this bureaucracy and bureaucratic way of proceeding is about.
It matters a lot how an NHS hospital is managed. It matters a lot that those who are involved with it actually care about it. It matters a lot that they are going to bother to spend the time to pay attention to the patients and to the services that are provided. What is not required is a great diversion whereby a hospital becomes an electoral reform society. I do not understand the mechanism—there is absolutely no clarity about it in the Bill—for the selection that will have to take place. It is not at all clear who will have to keep the constitutional arrangements up to date or how people will be able to dip in and out of membership without the maintenance of a rolling register. Local authorities have enough trouble doing that for elections without hospitals being required to do the same.
The situation is completely unclear. I hope that the amendments will begin to provide some clarification about what the board of governors will do. As far as one can see, the board will include a huge number of people, presumably all of whom will want to dip in and out of the hospital's activities. We cannot have 30 to 50 people with a right to dip into and out of those activities. A hospital is where people go to be cured, not to be bossed at. They do not want to be part of a bureaucratic trust. In my experience, people and patients do not want to take part in the management of hospitals. They want to have access to management when things go wrong. They want a prompt resolution of their complaints. They want to be cared for and they want to be treated. They do not want to run the place. One worries about those who want to run the place at the same time.
So we will be left with this extraordinary animal, the board of governors. It is unclear who will be on the board of directors—or whatever it is to be called; the name seems to change every five minutes—and how they will be appointed and from where. Later amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, seek to tighten up what could have been a complete hiatus in the organisation, to maintain the status quo to some extent for that board of governors.
Whatever happens with the Bill, the arrangements for the governors have to be sorted out. They have to be sorted out in a way which establishes absolutely

193
what the board of governors will do. That is currently unclear. The arrangements seem at present to provide for the appointment of the chief executive and for an annual meeting. I cannot see anyone being elected to do just that. That point has to be sorted out. We must also clearly establish the independence and the right of the directors to run the hospital. That point also is not clear.
We have to ensure that the Bill is in a practical state by the time it leaves this House—not in an ethereal state, as has been said, based on the dreams of someone sitting at a desk. Those of us with some practical experience of how a hospital is run need to ensure that the Bill is much stronger when it leaves this House. I therefore support the opposition to clause stand part.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: In designing a research project, one should have a research question and then ask whether, in an equipoise situation, one way or another way of providing care delivers a better or worse outcome. Many questions have been raised about how the management structure will work. However, we have heard no evidence based on discussions outside this Chamber regarding real, powerful and proven evidence that one system will provide a better outcome than another system. No one would introduce a clinical treatment without sufficient supporting evidence. I am worried that we are considering new arrangements for governance that may have a very adverse effect on how hospitals function managerially. We may be facing huge pressures on managers to skew the delivery of healthcare one way or the other. There are too many unanswered questions to feel confident that we can go forward. The evidence does not seem to be there.
Lord Turnberg: It seems that foundation hospitals do not find favour in a number of quarters around the Committee for a variety of reasons. The proposals in their present form are undoubtedly not perfect. No doubt we will debate ways of improving and changing the way in which foundation hospitals work and the way in which they are governed. We have a long list of amendments to discuss. If we agree at this stage that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill, I think that we will be denied the opportunity even to think about the various ways in which the proposals can be put into practice.
It seems rather strange that we are all for the principle of devolving responsibility to the local level. I have not heard anyone speak against the idea that micromanagement, central control and regulation should be reduced; we are all in favour of it. Foundation hospitals seem to be at least the beginning of that process. We should debate all the various ways in which they can be made to work. I think that losing Clause 1 now would be to start at the wrong end.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I may be accused of harking back to the past excessively in debates on this issue. Contrary to the views on this issue expressed by
194
certain other noble Lords, I am not absolutely opposed in principle to the idea of foundation hospitals. I hark back to the early days of the National Health Service. In 1970, there was in my own city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne a board of governors who looked after the single teaching hospital that was answerable directly to the Department of Health. All the other hospitals in the city were under a locally based hospital management committee. The decision was taken in 1970 to create a single university hospital management committee to manage all the hospitals in Newcastle-upon-Tyne with one-quarter university representation, half representation from the local community and one-quarter representation from the professionals—doctors, nurses and others.
For four years that organisation worked like a dream. It was the halcyon time of the National Health Service. Then along came the Keith Joseph reorganisation of 1974 based upon a report by McKinseys with consensus management being the order of the day with district health authorities, area health authorities and regional health authorities. The entire decision-making machinery congealed. It took 14 local, national and regional committees to determine whether it was possible to appoint a new registrar. At the end of the day one committee out of the 14 objected and the whole thing stopped working.
Having said that, I must say that the idea of a foundation hospital based upon the present star system has certain defects. I am talking again about Newcastle. I cannot conceive of the reasons why the splendid Newcastle group of hospitals, which had three stars last year, has now been reduced on the basis of a minor statistical quirk to two stars and will therefore lose the opportunity of becoming foundation hospitals. That is very, very inequitable.
I appreciate the problems which have been highlighted by the BMA. I do not often disagree with my former colleagues and friends at the BMA. I appreciate that the problem of inequity is significant. But surely that can be overcome. The problem with foundation hospitals lies in the devil of the detail. The devil of the detail is as yet improperly and unsatisfactorily set out in the Bill. Very many important safeguards need to be introduced. There needs to be a considerable rethink of the governance and of the committee structure—the board of governors and the directors—before this particular proposal would win general support. The germ of an idea is there; the principle is good but a lot of work needs to be done before this can be properly launched.
Lord Rea: I did not speak on Second Reading because I knew full well that everything I might say would be better said by others. However, there is one point which I do not think came up among the many and various criticisms of foundation hospitals that were made, and this debate gives me a chance to air it.
As my noble friend knows, primary care trusts (PCTs) are a very recent creation and they are still bedding down. I and many other health workers in the National Health Service felt that the concept of the PCT being the commissioning body—the paymaster,

195
if you like—for the hospital services for their population was a fair and intelligent approach. However, large budgets and the urgent historically based needs of NHS trusts have made it difficult for PCTs to tailor their commissioning to the real needs of their population in the way that they would ideally wish. The creation of a new wave of independent powerful foundation hospitals will surely only exacerbate that problem. They will have greater clout and make the commissioning balancing act which faces PCTs more difficult than it already is. Perhaps my noble friend will say how that potential problem will be overcome.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Warner: We do not accept that the governance proposals are a dog's breakfast. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Turnberg for reminding us that if Clause 1 is not accepted we shall not have the chance to improve the governance arrangements as so many people would like to do.
We have already tried to respond to some of the criticisms in another place. We accept that the governance arrangements need proper scrutiny. We shall listen to good arguments. One or two Members of the Committee may be surprised how responsive we shall be when we discuss some of the later amendments. That does not mean that we think that the whole organisation of the governance arrangements is anything like as bad as one or two Members of the Committee have suggested. However, I do not want to go into the detail of governance arrangements as I hope that we shall have ample time to discuss them at a later stage.
I accept that the intention to oppose the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill is probing in nature. However, if we removed Clause 1 we would deny a large swathe of the population of England the opportunity to have locally controlled NHS foundation trusts by the end of 2004. All those in favour of devolution and speedy devolution should bear that in mind. Twenty-five NHS trusts are already consulting on proposals to apply for NHS foundation trust status from next April. I have already been approached in that regard by Guy's and King's, my two local hospitals. Therefore, a consultation process is going on in that area. I can now announce that a further 32 NHS trusts have applied to be considered in the next wave. We are now working with over 50 NHS trusts moving towards NHS foundation trust status. If all those applications were successful, well over 25 per cent of the population of England would have access to NHS foundation trusts by the end of 2004. Many of these 50 or so NHS trusts cover deprived areas such as Gateshead, Rotherham, Tyneside, Sheffield and many of the poorer parts of London, Birmingham and some other cities. They are not all trusts in the leafy suburbs. Following those two waves there will be many more applications to come on stream in 2005, including many mental health trusts which at present are not eligible but many of which have three star status. I say in passing that it is not correct to suggest that having
196
three star status will be the only criterion for approval for foundation trust status; wider considerations will apply.
The suggestion has been made from time to time, and this afternoon, that, if I may quote Harold Wilson, this is a scheme cooked up by a tightly knit group of politically motivated men. The response by many people at local level such as front-line staff, communities and people who are concerned about their local health services coming forward with applications suggests that there is a groundswell of support for the changes and an appetite for more devolution. I am rather impressed that one or two Members of the Committee think that the Government are sufficiently persuasive to be able to drum up that trade quickly without support at local level.
Some say that we have not gone far enough in terms of local freedoms. However, that is no reason to prevent altogether the considerable package of devolved autonomy that the Bill represents I say to those concerned about NHS trusts that are not in the first waves that the momentum behind these changes will bring many more communities into NHS foundation trust status in 2005 and 2006 as people work to secure these local freedoms. The incentives are there. We certainly do not want to impose the kind of planning blight and local disappointment that would occur if we said that the first wave of applications had to be pilots and that no one else could move to NHS foundation trust status until their experience had been fully evaluated.
There is no doubt in my mind that NHS foundation trust status is seen as offering real opportunities to improve services for NHS patients through more local autonomy. It is clear that the Government are right to proceed with legislation and that those who have expressed doubts are out of step with the many local people and services who now want to move towards that status.
We have not sprung devolution on the NHS or the world. In the NHS Plan and Delivering the NHS Plan, we set out our proposals to give greater operational freedoms to NHS organisations. NHS foundation trusts are a clear example of and way of doing that. Of course we are starting with our best-managed hospitals, but there are mechanisms in place to raise the performance of all NHS trusts, through the £200 million Raising Standards—Improving Performance in the NHS investment programme. We are taking active steps to help people at local level who have not been able to achieve the performances required to raise their game. There will be plenty of scope for all to apply for NHS foundation status over the next four to five years. As I said, that applies to mental health as well as acute and specialist trusts.
The trusts will be set up as new public benefit organisations, with a primary purpose of providing NHS services to NHS patients. They are not opting out of the NHS. The care that they provide to NHS patients will be delivered on the same basis of need rather than ability to pay, and they will continue to be

197
free at the point of use. The trusts will be legally required to use the assets that they hold in ways that promote their primary purpose of providing NHS services, therefore locking them into public ownership. As I said, they remain fully part of the NHS, but with much greater freedoms.
That is the very local autonomy and devolution for which many Members of the Committee argued earlier. We do not think that local communities should be denied those changes, and we strongly suggest that we move on, get the Bill right, and get the changes introduced as quickly as many local people want.
Baroness Hanham: Does the Minister agree that the NHS trusts going towards foundation status at the moment have very considerable reservations, particularly about the governance issues? What discussions are being undertaken with them at the moment, so that there is feedback for them as they try to prepare for foundation status without the benefit of the legislation behind them?
Lord Warner: Of course people undergoing great change want to be sure that they have got the detail right, and would like as much certainty about the future as possible. All human organisations are like that. However, if they have concerns, those concerns are not so strong that they do not want to move along that path. They are pursuing application in a constructive way with the department.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord said, very helpfully and encouragingly, that Members of the Committee might be surprised how carefully the Government would listen to amendments, and how much they would think about them. For my comfort, and I think for that of my noble friend Lady Hanham, will he say that some of the amendments to which the Government will listen most carefully and pay particular attention will be those concerned with governance? The whole question of whether doctors, nurses and other hospital staff will be able to give better treatment to patients in hospitals because of the public involvement that the Government have contrived is an open one. From my point of view as someone who has been involved in local affairs and local government, I have great reservations on the subject.
Lord Warner: I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that those were the very amendments to which I suggested that we needed to listen, debate and consider carefully. However, that does not mean that I accept some of the arguments that all the governance arrangements are a total dog's breakfast. Some of the amendments have behind them the thrust of an argument suggesting that we need to control more from the centre and do not want to allow flexibility at local level. In our best intentions to get matters right,
198
we must move culturally from the idea that we want to prescribe everything around governance from the centre, while safeguarding the public interest.
Baroness Cumberlege: The Bill will have many days of debate in this Chamber. During its passage even so far, "devolution" and "devolved" have been bandied about. I am in some confusion. It would be very helpful to me, and perhaps to other Members of the Committee, if the Minister could give us a clear definition of what the Government mean by devolution.
Lord Warner: Devolution is one of those words that tends to have different meanings in Scotland, Wales and the regions of this country, as I have observed from listening to a number of political debates over the years. We are trying to give more local autonomy and freedoms to manage assets and design services around the needs of local people. That is the best that I can do on the spur of the moment, but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness to confirm that.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate, which I hope that I signalled was intended to be probing. That is indeed what it has been, and it is not my intention to divide the Committee today. However, if we were to take Clause 1 out of the Bill, nothing at all would prevent us debating the rest of Part 1 if we wished to do so. My understanding was that agreement had been reached along those lines through the usual channels.
The central issue that I sought to emphasise was that of risk. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, was absolutely right to say that the devil was in the detail. I am as keen as the Minister to debate the detail of the Bill. He is right that there is enthusiasm for the concept of foundation status, but there are also considerable reservations, as my noble friend Lady Hanham pointed out. There is also considerable bewilderment about how the arrangements will actually work. One of the main purposes of our debates is surely to tease out the implications of the Bill and its proposals for trusts, and for patients and the public. Unless we get satisfactory answers on those questions, I cannot see us supporting Part 1 at later stages.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Earl Howe moved Amendment No.10:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"REVIEW OF DEMOCRATICALLY ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNANCE

(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish an independent review body to carry out the functions specified in subsections (4) to (6).

(2) The Secretary of State shall appoint at least nine members of the independent review body.

(3) The independent review body shall elect a chairman from amongst its members.

(4) The independent review body shall prepare reports containing proposals relating to the establishment of a local, democratically accountable system of governance for NHS foundation trusts and Primary Care Trusts.

199

(5) The independent review body may in particular make proposals in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) relating to—

(a) methods of securing wider public participation in the governance of NHS foundation trusts, and Primary Care Trusts;

(b) methods of increasing public awareness and access to information about the governance of NHS foundation trusts and Primary Care Trusts; and

(c) the membership of public benefit corporations.

(6) The independent review body must—

(a) lay a copy of any report prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section before Parliament, and

(b) once they have done so, send a copy of it to—

(i) the Secretary of State, and

(ii) the regulator."

The noble Earl said: I freely admit that I tabled the amendment not so much for what it actually proposes, but more as a means of shining a spotlight on the role of local democracy in healthcare and the system of governance devised for foundation trusts in the Bill. Some of that territory has already been very ably mapped out by my noble friend Lady Hanham and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
The almost unquestioned assumption underlying the Bill's proposals is that accountability to local people and responsiveness to local healthcare needs necessitate a democratically organised model of governance. The presupposition is that, without direct representation of patients, the public and, for that matter, staff on the board able to influence and steer the way in which an organisation is run, we will not get stewardship or control of hospitals that is truly in the public interest. I am clear that nothing could be more mistaken.
The United States is not always the paradigm of choice in matters to do with healthcare. However, in relation to governance, if we look at how a typical not-for-profit hospital in the US is run—most are run well—success depends on one factor above all: competent directors and managers taking the key decisions. Where there is a board of trustees or shareholders, those individuals are responsible for appointing the non-executive directors, but apart from that they have no role beyond holding the management to account and, where appropriate, providing the benefit of their advice on forward plans.
The trustees or shareholders do not second guess the executive board on how the hospital is run. They have no power to issue it with directions. They are appointed, not elected, to ensure on behalf of the community that the founding principles of the hospital are honoured, and that competent individuals are in place to fulfil the managerial remit. The directors— and only the directors—are responsible for resource allocation.
The governance model devised for foundation trusts places too great an emphasis on democracy and not nearly enough emphasis on competence. A largely elected board of governors having the power to instruct the directors on resource allocation and treatment priorities is a recipe for poor governance and demotivated management. I have unqualified
200
enthusiasm for the concept of patient and public involvement and for patient groups acting in an advisory role, but, to put it at its simplest, patients should not be running hospitals.
What is more, the all-out desire to see boards of governors 20 or 30 strong, populated by every conceivable type of stakeholder from patients to would-be patients, to staff, to local councillors, to commissioners of healthcare, to academics and voluntary bodies is a guarantee that you will get the very opposite of focused decision-making. A board of that unwieldy size and composition is a formula for posturing, for vocal factions and for instilling into each board member the mere illusion of influence. Anyone with experience of corporate governance will tell you that a board of 10 or 12 people is the maximum number needed for effective, tight operation.
The cost of all this should not be overlooked. It is estimated conservatively that the cost for each foundation trust of maintaining membership lists, running elections, communicating with members and servicing the board of governors will be somewhere between a quarter and half a million pounds every year. That will be the cost in hard cash. In terms of opportunity cost, the number of working hours that the chief executive will have to spend on governance matters will be very considerable. One chief executive estimated to me the other day that it might very well take up as much as 50 per cent of his time.
The cost can be measured, too, in terms of the drag on innovation and service development. At a time when healthcare is evolving at a rapid rate, speed of decision-making and hence local responsiveness will not be enhanced by the constant need to refer upwards to an alternative debating forum.
It is probably too late for the Government to row back from this model because its supposed merits have been talked up too loudly, but row back they ought to if this experiment in democracy is not to result in failure. Ministers are attempting in one leap to move from wholly appointed hospital boards to the most complex possible governance model imaginable—and a model of which the NHS has no experience. That fact alone makes the experiment foolhardy.
The most obvious feature of the governance model chosen for foundation trusts is that nobody has asked for it. It is being imposed from above across the entire acute sector of the NHS without consultation. It does not take a genius to discern that in general local people do not want a say in how their hospital is run any more than they want a say in how their branch of Tesco's is run. What they want is a hospital that delivers services that they need in an effective manner. Their expression of need emerges through the commissioning process and through the good offices of GPs as patient advocates. That fact, in the end, is what will lead to disillusionment on the part of those who offer themselves for election as foundation trust governors. They will rapidly find that financial flows from PCTs, not their own attendance at meetings, really determine how a hospital functions and moves forward.
If democracy is to play a role in the governance of hospitals—and I understand all the arguments about local engagement—at the very least hospitals need guidance on what a good system looks like. The Government are saying that it is up to each foundation trust to design its own constitution. It is stating the obvious that hospitals have no experience of this sort of thing.
I was, frankly, disappointed in the guide to developing governance arrangements which the department published last month. The section headed "How will you know the governance arrangements are good ones?" is less than one side of A4. At the end it states that a template constitution and explanatory notes are provided in the annex. When one turns to the annex one finds that it contains nothing at all—it is a blank page. I am sure that soon something will emerge from the great brains in the department, but as and when it does it needs to contain a great deal more meat.
As will be abundantly clear, my view of the governance model devised for foundation trusts is that it is a mess—such a mess that I do not know whether it is possible to remedy it. It will certainly be very difficult to unwind it if it is put in place and then seen not to work. I can only offer my views to the Government in what I assure the noble Lord is a constructive spirit and hope that they will listen. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has proposed an interesting and attractive amendment, but, unfortunately, for all the wrong reasons. I find it extraordinary to hear the noble Earl say that there is too much emphasis on democracy when ironically, on the same day, the Shadow Home Secretary suggested that we should have directly elected sheriffs meddling in the operations of local policing, 143 different districts and so forth. But that is an aside.
The question raised by the amendment, but no so much by the noble Earl's speech, relates to where the balance should lie in the parts of the health service in which there should be improvements in democratic accountability. I was particularly attracted to subsection (4), which emphasises that the proposed review should look at,
"the establishment of a local, democratically accountable system of governance for NHS foundation trusts and Primary Care Trusts".
The danger in some of the proposals contained in the Bill is that they will fossilize public support around a democratic structure of institutions. That will produce precisely the wrong dynamics in creating a health service which will respond to changes and changing needs. Democratic support and accountability is most important in the commissioning function, which is clearly the responsibility of primary care trusts.
The noble Earl expressed himself most concerned about the cost of democracy. The point about better systems of local accountability—how those are arrived at is open to question—should not be measured by the
202
cost of that. Rather one should assess whether as a result of that greater accountability of NHS managers, they deliver a service which is more responsive to the needs of the communities they serve. That must be the emphasis which surrounds this measure.
It is difficult to put a price on that and to measure it against the costs of democracy or accountability arrangements, but it must be accepted that if services are to be genuinely responsive to local needs and the requirements of the local population, there must be a mechanism enabling a linkage to the local community. That will cost resources. Indeed, it is a fallacy to assume that leaving it all to the managers will produce an insight, somehow magically, into what is needed to be responsive to the local community.
I welcome the proposed amendment because it provides the Government with an opportunity to think again about the precise mechanisms of governance that are being put forward. It is unfortunate that there is no read-across in the amendment to the existing Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. It is also lacking in what it does as regards the rest of Part 1 and what happens after the learned review has presented its report to the Secretary of State and to the regulator. I believe that real timing issues arise.
However, the Government need to consider very carefully the principle of looking first at the most appropriate accountability structures within the NHS—examining the balance of accountability between primary care trust commissioners and the institutions which will be represented by foundation trusts. They need to recognise that perhaps what we have in the Bill is not at present the final answer. There could be considerable merit in further discussion— perhaps along the lines of the review proposed in the amendment.
Lord Lipsey: I had planned to play a full part in the deliberations on the Bill, many parts of which interest me, but unfortunately I must user-test one of our great hospitals. Therefore, this may be the only opportunity that I have to speak. On the issue of governance raised by the amendment my feelings are so strong that I hope the Committee will indulge me and allow me to say what I profoundly believe.
I start with two preliminary points. First, in our opening debate this afternoon, speakers on all sides of the Chamber were worried about the over-politicisation of the health service. They wanted an independent agency. That might be one method; there could be others. None the less, they were worried that there was too much politicisation and too much political intervention in decision-making. But this Bill seeks to create a system that embeds politics in the management of our hospitals. Is that what we want?
As someone who takes a keen interest in electoral matters, perhaps I may be forgiven a second observation. I observe not only in this country but throughout the world a decline in participation in elections. At the Brent by-election I believe that the turnout was 36 per cent. That poses grave questions in

203
all kinds of areas. However, to respond to a decline in public eagerness to participate in elections by creating yet more seems to me most eccentric. We are in danger of inviting people to spend their whole lives going out and voting, which is the last thing they want to do. What they want is a better health service which provides for their care.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who raised this matter, I believe that a profound confusion is causing us to go adrift here. It is a confusion between something that is absolutely good and important— that is, democratic accountability—and one particular method which is occasionally appropriate for promoting that, which is election. The two are not the same. I could give examples of many methods by which democratic accountability can be well promoted, such as citizens' juries, consultation exercises and polling. A full range of very interesting techniques achieve what most people want and enable that to be fed in, but I am afraid that election is not a very good instrument in that respect.
We must think about consequences when aiming for better patient care. What are the consequences of elections? Let us be concrete and get away from the abstract. First, I believe we can be fairly certain from experience that most elections will be run on a party-political basis. There will be a Labour slate for the hospital, together with a Tory slate and a Liberal Democrat slate. That is what happens with local councils and with every other kind of election. Of course, where there are party slates, there are whips. Before long, in many cases our hospitals will be run by whipped party activists, many of whom will be good people and many of whom will be bad. However, I do not believe that that is an enormous leap forward to democratic accountability.
Secondly, in some cases—I hope, a small minority— the elections will present an opportunity for extremists; for example, the National Front, which does not want immigrants to be treated. Under the proposal, that organisation will have only to sign up a few of its people and pay a few quid and the votes will be purchased to elect extremist candidates. Will that lead to better patient care? In my judgment, it will not.
The third consequence will be the single-issue candidate. The primary care trust, in setting priorities, will say, "We are not going to spend so much on grommet operations in future. They don't work and we don't much like them". The surgeon who is threatened by that may say, "Oh God, save our grommets". He will have a patient, whose child has recovered from an ear infection, saying, "You know, it's the grommet that did it. I must stand for election and stop this happening". That patient will stand and it will be a very attractive campaign. It will receive media attention and there is a good chance that he will be elected.
The final consequence will be a deep conservatism— not with a large "C" but a small "c". It will make the process of change, which is so desperately needed in our health service and our hospitals, not easier but harder because people will be elected precisely because
204
they resisted change, just as the Member for Wyre Forest in another place resisted the closure of his local hospital. He had every right to do so; 1 do not claim that he should not have done. However, I do claim that hospitals governed in that way will be less well governed from the point of view of the only thing that matters—that is, patient care.
On the general concept of foundation hospitals, I can see what the Government are trying to achieve and 1 am not unsympathetic to it. But surely it would be tragic if a good idea was spoiled because it became mixed up with some half-baked thinking about democracy and democratic accountability when we could have better thinking in relation to all those things and make a greater success of what we are proposing. Because the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, tends to suggest ways in which we could consider the issue and make progress, I support it and I hope that the Government will think again about the governance arrangements. I say "think again". That gives them the benefit of the doubt in suggesting that they might have thought about them in the first place.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I shall be brief. I have a knee-jerk fear of any proposal which suggests that we should have more reviews. We live in a country full of people who are reviewing and monitoring other people, examining the results and reporting them because it is their duty to report. The country is flooded with quite unnecessary, rather ill-written paper which results from such activities.
It is not part of my intention to be over-helpful to the Minister on this occasion, but here I find myself wondering what the effect of my noble friend's amendment will be. Only a limited proportion of the people engaged in the National Health Service are at the sharp end and ever have the effect of making someone feel better, which is the object of the exercise. I should like to know whether my noble friend is certain that his proposal will not take up the time of people who might be better engaged looking after and caring for patients and repairing the patients.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Rather like my noble friend, I was attracted by the wording of the noble Earl's amendment, although not by the arguments that he used to further his cause. As we have already discussed this afternoon, I believe that there is a case for a serious examination of democratic accountability in governance within the health service that does not confine itself only to foundation trusts but looks at the whole organisation of the NHS in a holistic way. I do not believe that we can run away from the fact that we need to consider this matter from the point of view of the whole system rather than simply NHS trusts.
However, I believe that the noble Earl is wrong when he says that patients should not be involved in running hospitals. I believe that they should be involved, just as I believe that it is right that we, as

205
parents, now have a big say in the running of our children's schools. Surely we have something to offer as users of services, not only in a consultative way but in helping to run those organisations, which, after all, are there to serve the public of this country.
I believe that some of the risks that have been postulated around involving local people in the running of their hospitals have been exaggerated. Surely the first point to make is that there is not a hope in hell of transferring accountability from national politicians to the local level without a democratic process at the local level. That is why I do not agree with the national agency approach. The only way in which that can hang together is if local people have a democratic involvement and a right in running their own local health services. That is why it is so important to have a governance structure that allows local people to put their names forward and to be involved.
Hand on heart, I do not pretend that the governance structure in the Bill is perfect. There are problems and I still believe that there is a problem in terms of the powers of the governing body. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I believe that the problem is that the governing body has not been given sufficient powers. As far as I can see the only power that it has is the nuclear option of the appointment and replacement of the non-executives and the ratification of the appointment of the chief executive.
I hope that when foundation trusts take forward their proposals they will look closely at ways of involving the governing body in the decision-making process. The worst option would be for people to be elected to the governing body and then to find that all power resides in the board of directors. It will be very important indeed for the board of directors to ensure that when the governing body comes together the board is asked to be involved in the decision-making process.
On an optimistic note, I do not accept the fears of my noble friend Lord Lipsey that the involvement of local people in running their hospitals will lead to a fossilisation or will be a bar against progress. I advise, in an honorary capacity, my own local trust—the Birmingham University Trust—and I have been really excited by the proposals that it has put forward in its consultative document about the way in which it wants to involve local people. The trust also wants to co-opt on to the governing body the leaders of local government, the Churches and industry and for there to be strong staff involvement. Far from being a conservative body, or a body that will get in the way of progress, I believe that it will add enormous strength to that organisation. The progress that has been made in the past few years in that institution will be enhanced and increased in the future.
By all means let us look at democratic accountability across the whole range of NHS services and commissioning, but let us also see whether we can improve the governance structure. I hope that at the
206
end of the day we shall accept in Committee that local people and patients have the right to be and should be involved in the running of their local services.
Baroness Hanham: I hate to disagree in any way with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but I do not believe that I said what he said I said. I said that I thought that the board of governors at the moment was inchoate, and that the Bill gives it no particular role. The danger is that it may then become something with which nobody wants to be involved. I agree with him that there must be some parameters if there is to be a board of governors.
I have a great many concerns about this matter, but a particular one which I believe I can raise now is that I am not sure what happens when there is a disagreement between the primary care trust which is commissioning the services, the board of governors that has on it representatives from the local community, which wants to do something entirely different, and the board of directors of the hospital that is trying to manage within a tariff system that does not stack up and against long-term contracts for which it is not being adequately reimbursed.
That seems to me to be a remedy for completely stultifying any system of management and movement at all. There is much to be said for considering the issue more closely if there is to be democratic involvement. All of us in the NHS and managing the NHS have embraced the idea of patient involvement. In my own hospital we have patient/user groups for practically every chronic disorder. That is extremely important because it is suggested that patients will want to be involved on a long-term basis; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said as much. But there is a difference between those patients who come in for a five-day operation and those who are involved in the hospital for months and years because they have a chronic disorder, and consequently become involved and interested, willy-nilly, in the way that the hospital operates.
Is it right that the people who should be involved are those representing people with chronic disorders? Those people will be interested because they already have organisations behind them to enable them to take part in an electoral system. That goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said about the people who will get on to the board as it is constructed at the moment; they will be people who have the muscle and the power behind them, whether a politician or those who already have a well set-up group behind them. That point needs to be teased out as well as the possible problem of a great deal of disagreement between the three or four elements involved in the whole arrangement, all of which could lead to an impasse if a way forward is not agreed.
Perhaps in passing I may wish the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, rapid restoration to full health so that he can take part in the remaining stages of the Bill.
Lord Walton of Detchant: Perhaps I may inject a note of caution, echoing some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I hark back

207
to the past: I wonder how many Members of the Committee can remember under a previous Labour administration a White Paper entitled Democracy in the National Health Service. That White Paper, which ultimately led to legislation, doubled the number of local authority councillors and representatives on health authorities. Frankly, in many respects the result was disastrous because health authority meetings were dominated by sectional interests and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, the whole health service was politicised.
I agree entirely with the democratic principle. There must surely be a democratic component, but I believe that the independent component must always dominate over the democratically elected people on the governing bodies of the trusts. I hope that the Minister will take note of that concern based upon experience.
Lord Warner: This has been a very interesting discussion. Before responding to some of the points and setting out the Government's position I assure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that we were not seeking to thwart him in his quest for knowledge. He received an earlier draft of the governance source book. There was already an annex D but he was not privileged to have it. We shall give him a copy after this session. There is now a full version and I believe he had the version that did not contain some of the annexes. We shall check with the noble Earl and we shall place the full version in the Library.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for his concerns about my welfare. I shall refer to some of the points that he raised as they have some substance. I share many of the concerns mentioned in the perceptive remarks made by my noble friends Lord Harris and Lord Lipsey, whom I also wish a good encounter with the NHS and a speedy return to the House.
Some of the debate has been a little pessimistic about the ability of people to engage with the agenda and participate in the running of their local health services. We know that direct elections have had falling turn-outs, but they have often been for multiple-purpose organisations. In many ways health is a single-interest issue that affects all families. We know from other work that has been carried out that single-interest issues attract many people and much participation. We could be being too pessimistic about that.
We have also put safeguards into the Bill to address some of the concerns that my noble friend Lord Lipsey raised about what may be described as entryism by particular interest groups or particular sections of the community. We were pleased to accept amendments in the other place that will ensure that NHS foundation trusts are committed to real engagement with their membership—not just at the outset, when applicants want to secure the Secretary of State's support or regulator approval.
Under Clause 6(2)(b), the regulator will need to be satisfied that the foundation trust has made arrangements to ensure a representative membership.
208
Under Clause 36, following authorisation, the regulator may require the NHS foundation trust to take steps to ensure a representative membership; and under Schedule 1, paragraph 24(2)(b), each foundation trust must report on the steps that it takes each year to secure a representative membership. Those records will be made public and copies provided to the regulator, enabling him to assess whether he needs to include requirements in the authorisation. So review mechanisms are enshrined in the Bill for the regulator to continue to reassure himself that the body is a representative of the local community.
7 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: I am extremely interested in what my noble friend is saying. Will he explain what miraculous powers are given to the regulator or, on his instructions, to hospitals to force people to get involved when they do not want to?
Lord Warner: The regulator cannot force people to get engaged if they do not want to. He can review the authorisation of the trust if it cannot demonstrate that its body is representative of the local community. Although my noble friend Lord Desai earlier suggested that there was a politburo in Richmond House, I do not think that we have yet reached the point where we think that we can use the regulator to compel people to participate in the health service.
It is worth repeating the arguments about why foundation trusts are different. They are a new form of social ownership, where accountability for health services is to local people rather than to central government. In that way, a much stronger connection is established between the providers of health services and their local communities, extending beyond the current arrangements for consultation.
Although other systems that have been developed over the years provide for consultation and engagement, they are often perceived by the public and patients as management tools. They are put in place by managers and are liable to be ignored if the results do not fit with what is wanted. To cynics, they represent no real shift of power. Direct election takes the process a significant step further. It provides the right to take part in decision-making and can be the key to delivering genuine improvement.
I am surprised by some of the remarks made when one considers the extent to which parents have been engaged with the education sector. Let us face it, many people elected to local authorities may be what one Member of the Committee earlier described as bungling amateurs, but when they are first elected, they have to take decisions about priorities and expenditure on behalf of their local communities. To suggest that people are incapable of growing into that decision-making is to ignore experience in other areas of public service.
The Bill will provide for democratisation of NHS providers, as we hope that all NHS trusts will become NHS foundation trusts in due course. As I said earlier, we also have no objection in principle to applying democratic or foundation principles to PCTs.

209
However, I am a bit doubtful about mandating the review in the way suggested by the amendment. To enshrine that in legislation would commit us to another piece of bureaucracy, which many Members of the Committee have argued strongly against.
However, I should like to reflect further on many of the remarks made by Members of the Committee and consider whether the thinking behind the amendment could be adapted and delivered in another way.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not think that the Minister should put too much faith in the comparison with the way in which parents are involved in schools. Parents have to do more than half the educating of their children; they are partners with the school all the time in bringing up and educating their children. So they want to be, and are, very much involved. That does not necessarily happen by means of a single parent representing other parents; it is much more about many parents going into schools to discuss with teachers, as the Minister well knows. So I do not think that that is a good comparison.
Also, when the Minister says that he will consider carefully what has been said, I hope that he will pay enormous attention to what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Lipsey, and my noble friend Lady Hanham. They are people who, from their different standpoints, know very well what happens when people are put on bodies—they are probably members of many other bodies; they go along and take part—and how they justify their existence. I have been one of those people. At one time, I was on about 70 different bodies. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has been on many more ex officio. That may well happen in this context.
I think that what those three Members of the Committee said should point out to the Government that they are taking a very old-fashioned approach to the governance of hospitals, which is in itself a magnificent idea. They may spoil it by using that old-fashioned approach.
Lord Warner: I remind the noble Baroness that many carers and families would say that they are deeply involved in the healthcare of their children and relatives—just as much as parents are involved in the education of their children. I was not trying to make a direct parallel; I was trying to make the point that in other parts of our public services we have engaged people in their running and management.
As I said, we should carefully consider the points made by many who have taken part in the debate, who I acknowledge have a great deal of experience in this area. However, I am questioning—as was the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—whether the amendment is the way to address the problem.
Earl Howe: This been a very good debate and I am grateful to all those who have taken part in it. I also thank those who have seen merit in my amendment. I confess that, as I mentioned at the beginning, my intention was to use the amendment as a hook on
210
which to hang a debate on the role of local democracy generally in the governance of hospitals. I have certainly succeeded in that aim, even though the views from around the Chamber have differed widely on the subject.
Once again, we look to the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who delivered a salutary lesson from history on how local democracy can upset and impede the effective governance of hospitals. I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said and agreed with almost all of it. I join other Members of the Committee in wishing him a speedy recovery and a swift return.
One of the noble Lord's points that I should like to pick up is that of voter apathy. There is much voter apathy: one has only to look at the vacancy rates on school governor boards to realise what an uphill task it is to get people interested in running schools. But the idea that, as the Minister said, a trust may lose its foundation status if it cannot drum up sufficient democratic support is quite extraordinary. That may well have nothing to do with how good or bad the hospital is itself. It seems very strange that the whole thing should hang on the enthusiasm of the voters. What matters is surely whether the hospital is good or bad.
Lord Warner: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I did not say that everything hinged on participation by local communities. There is a distinction between what the noble Earl claims I said and what I actually said. I said that one of the levers available to the regulator was a qualification or change in the authorisation if it was not satisfied that the body was representative of the community it served.
Earl Howe: I would be interested to know what sort of qualification or change the noble Lord is talking about. I thought that the regulator could take away the authorisation or leave it in place. It is not clear to me what kind of halfway house there is where the democratic base falls short of expectations. We may need to cover that territory as we debate the later parts of the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Hanham posited some not improbable situations that could easily lead to gridlock. I was not aware that the Minister answered those points, which seemed well made.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, foreshadowed some of his later amendments on granting further powers to foundation hospital governors. That path is extremely dangerous and potentially disastrous, so I do not think that we will see eye to eye on it.
My noble friend Lord Peyton got to the heart of the question, as ever, when he asked me about the opportunity costs of the proposals in the amendment. He is quite right, as ever, that what matters is patient care and we must not be distracted from that. I will reflect on the noble Lord's concerns very carefully before Report stage.

211
It would be helpful if the updated guide to governance arrangements could be circulated to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate to enable us to see what thinking has emerged from the Department of Health on the crucial question of the model constitution. Once again, I thank all Members of the Committee.] beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar): Before I call the next amendment, I must tell noble Lords that, if Amendment No. 11 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 12 to 22, as the pre-emption rule applies.
7.15 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Constitution of public benefit corporations]:
Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 108, line 12, leave out paragraph 3.
The noble Baroness said: I declare an interest in the whole Bill, as I am an employee of Age Concern England. That is my usual declaration, but, on this occasion, I shall go further. My role in Age Concern is to work with small local organisations and to provide them with advice. Germane to this discussion is that frequently I advise small local organisations on constitutional arrangements. It was therefore a great delight to read the governance arrangements proposed in the Bill, not least because they are so curious.
Before discussing the detail of this group of amendments, many of which are probing amendments, I wish to ask the Minister one key question that may enable us to see our way through many of the curiosities in the Bill. Why did the Government not take any of the existing forms of charity governed documents? There are a number of standard formats, such as a company limited by guarantee. Not only are there distinct formats, but they are also governed by charity and company law. There is an in-built framework covering many of the issues that have been raised and those that will be raised in subsequent amendments; for example, auditing and accounting. Why did the Government not pick one of those? Why cook up this very strange arrangement? That question has been burning in my mind.
The amendments hinge upon Amendment No. 40. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whose name is also attached to the amendments, and I apologise, as we did not intend to delete paragraph 6. The amendments about the format of the board of governors and stakeholders will actually apply to proposed paragraph (8A). Members of the Committee may have experienced some misunderstanding, for which I apologise.
I intend to discuss many of the issues raised by Members of the Committee in the debate on Amendment No. 10, but I shall do so from a different standpoint. It has not been mentioned that one of the biggest fears of those who have considered foundation
212
trusts as proposed is the consideration of acute provision in isolation, not just from primary care, but from the whole field of social care.
My amendments address the governance of a foundation trust within a whole system of health and social care. That is particularly clear if one considers the composition of the board of governors under Amendment No. 40. There should be a board of governors that is much more powerful than that proposed by the Government, and which involves different stakeholders—I am not keen on the word "stakeholder" but it is shorthand for an idea—such as representatives of employees, PCTs, local authorities and, crucially, representatives of patient bodies and the voluntary sector. Members of the Committee will understand why I am keen to include that.
The amendments also deal with limitations of periods of office. Deliberately they take out individual membership—for three reasons. First, although direct democracy has some merit, as outlined today, it comes at a huge cost. We estimate—perhaps the Minister will advise me whether it is correct—that the servicing of an individual membership is likely to cost a foundation trust upwards of a quarter of a million pounds per year. In that circumstance, it is reasonable to look at a more representative framework for involvement.
The second reason for our stance on individual membership has not been mentioned. Various Members of the Committee have talked about entryism. I was interested in that point, as I am always interested in the ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. But nobody has mentioned the provision of specialist and minority services. Recently, as part of my daily work, I had the experience of talking to a representative of a primary care team in the company of a number of people concerned about the provision of services for older people. With refreshing candour, he said, "What you must realise is that the profile of this borough includes a very high number of very wealthy, articulate parents of small children. They are the people who will be right at the top of the PCT agenda". The comment was disheartening on one level, but it was very refreshing to have that level of openness from someone in the NHS.
At Second Reading, I spoke about the disincentives to dealing with the problems of old age under a tariff system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, discussed earlier. My concern is that under a system of individual membership, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, those without ready access to a pre-formed group or organisation to enable their needs to be articulated will lose out. That is one reason why we have talked about having not one representative for the voluntary sector— as in PCTs—but five, because there are different client groups.
Given the strength of the argument that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made about the representative boards, he will not be terribly pleased with the set of amendments. However, I have one point for him and for the Minister: a whole industry is growing around consultation. There are people who spend most if not all of their time involved in organising consultation

213
about health. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is no longer in his place, but if ever a review was needed, it is one that correlates the amount of time spent with output, because for all the level of consultation, very few people who are consulted about health matters, either locally or nationally, feel that that consultation brings about any change.
There is a good reason for that: the process of consultation is often at an operational level and rarely makes it to the strategic level. Precisely because we think that there is a need for a strategic overview of health at the heart of the foundation trust government, a comparatively big and representative body is a good idea. We also hope that it will replace many other similar bodies that are also working throughout the field of health and social care.
There is one reason why the model we are talking about has merit. As I have said before, the idea for foundation trusts was first mooted in the NHS Plan, which was the Government's response to the Wanless committee report. That report spoke at considerable length of the need to develop services of a preventive and rehabilitative nature. There is a great danger in the Bill's proposals that there will be not only a concentration but a unique focus on acute care. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, knows, I believe that that is an expensive way of managing demand on our health services.
I am sure that the Minister will say that many of the amendments are flawed—they are preventive—but I believe that there is much to commend having a representative and strategic body at the heart of the government foundation hospitals. Having that would allay many of the fears expressed so far about the Government's proposal.
Baroness Hanham: I am worried about which end of the telescope we are standing at with these proposals. It seems that the Bill and this amendment are trying to construct a body. What is that body for? It has not been spelled out in the Bill. If the answer is in this deficient publication that has been made available, it would be helpful to have it for the next stage. I am not clear why we are trying to construct a body about which everyone is very perplexed. This amendment makes it even more perplexing. What is the nature and purpose of the board of governors?
To be absolutely clear, an acute hospital is there to deal with acute patients and provide medical services laid down by the Government and by the need of the population for those medical services. There is not a strategic overview of how the hospital runs. It must be run for the people who need it against the services that it provides. If the board of governors is able to dictate what the hospital can do in terms of the services it provides, what will the board say? Perhaps it will say, "Today, we don't really think that cardiac services are the thing. The local population wants diabetics so we will therefore move into diabetics. No, that is not a good idea, it would be much better if we were concentrating on rheumatology".
214
That conjecture may sound fanciful, but it is not. By definition, an acute hospital must provide what is required to treat more than only its local community— because of patient choice, that community will be very wide. It will include patients from wherever they choose to come. With acute hospitals in London, the community will be nation-wide, because that will be its constituency.
At some stage, could we "bottom out" what the Government believe this body will do? It will be set up with a constitution but who will provide that? Will it be the trust that will draw it all together? That is fine, but if it were my trust and I were going for a foundation I would leave it with nothing to do because that would resolve a huge amount of problems. However, that seems to be an awful waste of everyone's time and will not attract anyone to do anything. There must be a rationale. If there is none, let us abolish and abandon the plan now.
Lord Warner: The amendments would remove the provisions setting out how the board of governors should be constituted and replace them with an entirely different system without any role for the members of the public constituency and which restricts NHS foundation trusts' flexibility to develop arrangements that best suit their local circumstances. Effectively, the new arrangements for appointing members of boards of governors involve staff, PCTs and local authorities making up the bulk of appointments between them—up to one third of the board's members each—as set out in Amendment No. 40.
The removal of representatives elected by members of the public and patients of NHS foundation trusts is totally unacceptable as it cuts right across the principal objective of the policy on NHS foundation trusts, which relates to devolution of power and responsibility for NHS services to the people who operate and use them. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in a sentence, that gives us a summary of the purpose of the changes. The amendments show a surprising lack of trust in local communities' ability to participate in running their local health services, although I will not go over ground covered in the previous amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked why we did not just snip and paste from companies legislation and charities law, but that would not have been appropriate. We are trying to establish a new corporate form for which, although trusts have some things in common with companies limited by guarantee and industrial and provident societies, we could not set them up in that form. We are trying to design around locking the assets into public benefit objectives around the particular needs of foundation trusts. If we return to this subject again, there may be difficulties around whether companies legislation in this field would be appropriate under European Union obligations. So, it was not that we were just ignoring those other provisions; we were trying, as we have done all along, to design something that was fit for the purpose.

215
Amendment No. 40 would require only that "at least one" patient be co-opted as a member of the board. That is unacceptable. It would shift the balance of power on the board away from local people and patients. Patients and public representatives should be in a majority on the board of governors, to reflect the fact that they form by far the largest stakeholder groups.
The amendments would also provide for up to one third of the members of the board of governors to be appointed by local authorities. If the amendments are intended to replace the arrangements for public representation on the board of governors, I question their validity. We want to build on the sense of ownership that people often feel for their local hospital and give them an opportunity to be involved directly. Local authority representation is not a substitute for patient and public representation. Turnout in some recent local elections calls into question any reliance on that source of membership to speak for whole communities on health issues.
The amendment shows a misunderstanding of the role of local authorities with respect to NHS providers. They will have influence through commissioning contracts and agreements on joint working and through local authority representation on the board of governors. They will have powers of scrutiny through the overview and scrutiny committees, on which NHS foundation trusts will be under a duty to work in partnership with local authorities. Moreover, the level of representation proposed in the amendment is disproportionate, considering that the Bill already provides mechanisms for local authorities to influence and scrutinise the activities of NHS foundation trusts.
Amendment No. 40 would also provide for up to one third of the members of the boards of governors to be appointed by primary care trusts, which commission services. Although we have, of course, accepted all along that it is important that commissioner interests are represented—the models set out in the Bill provide for that—it would be inappropriate to give those organisations, as the main customers of NHS foundation trusts, such a large role in their running. Good commissioning in the public services involves standing back a little from service providers, not dominating their management.
The amendments would be backward steps in public service management. They show an unwillingness to trust local people to play a full and effective part in the running of local health services. They should be withdrawn or rejected, as should the consequential amendments in the group.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: In Amendment No. 40, the Government's own wording is repeated at sub-paragraph (5), which says:
"If any of the corporation's hospitals includes a medical or dental school".
216
Is that Government-speak? In fact, not many hospitals include a medical or dental school. They will be closely associated with or work in collaboration with them. A few hospitals include medical school premises, but, in many places, the hospitals used for teaching are separate from the buildings of the medical and dental schools.
Will the Minister consider whether it might be better if, in Schedule 1, where the same wording is used, it said, "If any of the hospitals includes or is closely associated with for teaching and research purposes a medical or dental school provided by a university, at least one member of the board is to be appointed by that university"? The Minister should carefully consider that as a proposal for a possible amendment at a later stage.
Baroness Hanham: Before the Minister responds, I should like to know whether he would be kind enough, before we go too much further, to answer the question that I asked. He stuck to his brief and did not get round to saying what the boards of governors were going to do.
We will be at a huge disadvantage in the rest of our discussion on this part of the Bill if we do not know what the Government have in mind. If the Minister tells me that it is in the document to which my noble friend Lord Howe referred, I would be glad to have a copy. However, until that is available, I will keep asking the Minister the same question. It is the kernel of what the boards of governors are about, who is on them and why.
Lord Warner: This is not the occasion on which to have a debate about the details of the boards of governors in this context. We are discussing some specific amendments tabled by those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I am happy to discuss the matter outside the Chamber with the noble Baroness and, if necessary, write to her, setting things out. We thought that the role of the boards of governors was clear from the Bill. If there is uncertainty, we shall clarify things, but it would not be appropriate to detain the Committee any longer on the issue. The amendments are unacceptable for the purposes of running NHS foundation trusts.
I am happy to consider the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, but I am not sure that we would want to lift wording from the amendments.
Baroness Barker: It has been a useful debate, not least because of the points that have been raised and not answered.
I forcefully thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for raising the critical question of the role of the boards of governors. It is clear that the supposition behind Amendment No. 40 is that there will be a need for some strategic governance of a foundation trust. I take the noble Baroness's point about acute services, but acute services must be planned and the need for such services predicted within an overall health economy and changing patterns of health. That is the thinking behind the amendments. According to the Minister, that

217
thinking was not correct. I believe that it has a coherence far greater than that on offer from the Government about the role of the boards of governors.
As I said, the management of foundation trusts will not happen in isolation. Management in social services and local authorities will, increasingly, work alongside them. One of the key questions that the Minister did not answer related to the strategic relationship of trusts to local government. There is a possibility that, down the line, there will be a great deal of fragmentation in the governance and planning of services. The Minister did not pick up that important point.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, about the wording relating to dental and medical schools. I take the opportunity to say that one of the underlying intentions of the approach that is set out—perhaps imperfectly—in the amendments was to create an informed strategic working relationship between local government, the voluntary sector and the acute sector. That has never been satisfactorily done. In all the areas of my working life, I stumble across people in one of those sectors who never quite understand what the others are talking about. That will bedevil healthcare provision across the board and contribute to the creation of healthcare needs that may have been avoidable.
I accept that the amendments are not perfect, but it has been useful to have the debate. I hope that we have made it clear that the Minister's one-line answer about the role of the board of governors was not adequate. We will have to return to this fundamental matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 108, line 12, at end insert "are entitled to free care from the National Health Service and"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 12, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. I want to raise two specific issues relating to the public constituency where the Government's intentions are far from clear. As the Bill reads at the moment, any member of the public falling within the definition of paragraph 3(1)(a) and (b) is eligible to become a member of the public constituency. Personally, I have a problem with the idea that someone from abroad who has no entitlement to comprehensive free care under the NHS might nevertheless be able to vote in the elections for the board of governors. It does not seem to me that such a person has a right to influence the way in which an NHS hospital is run, even if he happens to have received, let us say, free emergency treatment there.
I also have a problem with the idea that babies and children could be given a vote. There is no minimum voting age specified in the schedule, and I must ask why that is. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: To some extent we went into this territory earlier today. The essence of those earlier arguments was that the legislation deliberately sets out only minimum eligibility requirements for membership

218
of NHS foundation trusts. So this allows individual NHS foundation trusts the flexibility to tailor their own arrangements to meet local circumstances and on the basis of their own consultation. As I said earlier, we do not want to go back to this model of trying to set out all the detail on this in legislation from the centre.
On Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, spoken to by the noble Earl, I comment as follows. Although NHS foundation trusts will be part of the NHS and their primary purpose will be the treatment of NHS patients, it is right that the majority of their public constituencies should be people who have used, or are likely to use, NHS services provided by that trust.
However, individual NHS foundation trusts may decide that it is appropriate to offer membership to private patients with an interest in that NHS foundation trust. There are specialist bodies with international reputations which provide services over a long period of time, often to groups of people from other countries, and there is an ability to move around increasingly, particularly within Europe, to secure specialist services which may not be available in another person's country. We do not believe that it is right to actually lay down in law those kind of restrictions. We are happy to leave this to the judgment of people at the local foundation trust level.
I can see what the noble Earl is getting at regarding the provision on children. Again we think that the NHS foundation trusts should have flexibility to decide whether and how to include children in membership. Some children and their parents and carers have long-running contact with the NHS. Some trusts may, for example, decide that it is appropriate for parents as carers to represent their children's interests. We would prefer to leave that flexibility in the legislation rather than trying to rule out those issues.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for his reply. I would just say that I do not read my amendment, even reading it again, as being about private patients, but rather about those individuals entitled to free care under the NHS, which is rather a different matter. But I am amazed in many ways by the Minister's reply. He seems to be saying that issues of this magnitude— namely, voting by babies and the enfranchisement of asylum seekers—should be for each foundation trust to determine. They will have a great deal on their plates. Issues of that kind should not be added to their work.
The Government have not stopped short of being prescriptive on a whole range of detail relating to the constitution of a foundation trust, yet on these broad issues of principle—constitutional principles in the widest sense—they apparently remain willing to impose the responsibility on foundation trusts. I find that quite extraordinary. There is time for reflection between now and the Report stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 108, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 18, 21 and 37. I should like to move on to a group of issues bearing on the broad question of membership of a foundation trust and specifically who the Government envisage should be eligible for membership of the public constituency.
The knottiest issue relating to membership is the problem faced by specialist hospitals which wish to become foundation trusts. Hospitals such as Moorfields and the Royal Marsden treat patients from all over the country, people who live outside the boundaries of the hospital's local government electoral areas. Indeed, the idea of a local catchment of patients and the public is not relevant to the way they operate. It is not the local population that has the primary interest in how they are run, but patients from far and wide and potentially every citizen in the country. It therefore seems odd that including patients as part of the public constituency is expressed in the schedule only as an option. For specialist tertiary hospitals it should be possible to say that the public constituency consisted mainly, or entirely, of patients rather than members of the population living locally.
Indeed, without that approach, I find it hard to imagine how the regulator would be able to agree that the membership of such a hospital was truly representative of those eligible to register as members, as Clause 36 requires.
Perhaps I may raise two further issues about patients. If patients are included in a trust's public constituency, paragraph 3(3) appears to provide that they may only comprise patients who have actually attended the hospital concerned. I might feel aggrieved about that if I was someone who had been looked after by the hospital on a remote basis, say through a telemedicine facility. Carers of patients are also eligible to vote, but a hospital is given no guidance about what constitutes a carer in this context. I believe that there should be an explicit definition in the Bill and have therefore proposed one that is consistent with recent legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 19 and 20 in the group. The effect of Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 is to include current patients within the arrangements. I return to some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in her speech a short while ago. It does not seem logical that the arrangements should be open only to people who have previously been patients of a hospital. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was quite right to say that the point at which someone is engaged with a hospital as a recipient of services is the point at which one is perhaps most enthusiastic—one might say perhaps of most value to a governance board, given that one has had that experience.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was also right to draw the distinction between people who are recipients of emergency treatment and may be there
220
for only a short time and those who have chronic conditions. It is also worth pointing out that by including current patients in the arrangements we would be including people who have appeared for treatment for which they have been waiting for some considerable time—elective patients. They perhaps would have a great deal to say about the running and the governance of organisations.
In many ways, this is something which plugs one of the many gaps foreseen in previous health Bills when CHCs were abolished in favour of the new system of patient involvement. During those debates, I said that there were two major omissions. While the new system of PALS and patient forums saw and dealt with patients who had concerns as recipients of services, they risked missing out the involvement of users in the strategic governance of hospitals. The fact that there are to be no patient forums in foundation trusts is one of the biggest omissions.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 would limit involvement to those who are NHS patients. Within the context of the Bill, that seems to be the right thing to do. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give these amendments a warm welcome.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I, too, support the attempt at a definition of "carer" in Amendment No. 21. In a sense, the carers movement has been a victim of its own success. A word which was not even in the dictionary 12 years ago is now so popular that everyone wants to get in on the act. While I am delighted that "carer" is now added to every document and every paragraph— sometimes, I think, to every sentence in every paragraph—of documents which have anything to do with health or social care produced by the Department of Health, nonetheless, we should be clear about which carers we mean. Social workers are called carers these days, as are paid home-care workers, foster carers, and so forth.
I am sure that the intention of the Bill is to include informal carers—that is, family members or neighbours who provide care for patients or people who are to be patients as a result of a pre-existing relationship rather than people who are drafted in as a result of a need. Therefore, it is important to provide a definition.
I am not sure that this amendment is entirely right. For example, as currently drafted, it would include any representation of young carers. It may be that some foundation trusts would want to include young carers in that, but I believe that the Bill intends focusing on the so-called informal carers; namely, family members, neighbours and such like. This amendment is helpful in providing such a definition. I hope that the Minister will either accept the amendment or at least place on record his own definition of the carers who are to be included in the Bill.
Baroness Hanham: My point does not really arise directly out of this amendment, but I believe that it is relevant. I should like to ask the Minister another question about the constitution or the make-up of the board of governors. What happens when a member of

221
staff who has been elected as a staff constituency member leaves? Does he or she remain a member of the board or does he or she automatically have to retire from the board? There is nothing within the constitutional definition which states that. Nor is there any information about what happens if a person who lives within the local area, and who is elected to the board, leaves the local area. Will there be an obligation on them to retire or stand down and thus trigger an election all over again for a couple of positions?
I should be grateful if the Minister could direct me to where that answer might be found. If not, it may be appropriate to put down amendments at a later stage to make the constitutional position clear.
Lord Warner: I will write to the noble Baroness rather than guess at answers to her always interesting, but often rather detailed, questions on this issue. In a sense, all these amendments raise the point that we discussed earlier; essentially the Government's willingness to trust NHS foundation trusts to make considerable judgments of their own about many of their governance arrangements. What all these amendments have in common is a wish to prescribe in more detail than we think appropriate at this stage of the life of foundation trusts.
Against that context, perhaps I may deal with the particular amendments. Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 37 lay down a rather rigid requirement on the percentage of NHS patients who live outside the membership area being brought into the electorate. Although, rightly, the Bill leaves it to the discretion of foundation trusts whether to have patient members, it is clear that where a trust serves a significant proportion of out-of-area patients, these people should be eligible for membership. But it is not right to specify an arbitrary percentage.
The variation of people who will live outside a particular trust area could be huge if we look at some of the applicants for foundation trust status. There could be an area which draws virtually all its patients from, say, somewhere like Rotherham, whereas somewhere like Moorfields draws its patients from not only a national constituency but almost an international constituency. We do not believe that an arbitrary percentage is the best way of dealing with that issue, which is a real world issue for many of the applicants for foundation trust status.
We have some concerns about Amendment No. 16. Some specialist centres take patients from all over the country. Many teaching hospitals provide a wide range of services to people outside their immediate area. In both cases, it may be appropriate to include patients and carers from outside the local area as members of the public constituency. But other trusts provide almost all their services to people living in a clearly defined area. In those cases, it may not be necessary to make special provision for the inclusion of patients who live outside that area, even though they may treat a small number of patients who pass through while on holiday or are taken ill at work.
222
Again, we do not think that we are clever enough to lay down prescriptively now arrangements which will fit the needs of all applicants for foundation trust status.
Amendment No. 17 raises the issue of current patients' eligibility for membership. I agree with the principle that both current and former patients should be eligible for membership of an NHS foundation trust, if the constitution includes provision for patient membership. However, the amendment is unnecessary as the wording used in the Bill—
"individuals who have attended any of the corporation's hospitals"—
would capture both current and former patients.
Amendment No. 18, in effect, removes reference to attendance at an NHS foundation trust facility. I assume that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that all patients of an NHS foundation trust would be eligible for membership by removing the requirement to have attended an NHS foundation trust hospital. However, under Section 128 of the NHS Act 1977, the definition of a hospital includes,
"any institution for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from illness",
including clinics, dispensaries and out-patient departments. It is difficult to imagine how someone could be a patient of an NHS foundation trust without attending any of these. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary.
I have already dealt with the issue of private patients. I managed to surprise the noble Earl in what I had to say. I think that what I said earlier dealt with the issues concerned with Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. Amendment No. 21 is about defining carers. I have the greatest respect for the experience and knowledge in the area of carers of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. However, the amendment would strictly define who was a carer. One of the things which we have learned—certainly from my own experience and association with the carers area—is that definitions and expectations of who is a carer have changed historically over time. At this point, it is somewhat difficult territory to have an arbitrary definition of carers which may exclude people who one would want particularly to be able to participate in the work of the new foundation trusts.
Again, using the argument of flexibility, we are doubtful about any attempt to draw up a definition of carers that would limit participation for all time to that particular definition—and I shall certainly not attempt to do so now.
8 p.m.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for his explanation. In view of the time I do not propose to speak at length, except to say that I believe he has misunderstood the amendment concerning patients who have not actually attended the hospital. The issue here is tele-medicine, as I mentioned earlier.
Turning to the issue of carers, the definition I have used in the amendment was lifted straight from the draft mental incapacity Bill. It also featured in the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, so it has a good pedigree attached to it.

223
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, indicated, there is real potential for considerable argument if some kind of definition is not put into the Bill. 1 do not think that any noble Lord envisages giving the vote to someone who helps out with the occasional bit of shopping for their next-door neighbour, any more than it is envisaged giving the vote to a professional paid carer who has been drafted in to do a job. The kind of carer with a legitimate personal interest in the way that a foundation trust functions is the individual described in my amendment. I hope that the Government might feel disposed to think again on this point. Given the hour, however, I do not propose to say more and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 21 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill
8.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Countess of Mar) in the Chair.]
Clause 45 [Prohibition of certain air weapons]:
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 37, line 9. leave out from "subsection" to end of line 12 and insert—

"1(c) insert—

"(d) any air weapon which—

(i) either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall, and

(ii) uses, or is designed or adapted for use with a self contained gas cartridge system, or

(iii) is readily convertible to fire ammunition capable of discharging a missile by the force of gunpowder or a like propellant.

(IZA) In this section—

(a) a self contained gas cartridge is a single unit containing a propellant charge of air or carbon dioxide, a valve or other device for releasing the charge, and a propellant together with a projectile;

224

(b) the term "readily convertible" has the meaning ascribed to it in section 1(6) of the Firearms Act 1982 (c. 31) (control of imitation firearms readily convertible into firearms to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies).""

The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury I shall speak to all the amendments grouped under Amendment No. 183. Those who have taken the trouble to read the amendments will have observed that there is a remarkable degree of congruence between the amendments tabled by my noble friend and those put down by myself.
Air pistols and air rifles fall neatly into two categories: those that are operated by a lever-action compressor on the actual weapon and those powered by an independent, attached high-compression gas bottle. There is no difficulty with the lever-action weapon; the problem that the Bill seeks to deal with concerns gas-powered air weapons. A specific problem arises with gas-powered air pistols. I have been informed that they can be converted relatively easily into something else. In fact, they can be converted to take rimfire ammunition using an explosive charge. Of course that turns them into a weapon completely different from and separate from air weapons.
In order to deal with the problem, in my view the Government have taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They propose to deal not with the specific problem of a particular brand of air pistol, but to prohibit all gas-powered weapons. It is proposed that they should all come within the firearms regulations. So far as the particular air pistol is concerned, I accept that that is a perfectly reasonable proposition, but whether it is the best way of dealing with the issue is entirely another matter.
These weapons have very low value. A firearms licence costs £50, although the security measures required to keep a weapon would probably cost considerably more than that. These weapons will disappear, which may be the best solution. However, the provision is to apply equally to gas-powered air rifles. There is no reason for air rifles to disappear. If there is any fear that such weapons could be cut down and converted into a weapon that can be used with a single hand and not used as a rifle, I understand that in order to do that it is necessary to cut off the means of attaching the gas bottle. No doubt a nifty armourer could find a way of achieving it, but the game would not be worth the candle. One could go to an East End pub and get a proper firearm with less trouble- if one may put it that way.
The amendments in this grouping have been drafted to do two things. The first is to exclude the gas-powered air rifle so that such weapons are not brought under the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968. We do not think that that is unreasonable. The Minister will see that the amendments contain dimensions which we believe would make this a secure proposition. We do not see why the use of gas-powered air rifles should not be allowed to continue.
Secondly, turning to gas-powered air pistols, the particular brand that is the cause of the problem is a thing called a "Brocock". I have handled a good many

225
different weapons with the police and it has been an interesting experience, but I have not encountered this firearm.
I understand the wonderful and terrifying use of a sawn-off shotgun, but sawing down a rifle, which in reality is a sniper's weapon, would be an act of incredible folly and would certainly not make it a more usable weapon at close quarters, which is what criminals are mostly concerned with. A sawn-off shotgun is entirely another matter, but that is a diversion. I seek simply to make the point that a sawn-off air rifle, even if that could be done, would be a useless weapon. There would be no point in doing so. However, these pistols are a problem.
The amendments have two purposes. The first is to limit the effect of the Bill. They seek to take the pistols—not the rifles—out of commission by bringing them under the firearms regulations. Secondly, the effect of the final amendment and of bringing these weapons within the firearms regulations will be that the people who own them will have to get rid of them. As the Firearms Act removed ordinary handguns from general use, so this part of the Bill will have the same effect on these weapons.
Where people feel that it is necessary to get rid of these weapons, we believe that they should be eligible for compensation. The sums of money involved will not be large because the weapons involved are relatively low cost. We are not dealing with game guns and those kinds of weapons, which can cost hundreds if not thousands of pounds; we are talking about handguns which may cost £50 or £60.I do not know the numbers involved, but the amount of compensation in these circumstances would not be unreasonable. There should not be any difficulty because a precedent has been set by what was done with ordinary handguns.
That is the purpose of this group of amendments. I do not intend to go through them one by one and spell them out in detail. An outline of their purposes is sufficient. I hope that the Minister might find it in her heart to treat them with some sympathy. She has that steely glint in her grin, which means that she may well not do so. That will mean simply that we shall have to return to the matter again on another occasion. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 184 and 185.
Earl Peel: I support the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury—that is, Amendments Nos. 183, 189, 191 and 193. I must declare an interest as vice-chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council.
Before I address the amendments, it is important that I should reiterate the view of all responsible shooters that the misuse of firearms must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Nevertheless, it is very important, I hope the Minister
226
agrees, for the Government to ensure, as per their manifesto commitment to the sport of shooting, that legitimate sporting shooters do not bear the brunt of heavy-handed legislation. The Government must deliver legislation that is appropriate and proportionate.
It is my view and that of the British Shooting Sports Council that Clause 45, which aims to address the real problems of firearms misuse, deals indiscriminately with sporting shooters, who are responsible members of the community, and those who would indulge in anti-social behaviour. It is for that reason that I support my noble friend's amendments, which will be moved today by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith.
In so doing, it is appropriate that I should acknowledge the work of the British Shooting Sports Council, which, I am sure the Minister will agree, has worked tirelessly to resolve these issues in as comprehensive a way as possible.
Amendment No. 183 is specifically designed to reduce the order-making powers set out in Clause 45, which, as I have said, are far too wide-ranging and give the Secretary of State too much power. I am convinced that these powers could be used to ban a wide range of air weapons, perversely leading to a situation where controls on air guns could end up being tighter than the controls on other and more dangerous weapons.
Surely the correct and equitable way of dealing with such problems is to identify where the abuses are taking place and to introduce specific legislation to deal with the problem. To introduce these wide-ranging powers in a catch-all fashion shows, I suggest, a disrespect for responsible members of the shooting community. It would lead to discrimination against them and, as I have already said, go against what the Government have pledged that they would not do—to introduce legislation that would impinge on shooters.
With regard to Amendment No. 189, our laws should, in my view, reflect what is appropriate to the realities of shooting today. As well as ensuring firearms controls are designed appropriately, it is equally important to consider balancing ministerial powers to allow the Government to relax controls that serve no purpose. Amendment No. 192, which I did not specifically mention, also covers this point.
Amendment No. 191 would limit the wide-ranging power the Government are proposing to bestow on the Secretary of State to ban any air gun he or she deems to be specifically dangerous, a point that I have already raised. The amendment would limit the Government's power to deal with an identified problem.
Finally, Amendment No. 193 would replace the proposed licensing scheme for Brococks, to which my noble friend referred. I agree with him; I am not an expert in these matters and, to the best of my knowledge, have never seen or indeed handled a Brocock, but I acknowledge that they are causing the Government considerable difficulties.
It is generally accepted among holders of these weapons—and the British Shooting Sports Council feels very strongly about this—that it would be more appropriate to ban their use and offer compensation

227
instead, rather than trying to introduce this rather cumbersome, bureaucratic licensing system which the Government propose.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for raising these issues. I appreciate the nature of their concerns and would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge what has just been said by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that the shooting community very much agrees with us that the misuse of firearms is abhorrent. That is our starting point. The noble Earl was right to point out that there is a need for proportionality and balance. I join him in congratulating the council on its approach in working very hard to make sure that we have a system which is robust.
We have listened with great care and attention to what has been proposed, but there is the issue of balance. The Government believe that in relation to these issues, we have the balance about right. I appreciate that the amendments would restrict the proposed ban on air weapons which use the self-contained gas cartridge system to handguns only. Furthermore, I appreciate that the ban would apply only in respect of handguns which can be readily converted to fire ammunition using the force of gunpowder or other explosive material to discharge a missile. I understand the way in which they are put. But as your Lordships will be aware, the controls we propose are needed because certain types of weapons are being converted. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says that they should not be converted, but we know that they are being converted and used, regrettably, in an increasing number of violent criminal acts, including murder and attempted murder.
I accept that at the moment these conversions are carried out on various types of handgun and the ammunition involved uses some kind of explosive charge. But unfortunately, we know that criminals are very resourceful; if they cannot get one type of weapon, they cast around for something else which they would find of equal utility.
We considered very carefully whether the ban on self-contained cartridge systems should be confined to hand guns only, but regrettably, the problem is with the system itself and the ease with which it can be used to fire conventional bullets. How long would it be before a rifle is used in a shooting if all other types of these guns are banned?
The same applies to confining any powers to weapons which can be converted to discharge a missile by the force of gunpowder. It simply does not make sense to restrict ourselves to what is presently known to be the problem, only to find ourselves unable to act quickly when a new weapon finds favour with criminals.
Amendment No. 183, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggests the definition of a self-contained gas cartridge. I understand why people wish to differentiate between the type of mechanism
228
currently being converted and other systems that use CO2 bulbs. It is certainly not our intention to ban the latter, and 1 do not believe that the current definition does so.
I suspect that Amendment No. 192 relates principally to the availability of expanding ammunition, rather than anything involving anti-social behaviour and the issues that we are discussing today. I am aware that the present restrictions have caused some difficulties, but we shall shortly undertake a review of firearms legislation generally and we shall consider the issue then. We know that the current legislation in that area is about 35 years old, and a fresh eye is merited.
Amendment No. 193 would introduce provision for a compensation scheme. We are not seeking to use the order-making powers unless a particular problem arises in respect of an air weapon that is considered to be especially dangerous. As with the prohibition on the air cartridge system, we shall seek to strike a fair balance between the interests of individuals who own the guns and the wider public interest. Existing owners will, on obtaining a certificate, be able to retain them for their own use, and retailers and manufacturers will be able to run down existing stock and obtain authority to sell overseas if they so wish.
In those circumstances, we do not believe that compensation is payable in relation to the proposed ban on guns using the air cartridge system, and we would certainly not wish to commit ourselves to making a compensation scheme in future. However, I assure noble Lords opposite that in Clause 45 we intend only to act proportionately in relation to the problems associated with the criminal misuse of the air weapons. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Peel: I should like to address the Minister on the points she made about Amendment No. 193. The British Shooting Sports Council, on behalf of people who own such weapons, is actually prepared to give them up in exchange for compensation because it acknowledges the difficulties to which the Minister has referred. Would it not be cheaper, simpler and altogether more satisfactory to decide that we should not have any more of those weapons and to pay compensation accordingly? The alternative is to have a complicated and cumbersome licensing system, which I should have thought the Government would be only too willing to dispose of in favour of our alternative suggestion. It seems common sense to go along with that.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am tempted to say, "If only it were so". We do not have any indication that would cause us to believe that it would be the cheaper option. Noble Lords will know, too, that there is an issue as to the payment of compensation generally and more broadly. We do not believe that it would be an appropriate use of funds or that it is justified as the provisions are made. We believe that the proposals for obtaining a certificate are appropriate, as they would allow those who already have the weapons to retain

229
them and the retailers and manufacturers to sell them overseas if they so wished. We do not see that compensation would be merited.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for his support, and to the Minister for her reply, even though I find it, unsurprisingly, disappointing. The provision is still a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Our problem—I agree that it is a problem for both sides but not for responsible shooters—is the use that the criminal fraternity will make of an opportunity. I accept that that is a real difficulty. However, as my noble friend said, here we have a situation where the legitimate community are prepared to give up the whole weapon if they are compensated for it. I accept that if they can continue to use it, compensation should not be paid. However, the question is whether anyone who currently does not have a firearms licence will want to go to the trouble and expense of getting one, with all the additional security measures that are incumbent on them if they hold such a licence for the keeping of a gun, for something that is of relatively little value.
I do not know the answer to that; different individuals will come to different conclusions. However, for many people, the effect of the Bill as it stands is not that the weapon is being confiscated but that it is being banned. That is the reality. That does therefore argue to a certain extent in favour of compensation.
Of course, we can never deal with the criminal fraternity completely as regards the conversion, alteration or modification of weapons. There are criminal armourers out there who can start with a bar of steel and end up with a finished weapon. We are not proposing to ban people from owning bars of steel, although that is almost the implication behind this part of the Bill. I agree that that is arguing a very extreme case. Nevertheless, I think that there is merit in dealing with what is a specific problem in a specific way. If subsequently there is another specific problem, perhaps we could produce an amendment to those that we have produced to enable that problem to be dealt with also. We must consider that.
We shall study the noble Baroness's reply with great care and see what we wish to do about it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 184 to 193 not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 46 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Avebury: I should like briefly to speak to Clause 46 stand part. I have given the noble Baroness notice that I was going to mention the research being conducted by MCM Research Ltd on behalf of Defra, on the implications for noise disturbance from licensed premises. I originally raised this matter in the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill on 10th February when there was no sign of the report being produced by the time that
230
the House rose at the end of July. I wrote to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, asking about the production of the report, and I received a reply from Mr Richard Caborn, dated 20th August, again giving no indication of when the report was to be published but assuring me that relevant insights would be reflected in the guidance on the Licensing Act. I now understand that the report is to be published at the end of October and that the guidance will follow hard on its heels in early November.
Those Members of the Committee who took part in the proceedings on the Licensing Bill will remember that we had several discussions on the importance of the guidance and that after a good deal of prevarication the Ministers in charge of that Bill produced an early draft. It now appears that we shall have no opportunity of commenting on the guidance or on the Defra report before these key documents are set in stone. We have very little confidence in the Defra study as it was commissioned from a company whose clients are largely concerned with the production of alcohol and the business of selling it. The manner in which the findings of the report are to be released at a seminar outside Parliament, not to Parliament, confirms the anxieties that we felt. We request that the Government allow time for discussion of that document and of the guidance, however little influence your Lordships may have on the way in which they are applied.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: It probably falls to me to respond to the noble Lord rather than my noble friend Lady Scotland, although neither of us received notice of the matter. I believe that the noble Lord referred to the MCM research and the draft report on noise from licensed premises. Considerable discussion took place on noise from licensed premises during the passage of the Licensing Bill. The report will be published on 29th October. That coincides with the UK noise forum conference at which all the concerned parties will be brought together before any definitive guidance is issued.
Although I understand the points that have been made and am familiar with such points made in a different context, Clause 46 is not dependent on the guidance to which the noble Lord referred. Therefore, I do not believe that to oppose the Question that Clause 46 stand part of the Bill meets the noble Lord's point. However, I undertake to write to the noble Lord in more detail on the UK noise forum conference.
Baroness Hamwee: I did not know that my noble friend Lord Avebury intended to raise this point. It would certainly be helpful when the guidance is issued to have attached to it an explanation of the difference between the criteria that are used to judge noise in the context of the Licensing Bill and those that are used to judge public nuisance as it is public nuisance rather

231
than noise itself which is the subject of this part of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. One can see the scope for confusion there.
Lord Hylton: While we are considering Clause 46 it would be helpful if the Government could explain why closure for a period not exceeding 24 hours is likely to be helpful. Is it intended just as a warning to the owners or managers of a particular premises from which noise nuisance is emanating that their conduct has been noticed and is thought to be excessive, or what other purpose can it serve? Twenty-four hours seems a very short period.
Some years ago I had experience in rural Somerset of complaints regarding a particular pub. I know that noise from such premises can cause great local aggravation, particularly to people living in the immediate neighbourhood of the premises, but I am somewhat mystified by the way in which this clause is drafted.
Lord Whitty: The aim of the power within the clause is to stop the noise. It is not of itself a penalty or a warning; it seeks to ensure that the disturbance caused by the noise stops. There are, of course, criminal proceedings beyond that point but the 24-hour period seeks to ensure that the particular nuisance that is being caused is ended instantly.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Closure of noisy premises: supplemental]:
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 193ZA:
Page 38, line 29, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 193ZB and 193ZC. Amendment No. 193ZA picks up the point that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Clause 46(3)(a) provides that a closure order may not exceed 24 hours. My amendment probes why that is necessary and the circumstances in which it was envisaged that it would be used. The amendment suggests deleting Clause 47(1)(a) and (b), because I find it particularly difficult to envisage circumstances in which a closure order of up to 24 hours may be made and then cancelled. I assume that it would have to be cancelled within the 24 hours, or it would have expired.
Amendments Nos. 193ZB and 193ZC suggest that a chief executive of a local authority can appoint any officer to exercise the closure powers, not only an environmental health officer. I have made a note that the Local Government Association raised that matter, although I confess that I could not find the reference to that in my papers this afternoon when I looked for it, so it may have been my imagination, but I think not.
The Government may suggest that environmental health officers know their way around the area legally speaking, but one can imagine that only an inexperienced EHO might be available at a given time. Would it not be more sensible to give the powers to a more senior local authority officer, perhaps accompanied by an EHO? I cannot believe that chief executives would be reckless in giving that authority.
232
They would know that the buck stopped with them. To make the provision as easily exercisable as I am sure that the Government want it to be, so that minor matters do not stop its use, they might consider whether the powers could be widened somewhat. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on the previous clause, the point of the 24-hour closure is to end the public nuisance, not to punish the owner or manager of the licensed premises. For example, if a nuisance were related to the televising of a football match one evening and a huge crowd were watching the match on the premises, there would be no reason, provided that everything had quietened down, why the pub should not open again at 11 o'clock the next morning. The environmental health officer would have to make that judgment, clearly, but without that provision the 24-hour order would always stand for 24 hours.
Lord Avebury: An order does not have to be for 24 hours. According to Clause 46(3), it could be for the duration of the football match or the remainder of the time when the licensed premises would have remained open that evening anyway, and not for the 24 hours, which would extend into the following day's opening.
Lord Whitty: Yes, but if there were a current disturbance, clearly whoever was imposing the order would want to act on a precautionary basis and could do so for up to 24 hours. He could do so for less than 24 hours as, within 20 minutes of the order having been issued, everything might have calmed down with everyone having gone home for the night. Therefore, there is no reason why the pub should not open for the normal, quiet, decent regulars the next morning. That is the only point. The provision gives a little flexibility, whereas one might have said that the place needed to be kept closed until one was absolutely sure that the incident was over.
On the other two amendments, I understand the noble Baroness's point in extremis, but in most cases the environmental health officers responsible have the training, skill and expertise for dealing with noise, public nuisance and abatement orders. Therefore, it is normal that those who have that statutory function should be specified in the Bill. While I am not undermining the integrity of the chief officers, were that to be diluted, people without such experience could have this stringent, draconian statutory power. That would not be desirable. I would not therefore be prepared to accept those two amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend Lord Avebury made the point I would have made on the length and cancellation of the closure order. As regard Amendments Nos. 193ZB and 193ZC, I accept that environmental health officers have the expertise, but, as in other areas of local government, they are stretched. My suggestion was not to change what

233
might be normal but to allow a little more flexibility. However, I hear what the Minister says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 193ZB and 193ZC not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Penalty notices for graffiti and fly-posting]:
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 193ZD:
Page 40, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 193ZD, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 193ZE, 193ZF and 193ZG. We tabled the amendment not because we do not want to deal with graffiti and fly-posting and not because we do not believe they are serious offences—I use that expression in the generalised sense—but because we believe the Government should justify conferring on civilians the power to apply fixed-penalty notices. Perhaps the Minister could give other examples of civilians having such powers. I recall that the community support officers, whose existence has recently been brought into being by statute, have the power to detain people for up to 30 minutes. Even they, as part of the police force, do not have powers to impose fixed-penalty notices.
I am obliged to the Law Society for raising the point. It is right to question whether the piecemeal extension of police powers will improve effectiveness and enforcement. The Law Society has drawn my attention to the Home Office police operational guidance on penalty notices for disorder offences. It mentions the importance of the accurate identification of suspects and their place of residence. It states that failure to identify a suspect and his address prior to issue of the fixed-penalty notice could invalidate the enforcement process, compromise the scheme's integrity and bring it into disrepute. It also stresses the need for documentary evidence rather than "non-physical sources". Does that raise an issue when dealing with children? Without the support of a police officer, a claim of false identity will often be effective protection from the enforcement of fixed-penalty notices. Civilians do not have the power to detain an individual or to ascertain his identity.
The piecemeal extension of police powers, without regulation—the Minister may assist me on what regulation, training and so on there will be—provides the possibility of the abuse of police powers by those who do not have the professional training to use them. We have a respect for our police and our police are publicly recognisable. I would certainly welcome the police being relieved of duties which civilians can carry out. Although this is not an absolutely equivalent situation, none the less, having listened over the years to debates about, for example, whether non-uniformed officers can stop traffic, I believe that the Government need to justify why they want to deal with the matter in this way.
Amendments Nos. 193ZE and 193ZF relate to the amount of the fixed-penalty notice. Under Clause 49( 10) the amount is to be £50 and under Clause 49(11) a different amount can be substituted. I am sure we shall be told that the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales will consult before they make any change to the amount. However, there would be no harm in enshrining that consultation on the face of the statute. Indeed, a requirement for consultation that goes wider than simply the local authorities would be welcome and, I believe, important.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has tabled later amendments inspired, I suspect, by a number of the cable operators, and so on, who have an important concern about the costs to them of dealing, in particular, with fly-posting. We shall come to that in due course. However, I believe that they, too, need to be brought into the consultation loop.
My main point relates to the level of the penalty. The sum of £50 seems to be rather derisory and, of course, is imposed only if one can catch the person who is doing the fly-posting. Should the penalty be the same everywhere? Is this not something that each local authority should have the opportunity to put a figure on and say, "This is a real problem in our area. We want to crack down really hard"? I believe that different authorities may well have different views, and Amendment No. 193ZF would permit variations between the authorities.
Amendment No. 193ZG seeks to leave out a substantial part of Clause 51.1 welcome the fact that the penalties will be payable to local authorities. I do not believe that the Minister will be surprised if I ask why receipts may be used only for "qualifying functions". Why do we not allow the money, as subsection (5) anticipates, to be used for all functions across the local authority? The provision proposes ring-fencing of what is not likely to be a very great deal of money. It may simply entail the rather bureaucratic nonsense of ensuring that certain expenditure is designated as coming out of a particular pot, or it could entail a real restriction. I suspect that not enough cash will be involved for there to be a real restriction. However, as a matter of principle, we oppose ring-fencing and I believe that it is needless in this situation.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to my plea that either the fence or the ring—I am not sure which—is lifted from this money and that it is available for any use that the local authority considers proper. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness is mistaken to say that these powers are new. The terms of the Bill are based largely on those that already exist for litter and have done since at least 1990, in the Environmental Protection Act, and for dog fouling since 1996. In both cases, local authority officers—now community support officers—issue fixed penalty fines. So that is not new and the amendment would remove any reference to allowing such authorised officers to issue fixed penalty notices. Therefore, that would completely remove the new power and I would not be

235
prepared to accept that because I believe that Clause 49 provides a valuable new tool to local authorities and a more coherent system whereby these issues are dealt with in the same way as litter and dog fouling.
On the second and third amendments in this group, the amount is set at £50. That relates to minor offences, whereas for major offences it is possible to resort to prosecution and a court judgment. It is also important that the level of £50 can be altered, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, following consultation by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly. We recognise the point that some local authorities would wish to be able to set the level themselves.
While that has attractions, we are consulting on the matter to some extent in the consultation paper Living Places—Powers, Rights and Responsibilities led by my department. There may be difficulties in that there would be less clarity about the level of penalty. Conceivably it could lead to displacement of activities for authorities that charged a smaller penalty and it would remove the clarity of a fixed penalty fine. Nevertheless, in the Bill we envisage the possibility, in the light of the responses to the consultation to which I have referred, that at a subsequent stage we could introduce greater flexibility for individual authorities.
Amendment No. 193ZG deals with how we use the receipts. The noble Baroness says that that is akin to ring-fencing. In one sense it is, but before this Bill, the money would have gone straight to the Exchequer so the local authorities would not have had it in the first place. So there is at least some advance. I recognise that in the long term one may wish to be more flexible, but in the short term we are faced with the fact that very few local authorities take this matter as one of their priorities.
Significant resources will be needed for enforcement and it seems sensible, at least in the initial stages, for that money to be recycled to provide support for the administration and enforcement against these offences. Again, the power exists for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to specify other functions on which the funds could be spent. As the noble Baroness will know—I believe that she entirely approves of this—there may be an occasion when high-performing authorities would be given greater flexibility as to how they spend the receipts. For the moment we believe that the money should be spent on the area with which the offences deal.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister. On his last point, I recognise that the possibility exists of allowing different authorities to have different amounts for penalties, but I struggle to see that it exists under the Bill, because Clause 49(11) allows for an order to substitute "a different amount", not different amounts. Can the Minister help me further on that? I am interested to hear that consultation is currently taking place on that. It would be a great pity if, even if the difference between local authorities were not applied at the start, the possibility was not included in the Bill.
Lord Whitty: If I gave the impression that there is a specific power to grant that flexibility, that may be a
236
slight exaggeration. The Government are in the process of consulting on whether that would be desirable for local authorities. It would still be for the Secretary of State to confirm any differentiation under existing powers. If there were a more general system, that would require a change to the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I realise that; that is why I am trying to pre-empt a bit more legislation by suggesting the possibility now. I hear what the Minister says; I am grateful for his answers on all the amendments and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 193ZE and 193ZF not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 49 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: The Minister mentioned earlier that fixed penalties were not the only way to proceed against people who have written up graffiti or indulged in fly-posting. Could he go a little further and say that, where there is desecration of cemeteries, painting of swastikas on the walls of synagogues or painting of other offensive slogans on churches or mosques, the normal way of proceeding will be by prosecution, not by fixed penalties?
Lord Whitty: Yes, the intention is to use fixed penalties for minor instances of offences that would not otherwise have been worth the expense of prosecution, although prosecution will still remain an option. We do not think that fixed penalty notices are at all appropriate for offences that are racially or religiously targeted or motivated. The clause therefore specifically excludes those and they would therefore be subject to prosecution.
Clause 49 agreed to.
9 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 193ZFA:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
"FLY-POSTING REMOVAL

(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3) of section 224 (enforcement of control as to advertisements) for "level 3" substitute "level 4".

(3) In subsection (1) of section 225 (power to remove or obliterate placards and posters) leave out "or obliterate".

(4) In subsection (2) of section 225 (power to remove or obliterate placards and posters) leave out "or obliteration".

(5) In subsection (3)(b) of section 225 (power to remove or obliterate placards and posters) leave out "or obliterate".

(6) In subsection (5) of section 225 (power to remove or obliterate placards and posters) for "two days" substitute "six hours"."

The noble Baroness said: The amendment was suggested by the London Borough of Camden. I know that several Members of the Committee visited the borough recently to see its work. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is nodding; I know that my noble friend Lord Avebury and, I think, the noble Lord,

237
Lord Hylton, were among the group that went. As one who was unable to go, I seem to be moving the amendment.
Camden has done a great deal of work to tackle fly-posting through designing hoardings in a way that makes it difficult to attach posters to them and by painting street furniture in a way that cuts down the amount of fly-posting. Of course, it is struggling with the present legislation. It welcomes the measures in the Bill, but recognises the limitations. Illegal fly-posting tends to happen at night and is done very quickly. The chances are that not many successful fixed-penalty notices will be issued. The amendments would approach the issue from another direction by amending the current legislation.
Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, local authorities can give notice in writing to a person who displays, or causes to be displayed, a poster or placard on an illegal site. Very often, as we have all seen, those involved are the promoters of nightclubs or record companies—they say that it is done by the DJs or artists themselves. I declare an interest as a partner in a firm that acts for many recording artists and record companies. I am sure that our clients would never do any such thing. They are so successful that they do not need to.
The notice served states that the offender has 48 hours to remove or "obliterate" the poster. If they do not do so, local authorities can recover reasonable expenses. I understand that the standard recharge fee per poster is around £100. If the same promoter puts up a poster in the same locality within 28 days, the local authority can take action resulting in prosecution. The average fine is around £500.
That figure does not reflect the amount of work that goes into tackling the problem. Local authorities must identify the marketing company. The people who undertake fly-posting, being fairly fly themselves, tend to use unmarked vehicles so that they are difficult to identify. The costs of identifying those behind what is being advertised is also a difficulty.
From the other perspective, the current legislation requiring removal within 48 hours means that the offender has had two days' free advertising. Often that is all that is needed if, for instance, a Friday club night is being advertised. The offenders can deface or obliterate a poster simply by putting up another one on top of it.
The amendment proposes alterations to the Town and Country Planning Act. It would be good to reduce the removal time to no time at all. I have proposed six hours because I did not want to give the Minister the easy response that nobody can do something in no time. The removal of the poster should be required as opposed to allowing the "deface" or "obliterate" option. Another possible amendment could be to increase fine levels.
I accept that those measures cannot fully address the problem. The London Borough of Camden, which has raised the issue with me, also recognises that the Government are attempting to address the problem in
238
a more modern fashion through the provisions in the Bill. But all measures to deal with this very offensive habit should be put in place and made as effective as possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I support the amendments. I do not think that they will quite do the job, but it is important that we start to make the effort. The Government probably have a lot of sympathy with the amendment, as it is completely in line with the idea that, where there is grime, there is crime. Without a clean environment, it is even more difficult to deal with anti-social behaviour and the problems that arise from it. I declare an interest because I live in Camden, but my borough is not alone in feeling the need to deal with these problems. I know that it is important for us to look at the problem from all different angles.
Lord Whitty: I recognise some of the concerns behind the noble Baroness's tabling of this additional clause. It raises a number of ticklish problems in taking a view on the matter, but I understand the issues with which it is intended to deal. The question of raising the level of penalty would apply in cases in which the fixed penalty did not apply and prosecution was either the preferred option of the authorities or the recipient of a fixed notice refused to pay. However, as your Lordships will be aware, the raising of one level to another requires the Home Office to make some assessment about all the other offences that would move. I regret that we have not been able to do that in the time available. A fairly formidable case must be made in order for change to occur. We could certainly look at the matter.
On the question of "or obliterate", it is clear that, in most cases, the preferred option for the authorities is to remove the fly poster. However, there will be circumstances in which damage could be caused to the building and it would be better to obliterate it. The noble Baroness's amendment would not leave open such an "exceptional circumstances" option. At present, the amendment reads as though they are equivalent options, but we need "or obliterate" as an option of some sort. I could not, therefore, accept that amendment as it stands.
There is some merit in reducing the time from two days to six hours, especially because one way of removing fly posters is to stick another on top and pretend the first was never there, which can easily be done in two days. I am not sure whether a more limited period would reduce that abuse. We are not clear that that would work in practice.
Although I sympathise with the amendments, it is unlikely that they are acceptable to the Government in their present form. We will consider them further between now and Report. I would not, however, like to raise expectations that we would be able to come forward with amendments in this legislation, given the time constraints upon us all in this Bill. The Government, however, will take on board the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: 1 am obviously grateful for the Minister's comments. However—and this is not confined to this Bill—although we are very close to the end of the Session, we are at only the Committee stage and it is disappointing to hear that it is too late to pursue something that has a good deal of support. The Minister's response was also sympathetic. Really, one wonders what we are all up to. I do not wish to have a go at the Minister because he is in a difficult position, but he tempts me to return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Penalty receipts]:
[Amendment No. 193ZG not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Graffiti removal notices]:
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 193A:
Page 43. line 18, at end insert "(not being a community scheme contributor)"
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments attempts to deal specifically with the issue of graffiti removal notices and how that general subject is dealt with. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, surmised a few moments ago, I have had some briefing from BT, NTL and Telewest on the subject.
It might be useful to fill in the background. As society develops, the demand for sophisticated communications increases. That involves cabling our streets and connecting into houses and commercial properties. It involves substations that can spread the network and identify who is using the signal and so on. The result is an increase in street furniture. There are steel boxes mounted on walls or standing on the pavement, manholes and that sort of thing.
Such objects are as vulnerable as any other structure in the street to people with a taste for graffiti. What should happen? My amendments are not exactly paralleled by the Government's group, which follows this, but both groups deal with the same subject. I am grateful to see the Government's amendments, in which they say what they see as being necessary to improve the Bill. The Government's amendments, with which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will deal in a few minutes, will go a long way towards dealing with the problems.
I should explain that the three companies that I mentioned have pointed out that they already work closely with local authorities to try to establish what we might call a reasonable modus operandi for dealing with the graffiti that appear from time to time on their substations or whatever. Those structures are not there for fun; they contain sophisticated electronic equipment to the value, in many cases, of tens of thousands of pounds. Somebody who rolls up with a bucket of paint stripper and a bucket of water to clean them down can do a great deal of damage.
The issue lying behind the amendments is how we arrive at a reasonable way of working, so that the needs of the communications companies and the need
240
of the community to have graffiti removed are met reasonably. Does the Bill meet that demand in the most appropriate way?
The Bill requires that, if graffiti appear, the relevant local authority will serve a graffiti removal notice on the owner of the property, requiring them to remove the graffiti within 28 days. The communications companies feel that they are the victims of the crime and are being made to pay for rectification. Victims of vandalism are rarely compensated, and it is rare for somebody else to clear up the mess. Usually, one has to do it oneself, unfortunately. Mostly, people have some sort of insurance that will cover most of the cost. The principle is not wholly new.
The real problem is how to handle the problem with communications. What guidance will be given to local authorities for dealing with the issue? How will a graffiti removal notice be served? Communications companies do not have teams of inspectors going around looking at their street furniture on a daily basis; it is probably on a several monthly basis, or an even a longer period. They know immediately if the electronics are out, but they will not know if someone has taken a paintbrush to it, and so on. If a local authority's way of serving a graffiti removal notice is to stick a bill on top of it, which states that there are 28 days to remove the graffiti, one is using one form of graffiti to request the removal of another. That really is not satisfactory. So we reach the need for a code of practice, which comes back to the relationships those companies were developing with local authorities.
I was surprised when in my discussions with one of the companies, which shall be nameless, I suggested that perhaps they should submit a schedule of their street furniture within a given local authority's area -and of course for each local authority they would have to submit a list—by e-mail, with an e-mail address on the bottom to which the local authority could communicate when there was a problem. I suggested that the local authority could perfectly reasonably have someone with a digital camera who could photograph the piece of street furniture. That would ensure that the identification was correct, and would show what the problem was. The notification would be immediate and absolute and in those circumstances of course it would be perfectly reasonable to expect the graffiti to be removed in 28 days.
As I said, it would not do for the notice to begin with a period when a bill was stuck on top of the offending paintwork. So really we are talking about arriving at a series of procedures which will work. I do not intend to go through these amendments seriatim yet again. I expect the Government to say that these amendments will not achieve what I seek. I want some assurance from the Government that they will work with these companies to provide an achievable and practical modus operandi for dealing with this problem.
It is important because if we do not find a successful modus operandi for areas prone to graffiti, the companies will not put in the communications infrastructure to help those communities to develop and perhaps lift themselves out of the rather despairing stage which gives rise to graffiti in the first place. So the whole issue is very important.
I do not intend, as I said, to deal with the amendments in detail because I have explained the problem. The Government's amendments in the next group go some way towards answering the problem. To a certain extent the fact that we have two groups is unfortunate. On the other hand it is natural because the Government need to get their amendments on the face of the Bill. When they are there, we can see whether any further work is needed to improve them. If the Minister gives strong assurances that the Government are working with the communications industry to find a satisfactory modus operandi which will lead to guidance to local authorities on how the matter is to be dealt with, because the present Bill does not really sufficiently deal with it, we shall all be satisfied. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: One of the points made by the communications companies is that there has been no satisfactory regulatory impact assessment in connection with Clauses 54 and 55. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will be able to comment on that. Another point made was that there has been no opportunity for input. I support the points made by the noble Lord with regard to the code, which go some way to addressing what seem to be reasonable points raised by these companies.
Perhaps I may make a brief comment concerning Amendments Nos. 193Jand 193L, which were referred to a little obliquely by the noble Lord. As I understand them, the amendments have the effect of excluding from these provisions areas designated as what he described as social inclusion priority areas; the argument being that the demand for a competitive range of utilities and electronic communication services is overriding. I do not understand that to be exclusive or in any way opposed to the environmental requirements of any and every area. It is particularly important in areas which are deprived and which do not have the advantages of some other areas where a sense of pride in the environment is fostered.
There has been reference to the need to ensure a good quality of environment as the basis for the continuation of other qualities and to the danger of letting the environment deteriorate. Once the environment starts to slip, a lot can slip with it. I hope that I have read the two amendments correctly; or perhaps I hope that I have not read them correctly. But if I read them as I described them, they are not amendments we would want to support.
Lord Hylton: I wonder whether we are perhaps trying to legislate in too much detail about what is, admittedly, a frustrating and often very annoying problem. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the situation where the victim of anti-social behaviour is required to remedy it himself. I suspect that in some cases the local authority may find that it is serving a notice on itself. I also suspect that the thrust of Clause 54 will be, to some extent, undone by exemptions in Clause 55. Perhaps the government amendment to be moved later will do something to clarify and sort out those items.
242
I should like to suggest to the Government that the removal of graffiti could be done, very suitably, by people on community service orders or by people who have been called upon by a court to make reparation for their offences through the mechanisms of restorative justice. Of course, that will frequently have to be done under supervision, particularly in the case of delicate and sophisticated technological equipment, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. However, I commend that thought to the Government.
Lord Whitty: The issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred is recognised by the Government and is one on which the telecommunications companies have made representations. The general point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is interesting, but I suspect that most owners of property of the kind referred to here would prefer to have the option of removing the graffiti themselves prior to a local authority, through whatever means, taking it upon itself to do so. That will not apply in all cases, but it would probably apply to the cases that are the particular concern of the main amendments in this grouping.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right to point out that we need to find a way of dealing with the problem, but the development of guidance rather than providing exemptions is the better way forward. The noble Lord may know that we shall pilot this whole provision in 12 local authority areas. It is important that we secure full co-operation and engagement with industry, and I believe that we will do so.
Turning to the points made about street furniture provided by the telecommunications companies—of which there are many; not all are quite as responsible as some, so that certain companies may not be signed up to genuine local initiatives—it is important that we use the pilot studies to determine the final form of the guidance. The noble Lord referred to a code of practice, but we seek to produce guidance to cover all the issues, such as dealing with delicate property, damage to property in general, health, safety and so forth. I think that that is the way to proceed rather than seeking to provide exemptions, which would allow less scrupulous companies to escape their obligations by signing up to a single local graffiti initiative.
If those initiatives work well and the industry is engaged with them, then given the 28-day notice period, one would expect the graffiti to be removed in any case. So the problem should not arise. Further, those responsible companies which play a genuine part in the initiatives should not encounter any problems. However, procedures must be worked out and concerns about particularly delicate equipment in street furniture must be resolved. Nevertheless, we all recognise that one of the most offensive forms of graffiti is quite often seen on such street furniture and therefore it must be included.
I turn to the other amendments in the grouping, Amendments Nos. 193B, 193D, 193F, 193R and 194A. Their purpose is to provide safeguards for the operation of the graffiti removal clauses, prevent

243
damage to property and to address issues of safety. The Government accept the need for such safeguards. It is for that reason that we have written the requirement for guidance on to the face of the Bill. Again, we shall consult with industry representatives on how it should be developed.
However, the effect of the amendments would be to tie local authorities into any number of codes of practice. We feel that it is less confusing to develop a single, comprehensive and coherent guide to good practice in this area, which is the intention behind providing statutory guidance.
The counter notice mechanism outlined in Amendment No. 193D would introduce an overly bureaucratic response to problems which are best addressed in the context of the guidance and good practice, which we shall develop and foster through the pilots. The amendment would introduce delay to the operation of that process. We all agree that swift action is needed here.
The noble Lord has generously recognised that the next grouping of amendments tabled by the Government deal with the issue of the appeals mechanism. I shall deal with the concerns that have been expressed when we reach the grouping. However, while I recognise the concerns, I would not be able to accept the noble Lord's amendments as they stand.
Baroness Hamwee: Is the Minister able to give an indication of the likely time-scale of the pilot studies to be undertaken and thus when one might reach "non-pilot territory"? Further, although I may have misunderstood the position, it seems that these provisions will come into effect for the pilots, but looking hastily at the commencement clause, it does not appear possible to bring the clauses into effect individually for local authority areas. Either the clauses will come into effect or they will not. Have I misunderstood that?
9.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The clauses will come into effect on the due commencement date—which we will debate later—but the statutory guidance will not be finalised until the pilots have been completed. We intend to start the pilots in April 2004 and to select the areas between now and then. The pilots will run for a number of months before we can finalise the statutory guidance. I hope that clarifies the issue.
As regards an earlier point made by the noble Baroness, the pilots will also include the basis of a proper regulatory assessment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Can the Minister be slightly more specific, particularly on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the commencement clause? If this is to work effectively and well when the pilots have finished, the problems have been established and solutions found to them, it would suggest that the commencement date for the Bill as a whole would need to be delayed. I believe that there is a general wish in the House to get other parts
244
of the Bill implemented fairly quickly. We can perhaps deal with that matter later, but it does need to be dealt with; otherwise we shall have to deal with the Bill as it is now—which is without the guidance and therefore without the practice and not in a satisfactory state. I would welcome the Minister's views on this specific issue.
Lord Whitty: I do not believe that the statutory guidance provided under these clauses alters the argument about the commencement date. The powers will be there. We will run pilots and finalise the statutory guidance in the light of those pilots. The commencement date of the powers is not relevant to the time it takes to draft the statutory guidance. After all, there are many Bills in which there is a commencement date but where guidance, codes of practice and, in some cases, regulations are not there on the commencement date.
We will come to a more general argument about the parts of the Bill which do not apply to my department, but the question of when we will get the final version of the statutory guidance does not affect the commencement date. We will of course have draft statutory guidance for use and testing out during the 12 pilot studies, but we will not have the final version until somewhat later.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My concern is not so much about the procedure for the guidance but about the fact that an assiduous local authority, with the Bill on the statute book, could act on the words of the Bill without the guidance and thereby cause some difficulty.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord would not be correct to say that before the full completion of the powers, which include the statutory guidance, one could act outwith those terms. It would be better if I were to write to the noble Lord on that basis. Basically, we will have draft guidance; we will have the 12 pilot schemes testing out that draft guidance; and the powers will commence in those areas only for that period. Once we have completed the pilots and developed the final guidance, the powers will roll-out more generally.
The noble Lord will probably require that from me in slightly more legalistic language, so I shall offer to write to him.
Lord Dixon: I am grateful to the Minister. He has done his best to clear up the dilemma, but it is still there. Whether the guidance is there or no, the statute will be there and will have commenced. Therefore it seems to me that, technically, the powers that exist in the Bill will be available to local authorities to use. If we recognise that that is a difficulty, that is sufficient.
As I have said, our amendments were in this instance a sprat to catch a mackerel. We have gone some way towards achieving this with the Government's amendments which will follow. We have gone some way towards achieving it in this debate and the assurance that we have received from the Minister that the Government are aware of the problem and are

245
looking at it, that there will be pilot schemes to see how to make this work, and work satisfactorily, and so on. So this has, in fact, been a useful debate. None the less, we shall need to look at the Minister's words with care to see whether there are points we will wish to raise later. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 193B not moved.]
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 193C:
Page 43, line 29, at end insert—
"(5A) A graffiti removal notice must explain the effect of subsections (4) and (5) and sections (Recovery of expenditure) and (Appeals)."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 193C, I should like to speak to the amendments related to it. This deals with the batch of amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has already spoken of with approval. I therefore feel that I probably do not need to say very much to the Committee tonight. Most of these amendments relate to the guidance, on which we have had some discussion. The amendments also ensure that local authorities remain generally liable for damages not directly connected with the lawful exercise of the new power. That should be some reassurance to the companies involved.
Graffiti on the types of properties these clauses cover is a real blight, and people expect local authorities to be able to ensure that it is removed. That is why the powers are there, and it is important that they are.
The amendments also provide for a suitable appeals system and for safeguards to protect the interests of the owners of private property who might otherwise be detrimentally affected by the preceding clauses.
Again, the effect of these clauses will be piloted in the 12 areas and the results will be taken into account in the final form of the statutory guidance. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: It is tempting to repeat much of what I have said, but I think I will at this stage welcome these amendments. They help the Bill forward and will give some reassurance to those who are concerned about the Bill, even if they do not go quite as far as one might consider totally desirable. But I am glad to see them and I thank the Government for them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 193D not moved.]
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 193E:
Page 44, line 22, leave out second "section" and insert "sections (Recovery of expenditure) to"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 193Fand 193G not moved.]
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 193H:
Page 44, line 26, at end insert—
""graffiti removal notice" has the meaning given by subsection (2),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 193J not moved.]
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 193K:
Page 44, line 30, after "160(4)" insert "and (5)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 193L not moved.]
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 193M:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—
"RECOVERY OF EXPENDITURE

(1) A local authority may recover from the person on whom a
graffiti removal notice was served expenditure reasonably
incurred in exercise of the power under section 54(4).

(2) A local authority may not recover expenditure from a
person under subsection (1) unless it has served on that person a
notice which sets out the amount of, and details of, the
expenditure which it proposes to recover.

(3) Section 160 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.
43) has effect in relation to notices under subsection (2) as if they
were notices within subsection (2) of that section."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 193N:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—
"GUIDANCE

(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local
authorities in England for the purposes of sections 54 and
(Recovery of expenditure).

(2) The National Assembly for Wales must issue guidance to
local authorities in Wales for the purposes of sections 54 and
(Recovery of expenditure).

(3) A local authority must have regard to any guidance issued
to it under this section."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 193P:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—
"APPEALS

(1) A person on whom a graffiti removal notice is served may, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which it is served, appeal against the notice to a magistrates' court on any of the following grounds.

(2) They are—

(a) that the defacement is neither detrimental to the amenity of the area nor offensive,

(b) that there is a material defect or error in, or in connection with, the notice,

(c) that the notice should be served on another person.

(3) Where an appeal under subsection (1) is brought, the graffiti removal notice shall be of no effect pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal.

(4) On the determination of such an appeal, the magistrates' court must do one of the following—

(a) quash the notice,

(b) modify the notice,

(c) dismiss the appeal.

(5) Where the court modifies the notice or dismisses the appeal, it may extend the period specified in the notice.

247

(6) A person on whom a notice under section (Recovery of expenditure) (2) is served may, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which it is served, appeal to a magistrates' court on the grounds that the expenditure which the authority is proposing to recover is excessive.

(7) On the determination of an appeal under subsection (6), the magistrates' court must do either of the following—

(a) confirm that the amount which the authority is proposing to recover is reasonable, or

(b) substitute a lower amount as the amount which the authority are entitled to recover."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Exemption from liability in relation to graffiti removal notices]:
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 193Q:
Page 44, line 40, after "liability" insert "to any person responsible for the relevant surface"
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 193R not moved.]
Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 193S and 193T:
Page 45, line 12, leave out paragraph(d)
Page 45, line 15, at end insert—

"(5) Section 54(10) is to apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 194:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—

HIGH HEDGES

  REMEDIAL NOTICES
  (1) This section applies where a local authority is satisfied that a high hedge is adversely affecting the amenity of the area.

  (2) The authority may serve a notice (a "remedial notice") on every person who is the owner or occupier of the land on which the hedge is situated imposing the requirement mentioned in subsection (3).

  (3) That requirement is a requirement to take action in relation to the hedge to remedy the adverse effect within a period specified in the notice being not less than 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served.

  (4) If any owner or occupier of the land on whom a notice under subsection (2) was served fails to take the action required by the notice within the period specified in it for compliance with it, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

  (5) In this section "high hedge" means so much of a barrier to light or access as—

  (a) is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and

  (b) rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.

  (6) For the purposes of subsection (5), a line of evergreens is not to be regarded as forming a barrier to light or access if the existence of gaps significantly affects its overall effect as such a barrier at heights of more than two metres above ground level.

  (7) In this section "evergreen" means an evergreen tree or shrub or a semi-evergreen tree or shrub."

  The noble Baroness said: The time that this Bill has taken and the interest that it has aroused makes it clear that anti-social behaviour is multi-faceted. This
  248
  amendment is to Part 7, on the environment. It is unusual to include a part on the environment in a Home Office Bill. The Home Office wants to resist high hedges, but to hedge victims nothing is more anti-social than a high hedge in the wrong place.
  I am pleased to see that the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has been added to mine on the amendment. In col. 499 of Hansard, on 28th February, she said in reference to amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:
  "Not only do they meet points made at the previous stage, but they seem to me—I hope my interpretation is right—to indicate that the Government are firmly behind the Bill and intend to see that it becomes law. That would be a very good thing indeed".
  That was the High Hedges Bill, at Report stage. My noble friend Lady Buscombe said from our Front Bench:
  "I cannot share the optimism of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee",
  to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton responded,
  '"Oh ye of little faith'".—[Official Report, 28/2/03; cols. 499-500.]
  He knew that we had been working on that legislation for four or five years.
  At that stage, everyone in the Chamber was keen to see legislation controlling high hedges. The consultation had been quite remarkable. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who is present, was also involved in some stages of the Bill. However, the Bill has sadly got nowhere, which is why I am introducing this amendment.
  The amendment is not comparable to the full Bill. It is really half a loaf, but I believe that half a loaf is better than none. It would be a start only, because it would not do a lot of the things that we would really like to be done about high hedges, and that the Government keep saying that they would like to be done. They have been saying for four or five years that it would happen when government time was available. The Bill that went through all stages in this House could still be picked up by the Government and put through easily in the other place, where it has not been considered at all. Similar Bills have been rejected, but my Bill is still just sitting there.
  What does the amendment do? I shall not go through the detail, as it is clear enough for anyone to read, but it would give local authorities new powers to deal with evergreen hedges more than two metres high that adversely affect the amenity of the area. They would also be able to serve a notice requiring action to be taken to reverse the adverse effect; failure to comply would be an offence liable on conviction to a level 3 fine up to £1,000.
  The amendment differs from the Private Members' Bills introduced by Stephen Pound and myself in that the new powers would apply only to high hedges that adversely affect the amenity of an area. It is unlikely that it would include hedges that simply impacted on a neighbour, which are perhaps the most distressing of all. However, this Bill apparently will not deal with

  249
  individual complaints; to be admissible within the Bill, the measure must be on the basis of the general amenity.
  The amendment also suggests that the offending hedges might have to be publicly visible, which would rule out all the hedges in people's back gardens. It is unlikely that a local authority would be able under the terms of my amendment to require long-term maintenance of a hedge at the lower height. The only way in which a local authority could deal with a continuing problem would be to issue a new remedial notice. That would place a heavier burden on local authorities than if we had the proper High Hedges Bill. However, I had to make some compromises in drafting the amendment to ensure that it would fit into the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, and thereby to allow further debate on whether it is the right vehicle to deal with high hedge problems.
  Why do I think that the Anti-social Behaviour Bill is the right vehicle? High hedges are without doubt an anti-social problem. In growing hedges to excessive heights owners show no consideration for their neighbours, and even when told about the impact of their hedge they often refuse to take any responsibility for it. Indeed, in many cases they become quite belligerent and unpleasant about it. We all know that cases earlier this year resulted in both a murder and a suicide. So the issue really can have very dramatic effects.
  Additionally, high hedges are a quality of life issue. The misery inflicted by high hedges has been discussed many times and is well known. The issue never stops impacting on those affected; it follows them into their homes. It is worse even than noise, which has to abate at some point. This morning, I received a letter from an elderly lady who is convinced that her husband died because of his worry about a high hedge. As she said, if the Government believe in the Human Rights Act— and she quotes the relevant sections although I shall not go into them—she is entitled to have a life of her own. She said that the Government keep saying they support human rights, but she comes up against a brick wall every time she approaches her local authority to say that she would like her human rights respected in regard to a hedge.
  Why is this Bill the right legal vehicle? It has been suggested that the text of the High Hedges Bill cannot fit within the Anti-social Behaviour Bill because the latter deals with behaviour that affects wider society. The Bill is not concerned with behaviour that impacts on a single person or household—the neighbour who lives in the shadow of a hedge. While the majority of Part 7 of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill is about local environmental problems that affect wider society, Clause 48 amends the Noise Act 1996. The 1996 Act deals with the impact of noise emitted from one dwelling to another. It is therefore all about the detrimental effect of night noise on a single person or a household.
  The processes in the Noise Act and the High Hedges Bill—receipt of a complaint, investigation to establish whether a problem exists, service of a notice requiring
  250
  action to be taken or else an offence is committed—are also similar. Any dispute resolution procedures or attempts at conciliation take place off-stage; they are not on the face of the legislation. Apart from the need for a complaint to trigger these processes, they are the same procedures that local authorities are required to follow under Clauses 46 and 54 of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill when dealing with the closure of noisy premises or the removal of graffiti.
  I am no legal expert and I do not claim that my amendment is in the absolutely right form. However, the Government have clever draftsmen who could do that. Better still, the Government could reverse themselves and make space for the whole Bill rather than just the half loaf that we have discussed. I look to the Government again to confirm their determination to ensure that there is hedge legislation. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am happy to have been able to add my name to the amendment. I think I said on Second Reading that I would do so—which was rather rash as I had not seen what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, was going to propose. Listening to the problems she encountered with regard to whether anti-social behaviour affects society or a group of people— more than one person or one household—I looked at Part 2, on housing. Clause 13 introduces provision for an anti-social behaviour injunction. The new section applies to,
  "conduct … capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any … person".
  The provisions set out what that means; it is quite clearly a person, a household.
  I hope that it will be possible to review whether the constraint that the noble Baroness encountered is appropriately applied to her amendment. I should like to think that something equivalent to the whole of her Private Member's Bill, for which she fought for so long and so energetically and doughtily, if I may use that term, could be incorporated in the Bill. One does not get the relevant legislative opportunities that often. I congratulate the noble Baroness on taking advantage of this one. I hope that she is successful.
  Earl Peel: I have a great deal of sympathy for my noble friend's amendment. I know how hard she has worked in the past to try to get her measure on to the statute book. However, I have one question for my noble friend. I hope that she does not regard it as frivolous as it is not intended to be in any way, shape or form. I am curious to know why she restricted high hedges to evergreens. After all, a beech hedge will hold its leaf throughout the year, albeit in a dead brown form. That, I should have thought, could be just as restrictive as a leylandii hedge. Indeed, during the summer months a high hornbeam hedge would be just as restrictive. As I say, I am curious to know why my noble friend restricted the measure to evergreens.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I support the principle of the amendment. Although having a tall evergreen hedge

  251
  may not constitute behaviour it can certainly be anti-social and it can certainly give rise to anti-social behaviour. To that extent I should like the Government to help get this measure on to the statute book if there is no other way to do so than through this amendment.
  My noble friend Lord Peel asked an interesting question. However, I point out that although both hornbeam and beech are capable of retaining their leaves, they are usually kept trimmed when in the form of a hedge; otherwise, they look appallingly ragged. People may plant leylandii in all innocence forgetting that the wretched things will grow three or four feet a year once they are established, and will keep growing at three or four feet a year for the next 50 or 60 years by which time they constitute a huge problem. I could almost make a case for suggesting that leylandii should never be planted in urban areas at all. However, that is a separate issue. If the Government can treat the matter sympathetically, that would be for the good of many people in many places.
  Lord Hylton: I suspect that the answer to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, lies in the penultimate sentence of the amendment in the word "semi-evergreen" which I take to include any tree or shrub which retains its leaf throughout the 12 months.
  Earl Peel: That would exclude hornbeam.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It falls to me to respond to the amendment. I do so with great sympathy for the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. As she said, I responded to her Private Member's Bill from the Government Benches. I understand why inserting suitable provisions in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill is on the face of it a very attractive proposition. This is a thoroughly anti-social problem. I believe that the noble Baroness described people who are victims of it as hedge victims. She is absolutely right about that. We recognise that some people are victims of such anti-social behaviour on the part of their neighbours. I certainly admire the vigour with which she has attempted to argue the new clause into the scope of the Bill. Very skilfully, she has found a cunning way of trying to get it into the Bill. However, I have to suggest that to fit the matter into the Bill is far from comfortable. I do not believe that the amendment proposes a long-term solution to the problem that it seeks to address. The noble Baroness expressed that herself.
  In particular, the new powers would apply only to high hedges that adversely affected the general amenity of an area. Again, the noble Baroness made that point herself. Sadly, that is likely to exclude hedges that impact only on a neighbouring property, which is where the majority of problems arise. It also suggests that the offending hedges might have to be publicly visible, which would rule out a lot of hedges that are in back gardens. The amendment might, therefore, cover only a fraction of the existing cases. As she knows, the department has had many cases drawn to its attention. She said that she has often been
  252
  inundated with correspondence on the subject. With our ministerial experience, we know how big the issue is.
  Additionally, it is worth pointing out that it is unlikely that a local authority would be able, under the terms of the amendment, to require the long-term maintenance of a hedge at the lower height. The only way in which a local authority could deal with that continuing problem would be to issue a new remedial notice. In the end, the amendment does not offer the lasting solution that we all seek. It falls short of its target, and of the targets that have quite properly been established through consultation undertaken by the Government and through the Private Member's Bill.
  In the circumstances, we think that we would probably better serve the majority of high-hedge sufferers by waiting for a more suitable legislative opportunity. That said, and without wishing to offer too much encouragement—I do not want to raise false expectations; it would be quite wrong and improper of me to do so from the Dispatch Box—the noble Baroness's point was that there might be some skilful draftsman who could find a way through the thicket of the issue and see whether it could be brought within the scope of the Bill. There may well be. Without going too far, it would certainly be worth our having a little look at that. As Members of the Committee have said, we do not get too many legislative opportunities, and I could not give a commitment as to when the Government could find a legislative slot in the future.
  We as a government want to see such legislation ultimately on the statute book. We recognise the matter for the problem that it is. We have all said in this House that it frustrates us that we have not got further than we have. I greatly regret that the Pound Bill was frustrated in the Commons by Christopher Chope and Edward Leigh on Report. It lost valuable time, otherwise it would have come to this House and we would have had the opportunity to push it through, because it had a degree of government support. As I understand it, no further time is left for consideration of that Bill. The noble Baroness has done sterling work on the issue. In the end I am sure that she will be rewarded.
  We do not feel able to support the amendment as tabled, although I fully sympathise with the noble Baroness. She has done a very clever job in bringing the matter forward in the way in which she has, but I hope that, for the reasons that I have given, she will feel that she should withdraw the amendment. I reiterate that final sympathetic point again: we will have a little look to see whether there is anything that we can do, but I do not want to raise expectations in saying that.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for his reply, and thank those who have supported me on the amendment. I would like to answer the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. He was asking why deciduous trees or trees that held their leaves that were not classified as evergreen were not included. The reason is that the Government carried out very detailed consultation. In 1999, they issued a consultative document called High hedges: possible solutions. They

  253
  had an amazing number of responses—from 3,000 people and organisations. Normally, there may be only 100 or so. The results showed that 94 per cent of the respondents believed that new laws were needed to control hedges. Seventy-seven per cent of the local authorities which responded also supported that belief. A new system to allow local authorities to determine complaints was the most favoured; 72 per cent chose that option, including 67 per cent of local authorities.
  Therefore, in our detailed discussions during the passage of the High Hedges Bill, it was clearly decided that no similar degree of consultation had taken place on deciduous hedges and on those which hold their leaves but are not evergreen. For that reason, it was felt that that public support was not so clearly demonstrated on this occasion. Deciduous hedges were not included but they were certainly debated at great length during the passage of the Bill.
  I was interested in the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on other parts of the Bill which deal with individual cases. I shall be considering that again before the next stage. That was the ground on which the Public Bill Office said that the proposal could not be debated. However, it has proved not to be the case because individual cases are covered.
  The Minister referred to the lasting solution that we are all seeking. We certainly are but we have been seeking it for too long. How much longer can we go on seeking it? He kindly said that he would have a little look at the proposal but I want him to have a great big look. I believe that this is an opportunity to include the equivalent of the High Hedges Bill in this Bill. I do not believe that there would be a problem with that in this House because we have debated the matter thoroughly over many years. We have ironed out all the problems.
  If that were the case, "ultimately"—the Minister said he wanted ultimately to see it on the statute book—would not mean waiting for ever. It would mean that it was within sight. I shall not overlook the issue. I shall read Hansard and study the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Members of the Committee will be pleased to hear that at this stage and at this time of night I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. We could talk on about it for ever because we are so used to it, but I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 194A not moved.]
  10 p.m.
  Clause 56 [Sale of aerosol paint to children]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 195:
  Page 45, line 19, leave out "eighteen" and insert "fourteen"
  The noble Lord said: Clause 56 states:
  "A person commits an offence if he sells an aerosol paint container to a person under the age of eighteen".
  We believe that 18 is leaving it a little too late. At 16 you can join the Army. Although you are not likely to be sent to the front line, you are being trained to go there. You can buy cigarettes and smoke; you can
  254
  go to the pub; and you can legitimately have sex. At 17 you can start driving a scooter and might have pitched off, scratched the paint and want to restore it. When you later start to drive a car, you might want to camouflage a scratch you put on your parent's vehicle in a minor scrape with the garden gatepost.
  There are many things you can do at 16—we are even considering giving people the right to vote at 16— but you cannot be sold an aerosol paint can. That is to be an offence. It is not to be an offence to possess a can but it will be an offence for the shopkeeper to sell you one. That is ridiculous and we have suggested that the age of 14 is more appropriate. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: According to the Marshalled List, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is to have two goes at this issue. Therefore, I am grateful that he kept the first one short. With regard to clause stand part, I understand that he is to suggest that we delete this whole provision. I can understand the logic of that, and we could have a long argument about what one can do at each age. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and I have been around that course once or twice when dealing with various pieces of legislation.
  However, the proposal to reduce the age limit from 18 to 14 is most illogical. I could understand it if the noble Lord said that we should do nothing because possession is not an offence. But all the indications are that the largest number of people who use such sprays for graffiti are probably aged from 14 to approximately 18. One can possibly argue whether the upper age is 17 or 18 but, if the age limit were reduced to 14, that would exclude a vast number of people who commit the offence. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, may be familiar with the report last year to the London Assembly on this matter. It showed that a significant proportion of such offences were carried out by people of that age.
  One can argue that, should paint be needed to touch up a scooter or whatever, there are other ways of acquiring it through one's parents or other adults. However, if we are to do something in this field, it will be totally illogical to reduce the age limit to 14. If the noble Lord wants to return to that argument when we deal with the next grouping, we can go round the course again. However, we believe it is important that we recognise the problem caused by youngsters who create huge graffiti with aerosol sprays. While I do not necessarily champion all aspects of policing policy in New York, I believe that the noble Lord will know that New York has a similar provision and that it has achieved certain success as a result of it. Therefore, I very much resist this proposition.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I was interested in the Minister's opening remarks when he said that he considered a better way of dealing with this issue would be during debate on the next item on the Marshalled List—the Question whether clause stand part.
  Lord Whitty: I did not say that it was a better way; I said that it was a more logical one.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: In my book, "more logical" is also "better". I believe we should deal with the case of

  255
  New York, which does not have a proposal to lower the voting age to 16 while it is being discussed by the Electoral Commission. Clearly certain issues are involved. I am prepared to accept that 14 may not be an appropriate age but, if it is inappropriate, it is no more so than 18. Perhaps somewhere in the middle is a haggle point. I have heard what the Minister has said. I shall consider it but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 56 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Dixon-Smith: We considered that we should argue that this clause should not stand part of the Bill because new powers in the Criminal Justice Bill will allow police to stop and search those suspected of carrying items to be used for criminal damage, which of course includes graffiti and therefore includes aerosol paint. Thus, we believe that this power is excessive in the light of that one, which would be more effective if it were applied.
  I believe that catching young people with aerosol sprays with intent is likely to be far more useful than putting shopkeepers at risk and making them liable. The Minister might argue otherwise but, because the Criminal Justice Bill provides these powers, we considered this provision to be overkill as the Bill is drafted and that it would be better if the clause were not included.
  Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend said when the issue of intent was mentioned, "How would one know?". I am sympathetic to the inclusion of a provision in the Bill. I am possibly influenced by the fact that a couple of years ago my honourable friend— and friend—the Member for Richmond Park, introduced a Private Members' Bill to prohibit the sale of spray paint to minors.
  I apologise for not giving the Minister notice of the two questions that I want to ask him on this subject. They came to my attention just before I came into the Committee. The first concerns the word "sell". I understand that in a similar section in the London Local Authorities Bill, which is currently before Parliament, the term is "supply", which is wider than "sell". It is probably the term that is normally used in consumer protection-type legislation. I suspect it may be difficult for the Minister to respond to this point now, but at least the question is on the record.
  My second question concerns the phrase in the defence provisions, "all reasonable steps". Again, I am told that until fairly recently similar legislation referred to "taking all reasonable precautions" and "exercising all due diligence". I believe that that is a term in the Trade Descriptions Act. Case law has now been established on what is meant by "taking reasonable precautions" and "exercising all due diligence". The due diligence leg is believed to be important as it helps to protect shop assistants who have not had much training or support.
  256
  I hope that the Minister may be able now or at the next stage of the Bill to respond to those questions. I put the matter that way because if there is an issue about the interpretation of the words, clearly the matter should appear in Hansard rather than just in correspondence. I hope that the Minister may be able to clarify that "all reasonable steps" means setting up a system and checking that it is being observed so that in practice those who are concerned can relate to other similar but not quite the same legislation.
  Earl Attlee: I strongly support my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. I recognise the need to do something about the problem, but I believe that Clause 56 is totally disproportionate because very few people misuse aerosol paint and if one does not use aerosol paint one can use ordinary paint. Has the Minister considered creating an offence of possessing an aerosol can in a public place without lawful reason or excuse that is similar to the current legislation for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place?
  One would normally have a lawful reason or excuse for carrying a tool that is used to maintain a vehicle, but if one went to a football match with a Stanley knife in one's pocket one would be in serious trouble. If a person could prove that he was going to repair a car, he would not have a problem. Also if someone was out late at night with an aerosol can in his pocket, he would have a problem. If he was just about to paint his car with an aerosol can of the same colour as the car he could easily offer a defence. What consideration has the Minister given to creating an offence of carrying an aerosol can in a public place without lawful reason or excuse?
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: I note the division on the Conservative Benches: the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, wants to reduce the number of offences; the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, wants to increase them. Indeed, in a sense, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, gave me the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who asked: if there is already an offence of using something for criminal damage, why not just leave it at that, rather than hit the salesman? The answer to that is by reference to knives, for example, to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred, where there are restrictions on sale as well as on carrying and use.
  To try to answer the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, it is not different from the problem of establishing intent, in the sense that if someone is carrying an aerosol, it is reasonable to assume in most cases that he will be using it for a lawful purpose. One would have to witness the offence of creating graffiti before establishing the intent to do so; whereas if someone is carrying an offensive weapon, especially to a football match, the balance of proof would lean very much towards establishing intent to use for criminal purposes. So the issue of lawful purpose and of intent are of more or less the same difficulty. Because of that, the point at which we can legislate beyond what is in earlier legislation is at the point of sale, as it is in relation to the sale of offensive weapons.

  257
  I shall have to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the difference between sale and supply, although it is clear that supply catches a larger number of people. Simply having a range of paints available at a cycle club could lead to a charge to supply. We would not want to include such arrangements. I shall also write to her about "all reasonable steps", although my recollection is that other pieces of legislation still use those terms without great difficulty of interpretation in the courts.
  There is a central issue between us: whether we legislate in this field or not. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would prefer not to or, if we must, reduce the age to 14; I prefer to legislate in this field. There is an argument about whether we should go as far as 18; the noble Lord hinted that he might be prepared to consider a compromise there. Without making any undertakings, I shall also consider whether 14 to 18 is precisely the optimum range. It is likely that the Government will return resisting the deletion of the clause, even if we may tweak the precise figures therein. The noble Lord will have to await the outcome of our consideration of that until Report.
  Earl Attlee: What is to stop a 19 year-old from purchasing a case of 12 cans of aerosol paint and then selling them to his 18 year-old friends for a modest profit?
  Lord Whitty: He would then be selling them and be caught by the same provision as covers sale in a shop.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Before we leave the matter, this has been a useful discussion. I should point out that there is nothing to stop the 19 year-old from going out to buy a case of spray cans and creating the graffiti himself. Of course, that is a separate issue; there will be those who are irresponsible enough to do that, but I should like to think that most young people are much more responsible than the Bill implies.
  In his response, the Minister hinted—I say no more than that—that he may reconsider the age limit in the clause. I take that as modest encouragement and withdraw my opposition to the Question that the clause stand part, although I may well bring back a proposal on another occasion.
  Clause 56 agreed to.
  Clause 57 [Unlawfully deposited waste etc]:
  Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 196A:
  Page 46, line 5, leave out subsection (4).
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 197 to 199. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has tabled Amendment No. 197, he and the Government share Amendment No. 199, and the Government have tabled Amendment No. 199.
  I join the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in objecting to seeing the Government set local priorities. The noble Lord approaches the issue by proposing the deletion of subsection (1) of proposed new Section 59A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It seems
  258
  that we can stop the Secretary of State issuing directions about the categories to which local authorities should give priority for the purposes of Section 59 of the Act only if we remove all of new Section 59A. That is a rather long way of saying that we should leave it to local authorities. Why do the Government have to intervene yet again? I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld): If Amendment No. 196A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 197 or 198 due to pre-emption.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with interest. I am bound to say that she has taken the right approach. The logical thing would be to remove subsection (4) entirely. The provision involves micro-management and interference with local authorities on a grand scale—if micro-management can be on a grand scale.
  I am encouraged that the Minister supports one of my amendments in that at least she must acknowledge that there is an element of overkill in this part of the Bill. That means that there is at least a case to answer. Given that apparently the Government are prepared to concede part of the case that I have made, will they consider looking at the wider case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and accept her amendment rather than ours? In any event, I am happy to speak in favour of this group of amendments.
  Lord Hylton: I welcome the Government's Amendment No. 199 about collecting information on what has worked. That may give me a little comfort, because the Explanatory Notes refer to,
  "better detection of the perpetrators of the crime".
  The problem is that usually there are no witnesses. In one local case in Somerset, we managed to find an envelope in the rubbish giving the address of the perpetrator—that worked. But in other cases fridges have been dumped by the side of a highway with little chance of discovering who did it. We would all be grateful if the Government could say more about how they intend to make the provision effective in practice.
  Lord Whitty: This has become a complex group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to my Amendment No. 199, which relates to the collection of information so that we can devise better strategies for identification, prosecution and prevention. Most people would welcome those powers. However, the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would delete the powers of the Secretary of State to give direction to the Environment Agency and the Local Government Association about which problems of waste, fly-tipping and other offences should be concentrated on.
  Both the Local Government Association, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, normally cites in support of her position, and the Environment Agency, favour those powers to give clarification to what is

  259
  currently a voluntary arrangement between the Environment Agency and local government whereby there is a division of responsibilities. Broadly speaking, the Environment Agency is supposed to deal with the fly-tipping of hazardous waste and serious environmental crime, and local authorities are supposed to deal with incidents involving non-hazardous waste. There will need to be clarification of that position and what is done to pursue it which can be in the Secretary of State's direction. I therefore resist any attempt to remove those powers from the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 196A and 198 would remove the power to require data. Being opportunistic, I will accept Amendment No. 198 in order to clear the way for government Amendment No. 199, which is a rather better requirement for data than the original Bill. I resist Amendments Nos. 196A and 197 and accept Amendment 198. When we come to it, I shall move Amendment No. 199 to give the Government and all the agencies concerned the basis on which to move forward to deal with what we all recognise to be a horrendous and growing problem for both urban areas and the countryside.
  Baroness Hamwee: There is indeed a problem. When I was a local councillor, at the lowest end of the scale, I was constantly irritated by the problem of bags of rubbish that used to appear at the same point on the road. Clearly, trades people were dumping rubbish to avoid paying for its collection. However, they were always smart enough to remove any envelopes from the bags.

  Listening to the Minister explaining the provisions, I now read the clause quite differently. I would not be so impolite as to say that the amendment clears up some unclear legislation, but his explanation came close to suggesting that. If that is the case, I am far more sympathetic and will stop seeing conspiracies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
  Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 198:
  Page 46, leave out lines 12 to 16.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 199:
  Page 46, line 20, at end insert—

  "(4A) In section 71 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (obtaining information from persons and authorities), after subsection (3) insert—

  "(4) The Secretary of State may, by notice in writing, require a waste regulation authority or waste collection authority in England and Wales to supply to him, or to such other person as may be specified in the notice, such information as may be so specified in respect of—

  (a) cases where the authority has exercised any powers under section 59 above, and

  (b) cases where the authority has taken action under any other enactment in respect of any deposit or other disposal of controlled waste in contravention of section 33(1) above.""

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  10.30 p.m.
  Clause 59 [Public assemblies]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 200:
  Page 47, line 17, leave out ""2"" and insert ""10""
  The noble Lord said: The Bill says:
  "In section 16 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64)(which defines 'public assembly' for the purposes of the power in section 14 of that Act to impose conditions on public assemblies), in the definition of 'public assembly' for '20' substitute '2'".
  That is a fascinating extension of the law. If two people meet on the corner of a street, they are a public assembly for the purposes of the Public Order Act 1986, as amended by this Bill. That cannot be reasonable, so we have suggested that the figure should not be two, but 10, which might just about be a "public assembly". In the days of my youth, we had things such as young farmers' clubs and all sorts of other young people's groups. All of them would be public assemblies under the definition in the Act and would, technically, be susceptible to immediate intervention and control by the police. I cannot believe that that is right, so we tabled the amendment to explore precisely what the Government mean by the provision.
  I cannot for the life of me see how one could define a meeting between two people as a public assembly. On occasion, we have discussions in the Bishops' Bar on the most outrageous subjects that would be an offence under a good many Acts of Parliament, I suppose, as part of the normal day-to-day conversation in this place. That is not what this is all about either. I am fascinated by this and look forward to hearing the Government's explanation. I beg to move.
  Lord Avebury: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but I ask the Government, "Why stop at two? Why not go down to one?". If the police have suspicions that two people meeting together in a public place may, in the words of Section 14 of the 1986 Act, cause,
  "serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community",
  they might entertain the same suspicions about one individual. They could prevent that individual engaging in activity that would result in serious public disorder by issuing him with a notice requiring him to observe certain conditions, if he challenges the right of the police to prevent him walking on the public highway or doing anything that, the police think, will cause serious public disorder, damage to property or disruption to the life of the community.
  In reducing the number to two, do the Government have a specific case in mind? If they do, we should hear about it. There was intimidation, for example, at Huntingdon Life Sciences, and people engaged in assemblies on the premises of that company with a view to intimidating employees and causing damage to property. Is this clause the right way to deal with such cases? There are already provisions on the statute book, such as those in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, that could have been used against those individuals.

  261
  We must hear from the Government about the circumstances that they have in mind in which two people could constitute such a threat. Why does not the principle apply equally, if there is only one person?
  Lord Hylton: I agree with the previous two speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke about intimidation. That is a more serious kind of offence than causing a public order disturbance. I notice that the clause is headed "Public order". Will the Minister say what representations the Government have received on the point from youth organisations and from organisations concerned with civil liberties and human rights in this country?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am more than happy to assist in the matter. I say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that I am glad that he elucidated that this is a probing amendment. I was somewhat curious that he was piloting an amendment on behalf of his party in this Chamber which seemed to be directly contrary to that piloted in the other place. But I now understand why that is so.
  Lord Hylton: This is a more sensible place.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, say that this is a more sensible place. I, in modesty of course, could not comment.
  Clause 59 amends the definition of public assembly from an assembly of 20 or more persons in a public place to an assembly of two or more persons. Its purpose is to give the police the ability to impose conditions, in limited circumstances, on small groups of intimidatory protestors where they are exercising powers under Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.
  Clause 59 does not seek to curtail a person's right to assemble or to protest peacefully. It is targeted at those who have a pernicious intent by coming together for intimidatory purposes.
  As the Committee will know, Section 14 allows a senior police officer to impose conditions on a public assembly, but only where he reasonably believes that serious public disorder, damage to property or disruption to the life of the community might result, or if he believes that the purpose of the demonstration is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do. So conditions include the place where an assembly may be held, its maximum duration and the maximum number of people who may constitute it. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked why one cannot assemble on one's own. One usually has to consort with another. Usually, the provision is where two or more are gathered. We have chosen two.
  The power enables the police to take quick action to negate and control the effects of an intimidatory protest without having to arrest large numbers of people. Therefore, it would be possible for the officer to disperse such a group and that would suffice.
  262
  Clause 59 would provide the police with the ability to impose conditions in the same circumstances on much smaller protests, such as intimidatory protests conducted by animal rights protestors outside the premises of targeted companies. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether we could do that using the Protection from Harassment Act. There are real difficulties with that. These provisions will enable swift action to be taken by the police to enable them to give relief.
  Lord Avebury: Can the noble Baroness tell the Committee what are the difficulties in using the Protection from Harassment Act? Perhaps I may offer her another alternative: why not use Section 4A of the existing Public Order Act?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: At this time it would be difficult for me to go through all the issues in relation to harassment, but it is critical that we now address this specific targeted problem. The noble Lord mentioned the Huntingdon Life Sciences issue. He knows of the difficulties that arose in that case with protestors assembling, usually just one below the requisite number, and behaving in a very intimidatory way so as to make life virtually impossible for people. In those circumstances, if the conditions I have just outlined are met, the police need to be able to disperse that group so that that behaviour ceases. That is really what this kind of offence is targeted at.
  Noble Lords will know that it would be possible to arrest 20, 30 or more people in this way. But is that the best way of dealing with it? Is it necessary? Does that fuel an issue to make it worse or does it help make it better? This is a quicker, more direct, and, it is to be hoped, easier way of dealing with it, which we trust will be effective. While the police use the powers mentioned by the noble Lord to report and arrest individual protesters—for example, those who are shouting abuse or holding up offensive banners—they can use the power only in respect of individuals who are committing specific acts. This legislation does not provide the police with the ability to deal with a small group of intimidatory protesters as a whole. That is why this approach is likely to be more successful.
  The reduction in the number of persons which constitute a public assembly does not give the police any power to prohibit protests by small groups of demonstrators. It simply means that where the threshold set down in Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 is met, a police officer may impose conditions on that group. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will recognise that activists are often well versed in the law and know that the police can impose conditions only where there are 20 or more persons. That is why they generally protest in far smaller groups or in a larger group which is split into several smaller groups in order to frustrate the police. While the police have powers to deal with individual misbehaviour, they require something further. Therefore, I think that 19 has become a good number of activists because it is one below the threshold.

  263
  Existing legislation which deals with public disorder and criminal acts is not sufficient. We fully accept that people have a right to protest about issues on which they hold strong views and with which many people may not agree. There is, however, a balance to be maintained between someone's right to protest and the expression of sincerely held beliefs and the rights of those who are engaged in lawful activity. I hope that with that explanation both the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Dixon-Smith, and even, perhaps I may say, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will feel more content than before we discussed the amendment.
  Lord Hylton: Will the Minister consider getting the rubric above this clause changed and amplified to make it clearer?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We can consider that, but we think that the clause is clear now. I shall take it away and we can look at the clause. I do not guarantee that I shall come back with anything more appropriate, but we shall certainly look.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am glad that we have had the discussion because certainly we are all better informed as to the Government's intention and the need for these particular numbers. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for making the slightly tart comment that this duplicates Clause 30, but without the safeguards of Clause 31. That is pretty well exactly what it is; Clause 30 deals with people who have been upset by assemblies of people who can be moved on. But there are safeguards in Clause 31.1 shall consider what has been said and we may need to return to this issue. A distinction of debate between Members of the same party between the two Houses is not unknown. If it elucidates useful information, I do not apologise for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave,
  withdrawn. Clause 59 agreed to.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 200ZA:
  After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
  "RAVES

  (1) Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
  1994 (c. 33) (powers in relation to raves) is amended as follows.

  (2) In subsection(1) for "100" substitute "20".

  (3) After subsection (1) insert—

  "(1 A) This section also applies to a gathering if—

  (a) it is a gathering on land of 20 or more persons who are trespassing on the land; and

  (a) it would be a gathering of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) above if it took place on land in the open air."

  (4) In subsection (2) omit "in the open air".

  (5) In subsection (7) for "this section" substitute "subsection (6) above".

  (6) After subsection (7) insert—

  "(7A) A person commits an offence if—

  264

  (a) he knows that a direction under subsection (2) above has been given which applies to him, and

  (b) he makes preparations for or attends a gathering to which this section applies within the period of 24 hours starting when the direction was given.

  (7B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (7A) above is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.""

  The noble Lord said: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for raising the issue of raves. He, like me, during our many years in local government, probably experienced the unpleasant side effects of raves—in our postbags and on our telephones at weekends—from members of the public, who were understandably and properly complaining about them and the anti-social behaviour which can arise.
  We all know that raves can disrupt the peace and tranquillity of many local communities, in particular during the spring and summer months. I could regale noble Lords with certain unpleasant experiences during my time as leader of my local authority. Because of the hour I shall not do so. However, it should be understood that the Government understand the impact of raves on local communities and we are keen to deal with the problem. We are also grateful that that keenness to act is shared across the Committee.
  I recognise that the effect of raves is not limited to the duration of the event itself. These gatherings can bring noise nuisance and traffic congestion on small, wholly unsuited roads. Rubbish may be deposited in often very attractive surroundings.
  The legislation relating to raves goes back to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It was introduced as a response to what the government of the day saw as the growing phenomenon of the rave and the difficulties that this type of unstructured event was likely to cause. Since the introduction of that legislation, we know that the tactics of rave organisers have changed and we recognise the need for the legislation to be updated. In my experience, rave organisers are clever and use the best of modern technology, in particular the mobile phone, to make their arrangements. It is therefore necessary to disrupt those tactics and, in essence, that is what this proposed legislation seeks to do.
  The issues relating to raves were raised during the Commons stage of the Bill. Further, it is a matter often raised by members of the public in correspondence. We are pleased to have this opportunity to table amendments in this Bill to Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
  Raves have been organised in buildings such as barns and disused warehouses. In the past the police have been powerless to act as the current legislation applies only to land in the open air. We therefore propose to extend the legislative powers to include indoor trespassory raves.
  Rave organisers have been restricting the number at events to below 100 people in order to frustrate the operation of current legislation, so we propose to amend it to include indoor and outdoor events where

  265
  20 or more people are present. This aims to ensure that it is no longer commercially viable to organise an unlicensed rave. It should be noted that, for the organisers, raves have been highly profitable events. When speaking to young people who have attended them, many believe that they were badly ripped off. They may have had a good time at a rave, but they certainly paid for it.
  Finally, the police have reported many occasions where rave organisers who have been given a direction to leave have simply moved to another area—a fallback position—to set up another rave. Again, I came across that problem during my time in local government. We propose to make it an offence for a person on whom a direction has been served to attend another trespassory rave within 24 hours of the direction being given.
  The proposals will not be perfect and catch every event, but we think that most of the events that in the past have led to problems should be curtailed. The Government believe that these amendments will strengthen the current powers so that the police can provide relief to communities. They will be warmly welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and, no doubt, by officers working on the ground.
  I hope that the noble Lord opposite will welcome these government amendments and that, in the circumstances, he will not feel the need to press his own amendments. I beg to move.
  Earl Peel: I am grateful to the Government for introducing the amendment, not least because I was going to cite endless cases. I no longer have to do so, which is a relief for me and will be much more a relief for Members of the Committee.
  As regards subsection (3), which seeks to insert new subsection (1A) into the 1994 Act—I believe there is a misprint in that there are two paragraphs "(a)", the second of which should be paragraph "(b)"—I believe that the Minister said that both paragraphs (a) and (b) specifically refer to indoors and outdoors gatherings. I believe the noble Lord said that but I want to seek absolute confirmation.
  Paragraph (b) of proposed new subsection (7A) refers to a period of 24 hours. I very much welcome this provision—it goes further than the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith—but I wonder whether 24 hours will be enough. If there were a further extension—say to 48 hours—it would obviously act as an additional deterrent, not least because people can remain in an area for 24 hours without too much discomfort whereas if the period was 48 hours they might be more inclined to return from whence they had come. Perhaps the Government will consider extending the period of 24 hours. I very much welcome the amendment. It is a major step forward.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is our intention to cover indoor and outdoor raves. The noble Earl has clearly understood what I meant.
  266
  The question of hours is a difficult point. Certainly, thinking back to one particularly perverse experience in our locality, the noble Earl is quite right. The 1994 Act was in place and law enforcement officers felt unable to move against a particular rave that had gone on over two days. I can see the difficulty that, having displaced it and moved it on, they may well experience similar caution in wanting to take decisive action.
  I do not want to make a promise from the Dispatch Box that I cannot fulfil. I have noted the noble Earl's comments; I will say no more than that. Obviously Ministers and officials will want to look closely at what the noble Earl said and it may well be that they will wish to give the question of 24 hours vis-à-vis 48 hours further consideration. I can say no more than that.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: If I had had the opportunity I would have welcomed Amendment No. 200ZA quite warmly and we would not have had to wait quite as long to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton.
  The amendment is welcome. It may not be perfect— my noble friend Lord Peel raised an interesting point which is worth further consideration—but, on the strength of Amendment No. 200ZA, I am happy not to move my amendment.
  Lord Avebury: If this problem has been so widespread, why was it not noticed until after the Bill was drafted and therefore necessitated an amendment being brought forward at this fairly late stage? The 1994 Act had been on the statute book for nine years before these proposals were brought forward. They could have been incorporated in the Bill when it first came before another place if the evidence had been available to support them.
  The noble Lord referred to submissions by ACPO. I have not seen them. That does not mean to say that other Members of the Committee are not aware of representations by ACPO on the matter, but it would have been useful if that evidence had been laid before the Committee to support what is quite a drastic extension of the 1994 legislation, which is designed to prevent huge outdoor parties causing a nuisance and is now to be extended to quite small indoor parties.
  Is it contended that the local authorities do not have adequate powers to deal with noisy parties in urban areas and that local environmental health officers are not fully discharging their duties to shut down illegal parties or to ask people to turn the sound down when complaints are made? If that is the case, we need to know why the existing legislation on these matters has not been effective and what representations the Government have had from environmental health officers or the local authorities. If the Government have evidence that widespread nuisance is being caused by small parties and that local authorities have expressed the view that their existing powers are inadequate, we are open to persuasion. On the whole, however, I am not keen on the proposal to extend the range of criminal offences without good reason, as this clause does, especially not when those offences attract custodial sentences.

  267
  Our other concern is that demonstrations frequently require the use of a sound system. We would not like these powers to be used to prevent the legitimate expression of views of political importance by small numbers of people who would, on the face of it, be affected by these provisions.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think I will deal with the last point first. It is not our intention for this legislation to fetter the rights of people quite properly to express their views on matters of a political nature.
  On the noble Lord's other points, separate legislation can be used to deal with noisy parties. What we are talking about here is rather different from noisy parties; we are talking about situations in which a small number of organisers take over and occupy for a period of time a building or a piece of land. When they realise that the game is up because of the nuisance they are causing, they move on and do the same thing somewhere else in a pre-prepared, carefully worked out scheme.
  I do not know how much experience the noble Lord has had of these events, but I can tell him they are a major headache for those charged with the responsibility of investigating the nuisance, taking enforcement action and making sure that those involved are deterred from a repeat exercise. I had a lot of experience of this as leader of my local authority back in the mid and late 1990s. I have some very good examples of the circumstances in which complaints have been made and the police have not felt able to take swift and effective action.
  I can see that the noble Lord is bursting to speak, and I will give way. Let me first say that we are trying to deal with a real and genuine nuisance that has come to light through correspondence. It has been drawn to our attention by Members of Parliament and has come up during debates on this legislation which deals with anti-social behaviour. We think it is proper to respond to that.
  The views of the Association of Chief Police Officers are plain and clear on this. Its members understand the need for this legislation and are very supportive of the approach that we are adopting.
  Lord Avebury: I was certainly not challenging the noble Lord's anecdotal accounts of these raves. I am conscious of them, having received correspondence about them. I was simply asking him to produce evidence in the form of representations either by local authority associations or by ACPO. He says that ACPO has made representations; could we see the copies? Could he place them in the Library of your Lordships' House?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I did not actually say that ACPO had made representations on specific cases. I have three very good examples which I am happy to share with the noble Lord.
  In September 2000 there was a rave in Tolworth in Surrey. Massive disruption was caused to residents after a weekend-long rave took place on farmland. We received several letters on the issue from the local MP as well as residents.
  268
  In December 2001, Graeme Stephens, a farmer in Essex, had one of his barns broken into, and an illegal rave then took place. Police could not take any action as the rave was indoors and attended by less than 100 people, hence our desire to shift the threshold. The farmer was arrested for a breach of the peace when he tried to break up the event, and this made national press headlines.
  There was a rave in January 2002 in Lincolnshire. Over the Christmas and New Year period in 2001, a farmer called Mr Benton and his family had one of his buildings broken into—damage caused by an illegal rave that took place on their premises. Police could take no action, as yet again the event was indoors and attended by fewer than 100 people. Again, that story made the national press.
  Those are anecdotes, but they are well recorded ones. I am confident that the department could bring forward other examples. It is for those reasons that ACPO is firm in its support for our proposed changes.
  I believed that there would be all-party agreement on the issue. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, comes from a particular political perspective. However, if he argues against the measure he is arguing in a strange sort of way to protect the civil rights and liberties of a minority of those who wish to organise events that, in themselves, can overtake people's lives in a particularly unpleasant and dramatic way, causing noise, nuisance and disturbance over long periods of time, and considerable disruption to people leading a peaceful existence and going about their ordinary business. I am sure that it is not his intent to protect the civil rights of those who are out to cause a nuisance in that way, but it is sounding awfully like it as I listen to this evening's discussion.
  Lord Avebury: I do not want to prolong these proceedings, but I have asked the Minister the question twice, and I shall put it to him a third time. Will he please let me have any evidence, in the form of statements or representations by either ACPO or local authority associations, which he has received in his department?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to see whether we can share whatever information we have with the noble Lord, and I shall ask our officials to do exactly that.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 200A not moved.]
  11 p.m.
  Clause 60 [Aggravated trespass]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 200B:
  Page 47, line 21, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

  "(2) In section 68 (offence of aggravated trespass) for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—

  "(1) A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons have engaged in, are engaging in

  269
  or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect--

  (a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,

  (b) of obstructing that activity, or of disrupting that activity.

  (2) Activity on any occasion on the part of a person or persons on land is "lawful" for the purposes of this section if he or they may engage in the activity on the land without committing an offence or trespassing on the land, and for the purposes of subsection (l)(b) and (c) above the offence may be committed whether or not the person or persons who may engage in the lawful activity are physically present on the land when a person does anything intended by him to have the effects referred to in those subsections.""

  The noble Lord said: The amendment would deal with another modern phenomenon—a form of political activism that has had unfortunate effects in the countryside. One sees it when people protest against the growing of GM crops, which they tear up. People taking part in angling competitions have been disrupted by protesters against country sports. Shooting has been disrupted by people protesting about country sports. Hunting, for however long it lasts, is a well known cause celebre. The amendment would make it easier to control those who protest to stop those legitimate activities.
  In the case of GM crops, the situation is more complicated. Under the law as it stands, provided that the person who is ripping up the GM crop satisfies himself that the farmer is not actually present, he cannot be charged with trespassing. The damage done to the crop and therefore to the farmer's livelihood is no less, whether or not the farmer is present. We tabled the amendment bearing those points in mind, and the serious disruption that such disturbances have caused in the countryside and to many people who participate in country sports.
  The amendment may not be perfect, because we may cause some difficulty by leaving out subsection (2). However, we need to explore the question, because the matter needs to be dealt with, so that those who protest about those activities can be more easily controlled. At the moment, it is tricky, and the police are considerably exercised about the matter. I beg to move.
  Earl Peel: As one who played a part in getting the aggravated trespass clause into the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 I am particularly interested in my noble friend's amendment which I wholeheartedly support. There is clearly a loophole in the existing legislation which requires the Committee's attention. It really must be a nonsense when a clear case of aggravated trespass would have been committed if the owner had been present but no charge can be brought simply because he was not present. As my noble friend says, the effect of the damage is going to be the same regardless of whether the owner is there.
  270
  My noble friend cited the case of the individuals responsible for destroying GM crops. I have some sympathy with them, but that is not the point. The point is that the farmer was growing them quite legally. He was not present when the disruption took place and as a result no charge could be brought. So it is totally illogical for the Government to ignore my noble friend's amendment. As the open-air anomaly has been dealt with under Clause 60, I can only hope and assume that the Minister will find favour in the logic of allowing this loophole to be closed as well.
  Lord Hylton: I support Amendment No. 200B. It rightly refers to "intimidating", "obstructing" and "disrupting". I recall writing to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, some years ago when he was at the Home Office on precisely those kinds of points in relation to sporting activities. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept this amendment.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand and sympathise with the purpose of this amendment. As noble Lords will know, it was as a result of a particular case that the issue,
  "of intimidating those persons or any of them",
  raised under Section 68(1 )(a), was construed to mean that the person had to be on the premises before it could operate. I appreciate the difficulties and problems that that has caused in the successful prosecution of those who damage GM crops. We recognise that there is a need to look very carefully at the legislation in this area. However, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Dixon-Smith, will also understand that the issues of GM crops are not easy. We think that it is important for us not to rush at this legislation. If I may speak frankly, we thought that we had got it right last time. We are going to have to look at this very carefully because we want to ensure that if and when we legislate further we have done all the consultation and all the reviews, to ensure that we have the right solution.
  I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has added to subsection (2) the words,
  "whether or not the person or persons who may engage in the lawful activity are physically present",
  so as to cure the perceived flaw. We are simply not sure that that is all that may need curing. We very much sympathise with this and we will look at it. Depending on what those deliberations evoke, we may seek to legislate on this issue at a later date. However, if we do so, it will be on a more comprehensive basis.
  Lord Hylton: Does the Minister appreciate that this is a long-standing matter? I quoted correspondence that I had with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, nine or 10 years ago. The matter went on before that and it has been going on ever since. So it really is a matter of urgency. Will the Government come back at the next stage of the Bill with a better amendment than this one?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance that that will be the case. I have

  271
  tried to explain that we are undertaking wider government-sponsored dialogue in relation to these issues. The noble Lord is right that they are important issues. He will know the intensity with which these issues are being debated and the importance of the sensitivity that we have to apply to get the matter right. We do not want to act precipitately. I understand the passion and the desire to use this piece of legislation to fix things. I am simply saying that I do not believe that we can do it here.
  Earl Peel: Before my noble friend replies, I believe that the noble Baroness said that we need to be careful regarding GM crops. That is not the only issue; there can be other cases. I do not think that we want to hang this argument on GM crops. The point was made that the farmer who had his GM crops destroyed was growing those crops perfectly legally. The fact that he was not present meant that the case could not be proceeded with against the perpetrator.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Earl is absolutely right; the provision is not limited simply to GM crops but has wider application. Members of the Committee will know that in the world in which we now live there are other technological developments that we shall also incorporate. That emphasises why we have to get the matter right. As I said, we thought that we had a formula which would successfully enable prosecutions to take place where appropriate. We have had to think again as a result of the cases that have arisen. Therefore, we must ensure that when we craft the new piece of legislation—if we believe that legislation is appropriate—we frame it in such a way that it is robust, effective and does the job that we all wish it to do. As I said, we thought that we had achieved that previously, or rather, if I may respectfully say so, the party opposite thought that it had the matter right previously, but we know what has happened.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I agree with almost everything that the noble Baroness said except as regards the reason for delay. We are not talking about the problems, ethics and morality of GM crops, nor are we talking about the problems that might arise due to any other technological development which the noble Baroness says must be taken into account. We are talking about a problem of aggravated trespass. That will be aggravated trespass whether we are dealing with the destruction of GM crops or of conventional crops.
  I do not have a great deal of sympathy with the reason given for delay; nor is it acceptable that if this amendment is not in an entirely appropriate form, the Government cannot, having acknowledged the need, produce a measure at any rate before Third Reading. We have a date in November for Third Reading. Therefore, we have a month. I should have thought that someone could be set down in a darkened room with a cold towel round their head and told not to emerge until they had the answer. But that may not be the Government's way of doing things. Clearly it is not.
  272
  We have had an interesting discussion. There is general acknowledgement that there is a problem. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and to my noble friend Lord Peel for their support. As I say, there is a problem. The Minister acknowledges that there is a problem. This is an appropriate Bill in which to do something about it. I am very disappointed that so far we do not have a stronger assurance that something will be done. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 60 agreed to.
  11.15p.m.
  Clause 61 [Power to remove trespassers: alternative site available]:
  Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 201:
  Page 48, line 9, after second "a" insert "single"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments tabled in my name, Amendments Nos. 202, 203, 204 and 205. I want to register the apologies of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, who added his name to the amendments but unfortunately is unable to be here.
  I agreed to sponsor the amendments as a result of an approach by the Children's Society. I was a council member of Save the Children for some years, which also supports the amendments. I remember that when I was a council member of the society, we were often concerned about the effect on children of the lack of suitable sites for travellers. We were worried about whether they would have access to education and adequate healthcare.
  Nowadays, there are added reasons for concern. Since the rapid transition in middle and eastern Europe from command economies to the free market, there has often been a breakdown in the structure that previously existed. In some cases, that has led to the emergence of a particularly unpleasant kind of racism, often allied to criminal activities. Roma people have suffered harassment and sometimes direct persecution as a result. That appears to be true of Slovakia, and of Kosovo, where Roma people have suffered ethnic cleansing at the hands of the victorious KLA.
  In Britain, we pride ourselves on being an open and tolerant society, but I wonder whether that tolerance is being extended to our own Roma and traveller people. According to the briefing that I have received from the Gypsy Council, that view of Britain as a tolerant society is doubted by many traveller families. It points to the inadequacy of gypsy/traveller sites. Between 4,000 and 4,500 extra pitches are needed in England alone. Clause 8 of the Bill will not produce any more sites. The council believes that Clause 8 indicates that the Government see gypsies not as part of the community but as a criminal element. There is a real fear that one of the unstated reasons for Clause 8 is to give the Government an excuse forcibly to remove the children and have them brought up as non-gypsies, either in care or in fostering. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention, but the fear really exists.
  The object of Amendment No. 201 is to secure assurance that the powers will not be used to send members of the same family to different sites. Families may be travelling in more than one vehicle, and the use of the new powers in a way that splits up families carries with it the risk of breaching Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to privacy and family life. Traveller families, including ethnic Roma and Irish traveller families, may live and travel together in extended family groups. Relationships may be integral to the family, and frequently provide support for the children. The risk of interference with family life could come at a time when children are already distressed by forced eviction. The trauma can only be increased if there are splits in the family as well.
  If the Government do not see fit to accept the amendment, will the Minister assure the Committee that efforts will always be made to ensure that those on the same unauthorised encampment will be offered places on a single site, and that guidance will be issued to the effect that where a family travels in more than one vehicle the powers will not be used to send different vehicles to different sites?
  The purpose of Amendment No. 202 is to obtain assurances that the powers in Clause 8 can be used only when there is not merely a possibility of a place on a relevant caravan site, but a place that will in practice be made available to the vehicle and those living in it. Also, it would ensure that they were informed of that, and that the power did not interfere with the rights of travellers, including children, nor with local authorities' site allocation policies.
  As matters stand, it is unclear how the new powers will be reconciled with local authority allocation policies. What if the pitch is not suitable for the family in question? Some sites may simply not be suitable for school-age children. They cannot be too far away from access to schools and healthcare, for example. Under the amendment, there has to be a place on a named site, and it has to be confirmed that the vehicle and its inhabitants will be welcomed on that site. The pitch must be guaranteed for at least three months if those moved require it for that time, and notification of the availability of the pitch on a named site must be in writing. Amendment No. 204 approaches the problem in a slightly different way and is after the same objective. It is a kind of alternative.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 203 is to ensure that decisions to use powers in this section are taken by an officer of sufficient seniority. Child protection concerns may arise in the course of a forced eviction and it is important that people with skills and experience to identify those are present and act upon the concerns.
  The Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concerns about Part 8, which it says could give rise to a significant risk of incompatibility with convention rights. The police officer, in exercising these powers, must have had training on the Human Rights Act, the Race Relations Act and the Children Act.
  Finally, the purpose of Amendment No. 205 is to extend the defence of all children under 18 on site and not merely to those residing with a parent or guardian. Protection should be extended to all children. There may be disputes about whether the person over 18 who is with the child is indeed in the role of a guardian. There may be children travelling alone—not uncommon nowadays. The clause as it stands would allow under-18s to be arrested without a warrant and possibly to spend up to three months in prison. That is surely unacceptable and I cannot believe that it is what the Government really intend. I beg to move.
  Lord Avebury: The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made a powerful speech in moving the amendment and explained the context within which the Committee is being asked to consider it. She might have added that the Government brought this whole part forward at a late stage in the proceedings in another place. It was therefore impossible for honourable Members to debate it, let alone to obtain the kind of advice which the noble Baroness quoted, and to examine the implications.
  In a nutshell, Clause 61 provides that where the occupiers of land ask the police to remove travellers, the police are to have a new power to direct them to leave and to remove their caravans and vehicles from the land if it appears to the senior police officer present that there is a pitch on a local authority site in the district or borough for the travellers to go to. But as the noble Baroness said, the Government are not going to provide any extra incentives for local authorities to provide sites and, as we have heard, there is a severe nation-wide shortage of legal places where travellers can stop. The assumption behind the proposal that there are some districts or boroughs where empty places are available on official sites, while at the same time travellers are camping unlawfully somewhere else in the vicinity, is manifestly false and there is no possibility that it could become true in the foreseeable future.
  Counts are made every January of the number of traveller caravans on local authority and private sites and the number camping on unauthorised sites. These figures are published by the ODPM. When the Tory government repealed the duty of local authorities to provide sufficient accommodation for gypsies residing in or resorting to their area, and cancelled the 100 per cent grant which had been made available for that purpose, the burden of providing somewhere to live for travellers fell entirely on the private sector. For a while, the effects were masked because there were still some local authority sites in the pipeline and because in the years 1995-96 and 1999-2000 there were falls in the total number of traveller caravans, perhaps as a result of travellers moving into settled accommodation. That must be speculation, because the Government never bothered to ask the local authorities to record transfers to and from settled dwellings, though it would be simple

  275
  for them to do so, and they have been repeatedly urged to fill this critical cap in our knowledge. In any case, over the past two years, both the number of caravans and the number living on unauthorised sites have increased sharply and I would expect that trend to continue as a result of a higher-than-national average rate of new household formation among traveller families.
  During August and the beginning of September this year I conducted a survey of the 157 local authorities in England where there were unauthorised traveller encampments in January 2003 to see what they were saying in their homelessness strategies about travellers. I found that five of the 157 authorities had not yet published their strategies more than a month after the statutory deadline allowed for in the Homelessness Act, in spite of the fact that a whole 12 months was allowed in the Act for the homelessness survey and the production of the strategy.
  Of the remaining 152 authorities, 61 had no link to a page dealing with homelessness in the A to Z services finder on their website; 101, or nearly two-thirds, had not put their homelessness strategies on their website; and 107, or more than 70 per cent, did not even mention travellers. I found that most officials dealing with homelessness were unaware of their council's strategy and did not have a copy of it. In almost every telephone conversation that I had with these local authorities, where the person who wrote the strategy was out or on leave, no one else had access to it.
  Hardly any of the strategies referred to the local authority's race equality statement or to the Race Relations Acts, which impose a duty on all authorities to ensure that, in the delivery of their services, they promote racial equality. Not one of them mentioned the advice from the CRE in their Ethnic Monitoring: a guide for public authorities, which recommends that local authorities introduce new categories where they wish to know how their services affect an important minority not covered by the census. One authority did comment on the omission of travellers from the census classification. But those which did have regard to the ethnic composition of their population relied almost entirely on the census categories, and only a handful acknowledged gypsies as an important minority in their own area.
  Not one of the 157 local authorities in the survey said that they would deal with the unauthorised encampments in their area by offering trespassers places on official sites for the very simple reason that there were no such places to offer. It is a cruel deception for the Government to pretend that any local authority has spare capacity on official sites or that any of them are likely to be able to provide spaces in the future when none is planning new residential sites and none has done so since 1994.
  It is true that small amounts of money are provided by the Government out of the refurbishment grant money for transit sites, and this year two projects have been approved: one in Darlington for 10 places and one in Lincolnshire for 20. Those 30 places should be compared with the figure of 1,000 transit pitches
  276
  required over the five years from October 2002, according to the report by Pat Niner to the ODPM. Therefore, with two of the five years gone, we have plans to meet 3 per cent of the required capacity. But, in addition, Pat Niner said that between 1,000 and 2,000 permanent residential places were required, and we have not even begun to think about how they are to be provided. For a week or two in Darlington and Lincolnshire, the local authorities may be able to offer places on their new transit sites. However, with a shortage of more than 3,000 places in England as a whole, the danger is that families accommodated there will try to remain permanently and there will be nowhere else in the region to which they can go if they are moved.
  With no spare capacity, the only way that the requirement of this clause might be satisfied is where a pitch is temporarily out of use for some reason and is treated as being "for that caravan", in the words of the new clause—a term which is left dangerously undefined. Amendment No. 204 at least makes it clear that the decision on whether a pitch is available rests with the local authority rather than with the senior police officer who delivers the notice directing the travellers to leave the site.
  In making the decision, the authority would be able to say that the rare vacant pitch was not "for that caravan" for any one of a number of reasons of which the police officer may well have no knowledge: the pitch might be scheduled for refurbishment; it might be let to someone who was temporarily absent; or it might have been allocated to someone else—for example, the relative of an existing licensee.
  The "senior police officer" who has to make these tricky judgments under the clause as it stands may be a police constable straight out of training college. Clearly, it is wrong to leave it to chance whether the officer has adequate training and experience for the purpose. Amendment No. 203 corrects that by providing that the senior officer must be at least of the rank of chief inspector.
  If, as we on these Benches say, it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a suitable pitch on a public site ready and waiting for a single caravan directed to move from an unauthorised site, it would be positively miraculous if several pitches were available for caravans in a group, as they normally are. Hard as it is to treat such an extreme case seriously, we have to say that if it ever should occur, it would be totally unacceptable to us that families should be split up and sent to different sites. The Commission for Racial Equality, which has written to Andrew Ryder of the Traveller Law Reform Coalition supporting all these amendments, particularly emphasises the need to ensure that families remain together. Frankly, I do not trust a government who can propose a clause like this to deal with the matter in guidance so that any risk of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act, to which the noble Baroness has referred, will be avoided. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 201.

  277
  Finally, in Amendment 202 we are seeking to ensure that when the direction is given to leave the land and to remove the vehicles, it gives the recipient, as the noble Baroness has explained, details of the relevant site where he or she is being offered accommodation, which is to be for not less than three months. I believe that that should be a minimum.
  This clause is a shabby and deceptive little piece of theatre, designed no doubt to placate those who complain about unauthorised encampments in their neighbourhood. Residents may have good reason to protest about the nuisance that arises when there is an influx of people without any facilities for refuse collection services or sanitation, but their anger should be directed against the Government, who have failed to make adequate provision for travellers, and against the Tories, who repealed the 1968 Act. I would really prefer that the whole of Part 8 be withdrawn, and that the Government should come forward with comprehensive proposals for ending the homelessness of 3,000 travellers. If that is not on offer, these amendments are the least we can demand to mitigate the evil effects of Clause 61.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Three of my amendments are in this group: Amendments Nos. 201 A, 202A and 202B. I do not intend to dwell on them. I have checked Amendment No. 201A and I do not believe that it is good English in the context of the Bill, so it may be best for me to correct it for another occasion.
  The other two amendments are intended to introduce some greater degree of flexibility in handling the situation. I have some sympathy with gypsies who live in caravans because the development of modern society has so dramatically changed the nature of the countryside. The places where they used to be able to stay no longer exist. I do not wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and his remarks because there are places—I can think of one close to where I live—where gypsies have bought and created a successful site on their own. After heaven knows how many years the site near me still does not have planning permission. The local authority tolerates it without planning permission rather than dealing with a breach of its own planning regulations because it is a benefit and as a result it does not have to deal with the problem of a site for the gypsies. That may seem cynical but it is also realistic.
  That is a fortunate situation, but there are other situations where gypsies have settled in most unfortunate places and have caused gross public offence. That is a matter that we shall turn to on another occasion. I do not intend to say any more now, other than that these amendments are probing amendments.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord for that temperate note. I appreciate that this is a late hour. I also appreciate that this is an issue that evokes
  278
  great passion because of the plight that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, outlined so graphically and to which my noble friend Lady Turner referred.
  However, it is rare to hear the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, speak in such intemperate terms. He used the words: "shabby, deceptive piece of legislation", and "a cruel deception". The noble Lord suggests that this is a device by a cynical government to deal with a presentation problem. I refute in their entirety each and every slur. I use that language, because I am surprised.
  I reassure my noble friend that no part of the provisions will justify anyone seeing travellers as criminal elements. There is no justification whatsoever for saying that they are crafted so as to remove traveller children so that they can be brought up as non-traveller children.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I did not say that.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I know that my noble friend did not say that. I thank her for raising the issue so that we can dispute it in its entirety.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury said, we face some challenging issues of how we deal with the difficult question of accommodating traveller families with decency and in appropriate sites, so that they can live the life that they have chosen in a way that is proper in accordance with their traditions.
  I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his review of the 157 local authorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Homelessness Unit will be undertaking its own research, which will feed into best practice advice. We shall take into account everything that the noble Lord said this evening.
  But in recognising that there is a shortage of sites, we believe that the provisions are important. The new power provides the police with a swifter enforcement power, provided that there is a space on a local authority site. Of course I hear what the noble Lord says, but it will end up being a question of evidence as to whether there is such a site. In practice, it will place an obligation on local authorities and police areas to work together in designating sites and it will not be possible to move people on unless such a site has been so identified. I had hoped that the noble Lord would see the provision as helpful, seeking to put a bit of extra pressure to ensure that that is done.
  We know that site provision will remain an issue in the short term. Accordingly, last March, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced additional gypsy site refurbishment grant of £8 million for both 2004-05 and 2005-06. The grant would be available for the provision of new transit sites as well as for the refurbishment of official local authority sites.
  The current situation is not acceptable for any of the parties concerned. Where gypsies and travellers live on unauthorised sites, those sites often lack basic facilities, as the noble Lord well knows. Gypsies and travellers may experience difficulty in accessing adequate healthcare, education and other welfare services.

  279
  Members of the settled community report experiences of noise, an accumulation of rubbish, fear and anti-social behaviour from some encampments—by no means all— in their area. Sometimes regular leisure activities can be disrupted by gypsies and travellers camping on playing fields, parks or car parks, where their behaviour can sometimes be experienced as anti-social, aggressive and intimidating. Landowners, including farmers, industrialists and retailers can be frustrated in carrying on their legitimate business.
  All those are important issues to be counter-balanced and dealt with. The Bill's provisions are a genuine attempt to approach the matter in a balanced way.
  My noble friend Lady Turner raises in Amendment No. 201 the issue of ensuring that all those directed to leave the land, under the new power, go to a single caravan site. Although 1 appreciate that there will be many occasions when it would not be appropriate to split up travelling groups, it will not invariably be the case. Furthermore, the requirement for pitches to be available for all members of the group would generate a perverse incentive for travellers to reside in large groups to avoid being caught by the legislation. We want it to be properly targeted.
  I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, does not want to press Amendment No. 201 today. However, to persuade him not to press it at any other time, I suggest that it is unnecessary because Clause 61 already provides for groups to be split up if appropriate. I hope that he will be comforted by that.
  Amendments Nos. 202 to 204, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Turner, would ensure that all the directions are communicated in writing. The Government believe that that is unnecessarily bureaucratic and goes against our aim of providing swifter police powers to use against those who trespass on land. The police should be able to issue a direction in the most appropriate format and by the relevant senior officer at the scene as they do currently when issuing directions under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which seems to work well. The requirements to put directions in writing and for them to be served by a chief inspector or more senior officer are simply unnecessary.
  The swifter police power will help landowners to deal more efficiently with trespassers. That will go some way to reducing the cost to landowners when dealing with trespassers. It is right to recognise that, in one case, a landowner in Lancashire recently spent £23,500 dealing with evicting and cleaning up after a group of trespassers entered his land for a weekend. It is a real problem.
  The decision to issue a direction will be taken by the police in consultation with relevant local authorities to ensure that all the existing preconditions to the use of the new power are met. The factors that the officer should take into account in assessing the suitability of alternative authorised pitches will be covered in guidance. We intend that that guidance will be telling and sound.
  280
  I shall not trouble the noble Lord by replying to Amendments Nos. 202A and 202B. I shall simply say that they, too, are covered by the new clauses. They allow for directions to be issued when there is a pitch available on an authorised site, not necessarily within the local authority, but within a reasonable distance. That is the nature of the noble Lord's amendment. The aim of those clauses is to provide swifter police powers while encouraging local authorities to provide more authorised sites in their areas. This amendment would break the link. So the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is that we want local authorities to be put under appropriate pressure to discharge their duty. We believe that this is a proper way of doing that.
  I hope that my response enables Members of the Committee to feel a little more comfortable. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend that our bona fides are well founded. We have no ill intent. We understand the pressing problems of travellers and are doing our very best to honour their tradition and to give them succour while, by the same token, balancing those rights against the rights of others to the proper enjoyment of their property.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for her statement and her assurances. From the submissions that I have received, I know that there is a genuine concern about the matter, including the removal of children. I said that I did not believe that that was the Government's intention, but that is what was felt and expressed to me. I am very grateful for the assurances that she has given.
  I am also grateful for the assurances about the obligations to be placed on local authorities to carry out what they are expected to do in this area. That is all very valuable. We shall consider very carefully what the Minister said. It is very late in our proceedings to do much else this evening. We had to wait a long time before we reached a discussion of what I regard as an important element in the Bill, but there it is; that is the way things work. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 201A to 204 not moved.]
  Clause 51 agreed to.
  Clause 62 [Failure to comply with direction: offences]:
  [Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
  Clause 62 agreed to.
  Clauses 63 to 66 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 205A:
  Page 64, line 19, column 2, at beginning insert—
  "In section 63(2), "in the open air"."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

  281
  Clause 67 [Commencment]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 206:
  Page 51, line 14, after "53" insert "to 55"
  ?The noble Baroness said: The Committee will be pleased to know that this is the last amendment and I have pleasure in moving it. Clauses 54 and 55 concern the powers of local authorities to improve the quality of the local environment by removing graffiti from certain properties. As such it is fitting and appropriate
  282
  that the National Assembly for Wales should have responsibility for commencing those powers when they will affect the people of Wales. The amendment achieves that end. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 68 to 71 agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
  House adjourned at eleven minutes before midnight.

  Prisoners: Repatriation
  Prisoners: Repatriation