Sitting of 23 October 2003

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

    Biofuels
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What assessment she has made of the potential value to rural economies of producing biofuels from crops. [133781]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): The impact of the UK meeting the reference target in the European Union biofuels directive for the substitution of 5.75 per cent. of fossil fuels by biofuels by 2010 would be to create or sustain some 6,000 jobs in the agriculture sector. Production at this scale would require a mix of feedstocks, including a contribution from waste oil and crop production from up to 1 million hectares of land.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he agree that if we are to reap the full economic benefits from energy crops such as rapeseed for biodiesel, we need to kick-start the industry in this country? The Treasury advised me that a simple duty rate cut would risk sucking in imports from established industries in other countries, so will my right hon. Friend hold urgent discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury to find out what can be done to kick-start an industry in this country that would be good for farmers and towns such as Lowestoft in which people want to set up biodiesel factories?
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend's constructive question partly answers itself because, of course, we want to stimulate the industry, which requires creating the market and enabling growth in production. I can certainly assure him that we shall continue to talk to colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury about those issues.
    Mr. David Curry: The Government must decide what they want from this policy. It is quite reasonable for different Departments to have different expectations and aims, but when the Government make a collective decision they must decide where their priorities lie. They have not done so at the moment. The Treasury and the Department for
    770
    Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seem to have different objectives and argue that different methods are needed to reach whatever the objectives are. May I urge the Secretary of State and her Department to hold urgent discussions with the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry so that we may have a clear idea of where the priorities lie? We could then decide whether the mechanisms, including the tax mechanisms that appear to be at the front of the debate, will get us there.
    Alun Michael: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for first criticising and then encouraging dialogue in government, which is what we have. He should remember that the Government are promoting the production of liquid biofuels through the existing 20p per litre cut in duty for biodiesel and the intention that was announced in the 2003 Budget to reduce the duty on bioethanol by a similar amount from January 2005. I assure him that we will continue to discuss with colleagues in the Treasury and other Departments how best to ensure that we pursue the issues.
    Alan Simpson: The Minister may well know that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been examining biofuels. In his deliberations, will he ensure that there is at least a differentiation between the value of a biofuels market and the implications of a biofuels industry? One of the issues that the Committee was asked to address was the environmental impact of crop growing—the fuel growing—on the environment itself. It was asked to consider the impact of footprinting on the environment as a broad picture of the costs involved, including the relative costs of producing crops for biomass rather than biofuel.
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend gives us a valuable reminder that our approach must be based on sustainable development and that we must consider the environmental, economic and community issues that are involved in promoting the sector. However, as I said in my first answer, there are obvious benefits for jobs and the economy, which I am sure that he wants us to pursue.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the 20p per litre reduction in biodiesel duty, and what effect has that had on the industry?
    Alun Michael: The cut in biodiesel duty has already brought forward the production of biodiesel from recycled vegetable oil, about 2 million litres of which are sold each month in the UK; half comes from that source and the other half is finished product that is imported from elsewhere in Europe. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that is an important step forward.

    Genetically Modified Crops
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What plans her Department has to work with the Department of Health to improve public awareness of genetically modified crops and foods. [133782]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): There are no plans for any specific initiative with the Department of Health to improve public awareness of genetically modified crops and foods. The recent GM public debate has already contributed toward the understanding of GM technology. The Food Standards Agency has also recently completed a series of activities with consumers to explore their concerns relating to GM issues.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given the great public concern about genetically modified foods, does my hon. Friend think that at least something should be done, and that talks should take place with the food industry, to ensure that food labels clearly advertise the fact that food has been modified?
    Mr. Morley: I accept my hon. Friend's points. It is important that people have proper consumer information. A number of GM products that were approved some years ago are on the UK market. They are labelled. The recent EU agreement that sets thresholds for labelling is a helpful step forward. Whatever the outcome of the debate on GMs in this country, the fact is that they exist globally; there is a global GM market. It is important that consumers have the relevant information so that they can choose whether to buy GM products.
    Andrew George: Notwithstanding all that, does the Minister accept, on the basis of the evidence of the Government's own inquiries, that it would be significantly irresponsible to move swiftly to the irreversible decision of licensing GMs now? Would it not be better for the Government to set out a timetable so that there is an opportunity to assess properly and investigate further the science, the liability issues and the commercial reality? That could be followed by a re-run of the public consultation, because it is clear that the public did not have all the information that is now available to the Government.
    Mr. Morley: I do not agree with the latter point. The GM debate was on the wider principles of GM crops and products. No country has done as much detailed research as us. In addition to the three strands—the public debate, the economic review from the strategy unit and the scientific review—we conducted a three-year study of the field-scale evaluations, the results of which have been published for all to see. The results will go to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which will hold two open meetings to allow stakeholders to respond to the results of the FSEs. They will be able to put their points to ACRE in an open debate with open access. ACRE will consider the results in detail and make recommendations to the Government in spring next year. That is not rapid progress. We have given all the regulatory authorities the adequate time they need. The process has been going on since 1997. It is not rushed; it is a proper, thorough and science-based process. The issue has been approached cautiously, looking at the arguments in great detail in an open and transparent way. No other country has put that in place.
    Mr. Michael Meacher: In view of the growing public awareness of, and hostility
    772
    to, GM crops in this country, is the Minister aware that agreeing the GM thresholds for the vote on the seeds directive in Brussels next week would allow GM into the country on a massive scale through the back door? Will he therefore instruct the British representative on that committee to oppose the 0.3 to 0.7 per cent. thresholds and insist that any GM threshold above the level of detectability, which is 0.1 per cent., is not acceptable?
    Mr. Morley: There will not be a decision on the seeds directive next week. Further consideration is being given to the legal process—the way in which it is being handled in the EU—and to the position that we take in the UK. We have not come to a final conclusion on the thresholds. The opinion that we take will he based on good scientific advice and the practicability of the measurements that will be applied to ensure that we enforce the regulations when they are finally agreed.
    Mr. Robert Key: Will the Minister confirm that after six years and with 6 million farmers worldwide growing genetically modified crops, supplying hundreds of millions of consumers, there have been no reported adverse health impacts of GM products? We cannot pursue the issue in a luddite manner. We must look forward and seize on science, sensibly assessed with sensible political judgments being made.
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point on the whole GM issue, but we cannot ignore public concern and opinion. The "GM nation?" debate made it clear where those concerns lie. It is beholden on us as the Government to address those public concerns and listen to the opinion that came out of the debate. People were worried about the science. There are issues of trust. Of course, that has not been helped by problems such as BSE, which damaged the credibility of assurances given at the time. It is important to consider all issues—health and the environment—thoroughly, scientifically and openly and transparently. That is what we are committed to as a Government.
    Diana Organ: The GM debate was an innovative experiment in participatory democracy, but for people to have real faith in it they need reassurance that Government policy will take note of the outcome of the consultation. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give me on that, and when do the Government intend to respond to the consultation on GM?
    Mr. Morley: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will give a full written response to the GM debate, and we hope to do so in a matter of months. It was a detailed debate, as she knows, which we had the opportunity of discussing in the Select Committee. We want to give due weight to the opinions that were expressed and to respond in a thoughtful and detailed manner to a very useful exercise. It will influence the kind of work we do, and it may influence the kind of scientific research we have to commission—on health effects, for example. We have two detailed studies under way through the Food Standards Agency—the GEO-1 study, which started in 1994, and the GEO-2 study, which has a £6 million budget. They are taking place in response to legitimate public concern, which we must

    773
    address in a rational and scientific way. We need to make sure that the information is in the public domain, so that people can see it, question it and, if they wish, raise issues, to which we will try to respond.
    Mr. John Hayes: Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), the Minister, while he is in thoughtful mode, may want to think about Professor Malcolm Grant, the chairman of the public debate steering board, who said yesterday at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—I paraphrase what Professor Grant said, but I think the Minister will find that this is pretty accurate—that if the Government policy does not reflect the outcome of the debate, it will have been a failure. Was Sir Malcolm right or wrong, and if he was wrong, why was he wrong?
    Mr. Morley: May I put on record our acknowledgement of and thanks for the work that Sir Malcolm did as chairman of the steering board? We can see from the report that was commissioned that the people who attended found it a valuable exercise. With reference to Sir Malcolm's comments, of course we recognise that we must take seriously the opinions expressed in that exercise. It was made clear from the beginning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that "GM nation?" was never designed to be a referendum on GM. It was designed to address the issues and to discuss the science behind GM and the background to potential commercial applications of it. I made it clear in previous answers that we will take the concerns seriously and address them.

    Beef Exports
    Mr A.J. Beith: What steps she is taking to remove barriers to beef exports to EU countries. [133783]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I most recently discussed beef exports with Commissioner Byrne in Italy last month. The European Food Safety Authority is considering the UK case for relaxing rules on UK exports.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State recognise how crucial it is to beef farmers in Northumberland that we get support at the highest political levels to overcome obstacles that may owe more to protectionism than to science? In particular, does she realise how important it is to secure the smooth dismantling of the data-based export scheme and the over-30 month scheme, and to achieve a target of getting bone-in beef exported by next autumn?
    Margaret Beckett: We fully understand the concern of beef farmers, whether in Northumbria or elsewhere. The Government's clear aim is to be able to trade on the same basis as other member states. That is what we are pursuing, but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we must make sure that the right safeguards are in place and that we are giving the right reassurance. We
    774
    are doing everything we can. I reassure him that at the highest possible level we have all the support that we could want, but we have to carry others with us.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Would the right hon. Lady tell the House how much beef has been exported to France over the past 12 months, and, if the quantities are very small, what steps she is taking to ensure that they improve?
    Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I do not have that information with me, but I shall certainly write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As I said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Government are doing everything we can to ensure that it is recognised and acknowledged that Britain has overcome many of the difficulties that were experienced in the past. We have A strong case for saying that we are no higher risk than any other EU country. We should be able to trade on that basis, and that is what we are pursuing.

    Abattoirs
    Matthew Green: When she will publish the action plan to support small and medium-sized abattoirs and slaughterhouses. [133784]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): We will publish data on the abattoir and meat cutting plant sector shortly. That will help to inform the better use of support mechanisms provided for under European Community legislation.
    Matthew Green: The Minister will be aware that in 1997 there were 506 abattoirs and that by August this year the figure had fallen to 395—a fall of more than 20 per cent. in six years. By now the figure may be even lower. Given the advantages of local abattoirs in minimising transport-related stress to animals, reducing the likelihood of disease outbreaks and increasing the availability of locally produced meat to consumers, should not the Government find specific grants to support and to increase the number of local abattoirs?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points. It is also important that abattoirs are commercially viable and sustainable in the long term. Preparing the data on the current work of the sector has been time-consuming and exhaustive, but it is important to get those facts right. We are liaising with rural development agencies—indeed, I spoke to one this morning—and with Government offices for the regions to encourage planning for adequate abattoir provision in the development of regional food strategies. That goes with the grain of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
    Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Minister acknowledge the important role that is played in the work of abattoirs by vets with experience of large animals? The findings of the recent inquiry into veterinary practice by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which are published today, show that there is an extreme shortage

    775
    of vets with large animal experience. Will the Minister outline the steps that his Department will take to address that problem?
    Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the response of the chief veterinary officer to that report—he welcomed and acknowledged its findings. The animal health and welfare strategy will address those issues, which we regard as very important.
    Norman Baker: The situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) is even worse than he suggests. In 1975, there were 1,385 abattoirs; now, there are just 395. That huge reduction has an environmental effect in terms of extra lorry journeys, often over long distances, that are necessary to take farmers' stock from where they are reared. That not only affects the environment, but is bad for the animals and for biosecurity. Is not there a case for direct Government investment in that area?
    Alun Michael: The decline in the number of abattoirs has been with us for a very long time. Indeed, the first challenge that I was given when I went into local government in the early 1970s was to deal with the Cardiff abattoir. Distance of travel is an important issue, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that finance is available in the shape of the processing and marketing grant, which offers capital grants for processing and marketing facilities to help rural businesses to become more competitive. Small and medium-sized abattoirs may be eligible for that scheme, in competition with other projects. The region concerned is the right place in which to develop a strategic approach. We hope to be able to publish the data shortly, and, on the back of that, to work with rural development agencies and Government offices for the regions to consider the regional dimension and to ensure that the sector is able to compete effectively.

    Gangmasters
    Mr. Peter Luff: What plans she has to control the activities of gangmasters in (a) horticulture and (b) food processing. [133785]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): My Department is working with organisations and businesses in the food chain to draw up a code of good practice and a system of accreditation for labour providers operating in those sectors. We are considering the recent report on the subject by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Government will reply in due course.
    Mr. Luff: Does the Secretary of State agree with my calculation that up to seven Departments and, according to the Committee, eight agencies have an interest in the issue? Does she understand that many of us feel that the Government have not shown enough determination or urgency in joining up those seven Departments and eight agencies; and that by their failure they are undermining the work of good gangmasters, which leads to the loss of substantial
    776
    Government revenues and enables the continued exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people in our country?
    Margaret Beckett: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's concerns for those involved who are, as he says, vulnerable. He is right that a range of agencies as well as Departments are involved. However, I do not agree that insufficient work has been done. One can always improve and do better, but there has been much cross-departmental and cross-agency work, not least on Operation Gangmaster, as he knows. Several prosecutions have been undertaken and examples of exploitation—over-payment of benefit, tax avoidance and so on—have been addressed. Work is therefore being done, but I agree that we need to continue with it.
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is a significant problem of rogue gangmasters in Lincolnshire and throughout the United Kingdom, admit that Operation Gangmaster has been a failure, with no budget, no aims, no goals and no objectives, and assure legitimate gangmasters that the Government will act and that a specific Minister will be responsible for eradicating the exploitation of vulnerable workers and stopping extensive benefit fraud and tax and VAT evasion?
    Margaret Beckett: Frankly, although that was a useful rant, it was not related to the facts. In the last year for which we have full information, the Department for Work and Pensions took enforcement action in 235 cases and made more than 1,000 adjustments to benefit. Inland Revenue specialist teams dealt with inquiries in the Thames valley that resulted in repayments worth approximately £4.3 million.
    Action is being taken. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know that we have been working with the industry to try to set a standard of best practice and draw up a code of practice. A pilot exercise will start in the next couple of months with a sample of labour providers and users in south Lincolnshire. There is great concern in the industry, and that is natural and understandable because people with high standards who treat their work force decently are being undercut by exploitation. However, it is not right and not fair to suggest that nothing is being done.
    Mr. David Lidington: Is not the right hon. Lady displaying shocking complacency about Operation Gangmaster? The recent report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has a majority of Labour Members, was agreed and concluded that Operation Gangmaster—a flagship initiative—had been running for five years with no targets and no Minister with responsibility for its actions and had carried out no significant analysis of the problems that it was set up to tackle. The Committee also concluded that Operation Gangmaster was a convenient reference point to enable Ministers to give the impression that the Government are doing far more about dealing with the problems than is the case.
    Instead of saying that the Government will respond in due course to that damning, critical report, should not the right hon. Lady urgently introduce proposals to deal

    777
    with the failures that the Committee identified? Is she genuinely content with the indolence and inertia that has characterised the Government's response to date?
    Margaret Beckett: Anyone listening to that rant would believe that the problem was new. It has been going on for years and that is unsatisfactory. [Interruption.] There is no evidence that it is getting worse but it is persistent and the Government are determined to tackle it. In the past 18 months, there have been criminal prosecutions in 14 cases. Indeed, the prison sentences passed total 31 years. The hon. Gentleman should know, but perhaps he does not, that following the Grabiner report, the Government set up a working group on the informal economy. It will consider such issues and report to Treasury Ministers on their impact. Operation Gangmaster reports to the working group.
    Of course, I am aware of the concerns that the Select Committee expressed. I understand Members' anxiety, but I do not wholly agree with their conclusions. However, we shall respond to them.

    Bovine TB
    Mr. Colin Breed: If she will make a statement on the impact of bovine TB on the countryside's economy. [133786]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The impact of bovine tuberculosis on the economy of the countryside will vary from region to region. Farmers are compensated for animals slaughtered, and, in addition, payment for TB testing makes a significant contribution to the income of veterinary practices.
    Mr. Breed: I thank the Minister for that response. I know that he has been in his post for only a little while, but I wonder whether he would be interested in a report from the Department's predecessor, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, entitled "Badger control policy: an economic assessment", which suggested that the then Conservative Government would undertake a review of policy in relation to the economy in this area. The report is dated 1984, and since then we have had 13 years of inertia from the Conservative Government and six years of it from this one. That means that, today, we are seeing more and more cases of TB—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question, and it is supposed to be brief.
    Mr. Breed: The question is, when, after nearly 20 years, are our farmers going to get a credible policy to eradicate bovine TB?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am aware that this problem has existed for some time, but, with all due respect, we are not responsible for the first 13 of those years. We have set up the Krebs trials, which are now back on course after the delay that was inflicted on them by the foot and mouth outbreak. We expect them to report in 2006. If,
    778
    in the meantime, they have anything important to say, I will take those reports on board and we will change our policy accordingly.
    Mr. David Drew: I concur with what my hon. Friend the Minister says, but will he look carefully at the results of the research that is going on in Ireland at the moment? Will he assure me that he will look only at the scientific outcome of that research, rather than at the propaganda, which is not helping the case in trying to find a solution to this awful disease?
    Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The research that has been going on in Ireland has not yet been published or peer reviewed, and there has been a great deal of mis-reporting in the press. I hope to visit Ireland shortly to have a look at the work that is being done there, and if there is anything useful and scientifically accurate that we can use to inform our policy we will, of course, take it on board.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Will the Minister confirm that he has just moved the date for the announcement of the results of the Krebs study by two years, from 2004—the previously announced date—to 2006? Many people are at a loss to understand why the study, which has been rambling on for years, seems unable to come up with any definitive answers on whether bovine TB is transmitted from badgers to cattle. May I suggest that the Minister gets a field, fences it off, puts in some cattle that he knows are healthy, introduces a few badgers that he knows have TB, and sees what happens?
    Mr. Bradshaw: No. The hon. Gentleman reveals his outstanding ignorance not only of the nature of the Krebs trials but of science. We cannot rush science. It has been known, certainly since I have been the Minister responsible for these matters, that the Krebs trials would not report until 2006, so I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the last few months.
    Mr. David Kidney: In our debate on this subject in Westminster Hall, I described the approach of bovine TB towards the Stafford constituency from two directions. Sadly, this week, I have received notice of a second TB breakdown in a cattle herd in the constituency. Does my hon. Friend understand the anger that farmers feel, because they feel powerless to act against this tide and believe that the Government should do something about it? In that debate, we talked about adopting a plan B if the present approach did not work and Krebs did not produce any advance on it. My hon. Friend the Minister even thought that my idea of a seminar for hon. Members would contribute to creating a plan B. Where are we in relation to developing our alternative arrangements?
    Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nobody should underestimate the distress and anger felt by farmers whose herds suffer a TB breakdown. I hope to honour his request for a seminar on this issue, in which all hon. Members will be free to take part. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also announced a review of the TB policy, and we expect to consult on that before the end of the year. That will

    779
    include consultation on a plan B, should the Krebs trials show something dramatic, or, indeed, not show anything at all.

    Rural Development
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: What discussions she has had with colleagues in other departments to discuss delivery of sustainable rural development. [133788]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): We have discussions with colleagues in other Departments on rural development issues almost daily. I must have spoken to some five or six colleagues yesterday alone. Ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for future generations, lies at the heart of DEFRA's vision of sustainable development, and is relevant to everything that we do, including sustainable rural development. Over the coming weeks, I shall meet colleagues in other Departments, along with Sir Ewen Cameron, to discuss these issues and other matters of mutual interest in relation to each Department's responsibilities.
    Mrs. Calton: In his discussions, will the Minister take up the issue of the closure of rural post offices on the edge of urban conurbations, which the Post Office considers to be urban post offices? I am especially concerned about the effect on the quality of life of urban communities, but I am also worried about the transport implications for those communities.
    Alun Michael: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The interface between rural areas that are near to urban areas and the maintenance of services is a difficult and challenging issue, not least because people living in villages often choose to shop in the town rather than at the rural post office.
    We have provided a £450 million support package for 2003 to 2006 to help Britain's 8,500 rural post offices, but we need to look beyond that to the creation of a sustainable future. I am pleased that colleagues across the Government have agreed on the importance of co-location and co-delivery of services in rural areas, and of ensuring that services that would otherwise be unsustainable support each other.
    I agree that we need to look particularly at rural areas that are close to urban areas.
    Mr. David Chaytor: May I return to the subject of the role of energy crops in sustainable rural development? Does the Minister agree that the market for such fuels will grow only if consumers know where they can buy them? Does he know how many retail outlets we currently have for biodiesel and where they are, and what could his Department do to publicise them?
    Alun Michael: I know that there is one in my hon. Friend the Minister of State's village and that he uses it, but he has expert knowledge of his awn area, and I agree that a market needs to be created. The difficulty lies in ensuring that supply and the creation of the market do
    780
    not outpace production and sales, and delivery independence. That is not easy, but we are trying to deal with it, as I have indicated in earlier answers.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: In delivering sustainable rural development, what steps are the Government taking to encourage supermarkets to stock locally produced meat and other products, so that consumers can not just assist the British livestock sector but have the security of knowing where the meat came from and how it was reared?
    Alun Michael: I acknowledge the value of that approach, which we try to encourage in regional food strategies. I talked to a regional development agency this morning about the link between the use of local products and tourism, and the importance of encouraging those who run restaurants and hotels to make such choices.
    The industry can help itself in this regard. A short time ago, I met a farmer in Cumbria who had taken the produce of some 40 farmers to a supermarket and persuaded it to provide a rack featuring local produce, which subsequently outsold many national brands.
    The Government's promotion of the outcomes of the Curry report "Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future" is very relevant. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of that approach.
    Joyce Quin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the Government's policy of devolution within England is to work, it will be vital for rural interests and the rural economy to be a central, integrated part of the process? Will he assure me that the Government will ensure that the task of addressing rural needs and issues such as that raised by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) becomes an essential part of the work of regional development agencies and, where they are established, regional assemblies?
    Alun Michael: I can certainly assure my right hon. Friend of that. Only last week we had discussions with regional development agency chairs, during which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism and I spoke of the consonance between the issues of food production and tourism. This morning I emphasised to RDA representatives the link between tourism and commercial opportunity for producers and processors. This is very much a regional and local issue, which should not be viewed only at national level.
    Mr. James Gray: One would have thought that the Minister would have welcomed one of the recommendations in the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report on broadband that he should play an absolutely central role in promoting broadband in rural areas. But his response, which was published yesterday, was:
    "Defra Ministers have stressed that it would undermine rural delivery … were policy for rural broadband … to be divorced from the mainstream."

    781
    He says that
    "in this case the Department of Trade and Industry"
    must
    "ensure that delivery is as good as it can be in rural areas."
    Does not he understand that broadband can, broadly speaking, be easily delivered in urban areas, that it is much harder in rural areas but that it is much more essential that we should have it in rural areas? Does not he understand that, as Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, he should be taking a key and central part in pressing the other Government Departments and other agencies involved to ensure that broadband is spread as widely as possible?
    Alun Michael: The Select Committee is Labour dominated because this House is Labour dominated, and long may that continue. It is certainly in the interests of rural areas that we have strong representation on the Labour Benches—Labour Members really are interested in the regeneration of rural areas.
    The hon. Gentleman has been wandering around in a fog for many months. He seems to be pre-occupied by one or two other issues, rather than the interests of rural communities. Great steps forward have been made in the delivery of rural broadband. I am pleased that the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services has given the same undertakings that we have been willing to give on the delivery of broadband to rural areas.
    We need to remind rural areas—I reminded some of its regional representatives this morning—of the opportunity that broadband gives for commercial activity based in rural areas, which previously could exist only in urban areas. The way in which we are pushing forward the delivery of broadband in rural areas will show us competing successfully with other countries and surging ahead of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Opposition Members really should get out a bit more.

    Genetically Modified Crops
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If she will make a statement about the findings of the public consultation on GM crops. [133789]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): We are currently considering the findings of the public debate on GM issues. The Government hope to publish their response in the new year in the light of all the available evidence, which includes not only the findings of the specific debate itself but the other components: our science review; the costs and benefits study; and, of course, independent advice on the results of the crop trials.
    Mr. Edwards: In view of the public unease that has been expressed about GM at public events throughout the country, including two in my constituency in
    782
    Monmouth and Abergavenny, the evidence of the farm-scale trials showing an adverse effect on biodiversity, the decision of the Co-op, and Monsanto's decision to throw in the towel in Europe, is it not time for the Government to change their position from being neither for nor against GM to having a presumption against?
    Margaret Beckett: No, I am afraid to say. The whole point about the extensive process that the Government have undertaken since we were elected in 1997 has been to endeavour to get as much sound science and understanding as we can. If I may refer my hon. Friend to what appeared to come through from the results of the in-depth discussions with the public, they showed that what people wanted most of all—I am talking not about campaigners, who have a perfectly legitimate point of view and express it, which is fine, but about many ordinary members of the public—was firm regulation, to which we are absolutely committed; evidence that there would be clear benefits, which again is something that we are all interested in; and much more information.
    With respect to my hon. Friend, the results of the trials were not uniform. We shall await the advice from the committees, but the effects of the trials were quite mixed. They were extremely interesting as a matter of fact and have much more relevance for agriculture as a whole than just the issue of GM.
    Mr. James Paice: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's role in respect of GM crops should be to assess the safety in terms of health, and the safety of those crops or their growing in terms of the environment, and to inform the public accordingly to allow them to make their decisions? Does she agree that issues of consumer demand are a matter for the marketplace? However, does she also agree that the biggest problem in informing the consumer about environmental issues is the fact that the field-scale trials did not address one of the most fundamental questions: gene escape from GM crops into native species? Until that issue is properly addressed with field-scale trials, no one can be properly informed on the subject.
    Margaret Beckett: I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, and he is absolutely right: the Government's overriding objective is, and always has been, to safeguard human health and the environment. But with respect, he has mistakenly identified the purpose of the trials, which were set up specifically to address a gap in our knowledge. Other work already exists, and additional work recently published outside of the field-scale trials does address gene escape, gene transfer and so on. The field-scale trials were designed for the specific and single purpose of addressing a gap in cur understanding of the impact of herbicide use on wildlife, which is why we have emphasised throughout that this single piece of evidence is not the determinant. It is important, new and extremely relevant, but it is not the only evidence; there is much more that we need to take into account.
    Mr. George Foulkes: May I urge the Secretary of State to treat with some scepticism the views of the scaremongers, particularly those of ex-Labour Ministers? [Interruption.] I said, "The scaremongers." After all, had we listened to Lord Melchett and the protesters, we would not have had field-scale trials. May I ask the Secretary of State to take account of the fact that, because GM technology means the use of less pesticides and chemicals, we can have much higher yields, which will help to feed the hungry in the third world?
    Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the potential importance of this and other technologies to our capacity to feed the hungry in the third world. I do not myself hold a particularly greater grudge against ex-Labour Ministers than against anyone else, but he is certainly right that we should always give careful thought to the views of others. It is not often appreciated that GM crops have to go through five separate sets of approval procedures before any question can arise of their being grown—a scale of precaution that we do not apply to anything else. One of the trials' most interesting outcomes was their demonstrating that we should perhaps examine other things that we do, and not just GM crops.
    Mr. David Lidington: May I follow up the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)? In the light of the fact that, as the Secretary of State said, the commercial crop trials just reported on dealt with biodiversity and environmental impact, can she indicate whether the Government intend to publish a similar authoritative statement of scientific advice on gene transfer and the possible impact of GM pollen on conventional and organic crops? This matter needs to be resolved, and we need conclusive scientific evidence in order to take an informed decision on the possibility of large-scale commercial growing of GM crops in this country. Can the right hon. Lady also say when she expects to be able to share with the House the Government's proposals on matters such as separation distances between GM and non-GM crops? Such questions are being asked not just by politicians, but by many farmers, growers and consumers.
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right and I do not disagree with him at all. Many important questions arise, and a great deal of information—far more than people realise—is now in the public domain, much of which has had little publicity.
    On separation distances, the hon. Gentleman will recall that we are awaiting advice from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which is the independent body that advises the Government on such issues. When we receive it, we shall have to take it into account, along with the other issues. He also asked whether work similar to that undertaken through field-scale trials has been carried out on gene transfer, pollen
    784
    transfer and so on, and the answer is yes: the Royal Society and other researchers have published such work comparatively recently. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) reminds me that some eight studies—I was certainly conscious of four or five—have been published outside of the trials on which publicity has focused. Those studies give a great deal more information on these issues, so a huge amount of scientific evidence is available.

    Horticultural Development Council
    David Taylor: What representations she has recently received about the operation of the Horticultural Development Council. [133790]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Representations have been received recently on the requirement for growers to pay a statutory levy to the Horticultural Development Council, on the commissioning of research and development by the council, and the statutory review of the council.
    David Taylor: The HDC does some excellent work in the top-class research that it commissions for horticulture, but is the Minister happy about the equity and impact of its levy on some specialist growers who receive little or no benefit from its work? Will he see me to discuss the concerns of a large-scale mushroom grower in my constituency, whose levy is more than 10 times higher, relative to turnover, than that of others in its industry sector? Where is the value for money in that?
    Mr. Morley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. As a general principle, there is value in a statutory levy on industry groups to finance near-market research and development. I understand that the HDC has three strands of funding, including a separate strand of funding for the mushroom sector. Those who grow exotic mushrooms feel that the calculation works against their interests. If memory serves, the levy is 8p a litre on mushroom spawn and the exotic sector requires much more spawn. The HDC is sympathetic to that point and it can be considered in its statutory review, but if my hon. Friend would like to discuss the matter in more detail in relation to his constituency concerns, I would be only too happy to arrange that.
    Hugh Robertson: The HDC is, of course, intimately involved in the national fruit show, which has been taking place yesterday and today in my constituency. Fruit farming is something that we should all support, because the orchards are good for the environment, the produce is of high quality and delivered close to the marketplace, it forms part of the Government's five-a-day and fruit for schools programmes, and it is unsubsidised. Given that, will the Minister explain why no Minister has been to visit and support the national fruit show and why one of the organisers said to me yesterday that it is easier to get royalty along than a Minister from this Government?
    Mr. Morley: I am sure that if a formal invitation were sent to DEFRA, it would be treated seriously alongside all the invitations that Ministers receive. We are very aware of the valuable work that Horticulture Research International has done in the past and that the HDC plans to do in the future. Of course we want to see the British fruit-growing sector supported, and to see it prosper and do well. We will do whatever we can to assist in our role as DEFRA Ministers.

    Fisheries
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: If she will make a statement on progress with the implementation of the EU North sea cod recovery plan. [133791]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We have already taken measures to implement the interim cod recovery plan. We will be considering further such measures in the light of the latest scientific advice, consultation with the industry and the outcome of the December Agriculture and Fisheries Council.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister use his influence to try to discourage the scientists at the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas ICES—from issuing headline-grabbing press releases two days before today's publication of a very sensitive piece of scientific research by ICES? Such behaviour really is not helpful. Can he also assure the House that he understands the importance of the North sea fleet having continuing access to demersal or white fish stocks next year, even if that means delinking haddock from the remaining stages of the cod recovery programme; otherwise, there will be no sustainable onshore or offshore industry left? Does he understand that the economic consequences of the total closure of the North sea next year would be devastating for many of the coastal communities around the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Bradshaw: The short answer to those three questions is yes. I share the hon. Gentleman's discontent with the way in which ICES handles the release of information, by issuing a press release on Monday and the final report on Friday. I also understand that in the meantime some of the recommendations have changed.
    On the second point, we will do whatever we can to mitigate any impact that the cod recovery plan has on other stocks, although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we have to ensure that it is possible technically or through other measures to carry on catching shellfish and haddock, which are profitable and the stocks are plentiful, without catching cod as a by-catch. On the general economic impact on the North sea, he is right: a total closure would be absolutely devastating.
    Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend will probably remember his visit to my constituency in the early part of the summer. When he visits the coastal communities, is he picking up information from the quayside about the effectiveness of enforcement measures, which are a key component of the recovery plan? Does he propose to come back to the north-east and Yorkshire to hear concerns about whether an effective enforcement system is being applied to ensure that the recovery plan works so that we can have a sustainable fishery in the North sea?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I remember with great fondness my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency, in particular a very smoky kipper that I had for breakfast, and I will endeavour to return as soon as possible. I feel that it would be just to other hon. Members, however, if I managed to visit their constituencies before I returned to one I had already visited.
    On enforcement, my hon. Friend is right. The common fisheries policy makes no sense unless we can have some faith that there is a level playing field in enforcement throughout the European Union. That is something about which the Commission is very exercised. Indeed, it has an action plan to rectify it.
    Pete Wishart: Can the Minister explain why, when the, scientific assessment suggests that Scotland's major fish, the haddock, is at the highest level for 30 years, European scientists are recommending a complete ban on fishing in the North sea, which is ridiculous?
    Mr. Bradshaw: That is because the haddock stock level is based on a single year, 1999. It is perfectly possible to have a good single year in which many haddock are born, which does not necessarily mean that the biomass, which is the important measurement of the health of the stock, is as healthy as that would indicate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman inasmuch as there are plenty of haddock. Fishermen are catching plenty of them. If we can do what we can to decouple haddock and shellfish from cod in the forthcoming negotiations, we will do so, but we need the evidence, which we are collecting. We are spending money collecting it with the fishermen on their vessels to satisfy ourselves that that is possible.

    Genetically Modified Crops
    Paddy Tipping: What criteria other than the results of the farm-scale trials will be considered in reaching the decision on the commercial growing of GM crops; and when a decision will be announced. [133792]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The criteria that must be met before any GM crop can be considered for approval for commercial cultivation in the EU are set out in great detail in EU Directive 2001/18/EC. No GM crop can be grown commercially without collective agreement by EU member states. No decisions on the

    787
    current applications are expected until after we have responded to the GM public dialogue, and all the different strands of that and the other evidence.
    Paddy Tipping: The Secretary of State has undertaken a significant amount of work on this matter. There are different voices in the argument. One thing that might unite us is the recognition of the process and timetable for decision making. Will the Secretary of State use her best endeavours to indicate to the House today when a final decision on commercial growing in the United Kingdom will be taken?
    Margaret Beckett: I cannot give my hon. Friend that understanding, but I can give him some indication of when the decision will not be taken. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment referred earlier to the public hearings that the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission is conducting. One is to be held on 27 November and one on 4 December, if my memory serves me right. After that, it will have to consider and produce its reports. We are not sure when we will get the report from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment on co-existence and how different crops can be grown alongside one another, but we anticipate that it will probably be before Christmas, although that is not clear. All of that will have to be taken into account and it is extremely unlikely that the evidence that European Union member states will need will be available much before the new year. I should not be surprised if it were not early in the new year. I am afraid that that is the best I can do, because the timetable is not all within our control.

    Fisheries
    Mr. John MacDougall: What measures she is taking to protect fish stocks in UK waters. [133793]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We agreed last December on reform of the common fisheries policy to improve management of fish stocks in EU waters. We also agreed emergency measures to protect cod in the North sea and west of Scotland, and are discussing long-term recovery plans with other member states. We have introduced a number of UK measures to protect stocks, including restrictive licensing for shellfish, which will come into effect from 1 January.
    Mr. MacDougall: I thank the Minister for his response. He touched on the subject earlier, and that reaffirmation regarding a level playing field in our approach to fish stocks is an important message for our fishing industry. Will he continue both to give out that message and to make representations?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. My Scottish colleague and I will work hard with the industry on this issue, which is devolved, to try to get the best deal possible for the whole of the United Kingdom from the forthcoming Council, while ensuring that stocks that are under threat have a sustainable future.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 OCTOBER—Opposition day [20th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "The Threat to NATO from EU Defence", followed by a debate entitled "Effect of Government Targets on the Provision of Health Care". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
TUESDAY 28 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 29 OCTOBER—Motion to approve the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
THURSDAY 30 OCTOBER—Motion relating to pay for Select Committee Chairmen.
FRIDAY 31 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords].
I should like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the beginning of November will be:
THURSDAY 6 NOVEMBER—A debate on the reports from the Quadripartite Committee on export controls.
THURSDAY 13 NOVEMBER—A cross-cutting question session on older people, followed by a debate on housing: improving conditions and making the market work better.
I am pleased to announce the Commons calendar for the next Session. I have to warn the House that I have erred on the side of caution and have identified only those days on which we can be confident that the House will not be sitting. However, subject to the progress of business, if I am able to offer additional days I will do so. Details of the recesses are as follows:
For Christmas, the House will rise on Thursday 18 December and return on Monday 5 January 2004. For the constituency recess, the House will rise on Thursday 12 February and return on Monday 23 February. The House will rise for Easter on Thursday 8 April and return on Monday 19 April. For Whitsun, the House will rise on Thursday 27 May and return on Monday 7 June. The summer recess will begin when the House rises on Thursday 22 July, returning on Tuesday 7 September. The House will rise for the conference recess on Thursday 16 September and will return on Monday 11 October.
Copies of the Calendar are now available in the Vote Office—I have one here.
Mr. Forth: I am sure that the House is especially grateful for the information that the part-time Leader of
790
the House has given us. I noticed that colleagues were assiduously making notes as he spoke, which shows the level of interest in that information.
Can the right hon. Gentleman comment on the mysterious shrinking September sittings? It is within my memory that, when the Government first announced the very welcome development that we were to sit in September, three weeks was mentioned. That may be in your memory, too, Mr. Speaker. Then the time was rather mysteriously reduced to only two weeks; because, I suspect, the Government suddenly realised that they might be held to account rather too much while the House was back. If I heard the part-time Leader of the House correctly, he has now shortened that period yet again. We are to come back on Tuesday 7 September, not on Monday 6 September; then, presumably—if the right hon. Gentleman will confirm this—we shall sit only for three days in that week and for only four days in the following week. So the September sitting, during which the House was going to have an opportunity vigorously to hold the Government to account, has shrunk, by my calculation, to seven sitting days. Is that accidental or deliberate? What are the Government afraid of? Why does not the Leader want us back for lots of time in September to do our business, and why is he denying us that opportunity? We need to know.
Now I should like to ask the part-time Leader whether he can allow the Deputy Prime Minister to lead a debate which I suggest might be entitled, "How to own up gracefully to ministerial inaccuracies". I say that because yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) asked the Deputy Prime Minister:
"Why is it…that under his Labour Government the construction of social housing in English rural authorities has halved?"
That was a perfectly reasonable question. The Deputy Prime Minister replied:
"I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has said that before, but it is just not true."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 630.]
That seems to be an absolutely factual statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, but my right hon. Friend immediately wrote to him:
"I am afraid that your answer to my question was completely contrary to—"
Mr. George Foulkes: What has this got to do with next week?
Mr. Forth: I'll tell you what, Mr. Speaker: I am in a generous mood, so I will do the right hon. Gentleman a favour and get him into Hansard. If he had been listening to what I said, he would have heard that I have asked for a debate, and the debate was to be entitled, "How to own up gracefully to ministerial inaccuracies." If I had been in error, Mr. Speaker would have been down on me like a ton of bricks, but so far he has allowed me to continue, so I shall press my luck just a little bit further.

791
In his letter, my right hon. Friend said to the Deputy Prime Minister:
"I am afraid that your answer to my question was completely contrary to answers given by your Department."
That indeed was the case, but in fairness to the Deputy Prime Minister, he wrote back immediately to my right hon. Friend, saying:
"I can confirm that the figures"
that were given by the Minister of State
"are correct. I apologise for the fact that on the floor of the House"—
and so on.
Now, will we have that debate? Will the Deputy Prime Minister be able to give us a shining example of how properly to apologise to the House for inaccuracies, and will he then pass the report of that debate to No. 10, so that the Prime Minister can learn for once how one should apologise to the House for inaccuracies, and so that I do not have to raise it in "Prime Minister's porkies" every week? That, I think, would be a very helpful development indeed.
Finally, may I ask, please, when we shall have a debate—I know that this has just been raised at Question Time, but I think we should have such a debate—on genetically modified crops? We know the position that the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) takes on this; it is a very knowledgeable and honourable position. We are constantly intrigued by the role played by Lord Sainsbury, an Under-Secretary of State responsible for science at the Department of Trade and Industry. And now—this is fairly unusual—we have an insight into the Prime Minister's views on this very important subject. He told us yesterday in the House:
"I know that there is a huge campaign against GM"—
for once he is plumbed in and well informed. He is aware of it. But then he says,
"but to be frank, the Government have no interest in the matter one way or the other"—
this is the Prime Minister—
"other than to…do the right thing. However"—
there has to be a however, and this is the however, and this is why we need a debate to tease this out—
"the biotechnology industry is a vital part of this country's industry. Many people believe that the science of genetics will be the most important science of the first half of the 21st century, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that other countries are piling investment into this area."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 642.]
The Prime Minister would appear to have prejudged the issue, would he not? It is therefore very important that we have a debate in the House as early possible, so that the Government can tell us what they are thinking and, as important, so that the House can tell the Government what Members of Parliament are thinking. We must not, surely, have this issue kicked into the long grass.
Mr. Hain: I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman is in such fine and robust form, because I have been getting a bit worried about him; he has been unusually invisible over the past week. One exception
792
was when I saw him sitting on the second row—interesting—when his leader was on the front row. He was almost right behind him. Surely the shadow Leader of the House should show some solidarity and loyalty to his leader by sitting alongside him, but there he was. I do not know whether he is stepping into the newly vacated role as the quiet man of British politics.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was one of the dozens—scores—of his hon. and right hon. colleagues who were plotting over the past few days, one of whom said:
"While it is true we need 25 names to get a vote of confidence, we need only three names to get him sectioned".
I do not know whether that was the right hon. Gentleman, but to come his points on September, I do not know whether he would really like the September sittings to be switched to coincide with the Tory party conference week, because I am sure that he would far rather be here than at the Tory party conference. He overlooks the fact that we did a lot of very important business in September. I think that I am right in saying that he was critical of sitting in September.
Mr. Forth indicated dissent.
Mr. Hain: Oh, fine. I withdraw that. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that we did a lot of very good work in September, and I am sure that we will do a lot of very good work in the days that we have allocated in the coming September.
The right hon. Gentleman asked such a long, contorted question about the Deputy Prime Minister that I do not think that anyone understood what on earth he was on about, but if he was asking for a debate on social housing, he can apply for one in the normal way or encourage some of his Back Benchers to do so.
On the substantive issue that the right hon. Gentleman quite properly raised on GM crops, it is important that there be an open debate on GM crops. The scientific evidence has now come in; the Government will consider it very thoroughly; and I would expect the House to debate GM crops in due course, so I am very happy to accede to his request. The timing will depend on when the Government have considered all the evidence and we will then come to that matter.
Finally, I was very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not raise the great, important issue of public finances, because I see that the Tory party treasurer is planning to stop his £5 million funding of the Tory party unless there is a change of leader. [HON. MEMBERS: "What has that got to do with next week?"] Well, I am sure that he will want to know. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Speakers should not hear these things.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Just following up that ticklish little bit at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, I wonder whether we ought not to have an urgent debate on the state funding of political parties. The Leader of the House will recognise that the Electoral Commission is doing a very careful job in analysing exactly what is happening at the moment and

793
what could happen in future, but I understand that that report may not be available to us until quite late next year. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could identify an opportunity, perhaps immediately after the Queen's Speech, to hold a debate on that issue. Or perhaps, indeed, we need a paving Bill; otherwise any changes, reforms and improvements in the state funding of political parties could not take place before the next general election.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will be aware that all parties are signed up to the principle of state funding. Indeed, the Conservative party has accepted about £20 million from the taxpayer since the 1997 loss of office. I wonder therefore whether he could particularly consider the concerns that have been expressed on all sides about the way in which parties—such as the Conservative party, which is now very seriously in debt—are becoming corrupted by the way in which influence is imposed on them by millionaires' cheques. Perhaps he will have seen the interview this morning with Mr. Stuart Wheeler, who said that it is the duty of Conservative MPs to act urgently and that there is an overwhelming case for changing the leader of the Conservative party.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too far.
Mr. Hain: I would very much welcome a debate on state funding, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue because what it is actually about is extending the existing public funding for political parties in the House, which has led to a situation where the public funding of the Conservative party has more than trebled to a staggering £4 million since 1997. In fact, the Conservative party is now propped up by public funds. Over the last period, the Conservatives only raised £3.5 million themselves and received £4 million of public funding. The taxpayer should know about that.
There is a strong case—and I will therefore look seriously at the argument for a debate—for extending public funding so that our political parties outside Parliament, as well as inside Parliament, are supported and we can better connect with the public. I do not mean funding for campaigning, poster boards or leaflets—I mean state funding of the kind that is practised widely throughout the world, which makes sure that political parties can keep more closely in touch with local people and therefore better reflect their views.
Joan Ruddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Europe next week there will be a meeting of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry to consider the contamination levels of non-GM seeds by GM seeds? May I draw his attention to the statement made by Eurocommerce, which consists of Marks and Spencer, Tesco, Sainsbury's, Boots and others that
"the proposed thresholds for seed lots will lead to contamination of the whole of the food and feed supply chain and will considerably reduce the freedom of choice available to consumers"?
Given that this Government have consistently supported those thresholds for contamination, may I tell him that we cannot wait until the Government have
794
considered all the evidence? There is a need for a debate now. Things are happening and decisions are being taken that will determine the future of GM in this country for ever.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has expertise in this area, as I acknowledged last week when she properly raised a similar matter, and I do think that we need a debate on it. As to whether it is as urgent as she says, although she made a powerful point, that will be a matter for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I shall certainly draw it to her attention.
Bob Spink: The Government are forcing thousands more houses on my small but beautiful—although overdeveloped and congested—constituency, without any thought of infrastructure improvement. Can we have a debate to consider a third road for Canvey Island, the congestion at Saddler's Farm and in Hadleigh, and the provision of a new terminus rail station for Waterside Farm, linking up to Pitsea?
Mr. Hain: Congestion is serious—there is no question about that—and it is a legacy of the dreadful transport policy that this Government inherited from the Conservatives. The hon. Gentleman of course has the opportunity, of which I hope that he will take advantage, of applying for an Adjournment debate in which he can properly raise these issues and reflect his constituents' concerns.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend alleviate the worries and concerns of many of the pensioners in my constituency who are looking at policy being adumbrated by the Conservative party to remove a large amount of the moneys that they currently get? A single pensioner currently getting £102.10 would be reduced to £85 by the policies of the Conservative party—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Those matters have nothing to do with the Leader of the House during business questions.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Leader of the House clarify one key point? Will he endorse the comments of the Economic Secretary the other day that the Government have no intention whatever of changing the capital gains tax regime for homes? Will he also tell the House what the Government raised in stamp duty in 1997 and what they are likely to raise in stamp duty this year?
Mr. Hain: I certainly note the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate, but I can confirm the Treasury's view that the Government have absolutely no such intention. Indeed, right across the board on tax matters, this Government have a very good record, which is confirmed by the recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which showed that we have one of the lowest business tax regimes in the world.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1761, on the proposed closure of the Coal Aston post office in North-East Derbyshire?

795
[That this House is deeply concerned that the work of the National Consultative Team at the Post Office in considering representations made about proposed branch closures is nothing but a sham; is concerned that a typical letter sent out to local residents opposing the proposed closure of their Post Office in the parliamentary constituency of North East Derbyshire contains lengthy arguments in favour of the closure programme indicating that no special circumstances exist in their case and that their representations have already been dismissed; believes that it is not good enough for 80 per cent, of a Post Office letter supposedly relating to a current consultation process to prejudice the outcome, and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that no decision is made about the future of the Coal Aston branch until a genuine and open assessment is made of the substantial representations which have been made.]
It relates to the response of the national consultative team of the Post Office to the massive number of letters and the great petition presented to it. That response almost says that it is all a waste of time because the decision has already been made, as 80 per cent. of it tells them why it thinks that there should be changes in the Post Office programme.
If there is to be a consultative procedure, should it not be an open procedure and not a sham? Should not the Post Office at least have the good grace not to tell us that it is a sham in advance, during the time that it is taking place? Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to show how we will have genuine consultative procedures so that constituents' views can be listened to?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly draw that to the Secretary of State's attention. I agree with my hon. Friend that consultation on local post office closures in his constituency and throughout the country must be genuine, and I am sure that the Post Office will want to ensure that it is. Local post offices perform a vital function in local communities, but unfortunately, there have been progressive closures for decades. It is important that each closure should happen on its merits in the current context.
Pete Wishart: Can we have an early debate on the impact of tuition fees and foundation hospitals on Scotland and Wales? Being a Welsh Member, the Leader of the House will be aware of the negative financial implications for Scotland and Wales, not to mention issues relating to staff retention. For example, does he know whether the Treasury has made an assessment of the cost to Scotland and Wales; and is he prepared to concede that there are issues here?
Mr. Hain: There are clearly issues here that are a proper matter for debate in the House—indeed, they have been debated and will continue be debated in the months to come. The really important question that the hon. Gentleman must answer is how he would plug the funding gap in universities. Universities were virtually bankrupt when we came to office in 1997. We have increased funding progressively and now propose to introduce a much fairer system of student finance that will especially support those at the bottom of the income
796
range. The Scottish National party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have no answer to the serious funding gap that will exist unless we allow students to contribute a small amount toward their university education. [Interruption.] Yes, indeed, because taxpayers currently contribute £14 for every £1 contributed by students. I think that most taxpayers will say that our proposal is a fair deal because university graduates have a much greater opportunity to earn high incomes than others.
David Winnick: Would it not be appropriate for the Home Secretary to come to the House as quickly as possible to make a statement on police training and the need to ensure that those with sickening racist views are excluded from the police as quickly as possible? Would it not also be appropriate for the reporter who made the programme that was shown on the BBC to be congratulated on carrying out an important public duty? The shadow Leader of the House did not raise the subject, so perhaps he is not interested in it, but Labour Members are interested. Racism must be fought, and there is certainly no room for racists of any kind in the police force.
Mr. Hain: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and the BBC indeed deserves praise for exposing the problem. I congratulate Clive Wolfendale, the deputy chief constable of North Wales police, on saying that he admitted to feeling "physically sick" when he saw the scenes. That shows that the police force is absolutely determined to root out racism. Although 99 per cent. of police officers are not racists and have never practised racism, a minority in the force needs to be dealt with and it is quite clear that police chiefs are dealing with it in the most robust fashion; as my hon. Friend says, individuals are rightly being thrown out.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: When will the Leader of the House be able to tell us the arrangements for a joint address of both Houses by President Bush? Would it not be an absolute disgrace if he did not address both Houses and follow the precedent that has been set on many occasions when Presidents of the United States have visited this country?
Mr. Hain: I will obviously give consideration to the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on security and transparency in the Home Office's detention and removal centres? According to this morning's Dover Express, there have been 16 breakouts from the Dover centre in the past eight months, with 24 failed asylum seekers going missing, and no one from the Home Office, the immigration and nationality directorate or the Prison Service has seen fit to inform the public or brief the local MP. Surely those important matters should be brought to the Floor of the House for urgent debate.
Mr. Hain: I am very surprised that my hon. Friend, as the local Member of Parliament, has not been properly informed in the manner to which he should be entitled. I am sure that the Home Office will want to address the

797
problem and I shall draw it to the Home Secretary's attention, because the situation is clearly intolerable. My hon. Friend's community is putting up with a detention centre that I understand is used prior to the removal of asylum seekers. If there are any escapees, that must be tackled and the local community must be reassured.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), will the Leader of the House confirm that stories in national newspapers saying that the Government have decided to withdraw the invitation for President Bush to speak to both Houses are untrue? Although I would not expect him to give us details of when the speech will take place, for security reasons, does he accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to hear President Bush? There is a clear precedent because he and I, among others, heard President Clinton speak to both Houses in the Royal Gallery of the House of Lords, and President Reagan did that as well.
Mr. Hain: I certainly recall the example of President Clinton's address and I shall report back to the House at an early opportunity if I can give further information.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving us a full day's debate on the packaging industry, which employs hundreds of thousands of people who are involved in paper, board, glass, plastics, steel, aluminium and wood? The industry must meet targets that are set by the European Union and Her Majesty's Government. The question of reducing, recycling and reclaiming waste applies to every constituency in the country. We should be allowed a full day's debate on the packaging industry to consider what happens with the industry, including the landfill tax, and the environmental factors that follow. Given that there has been no debate in the House on the packaging industry for such a long time, will my right hon. Friend consider allowing a full day's debate?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful that my hon. Friend raised the matter because I, like many hon. Members, have packaging companies in my constituency. The packaging industry plays a vital role in our economic life. I will certainly ensure that his request for a debate is reported to the relevant Secretary of State, although I think that more than one Department is responsible for the issue because it is relevant to industry and the environment.
Mrs. Patsy Calton: Did the Leader of the House hear this morning's reports that unsafe track has been laid in my constituency between Cheadle Hulme and Stockport? Will he urge the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House as soon as possible to make a statement on the situation, tell us what he intends to do to sort out the mess—a mess it is—and assure us that unsafe track has not been laid on other parts of the west coast main line? We have had the wrong sort of leaves and the wrong sort of snow, and now it seems that we have the wrong sort of track.
Mr. Hain: I spoke to the Secretary of State for Transport this morning and he is seized of the issue. He
798
is meeting Network Rail today. He has ensured that safety will apply on that stretch of track because speed will be reduced. I understand that it is anticipated that normal running may be resumed after Sunday next. The situation is a very bad example of rail contracting and, no doubt, of other matters which will be investigated. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to keep the House informed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Last week I asked the Leader of the House whether local authorities that refuse to transfer their council housing stock on principle should be penalised compared with those that sell off or transfer their stock. I did not get a decent answer, so I would like one today to tell me that those authorities will not be penalised for sticking to Labour party principles and keeping their own council houses.
On the subject of crime, does my right hon. Friend think that the figures are comprehensive enough, because there have been many incidents of backstabbing on the Tory party Benches lately and I think that they should be included in a comprehensive review?
Mr. Hain: A bit of law and order on the Tory Back Benches would be advisable.
On council housing, I do not want Labour councils penalised, nor does my hon. Friend. I drew his concern to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister and I am sure that it will be addressed in due course.
Mr. Julian Brazier: May we have an early debate on the mounting crisis in local government funding in many southern councils? Before the recent change in the formula, a granny from an area like mine received funding to be in an old people's home at about 40 per cent. of the level of a granny from Islington, to mention a borough at random. We now face three years of further squeezing under a formula that rewards every constituency represented by a Cabinet Minister. That is a travesty of justice for the elderly and the school children in my constituency.
Mr. Hain: It is a myth that the Government are discriminating against local authorities. All local authorities, including the hon. Gentleman's, have received big increases in funding in recent years. Whether that is channelled into facilities for the elderly or used in other ways is a matter for local authorities. The idea that there are huge cuts is a travesty. Huge cuts were running around when his party was in power.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I note the response to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), but will the Leader of the House go further and consider allowing the House to debate a call for Network Rail to conduct an inquiry into Jarvis engineering works on our railways and to withdraw its decision to make Jarvis the preferred bidder for a major renewals contract in the London north-east area? Jarvis has withdrawn from its three major contracts. It has a poor maintenance record, is associated with accidents and derailments, and faces possible prosecution on safety issues.
Mr. Hain: Jarvis has many questions to answer, which it will do over the corning period when the incident is

799
investigated. That is the intention of the Secretary of State for Transport and is partly the purpose of his meeting today. No doubt he will keep the House informed on that serious matter.
Mr. Graham Brady: When the House debates the reclassification of cannabis next week, will the Leader of the House ensure that sufficient time is available for a proper debate? Will he also ensure that all evidence on both sides of the argument is put before the House? There is a danger that some hon. Members, especially those of a certain age, will address the issue with knowledge or experience that is out of date and inappropriate. It is important that the House knows that the cannabis available today is 10 or 15 times stronger than cannabis that was freely available in the 1960s and that it leads to a fourfold increase in the danger of serious depression or schizophrenia. Evidence suggests that the level of mental illness will rise dramatically if the use of cannabis in its current form is to increase. It is vital that Members are aware of those facts. Will the Leader of the House ensure that they are made available before the vote next week?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes his point eloquently. I am sure he will try to catch the Speaker's eye in next Wednesday's debate.
David Wright: As winter approaches, there have been numerous reports of problems with electricity and water supplies. May we have a statement on the preparedness of utility companies for the forthcoming winter period?
Mr. Hain: I shall ensure that the relevant Secretary of State is made aware of my hon. Friend's concern. If there is information that he or the House needs, I am sure that it will be provided by the Department.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I support the plea for President Bush to address both Houses of Parliament? Such announcements are always made in the United States first. I hope that this time it will be announced here first.
Is it possible for a Foreign Office Minister to address the House in the near future on the guidelines on people who come to the UK for specific purposes that are given to entrance clearance officers? If not, perhaps they could be published instead. Some people travel great distances only to be refused entry for spurious reasons. For example, a person who came here for training in orthopaedics was refused entry because he was not going to spend long enough in the UK. That is strange.
Mr. Hain: I shall draw that to the attention of the Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for visas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will get a response.
Mr. Clive Betts: Yesterday I attended a lobby of London bus workers organised by the Transport and General Workers Union to press for extra funds because of the success of regulated buses in London, which carry 1 million more passengers a day than they did three years ago. Will the Leader of the
800
House organise a debate on the possibility of re-regulating buses outside London where passenger numbers are falling, services are being cut and there is general public dissatisfaction with a service that is effectively the same free-for-all that we inherited from the previous Government?
Mr. Hain: I know that the Secretary of State for Transport is aware of local concern about the subject and of the campaigns by local bus authorities. I am sure that he will want to take account of the situation in south Yorkshire.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House reinstate the regular debate on small businesses, which used to take place in Government time in this Chamber? Given that 99.6 per cent. of companies in the UK employ fewer than 100 people, that they account for approximately 50 per cent. of the private sector work force and that they generate two fifths of national output, is it not important that we debate the fact that those small businesses, which are the seedcorn of our current and future prosperity, are drowning in a sea of regulation, which is deeper and more hazardous than any with which they have previously had to contend?
Mr. Hain: I can agree with the hon. Gentleman on one thing: small businesses are the seedcorn of our economy. That is why the Government are providing more support and assistance to small businesses than ever before, which is why they are flourishing in a way that they have not for generations. However, regulation is an issue. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it and it is being addressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We want to ensure that businesses are not overburdened with red tape or regulation but allowed to proceed with their enterprises to generate the prosperity and jobs that flow from that.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to last week's report by the Audit Commission and Ofsted on the planning of school places? It highlights the increasing problems caused by the polarisation of more-popular secondary schools and less-popular secondary schools. We are increasingly running a system in which schools are choosing children rather than children choosing schools. That is why we have a vast increase in the number of parental appeals and an increase in the number of cases going to the school's adjudicator. Is it not time that we had a full debate on the issue so that we can examine all aspects of admissions policies in our secondary schools?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will study carefully what my hon. Friend says and reflect on his local experiences. I am sure, however, that he will equally want to put it on the record that school standards have been rising in my hon. Friend's community and across the country—[Interruption.] Yes they have, including in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Morale is better and funding is

801
going into education. As a result, schools are in a much better shape to provide the highly skilled population that we need to have a successful economy.
Patrick Mercer: I was interested to see that elements of the police and the British security industry are working on a scheme whereby, in the event of a serious terrorist attack, the private security firms will send men and equipment to back up the police at the scene of the incident. Although I applaud the initiative, will the Leader of the House confirm how those volunteers will be co-ordinated and why it is necessary to have volunteers rather than a formed Government body? May we have a debate on the subject?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and I shall make sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes account of it.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: A couple weeks ago the Government announced a new drive to improve levels of physical fitness in this country. May we have a debate on the matter so that, among other things, we can examine the performance of some Customs and Excise offices, such as the one that serves my constituency, which are charging non-profit-making sports clubs such as the Kirkley and Pakefield sports club in my constituency VAT on new changing rooms that the club wants to provide? We all thought that non-profit-making sports clubs that want to provide more facilities to get more people involved in sport were exempt from VAT.
Mr. Hain: I have noticed that as my hon. Friend has continued his life in the House, he has become a more and more radiant example of physical fitness, and I congratulate him on that. The issue that he raises is an important one in his constituency, and the Chancellor and other Ministers concerned will want to consider it and see whether it can be addressed.
Jim Knight: Has my right hon. Friend had time in the past week to visit the Committee Corridor, where the heating has been chaotic? Those of us who serve on the Standing Committee considering the Water Bill have been suffering Siberian temperatures until today, when it was positively tropical. While he is there, will my right hon. Friend look at the labels on some of the Committee Room doors? Committee Room 13 is now the MacDonald Room, Committee Room 12 is the Lloyd George Room and Committee Room 11 is curiously both the Peel Room and the Wellington
802
Room. What is going on with the labelling of our Committee Rooms? Who is deciding all this? Have we not got better types of modernisation to get on with?
Mr. Hain: I understand that the Works of Art Committee has taken a decision to rename the Committee Rooms. I hope the numbers are not removed, or none of us will be able to find them. Since the Committee Rooms are all being named after former Prime Ministers, I am sure that the name Iain Duncan Smith will not appear on one.
Kevin Brennan: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his opposition to reviewing the new hours of sitting of the House? Has he considered that, apart from the usual arguments, the new arrangements are clearly grossly unfair to the official Opposition, not because they are left with insufficient time to scrutinise the Government, but because they do not have enough time to plot successfully against their own Leader?
Mr. Hain: I have not noticed an absence of plots against the Conservative leader on the Opposition Benches. As I said before in respect of the hours, the House took a decision, which applies for the rest of the Parliament. It will be reviewed in due course to see whether we want to proceed with it.
Shona Mclsaac: Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to find time for a full day's Adjournment debate on the funding of the health service? The British people have a right to know how the health service is to be funded in the future, and what the Government will do to ensure that the future of the health service is safe. People need to see that there is clear blue shark-infested water between the Government's policies to protect the health service, and the policies of the Opposition, which would destroy the health service, not to mention the gloopy quicksand of the wannabe Opposition, the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Hain: I would welcome a debate on the funding of the health service. There is now a clear choice for the country between the Government's investment at record levels in the health service, recruiting more and more nurses, doctors and consultants and providing a higher standard of service to all, compared with the Opposition's view that charging and private funding should be introduced, robbing the health service by putting public money into private hospitals. I alert the House to the fact that every time somebody takes out money in order to have an operation performed in the private sector, according to the Opposition's policies, they are effectively taking out nurses, consultants and doctors. It is not like going along to the local hospital and taking out money from a bank that one can take down the road to another bank. It is taking out money that funds medical staff, without whom the hospitals cannot function at the level that they should.

Defence Procurement
[Relevant documents: The Eighth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2002–03 (HC694), Defence Procurement, and the Government's response thereto, Fourth Special Report from the Committee, Session 2002–03 (HC1194).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
1.14 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Last week we had an informative and useful debate on defence policy, recognising at the time that today's debate on defence procurement would deal in detail with the equipment issues essential to the delivery of our strategic policy aims. I shall, therefore, deal primarily with those issues in today's debate.
This is the second procurement debate that I have opened, and I note the poor attendance on the Opposition Benches. I can only guess—[Interruption.] I hear a sedentary comment from the Opposition Benches that the attendance there is the same as on the Government Benches, but as I said the last time the matter was raised, Government Members are comfortable with our policies. As we are constantly reminded, it is the role of the Opposition to oppose the Government. I can only guess that the reason for the sparse attendance is that Opposition Members are all scheming and plotting somewhere, hoping to procure a new leader for their party. If so, I suggest that they use smart acquisition as a means forward. The way they tried to do it last time did not produce a very good result, and they may have to live on with the legacy systems.
It is important to set procurement policy in context. It would be helpful to define the key purpose of our defence procurement. It is people who are at the heart of our procurement and equipment policies. In the simplest terms, our job is to provide the best equipment and support that we can for the men and women of our armed forces, in order that they can best do what we ask of them. Alongside that, we must always remember our responsibility to the taxpayer, which means striving for the best value that we can achieve when procuring the systems and items that we need.
We are no different from any other Department in that we need to manage our funds carefully. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out in last week's debate, we face fluctuating pressures on our budget. Recently these have included recruiting well above our expectations—which is good news but costs money—the changing exchange rate, and managing the—impact of operating full resource accounting and budgeting for the first time. All this means that we must spend our money as wisely as possible.
David Wright: With regard to spending our money efficiently, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he factors into that process the issue of buying British, and that he uses a qualitative analysis on that basis to make decisions?
Mr. Ingram: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters because of the industrial footprint in his constituency. The defence industrial policy, which I shall mention later, shows that we are
804
working with a clear focus and in close harmony with UK industry. We consider what is right for industry, but the equipment that our people need must be the main driver in this. If British is best, it will be purchased. That is why British industry must strive to be the best. There are many examples where it outshines its international competitors. I shall mention some of the procurement decisions that have been taken recently, which I hope will provide the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Given that the Minister is stressing the willingness of Britain to buy abroad when the equipment is better, have any comparisons been run between Britain and other major industrial powers? Is it not the case that other countries are far less likely to buy from us than we are from them? What is he doing to open their markets to our efficient producers?
Mr. Ingram: I compliment my hon. Friend on his hard work for his constituency and the associated industries, particularly shipbuilding. I was not saying that it is imperative that our purchasing focus is on products from abroad. I was seeking to say—my hon. Friend may have misunderstood me—that our focus in terms of defence industrial policy is always to try to buy from the home base, but the equipment has to be good enough to match the very best that is out there internationally.
Joint ventures and partnerships are increasingly becoming the norm, both in Europe and with our partners in the United States. As my hon. Friend will be aware, a company that is seen as a UK company may be majority shareholder owned in another part of the world. There are always moves afoot as regards amalgamations. In that context, a procurement decision based on "buy British" does not mean much. What is important is that British-based companies receive the best support to enable them to produce the best for our armed forces—and, importantly, for export purposes. I hope that my hon. Friend shares my concern about the lobbying to try to stop the export of British-produced armaments, which significantly attacks British jobs. I look forward to him joining me in the campaign to make people more aware of the importance of the armaments industry to the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to take into account a manufacturer's length of experience when considering it for a procurement contract? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate Marshall Aerospace in Cambridge on the 20th anniversary of its involvement in the conversion of the RAF tanker fleet? I hope that he will bear that in mind when he comes to make a decision about the future tanker project.
Mr. Ingram: I am always prepared to congratulate companies on the length of time for which they have been committed to such work and to wish them many more years based in the United Kingdom, and I do so in the case of Marshalls in my hon. Friend's constituency. However, I should not discuss from the Dispatch Box the sensitive negotiations about the future strategic tanker aircraft, which are reaching their conclusion. Our judgment will be based on what is best in terms of the needs of our armed forces in delivering our objectives.

805
The people who make up the armed forces enable us rightly to proclaim them as among the best in the world; in the modern age, we must ensure that our procurement programmes help them to maintain that crucial, battle-winning edge, now and in future. I hope that hon. Members agree that that should be our overriding priority. Getting it right means not only providing the right kit for today, but trying to read the strategic future well enough to ensure that we do so for tomorrow. The pace of change in the new strategic environment, which we examined in last week's debate, is challenging. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the House, in the past been there have been periods during which we faced a static, if technologically evolving, threat. But there have also been key moments when significant shifts in defence posture were needed. The threat that we face at present is far from static, and we face another of those moments when a substantial shift in defence posture is essential if we are to continue to be effective. Change is the key—but not for the sake of it or because we have got it wrong in the past. As our defence posture changes, so do the tactics and strategies that we employ and, in turn, the equipment that we use to do the job.
The strategic defence review got it right in 1998. I doubt that anyone would seriously argue against the overall focus that it placed upon readiness, deployability, sustainability and flexibility of forces. It would be wrong, however, to allow any set of conclusions to remain inviolate. We owe it to our servicemen and women to review our conclusions and, where necessary, to redirect our efforts and to make changes to our plans. We must also respond to changes in the security environment such as those which, sadly, took place on 11 September 2001, three years after the SDR.
We used the new chapter to tune our assessment of where we were and where we needed to be. It considered how best to build on the SDR in countering international terrorism and the increased threat of asymmetric attacks. Its aim was to ensure that our armed forces have the right capabilities to play their part. At the heart of that is network enabled capability, about which I shall say more later. The new chapter came to some distinct conclusions about the way forward in policy terms, highlighting issues of technology, interoperability, flexibility and speed. It is clear that to achieve our aims, we need to invest heavily in new technologies and capabilities. Of course, like all Departments, our funds are not infinite—that will necessitate some tough decisions.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said last week, in investing in areas that are so crucial to the present and future we must recognise that systems that are rendered less effective as a result of the changing security environment will have to make way for those that can help the armed forces in the tasks that lie ahead. It would be very wrong to maintain ineffective structures and systems when we know that others would be better to meet our front-line needs. Sentiment for older pieces of kit is understandable, but sentiment will not give us that battle-winning edge. We should not assume that the future threat will neatly conform to a traditional notion of how the armed forces should look. Defence capability cannot be preserved in aspic—it needs to evolve to meet the new threats and challenges that we face.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I endorse what the Minister is saying. Does he accept, however, that
806
when procuring systems such as aircraft carriers and other pieces of equipment that take many years to build and have to be in service for many years, their specifications must allow them to be as versatile as possible, because we cannot predict how threats will come and go, develop and complicate over that very long period?
Mr. Ingram: I agree with that view, generally speaking, but not necessarily in terms of the aircraft carrier. The lifetime of an aircraft carrier may be 50 years, but that of other equipment systems will be shorter. Some may be much more easily adaptable than others due to the nature of what was procured. I shall deal specifically with the aircraft carrier procurement decision later.
In terms of equipment, we need to have the right industrial policies, the determination to drive through the benefits of smart acquisition, and an equipment programme that is designed to ensure that the armed forces retain their decisive edge. Much has happened since we last debated defence procurement in this House in July 2002. The Defence Committee's thorough and thoughtful annual report on defence procurement, published in July, and the Government's response, which was published only two days ago, demonstrate a wide range of activity in terms of industrial policy and important developments in a number of key equipment capability projects. Most notably, we have seen our armed forces engaged in major war-fighting operations in Iraq, where they faced, and continue to face, tough challenges.
I want to focus on the implications of those operations and the lessons that we draw from them for our equipment programme. First, I shall deal with how our equipment performed during recent conflicts. We intend to publish a full report on operations in Iraq in December, but I can offer the House a number of key conclusions relating to equipment. There was much good news from recent operations in Iraq. The RAF's newest air-to-ground missile, Storm Shadow, was used operationally for the first time and showed astonishing precision. Our Tomahawk land attack missiles fired from our attack submarines once again proved their worth, enabling accurate attacks at long range. We also showed progress towards our goal of integrating sensors, weapons and decision makers to deliver military effect more rapidly and precisely. In the past, the thorough planning of Tomahawk missions took days. In Operation Telic, the time line for Storm Shadow and TLAM planning was reduced to just a few hours, revolutionising the responsive nature of the capability.
It is worth noting that lessons were implemented from previous operations. Kosovo showed us the need for an all-weather precision-guided bombing capability. As a direct result, we procured enhanced Paveway bombs, which were used to great effect in Iraq. Similarly, the AGM-65 Maverick anti-armour missile had its first operational use in Iraq, integrated on to the Harrier GR7 aircraft. Approximately 85 per cent. of air-dropped munitions were precision guided. We re-emphasised the importance of smart weapons with the announcement in June of the selection of Raytheon's Paveway IV munition as the new precision-guided bomb for the Royal Air Force. It is due to enter service from 2007.

807
Afghanistan showed us the need for an improved maintenance regime for the modified SA80 A2 assault rifle. That ensured that it could cope with the hot and dusty environment in Iraq and early reports suggest that it was a success. The SA80 A2 was used for the first time in Iraq in combination with the new head-mounted night-vision system. That enabled our infantry to move and acquire targets simultaneously at night—a potent and lethal enhancement.
In the ground campaign, our Challenger 2 main battle tanks and the Warrior armoured fighting vehicles made an outstanding contribution to the speed and decisiveness of the coalition intervention. Their enhancements for desert conditions were a great success. Early reports suggested that they achieved an availability rating of around 90 per cent. during operations. In addition, fitting bolt-on armour considerably increased their protection. The AS90 self-propelled gun also performed well, delivering a great weight of accurate fire support with 95 per cent. availability.
All recent operations have highlighted the importance of the ability to deploy, sustain and recover our forces. Our strategic air and sea-lift capability, notably the C-17 and C-130 aircraft and the roll-on/roll-off ferries, were decisive in enabling us to deploy and sustain a force in Iraq the size of that deployed in 1991 but in half the time. That fully justified the emphasis we have placed on that aspect of capability from the time of the strategic defence review.
Mr. Colin Breed: I applaud the successes that the Minister enumerated. However, does he acknowledge that the threat that we anticipated was significantly less than that in previous operations and that success of our equipment and men must be set against that? I am pleased that they were successful but we must recognise that threats in future may be considerably more difficult to surmount. We need to measure that.
Mr. Ingram: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis because the potential threat was great. I remind him of our discovery after the conflict of buried effective equipment, which the Iraqi forces did not use but had purchased for use. It was probably available for use and people had probably been trained to use it. The threat in the air and on land could have been great. The potential numbers in the Iraqi army were great and the concept of the operation was designed to degrade the Iraqi forces' capability of mounting an effective threat to our advancing forces. That is why I mentioned precision bombing, which took out communication lines thereby hitting the command chain network of the Iraqi senior command structure. That was important in achieving our success. Without that capability, there might have been a different sort of ground campaign. The joint approach—marrying the three elements of our armed forces—is vital. It was the underlying principle of the strategic defence review and the expeditionary concept implied in it.
On future threats, I was making the point that we live in a changing environment and that we must always make our best guess. If the hon. Member for South-East
808
Cornwall (Mr. Breed) has greater insight than the military planners who advise the Ministry of Defence, I look forward to his contribution and his perception of how the threat will develop and evolve in the months and years ahead.
Although we learn from operations and necessarily look at a distant horizon when planning to meet equipment need, we must recognise that each operation has its specific challenges. We therefore optimise our capability through urgent operational requirements. That allows us to take advantage of the latest technology. The comments of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall fit comfortably with that point because we have the capability to be flexible and adaptable, depending on the circumstances. Let me give an example.
For operations in Iraq, the Ministry of Defence procured 190 urgent operational requirements at a value of approximately £510 million. The Select Committee on Defence is currently conducting an inquiry into that and we shall assist its understanding on a confidential basis with background information.
In some cases, UK industry had to supply equipment at extremely short notice. Industry and our organisations such as the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, ABRO—Army Base Repair Organisation—and the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency, responded magnificently to the surge of requirements in the build-up to the operation, thereby proving the value of the partnering approach that the Ministry of Defence has developed in recent years.
Some urgent operational requirements involved accelerating existing programmes such as the procurement of the temporary deployable accommodation and the head-mounted night-vision system. Others, especially the measures to enhance interoperability with coalition allies, were new procurements made within short time scales. However, the process is not flawless.
Peter Bradley: My right hon. Friend is right to credit the achievements of DSDA and ABRO, which are in my constituency, but will he extend his appreciation to the private sector, especially Alvis, which sent personnel to the Gulf to undertake modifications to Challenger 2, thus making a considerable contribution to the effort in Iraq?
Mr. Ingram: Yes, I shall. I said industry and our organisations. [Interruption.] We are reminded that the company's name is Alvis Vickers and there is obviously some competition on the Labour Benches to acknowledge the contribution. I acknowledge the role of Alvis Vickers and many other companies, which contributed in so many different ways. The Select Committee on Defence will be advised of that when it conducts its inquiry. Much of the information is given in confidence and I am sure that hon. Members understand that it is not appropriate to give all the details publicly. However, I know that the Committee will give the information that we provide full and detailed consideration.
Mr. Siôn Simon: Will the Minister go further on industrial policy and perhaps

809
learn a lesson from abroad? After going through the defence industrial policy process and considering the four key factors and the seven wider factors, will the Department ensure that the work is always given to a British company, preferably a Birmingham company?
Hon. Members: Answer that.
Mr. Ingram: Indeed. I could end up in a trading position, suggesting various cities and regions, including East Kilbride. British industry has tremendous capabilities in delivering for us—there is no question about that. I shall deal with defence industrial policy later, but buying what is best for our forces, not industry, must be the prime consideration. Members of the armed forces could be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the realm and our national interest. They would not respect us for saying, "Off you go and use this equipment because it's got a British flag", whether it came from Birmingham, East Kilbride or elsewhere. However, I pay tribute to the strength, depth and commitment of the United Kingdom industry.
I rightly considered our successes and the way in which our procurement policy progresses, based on previous conflicts and the most recent conflict. However, the process is not flawless. Although it would be inefficient and unaffordable to buy and maintain equipment for every contingency in every climate, we shall undertake further analysis to improve our understanding of the likely time scales in which different capabilities can be procured.
I make it clear that we will not fall into the old trap of planning to fight the previous war. Our plans revolve around the future, not the past but we must learn lessons from the conflicts and deployments in which we have participated.
I accept that there are areas in which we could have done better and in which lessons for the future have to be learned. No operation on the scale of Iraq can ever proceed perfectly in every detail. It has been a huge undertaking and has tested the organisational as well as the fighting capabilities of the MOD. Our people have met this massive challenge with commitment, professionalism and, ultimately, with decisive success—a fact not always acknowledged.
I recognise, however, that despite our best efforts, working night and day, we did not meet every unit's requirement for desert clothing and boots, and that some personnel experienced some shortages of other items of personal equipment. Action to improve asset visibility and tracking in theatre is something to which we must look to improve our capability. We have launched a no-holds-barred "lessons learned" process, the first reflections from which were published in July. The final report is expected at the end of the year. We want to ensure the continued high performance and capability of our equipment in any future operation and that we continue to meet the standards that our service people rightly expect.
We have a responsibility to plan for an uncertain future. That means concentrating on the key SDR capability goals and the network-enabled capability that will allow us to develop the effects-based approach that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
810
described to the House last week. We intend to keep network-enabled capability at the heart of our approach to future equipment. As Operation Telic demonstrated, and as we foreshadowed in the SDR new chapter, this has become a fundamental part of almost every aspect of modern war on land and sea, and in the air. Any country that neglects this will find itself outclassed and outperformed on and behind the battlefield, whatever mass of individual equipment it can muster. Ultimately, it will enable us to link our intelligence, surveillance and combat capabilities together faster, giving us the ability to achieve decisive effects on the ground. It is also vital in helping us to link up with our allies and coalition partners.
The network, integration, test and experimentation works programme, or NITE works programme, a three-year project that will serve to bring the MOD and industry into a partnership intended better to integrate existing assets to maximise operational capability, was launched in August. This process of practical testing and experimentation within synthetic environments has impressive potential advantages, and British industry has responded positively to the partnership approach on this programme. Another key enabler project is the Bowman tactical radio system, which remains the Army's No. 1 equipment priority, and which will supplement the personal role radio already in service. We intend to meet the demanding March 2004 in-service target date for this piece of equipment.
We also expect to place a contract for Skynet 5 with Paradigm Secure Communications very shortly. This private finance initiative contract will provide modern, robust and flexible worldwide communications for the front line and is very good news for the armed forces. Added to this, services will be offered to friendly third parties, such as NATO, opening up possibilities of enhanced inter-operability and improved value for money. It is also good news for UK industry, as just under 2,000 people will be in jobs associated with the programme at its peak. The north-west and south-west of England, south Wales and Northern Ireland will all benefit from this programme.
While sensors and networks are critical, we must also invest in the platforms that allow us to respond swiftly and flexibly. We are doing that across all three environments—land, air and sea. I would like now to deal with each of those in turn. We have recently entered stage 3 of the assessment phase for the future aircraft carrier, the CVF, providing further impetus to alliance operations and the constructive relationship with BAE Systems and Thales UK. This assessment stage will increase the maturity of the design, optimising capability and value for money.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Will my right hon. Friend comment on some of the headlines that have appeared in the north-eastern regional press? The Newcastle Journal has one that reads:
"Delays on ship deal put jobs in danger."
That refers to work that could go to Swan Hunter. Obviously, the procurement of the CVF will have a great impact not only on the north-east but on other

811
regions. Will the Minister scotch some of the more alarmist rumours that have been put about in such articles?
Mr. Ingram: I do not know whether it is because I am from Scotland that my hon. Friend is asking me to scotch those rumours. We should not respond to lurid press headlines as this process develops. Every procurement process has decision-making points at which we have to get it right, otherwise we cannot move to the next phase. Clearly, the bigger and more complex the project, the tougher that task is. I understand my hon. Friend's very strong commitment to the shipbuilding industry in his own constituency and region. I have already made the point that we should not necessarily focus on what is right for industry. We should focus on what is right in terms of the eventual capability. It takes a lot of fine tuning and precise planning to get that right, both in terms of structure and, importantly, delivering on time, which can be critical.
I would love to be able to say that everything runs smoothly in every procurement, but it does not. So far as this particular procurement is concerned, there has been a lot of comment about the way in which we put together the strategic partnership between BAE Systems, Thales UK and the MOD. People said that it was flawed and that it would never work, but the opposite is happening. We now have a very committed high-grade project team driving forward to meet the tough demands that we at the MOD insist on.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for giving way again. Of course, he is making reasonable points in a general sort of way, but this cannot all be put down to lurid press reports, can it? The Minister may recall that the Secretary of State said in his statement about the future aircraft carrier on 30 January this year:
"At around 60,000 tonnes, they"—
the aircraft carriers—
"are approximately three times the size of our current carriers. They will rank alongside the most formidable and complex weapons systems deployed by any country in the world."— [Official Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1026.]
Whereas in August, in a response to a question from me about the size of the aircraft carriers and the rumours that they were to be much reduced, the Minister said in a written reply:
"In the strategic defence review published in 1998, it was envisaged that the two new future aircraft carriers would be in the order of 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes."— [Official Report, 16 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 703W.]
That is not the press making things up; those are two different messages from two different Ministers in the same Department.
Mr. Ingram: I should like to reflect on that, and obviously I shall read Hansard to see the context in which those questions were raised and the responses given.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: Let me deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) first.
812
The relationship between cost and capability forms a normal part of any assessment phase, and formal cost and performance parameters will not be set until the main gate decision. The hon. Member for New Forest, East said that I made my point in a general way, but it was also a specific way. As we define capability needs, in which nothing is static and everything is evolving, against certain fairly firm criteria—although they may be subject to change—the cost implication must come into play. We have to marry up those two important elements to deliver what has rightly been described as a decision that must be flexible and adaptable over the lifetime of these vessels, which will be in the region of 50 years. While it is right for the hon. Gentleman to continue to probe and to tie us down to specifics, that contradicts what he was asking for, which was to ensure that we had a procurement process that took account of his earlier concerns.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because this is an extremely serious issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has pointed out, the Secretary of State made great play of this issue in January, having seen two specific proposals from two major contractors for large vessels of the order of 60,000 tonnes. In August, the Minister suggested that the figure had been retrenched to between 30,000 and 40,000 tonnes. That is a substantial difference, and the House deserves a more specific answer than he has been able to give us. Has there been a huge change in the configuration of the aircraft carrier that warrants such a dramatic change, or is the truth that the cost implications that he has just mentioned are the driving factor?
Mr. Ingram: It is not the truth in the way in which the hon. Gentleman puts it, but there must be an element of truth in it. Cost is a part of any consideration about the capability that we seek. I heard the First Sea Lord say recently that it did not matter how long, how tall and how fat ships were; what mattered was what they delivered in naval terms—the punch that they afforded the Royal Navy.
It would be wrong to say that the consideration was driven primarily by cost. We hear a lot about that when industry makes announcements about capability, or about the concept of a particular procurement, but when the concept is examined in detail, the need to ensure flexibility over the likely—in this instance, the known—lifetime of a carrier must come into play. Smart acquisition is all about that process of refinement.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: I must proceed, although I am not running away from the issue, and I am sure that Conservative Members will return to it.
Mr. Davidson: The Minister tells us that any changes are driven by capacity rather than cost. Can he assure us that the original plans for two aircraft carriers carrying approximately 48 planes have been retained, and that the number of planes that a carrier will be able to bear

813
has not been cut? Can he also confirm that the Ministry is still working on the basis of the estimated dates of 2012 and 2015 in terms of capacity and delivery?
Mr. Ingram: As I said earlier, delivery on time is critical, and we are continuing to work according to that timetable, although it will depend on the capacity and ability of industry to deliver. We are dependent on its expertise. We cannot necessarily drive developments from the top. Sometimes there is a shift in the timetable because of changed requirements related to the evolving nature of our understanding of the threat or of the capabilities available.
It is best to wait for the main gate decision. This is one of the things that we must get right according to the criteria that I have established. As I have said, the situation is evolving. I repeat that we are not building these ships for industry, or for shipbuilding areas; we are building them to meet the needs of the Royal Navy, and to supply part of its contribution to the expeditionary force and the punch that it must deliver along with the RAF and the Army.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: No, I must make progress.
These vessels will meet the requirements set out in the strategic defence review. Operating the short take-off/vertical landing variant of the joint strike fighter and a range of helicopters, they will constitute the most capable carrier force outside the United States.
Last December, considerable interest was generated by the Astute class attack submarines and the Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft programmes. Those are hugely complex systems, which have presented significant challenges to the Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems. February saw the announcement of an agreement on the way ahead for those two important projects, putting the programmes on a much sounder footing for the future through restructured contracts and a reduction in overall risk. Both sides are now working on the basis of the agreement, and my noble Friend Lord Bach was in Barrow-in-Furness only yesterday to attend the keel-laying of the second Astute class boat, HMS Ambush.
Although risks and challenges remain, this represents a major milestone for the Astute programme, and further demonstrates our commitment to deliver these important capabilities to the armed forces as soon as possible, along with the company. Hard lessons have been learned from the challenges by both the MOD and BAE Systems, and we are applying them widely in order to go on making progress with smart acquisition.
Mr. Davidson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ingram: I have already given way generously to my hon. Friend.
One of the largest programmes is the joint strike fighter, a collaborative venture led by the United States but now involving many contributors, the United Kingdom being the main partner. We are very proud of the extensive role won by UK industry, a role that could reap as much as £5 billion worth of work for the UK in
814
the current system development and demonstration phase, safeguarding many thousands of jobs and our leading position in the aerospace industry. A further £24 billion could be in prospect for downstream production activities.
Typhoon, our next-generation high-performance fast jet, will serve as the cornerstone of the RAF's air defence capability in the future. The project achieved a major milestone in June, when type acceptance was completed. The UK remains committed to the Typhoon programme, and discussions with the four nation members and with industry on tranche 2 are continuing.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: I do not want to have to extend my speech as much as I did when we last debated this subject, and to take every intervention to make up for the fact that hardly any Opposition Members are present. The hon. Gentleman will be responding for the Opposition, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with the issues he raises.
Our priority is to ensure that industry's proposals for the programme are soundly planned and are based on mature designs. Austria's decision to place an order for 18 Typhoon aircraft clearly supports the export potential that the aircraft offers, and Singapore has also shortlisted Typhoon to meet its future fast-jet requirement. It was partly to meet the new demands of training pilots for front-line service in the Typhoon and the joint strike fighter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State selected BAE Systems' Hawk 128 as the next advanced jet trainer for our armed forces.
Subject to the successful completion of contractual negotiations, we intend to make an initial purchase of 20 of the new training aircraft, with options to buy up to a further 24. The value of a full order for 44 aircraft is expected to be worth some £800 million. They will enter service in 2008.
The choice of Hawk offers the best aircraft for the training of pilots of our future advanced fighter jets. Importantly, it will also sustain a number of jobs at the BAE Systems factory in Brough, and numerous others in the UK supply chain. More than 800 Hawk 128 aircraft are currently in service with some 19 customers, and future sales prospects for Hawk are extremely bright. The recent decision by the Indian Government to select Hawk as their new advanced jet trainer clearly supports that.
On 5 March 2002 the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), now the Liberal Democrat treasury spokesperson—I hope that he did not get his promotion on the basis of what he said then—observed
"The system whereby British officials and ambassadors and the Ministers who direct them are running round the world, as the Foreign Secretary did with BAE Systems last week, selling Hawk jets to India, is not the sort of thing in which the British Government should be engaged." —[Official Report, 5 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 189.]
It is precisely that, which is why I have spoken about the scale and the scope of the project and its importance to British industry.

815
On the land side, there is a need to modernise elements of the armoured vehicle fleet. That gives us an opportunity to develop medium-weight forces in the Army, and to deliver a solution exploiting network-enabled capability. The programme is known as future rapid effects system, or FRES. To assist its progress, work is already in hand to investigate a number of new technologies.
Although it has taken longer than anticipated to launch the project on its assessment phase, the Ministry believes that additional time invested now is essential to ensure that it has a good prospect of meeting requirements. We hope to have a decision on the way ahead for FRES later this year.
Peter Bradley: I understand that the Government have a commitment to royal naval vessels being built in British dockyards. If that is the case, why cannot that privileged relationship be extended to British industry when it has the capacity to provide for our needs? FRES is a case in point.
Mr. Ingram: I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from with regard to the figures. I cannot address special pleading for individual industries from the Dispatch Box, because all the decisions are based on the capability and capacity of British industry to deliver. As for my hon. Friend's point about the shipbuilding industry, if we did not have a shipbuilding programme for building naval ships in British shipyards, we would not by and large have a shipbuilding industry. That does not necessarily apply elsewhere, but the defence industrial policy, which I shall touch on later, aims to make sure that we seek to get the best from the best of British industry. However, it is up to British industry to be the best. I pay tribute to the companies that I have mentioned for delivering at an extremely high level, which gives us a great deal of assurance and comfort for the future.
I mentioned the new FRES project, an exciting and important project for the Army. However, that is not to detract from the battle-winning qualities of our heavy armour. Operation Telic served to underline the crucial role that main battle tanks still possess, but that punch comes at a price in terms of deployability. We regard medium-weight forces combining ease of deployment with more firepower as an important force element for the future.
All decisions on individual equipment projects are viewed against the backdrop of our defence industrial policy. Government and industry have worked together for many years on defence industrial issues, but the publication of the policy last year galvanised both to adopt new ways of working together, which has resulted in a joint approach to implementation and the development of a joint action plan. I praise industry for its hard work in making that a success which, coupled with the support from the trade unions and the work force, gives us a strong base for the future.
We are determined to reduce the barriers to cooperation with our allies and partners, and have made good progress on doing so with our European partners through the letter of intent. We are working closely with
816
the US Administration to secure a waiver for UK companies from the US international traffic in arms regulations. We are concerned about moves by the US Congress to restrict procurement for US armed forces to American companies. We and the US Administration regard that as a retrogressive and impractical step that would ultimately harm US interests as much as our own. We are taking every opportunity to explain our thinking to our US counterparts, and I shall do so again next week when I visit Washington.
We are constantly making our US counterparts aware of the importance of not saying "Buy US, for the US." However, in today's debate, there is an element of "Buy Britain only." We cannot live in that world. If we are trying to open up markets to the quality of our goods, we have to expect competition. If we examine what is happening in defence procurement—I have spoken about partnership between companies and takeover—we can see that the industry is changing rapidly. It is important to make sure that we have good access to other markets.
Mr. Michael Jack: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that in his discussions next week in the United States he will raise with our American colleagues the question of having full access to all the technologies that underpin the joint strike fighter?
Mr. Ingram: I will make every point that I can on behalf of UK interests. I am sure that that will be in my briefing pack and, if it is not, I shall certainly ask why. It is important that this country punches at its highest and best weight, and the right hon. Gentleman has raised an important aspect of our doing so.
Our procurement strategy continues to be delivered through our smart acquisition policy. The ethos behind smart acquisition has always been to acquire defence capability faster, cheaper and better while deepening and broadening the key principles of the original smart procurement initiative. We are currently looking in great detail at other areas to identify where improvements to our processes can be extended. We recognise that that is a continuing challenge—still more needs to be done, particularly regarding project slippage. We need to look at ways in which we can become much quicker and more agile in our procurement processes. As part of that ongoing work, we are discussing measures with industry that could be introduced to improve project management on major programmes.
Equipment procurement can sometimes appear to be for the benefit of industry, constrained by budget considerations. The reality is that we must all remember what that equipment is for. Ultimately, it helps our people to win on the battlefield—it increases their chances of doing so and coming home safely, which is why we must get it right. That means not only making bold and well-considered decisions about new kit but making honest assessments regarding old kit. We know what works, what is no longer effective and what we need to work in future. Everything that we are now doing is aimed at that goal. Changes must be made, and they will be made. We ask a lot of the men and women of our armed forces, which is why we are determined to do what needs to be done to equip them to be as outstanding in the 21st century as they were in the last.
2.5 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a slightly sad note, may I send condolences from Conservative Members and, I am sure, the whole House, to the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), who has just suffered a bereavement? I extend our sympathies to him and his family on the loss of his wife. He was an assiduous debater on defence matters in the House before he moved to the Department for Transport and beyond.
The Minister drew the short straw in having to open today's today. The Secretary of State obviously decided that it was warmer in Iraq than here, to escape having to answer for the debacle of the CVF—carrier vessel future—programme. The responses that the Minister gave his hon. Friend the Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) will have given them no more reassurance about the project than it did us. I remind him that we supported completely the Government's decisions to order two substantial aircraft carriers and on their configuration. We welcomed the fact that they chose the STOVL—short take-off and vertical landing—version of the joint strike fighter to equip those aircraft carriers, and even issued a statement congratulating them on their decision. Needless to say, that did not get printed, because it is only the adversarial aspects of Parliament that strike a chord with the media. We welcomed the fact that the design of the aircraft carriers could incorporate retro-fitting of a catapult system in the event of the joint strike fighter not incorporating a STOVL variant. That is entirely dependent on the US marine corps deciding to choose that version—if it does not, there will be no STOVL version for the United Kingdom to acquire.
I take strong issue with the Minister's assertion that the question of the length and diameter of hulls and so on is not material. It is important that the dimensions of those aircraft carriers are sufficient for them to deploy 48 fighter aircraft—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok sought reassurance on that—because that is the basis on which the project was put together in the first place. I hope that when the Under-Secretary winds up, he will be able to reassure the House that it is still planned that the sortie generation rate will involve 48 aircraft operating from those hulls. If not, the prospect that we face is very different from the one we welcomed in January, when the Government made their decision. Clearly, however, the speculation in the press is entirely right and proper—it is well focused and spot on. I am afraid that the Minister of State has failed to reassure anyone in the House, and many companies and constituencies around the country will be alarmed by what they have heard today.
This debate takes place in the context of a nation that has five times embarked on serious military operations in the six years of this Government's life, and in the context of widespread rumours that next month's White Paper will bring a further round of swingeing cuts to the defence budget, not limited to the carriers. Industry claims that the procurement budget is already underfunded, and now informed defence commentators are speaking of cuts well in excess of £1,000 million. We read that Lieutenant General Rob Fulton, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, has instructed his capability
818
managers to find £1,000 million of savings across each of the military's 12 "capability areas" over the next 10 years.
Reports suggest that the order for the Type 45 destroyers is likely to be cut from 12 to eight. As we have heard, the order for two new aircraft carriers is becoming ever more precarious and, as we have discussed, they are shrinking in size.
Mark Tami: Will the hon. Gentleman perhaps tell us what the cuts were over the last 10 years of the last Tory Government?
Mr. Howarth: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party conference voted for defence cuts of one third and that Labour was for ever pressing us from the Dispatch Box, when we were looking to refocus Britain's defence interests after the fall of the Berlin wall, to go further and further than we did. His accusation is a boomerang that has come back to hit him. In fact, many of the success stories to which the Minister of State referred were projects that were started by the Conservative Government and of which this Government are fortunate enough to be reaping the benefits. The AS 90 is one of them. The Minister of State mentioned that.
The Minister of State also mentioned the Typhoon, another project that is looking vulnerable, with reports that the number is to be cut from 232 to 130. Little wonder, then, that the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Mike Walker, was reported in The Observer last Sunday as saying privately that he found the proposed plans to be "incomprehensible." What a way to pay tribute to our armed forces for the fantastic job they have done in Iraq!
This is the third of the annual defence policy debates that we have held since the summer recess, yet publication of the White Paper has been conveniently delayed until after the debates are over. It is extremely unfortunate that the timing could not have been better ordered to enable the House to have the benefit of the Government's latest thinking on the safeguarding of our national security. This question arises: how can a Government who are so keen to project British power and influence around the world and who have committed Her Majesty's armed forces to a major and continuing operation in Iraq justify a reduction in investment in those forces? I remind the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) that defence expenditure under this Government has fallen to 2.3 per cent. of gross domestic product, by comparison with 2.9 per cent. of GDP when the Conservatives left office in 1997.
Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, after the excellent performance of British and other troops in the Gulf in 1992, the then Government cut defence expenditure by a third in the following years?
Mr. Howarth: It was not cut by a third. I think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time and I was not. Whatever cuts were made, they were far less than his party was demanding of the Government of the day, at a time when I think he was in the House and I was not, so he is no position to make that accusation—certainly

819
not when he is seeking to bat for Alvis Vickers, which has an important facility in his constituency that he knows I have had the pleasure of visiting.
Mr. Jack: Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on the fact that the previous Conservative Government looked at their spending in the light of the changed threat at the time, which if anything was reducing, whereas at the present time threats seem to be increasing?
Mr. Howarth: That is the typically perceptive point that I would expect a colleague of mine who held a responsible position in Her Majesty's Treasury to make. The House is better informed as a result. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The Government know that they are caught between a rock and a hard place, and in the past few months have been engaged in a desperate softening-up operation in advance of the White Paper. Even this afternoon, the Minister of State has told us that some capabilities will have to go. Unfortunately, he cannot tell us now what those will be, but we have been warned that some capabilities will have to go. That is part of the operation. As Lord Bach told The Economist and the Jane's conference on Tuesday, platforms are not the key; it is capabilities that count. In a sense, he is absolutely correct but surely the one thing that the Iraq operation told us is that numbers do count. We were hard pressed to field enough aircraft; we relied heavily on reserve forces; and the provision of £500 million-worth of urgent operational requirements illustrated how bare the resupply shelves had become. Indeed, the Government's determination to apply industrial "just in time" practices to the defence of the realm is potentially a recipe for disaster. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) reminded the House last week, General Sir John Reith acknowledged to the Defence Committee earlier this year that we had come "perilously close" to being unprepared for the start of the Iraq war.
I do not want to imply that there is no common ground between us and the Government, because there is. I should think the public are rather fed up with incessant yah-boo politics. There are things we disagree about, but also things we agree about. We accept that, in the post-cold-war world, new challenges arose. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) made that point. The defence posture required to confront a threat from across the north German plains was very different from the one required to move swiftly to a trouble spot anywhere in the world. Indeed, we fully support the concept of expeditionary forces. Furthermore, I personally believe that our default setting should now change from operations in a temperate climate to the expectation that operations will take place in a hot climate.
Let me run through some of the particular projects. We have covered the carriers, on which I hope the Minister will be able to enlighten the House further at the end of the debate. I turn to the Eurofighter Typhoon. That is unquestionably a superb aircraft, probably the finest air superiority fighter in production today. However, thanks in part to the drag effect of European collaboration, it is late entering service and over budget.
820
The Italians have already signalled that the project will be cut by a third. Alessandro Pansa, chief financial officer of Finmeccanica, our Italian partner, was reported in the Financial Times as saying:
"Tranche three of Eurofighter is something that is doubtful."
The second tranche is also running into difficulties. The Germans were reported in the Financial Times on Monday to have become frustrated with what has been described as foot dragging by the British Government. Can the Minister say when he will approve the order for tranche 2, scheduled for delivery in 2006?
At oral questions last month, the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that
"there will be no changes in the Government's plans for procuring Eurofighter Typhoon",
but he went on:
"We anticipate changes to the way in which those aircraft are configured, but those matters will be set out more clearly in the forthcoming White Paper."—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 2.]
What does that mean for the project? It is unsatisfactory that this important procurement debate should be held without the Government revealing what changes in configuration they have in mind. For our part, we believe that the Government should now bring forward development of the ground-attack variant of the Typhoon. It should be capable of 24-hour all-weather operations; be equipped with global positioning system and laser designators; be able to deploy ALARM—airlaunched anti-radiation missiles—and other air-to-ground precision munitions; and have electronic scan radar, enhanced sensor suite and open architecture to accommodate later upgrades. If we were able to do all that, the UK would be provided with a potentially formidable aircraft to complement the carrier-borne joint strike fighter. It would also enhance the aircraft's attraction to allies and be available before the JSF enters service.
On that note, may I invite the Minister when he winds up to be a little more specific about the export opportunities for the Typhoon? I understand that Singapore and Greece are interested. If we could get ahead of the game in converting tranche 3, perhaps, into the ground-attack variant, we would have a formidable aeroplane that would not only enhance our own squadrons but be available in an export market—something which, as the Minister himself said, is extremely important. I agree with every word that he said about the Liberal Democrats. They parade around the country pretending to be in favour of defence, only for their spokesman on Treasury matters then to say that we should withdraw all financial support for our export efforts. To do so would of course kill those efforts, so the Minister was absolutely right.
I hope that the Minister will look at my suggestions, because decisions have to be taken now. If our partners in the Typhoon programme are reluctant, the UK should proceed alone, with the others continuing to develop the core programme. Whether or not the Government proceed now with development of the

821
ground-attack variant, they must sign this contract off by the end of the year, or risk a costly production gap. A Ministry of Defence spokesman was quoted in Monday's Financial Times as saying that
"we have not ruled out a full order by the end of this year, but given the obvious importance of the contract our priority is to ensure that industry's proposals for the programme are soundly planned and established on adequate design maturity"—
whatever that means. Are the Government committed to the full order and to signing up to tranche 2 by the end of the year?
On the future rapid effects system, the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, told the Royal United Services Institute in June that it was clear to him that
"the concept of the Future Rapid Effects System is critical to the British Army's future capability."
If we accept FRES's importance to the British Army's future capabilities, the difficulties that the MOD has run into become more acute. We expected progress to be made on this project in the summer. We were then told that it would be made in the autumn, but autumn is upon us and there is still no tangible progress. The Minister said that we should expect some form of decision later this year, but there is not much of this year left. Indeed, I understand that the Government recently and somewhat peremptorily rejected a joint proposal from BAE Systems, Alvis Vickers and Thales for a three-way alliance to supply FRES, not least because
"the procurement strategy for this programme is under review."
Given the importance of this project to the British Army's future capabilities, as indicated by the Chief of the General Staff, why are the Government still only at the stage of reviewing the procurement strategy? How on earth can they hope to meet their projected in-service date of 2009 if they are still fiddling about working out what the strike procurement strategy will be? That is not a very fine example of smart procurement, if I may say so. Given the importance of this issue, the Government have to give us more information during today's debate about exactly what is proposed. As the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) rightly pointed out, the continuation of British manufacturing capability is critical.
If, by some chance, the FRES project were to meet its projected in-service date of 2009, how would it be affected by our limited strategic lift capability? The in-service date for the A400M is 2011, two years after that for FRES, leaving FRES without adequate strategic lift for its first two years in service. I can only conclude that the delay is designed to coincide with the introduction of the A400M, but that has already itself been beset by serious delays. We are a decade into this project and still no nearer to cutting metal. As I am fond of saying to BAE, "When are we expecting to cut the first cardboard?" This project has not had a happy history to date. The requirement for a strategic lift capability, which the A400M is designed to fulfil, could have been provided by an off-the-shelf solution such as the C-17. Again, we salute the Government's decision to take on four C-17s, although I am not sure that the decision to lease them actually provided the best value for money in the circumstances. As the Minister knows, those aircraft played a key role in the recent Iraq deployment. The decision to opt for the collaborative A400M seems to
822
have been as much about European politics as the need to develop a strategic lift capability for Britain's armed forces.
Examination of these individual programmes leads to the wider issue of defence industrial policy, and in that regard I want first to consider research and technology. Today's front-line military equipment is the product of yesterday's investment in that technology, most of which, I remind the Minister, came from the previous Conservative Government. Without the continuation of such investment, we shall be left with two options: to offer our armed forces second-best kit, or to buy off the shelf from abroad. In effect, that means buying from the United States, a point to which I shall return in a moment.
In 1990, the Conservative Government were spending about £1 billion on defence research—equivalent to 14 per cent. of the amount spent by the US Defence Department. Last year, this Government spent about £450 million—less than half the 1990 figure, and equivalent to just 6 per cent. of US expenditure. Indeed, US expenditure is planned to rise from $27 billion in 2001 to no less than $37 billion by next year.
I want to mention a particular aspect of recent defence research that the Minister has himself referred to. Modern communications have brought high-intensity war fighting into the nation's sitting rooms. There is an understandable and growing revulsion at the loss of civilian life involved in conflict. We all saw on our TV screens the opening shock and awe attacks on Baghdad, which were apparently so violent and extensive that they must have flattened the city. However, having flown over Baghdad at low level in July with my Defence Committee colleagues, I was surprised at how little damage had been inflicted on the city. That civilian casualties were minimised was due in no small part to the use of precision-guided weapons, which have been developed at considerable cost since the previous Gulf war.
There is a message here. The truth is that it would be very difficult for a British Government—and perhaps others as well—to prosecute high-intensity war fighting if the public believed that widespread civilian casualties would follow. The public are reluctant to accept any casualties, but we should note that precision-guided weapons have played a major role in minimising them. We should also pay tribute to Britain's scientists, who were responsible for developing the technology that has enabled us to limit casualties.
Mr. Breed rose—
Mr. Howarth: Is this Liberal policy coming up?
Mr. Breed: I concur with all that the hon. Gentleman said about the development of precision-guided weapons. Has he read a recent press report about the potential for manufacturing low-intensity nuclear weapons, which might even enhance such developments? Would he like such technology to be pursued?
Mr. Howarth: I am not aware—
Dr. Julian Lewis: That sounds like, "Liberals for the neutron bomb."
Mr. Howarth: Indeed. However, I am not aware of that report and cannot ask "my staff" to look it up

823
because they are not yet my staff. In due course, after the next election, things might be different. I shall certainly do the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) the courtesy of reading the article; if he has it to hand, perhaps he could let me have a look at it.
Unless we as a nation are prepared to invest more in defence-related research, our technology lead—in those areas in which we do lead—will disappear. The Government have placed all their faith in the privatisation of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which is now known as Qinetiq and controlled by the US Carlyle Group. However, as Qinetiq has pointed out to me, it cannot raise funds here and has to tap the US market. What will the consequence of that be? If US taxpayers or US investors provide the funds, they will own the resulting technology and the United States will control the release of that technology to us. Very serious consequences will flow from that Government decision, which was not popular on either side of the House. The Government owe it to us to develop their strategy more clearly to ensure the maintenance of our technology base, so much of which has been derived from Government expenditure.
Conveniently, that point brings me to our relationship with the United States, which is dragging its feet on approving the technical access agreements on the joint strike fighter—a point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde alluded. The UK does not have design and support authority for the UK-produced joint strike fighters. We failed to secure that with the Apache attack helicopter. We failed to secure it on the Hercules C-130J, although on the much older C-130K, we do have design authority, which has proved by comparison more beneficial to us, especially to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell)—who is not in her place—and to Marshall Aerospace in her constituency, which does a marvellous job. That is not an acceptable state of affairs. Will the Minister advise the House on the actions that the Government are taking to secure agreement on those issues? Can he confirm that, without having design and support authority on our own joint strike fighters, we could end up being dependent on the US, which could then exercise a power of veto over our operation of that aircraft?
Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the dangers of handing over such matters to the US. He also mentioned not taking the A400M and choosing the C-17 instead. Does he accept that that would hand over another matter to the US?
Mr. Howarth: No, because I seek to strike a balance. The Minister pointed out the danger of being xenophobic and saying, "Buy British on every occasion", because we are attacking elements in the US for advancing a "Buy American" policy. I believe in a two-way street, as I shall demonstrate shortly.
I hope that the Minister will tell the House how well the joint strike fighter project is progressing, because it is currently overweight and somewhat over-budget. What assessment have the Government made of the project proceeding to the next phase of its development?
824
Our difficulties with the US do not end with the joint strike fighter. The Government have made representations to the US Administration about securing a waiver for the UK from the effects of the international traffic in arms regulations, and I pay tribute to Lord Bach for the vigour with which he is pursuing that matter in Washington. I wish the Minister of State every good fortune when he goes to beat the drum over there next week.
I understand that one of the issues standing in the way of progress on the ITAR waiver is the failure of the Department of Trade and Industry to lay the necessary orders under export control legislation to make it an offence for a British subject or UK businesses to trade on, disclose abroad or export information that they may receive under the waiver. Can the Minister tell us the score on that? Will the DTI move those orders and would that be of assistance in unlocking the impasse with the US?
Reference has been made to the "Buy American" proposal of Congressman Duncan Hunter, which, if successful, would be extremely damaging to British industry. The good news is that it is supported neither by leading US defence contractors nor by the Administration. I emphasise that there is a unanimous view on those matters across the Floor of the House. The Minister will know that the Defence Committee, on its visit to Washington last month, made very strong representations both to the Senate armed services committee and to members of the Administration, including Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz. It would be nice if the Minister could acknowledge that it is not only the Government who are batting on this, but that we have formed a united front. We cannot afford to relent on the campaign.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the change in position of the US Administration, but is he aware that as early as last week Paul Wolfowitz was trying to negotiate with Mr. Hunter about his Bill, not to veto it—as we were told in Washington—but to water it down? It would still have grave implications for the UK defence industry.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the Defence Committee, is right. Whatever protestations the US Administration may make about sharing our view, the fact is that the Hunter Bill is an amendment to a wider appropriations Bill, and it would require the President to veto it. A huge amount is at stake and it is not only the Minister's efforts that need to be harnessed in support of the campaign. The Prime Minister himself needs to be involved.
Mr. Ingram: He has been.
Mr. Howarth: I am sure that he has, but we need to fight those guys hard. When the Americans defend their commercial interests, they fight tooth and nail: let us fight tooth and nail as well. UK-US defence trade is running 2:1 in favour of the US. If those repeated standing ovations in Washington in July, and the repeated and undoubtedly heartfelt tributes to our Prime Minister for Britain's support for the US over

825
Iraq mean anything, the US has to give the UK a fairer deal than is currently on the table. Compromises that result in the UK paying the price are not acceptable.
The defence industry is at a crossroads. If the US does not accord the UK the treatment that we deserve, with access to its market and shared technology, it will risk leaving us with little option other than to throw in our lot with our continental partners. But that would not resolve our problems.
I do not wish to sound unduly negative about European procurement collaboration, but it has proved costly and inefficient, driven more by political than by military considerations. Collaboration with our allies is probably essential in developing our capabilities, but however we select our collaboration partners—whether we choose to go it alone or choose an off-the-shelf solution—our decision must be based on what will best fulfil the requirements of our armed forces in the best possible time and at an acceptable price.
The House of Lords European Union Committee warned that the proposed European armaments and capabilities agency could become
"a tool of protectionism or constraining the ability of member states to order armaments independently".
The Government's response to the ninth report of the Defence Committee said that the Government were opposed
"to the creation of a closed European market".
That may very well be the Government's intention, but that is not what is happening in Brussels. The European capabilities and acquisition agency set out in the Convention on the Future of Europe is part of a plan to create a single European army with a single European procurement process. In their response to the Defence Committee's report, the Government denied that it would act as a tool of protectionism, but failed to address whether it would constrain the independence of member states in their procurement decisions.
What effects will the proposals in the Commission's paper entitled "European Defence—Industrial and Market Issues—Towards an EU Defence Equipment Policy", which was agreed by the General Affairs and External Relations Council in May this year, have on the existing Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation arrangements? That is another example of unnecessary duplication of existing processes by the EU that the Government are blindly going along with.
How does the NATO Prague capabilities commitment differ from the European capabilities action plan? This is riveting stuff. What progress has been made in achieving our commitments required by the PCC and the ECAP? How do the processes to achieve the requirement of those commitments differ? It is yet another example of unnecessary duplication by the EU in European defence. We support increasing European capabilities and much more needs to be done to close the capabilities gap with the United States, but those aims are best achieved through NATO and with European countries pulling their weight in defence expenditure.
The harmonisation of European research and development is seen as a quick fix to make up for the shortfalls in the UK research budget. Rather than assessing the risks posed to our procurement process
826
and research agenda by such harmonisation at a European level, the Government see it as an easy way to make up for the cuts that they have inflicted upon our research budget. The harmonisation of European rules on procurement and the development of an EU armaments agency would force the UK into a political straitjacket, reducing our ability to make procurement decisions based on British interests. It represents the intention of some in Europe to create a fortress Europe in defence markets and plays into the hands of those in the US who wish to create a fortress US, with the "Buy American" proposals that are making their way through the US Congress. That stand-off in defence markets will result in increased costs and a reduction in competition on both sides of the Atlantic. The biggest loser in any such stand-off will be the United Kingdom, which at the moment enjoys good relations with both the United States and our European partners.
All our experience on collaborative European projects such as the Eurofighter, Horizon frigates, the multi-role armoured vehicle—MRAV—and the A400M demonstrates the difficulties in harmonising different requirements that all too often result in a compromise system that fails to meet the full specification that we need. There is a real risk that the EU armaments agency would lock us into projects that might not meet our requirements. The Government pulled out of both the Horizon frigate and MRAV projects in favour of a UK national solution. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) knows that only too well. Would that have been possible if we had been locked into such a project through a common European armaments agency?
The defence industrial policy enunciated a year ago by the Secretary of State has been welcomed by many, although it seems to me little more than a statement of what has effectively been the practice for many years—competition, but with exceptions. The Government are under fire from BAE Systems and others who believe that at least the lion's share of taxpayer-funded defence procurement expenditure should come their way. The chaotic saga of the Hawk advanced jet trainer was a poor reflection of the much-vaunted defence industrial policy. Making the decision just hours before 500 people were to be served with redundancy notices hardly reflected a considered judgment, right though the decision was in the end. The highly publicised uncertainty on the part of the British Government nearly scuppered the aircraft's prospects in export markets; the Minister of State mentioned India.
The Government must develop a clearer sense of purpose in dealing with British industry. Of course, there must be competition, but only from those who open up their markets to us. I shall quote from the excellent Defence Committee report what Sir Richard Evans told us on behalf of the Defence Industries Council. He said:
"I am not saying that we should necessarily change the policy that we have but we should be doing a hell of a lot more to force the others to actually come in line with us … I do not think protectionism is the answer to this … The answer to this is not to shut the door, it is to exercise quite cautiously the degree to which we allow the door to be opened whilst at the same time exerting the maximum amount of political and industrial pressure on those other markets that are benefiting from entry to the UK to do the same for us."

827
I am sure that the Minister of State agrees with every word. It is common ground, but we have to put that into practice.
In conclusion, this debate comes at a crucial time with a number of procurement projects falling behind. Of the 20 projects in the 2002 major projects report that had reached main gate or the equivalent point, eight have slipped and overrun their time of approval. The Defence Committee's ninth report found that there remains a question about the agility of the Ministry's procurement systems. The Government failed adequately to address that in their response to the report published earlier this week. Evidence of the lack of agility in the smart acquisition process comes from the number of times that that process has been refined and, indeed, renamed. The claim of the chief of defence procurement, Sir Peter Spencer, about the need to "periodically refresh smart procurement" causes one to speculate about the agility of the process.
There is much to be done on procurement. We welcome concepts such as the capabilities-based approach, but as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex told the House last Thursday, those concepts, such as effects-based warfare and talk of flexibility, must not merely become smart euphemisms for cuts as is increasingly the case in what we hear from Ministers.
I do not underestimate the scale of the task. The Government face difficult decisions in configuring our armed forces into the shape, size and capabilities needed for the post-11 September strategic environment. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) will refer in more detail to some of those key capabilities, but it is a challenge to provide a continuing ultimate deterrent, develop a modern network-centric capability, maintain conventional forces and provide highly professional and motivated infantry to hold ground and engage in peacekeeping operations.
The Government's own chosen programme entails a great deal of expenditure. I hope that Ministers can convince the Chancellor to pay for the equipment that our armed forces deserve and need if they are to fulfil the tasks that we ask of them. They are the best and they deserve the best.
I said at the outset that this Government have sent Britain's armed forces into battle on at least five occasions since they took office in 1997. Only the United States has been involved in comparable operations. Put bluntly, we buy weapons systems that are used in anger. Too often, compromises on systems have been made for political, and not strategic, military reasons. We therefore need to ensure that our forces have the best and most effective equipment and that our procurement policy breathes life into Britain's domestic defence industry, which employs so many of our constituents.
2.44 pm
Peter Bradley: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and raise issues that are of pressing importance to my constituents. Notwithstanding what the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, the timing of this debate is appropriate given that decisions will be taken in the coming weeks about the future rapid effects system in particular.
828
First, I must emphasise how important defence industries are to my constituency. We have in it RAF Cosford, a major RAF training station, and DSDC Donnington, the defence storage and distribution centre. The Army Base Repair Organisation is on the same site at Donnington and Alvis Vickers is at Hadley. I shall focus principally on procurement—on Alvis and the work force there—but will first say a few words about the other defence establishments and their recent past.
We are extremely proud of RAF Cosford and the aerospace museum alongside it. We are proud of its contribution to the community, the local economy and the armed forces. It is worth bearing in mind that about 50 per cent. of ground support crews in the RAF have trained at one time or another there. Indeed, although it is a training establishment, it has sent a considerable number of personnel to the Gulf in recent months.
Cosford has grown in recent years and I am glad of that, but its growth has been at the expense of other establishments, notably RAF Locking at Weston-super-Mare. There have been substantial changes at Donnington too, but more in the nature of contraction than expansion. Within living memory about 8,000 men and women worked at Donnington. Six years ago, that figure was down to 3,000. It is now about 1,800, with 1,000 employed at ABRO and about 800 at DSDC. Every one of the seemingly endless programme of reviews and rationalisations not only reduces the work force at Donnington—it has certainly done so in the past—but creates massive uncertainty and anxiety among men and women who, frankly, devote their working lives to service and who have never failed our front-line troops when their support has been needed.
I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the sustained effort that the staff there made not only from the onset of the military campaign in Iraq but long in advance—from the Christmas of last year. When I visited Donnington in March with my hon. Friends the Members for Telford (David Wright) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), they had already moved about 500,000 pieces of kit, from small batteries to tank engines and aircraft wings, out to the Gulf, and they were working around the clock, without the public recognition that they deserved, in an unsung but heroic effort. They now face yet another review. Having survived the strategic defence review and the depot rationalisation study as well as at least two major overseas military campaigns, they now face the future defence supply chain initiative. Their fear—it is a common fear—is privatisation, the loss of jobs and in particular the loss of the civil service ethos to which they attach great importance and which is the backbone of their commitment and achievement over many years.
I appeal to the Minister, in so far as it is within his power, to preside over a period of calm and consolidation and to take the opportunity to acknowledge the record of both the DSDC and ABRO at Donnington and to assure the security of their jobs and livelihoods in the future. That is important in my local community and the local economy because The Wrekin is traditionally an area of low unemployment but the price that we pay for that is low wages. The reason for those low wages is the low skill levels in Telford and The Wrekin. The Government rightly attach a great deal of importance to building on our

829
skills base. I suggest that it is important not only to build on that base, but to preserve what we already have. Alvis Vickers makes 90 per cent. of the British Army's vehicles, including Warrior and Challenger 2, so I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister's tribute to the performance of those vehicles during the recent campaign. Donnington and Alvis Vickers at Hadley are beacons in our local economy in my constituency, because they offer relatively decent rates of pay for high levels of skill. That is why it is essential that they should be protected at all costs.
The recent history of the Hadley plant mirrors a trend in British defence manufacturing. I may seem like an old lag to Opposition Members, but, contrary to what the hon. Member for Aldershot suggested, I was not a Member of this place in 1992, and when I was elected in 1997—although it seems as though I have been here since 1982—the plant was GKN Defence. It was then taken over by Alvis, which was good news for the Hadley work force, but not for the work force at Coventry where Alvis closed its plant and transferred the work to Hadley. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) rightly pointed out, the company is now Alvis Vickers. It is crucial that there should be no further contraction in our capacity to manufacture armoured vehicles. If there is, the pips will have been squeezed for the last time: Alvis Vickers is the last company that remains capable of building high quality vehicles for the British Army and for export.
In 1997, there were four factories in the UK: GKN Defence at Hadley, Alvis Vehicles at Coventry and Vickers Defence Systems at Leeds and Newcastle. Just six years later, only two factories are left: Alvis Vickers at Hadley and at Newcastle. During the same period, the number of people employed has been reduced from about 3,000 to just over 1.000, 470 of whom work at Hadley. The work force and unions at Hadley fear that if they do not win significant business in the near future, probably by the end of this year, compulsory redundancies will follow by next spring, as surely as night follows day. We cannot afford to let that happen. The local economy and the local work force and local community whom I represent cannot afford it; nor can our defence industry and the MOD, and it would certainly not be in the national interest. Unless we take a big-picture, strategic view of defence procurement we could lose not only jobs at Hadley and elsewhere, but an entire defence manufacturing sector with all the industrial and security implications that would involve.
Earlier, in response to my intervention, my right hon. Friend the Minister said that the Government had made a commitment to procuring its naval vessels from British shipyards because without those procurement contracts those shipyards would close. The same principle applies in my constituency. If the Government make a commitment to protect jobs on the British coastline, they should also be looking to the protection of jobs inland.
I understand the MOD's difficulties in matching the needs of the armed services to British industry's capacity to fulfil them. I understand that the MOD cannot commission what is not needed and that it must constantly reinterpret the needs of our armed forces in the light of global politics, technological advances, battleground experience and, not least, costs. No one is suggesting that we must procure British kit and
830
equipment irrespective of cost, but the needs of industry must also be recognised, taken into account and addressed. The defence industrial policy that was published a year ago explicitly recognises the need to retain industrial capacity in this country, to preserve security of supply and to maintain our export potential.
I am sure that British business is happy to compete. I take the point that the hon. Member for Aldershot made about the fairness of competition. It is important that if overseas companies are to compete or to enter into partnership with British companies we must have the same privilege in their markets. I am sure that British companies, including Alvis Vickers, are prepared to compete, but they cannot survive simply on hopes and expectations. They cannot keep production lines running and skilled men and women employed without copper-bottomed contracts.
In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Minister said that he is keen to see that the British Army, the Royal Navy and the RAF get the best kit to do the best job. That is important. He said that in ensuring that our procurement policy follows that principle he cannot have regard only for the interests of industry. I agree, but there is no point in the MOD trying to place contracts with British suppliers when those suppliers have been obliged to make their skilled work forces redundant for lack of contracts. Those skills will walk away; they will not come back and we shall no longer have the industrial capacity to respond to demand.
I am saying not that we must buy only British—I am certainly not saying that we should buy British at any cost—but that we should buy British where we can, and that where there is the capacity to produce tested, high quality equipment, such as Warrior, Challenger and other kit, we should seek to procure it. I mentioned earlier the importance of security of supply. If we lose that important sector of our defence industry, who will carry out the kind of emergency work to which I referred in my intervention and which Alvis Vickers personnel undertook in upgrading Challenger 2 in the Gulf and in Kuwait during the weeks and months leading up to the hostilities in Iraq and during those hostilities? Who can we look to if we no longer have the defence capacity to meet that need? On which foreign powers will we have to depend to meet our defence needs? Furthermore, how will we compensate for the loss of export earnings from Alvis and others—companies that research and develop their equipment in this country for the MOD?
I was pleased to receive the Minister's reply to my recent question about the future rapid effects system, which is due to produce the medium-weight armoured vehicle by 2009. He said:
"The Department is considering procurement options and will have regard to all relevant factors, including industrial issues, in determining the way forward."—[Official Report, 6 October 2003; Vol. 410, c. 1160W.]
I very much welcome that and hope that the outcome of the decision-making process will be favourable to my constituents.
I hope, too, that not only MOD Ministers but, crucially, Treasury Ministers adopt the same approach to FRES as they did in making their decision—albeit a belated one—about the Hawk jet trainer. I remind the

831
House that, when making her announcement about the Hawk jet trainer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the decision
"underlines our commitment as Government to the new defence industrial policy and manufacturing strategy".
My right hon. Friend referred to
"major economic benefits to Humberside and wider to the UK through key suppliers".
If that same—I am struggling not to use the word "holistic"—
Mr. Kevan Jones: Wll my hon. Friend give way?
Peter Bradley: I hope my hon. Friend can offer a substitute.
Mr. Jones: I will try to help my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the strange thing about the FRES programme is the fact that after spending several million pounds, through Alvis Vickers and other companies, on the development phase, the Government have suddenly pulled the plug on the programme? Has not that sent a message to UK suppliers that they may not be in the loop for the next procurement of the project?
Peter Bradley: I agree with my hon. Friend; it is not a good portent. In the summer, a team of about 100 people from Alvis Vickers, BAE General Dynamics and Thales were working on technical studies. They were pulled off the job and the MOD is now considering commissioning an independent systems house. That is not a good portent, not least in the light of the fact that we thought that the medium to long-term future for Alvis Vickers was assured due to the multi-role armoured vehicle contract, which, as the hon. Member for Aldershot reminded us, evaporated earlier this year. It is not a good portent. Mixed messages are coming from the MOD and the Treasury. I hope that, if not the Minister of State, then the Minister who replies to the debate will take the opportunity to clarify some of them.
I repeat the point that I was making when I was trying to think of another way of describing an holistic—perhaps I should say comprehensive, co-ordinated—approach to procurement. If the Government can commit to procuring ships from British shipyards, it surely must be possible to commit to procuring, where possible, armoured vehicles when we have such a respectable track record in that production. Let me spell out why that is crucial to the future of this important defence sector and particularly to my constituents.
FRES is likely to be the only new programme of its kind for the next 20 years. It will provide for contracts of up to –6 billion in value. It has a huge export potential. It is vital to maintain this country's capacity to design and manufacture such vehicles. It could lead to the protection, and indeed the generation, of some 3,000 jobs in my constituency, in Newcastle and in west Yorkshire. It is a 10 to 15-year programme. It is plain to see the huge potential for British industry that arises from this contract and, by the same token, the scale of the disaster if it is not awarded to British, or in main part British, manufacturers.
832
Earlier this year, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) just reminded me, the MOD withdrew funding from the joint team working on the technical studies. I hope that, when he replies, the Minister will explain why that decision was taken and reassure us that it does not mean what those pessimists among us might assume it means.
if Alvis Vickers does not get a lion's share of this contract, there is no prospect of a major domestic order until after 2025. It will have no product to export. That would not only be bad news for my work force and for Alvis but also for the British balance of payments. Alvis's current product range for export will be obsolescent within five years. It will lose the design and development capacity that it has and it will lose the skilled labour that it currently employs, and that will lead inevitably to the closure of factories and the loss of jobs. If the decisions that we expect within weeks on the assessment phase are favourable, it will underpin employment at Hadley and create, I understand, some 50 jobs in the short term in Leeds. If the decision goes against us, we shall be looking at job losses.
I press on Ministers the need for that comprehensive view of our procurement needs, which looks to the interests of our industry and our capacity to support the armed forces in future. I recognise there are no blank cheques, particularly not those signed by the Treasury, but I cannot believe that a Government who have the commitment that they have to British industry and especially to manufacturing, who are aware of the importance of security of supply, particularly in light of recent experiences in the Gulf, and who recognise the British defence industry's contribution to our economy, to our exports and to our armed forces, both historically and in the recent past, will take a short-term decision that will in any way prejudice the future of an industrial sector so vital to our defence interests, and above all so vital to the interests of my constituents. Therefore I hope the Minister will take the opportunity, later this afternoon, to give us the assurances that we seek, that the work force and management at Alvis expect, and that we all would hope for from him.
3.4 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: I congratulate the Defence Committee on a very thorough report, which I found extremely helpful and readable. The Committee has dealt with defence industrial policy, the defence market and individual programmes, but perhaps, rather than focusing on the individual programmes, I might make a few brief comments about how procurement policy might be further improved.
The Committee's report welcomed the defence industrial policy that it had examined. However, even it acknowledges that the proof of this policy will be in its practice. It is fairly early days but the policy has some shortcomings that can be identified now. The idea that procurement decisions should be influenced by export potential, or even the maintenance of capability to export defence equipment, is wrong. A consideration of security of supply may be legitimate, but export potential should be treated separately. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Defence Export Services Organisation should be moved to the private sector. It was in that context, I believe, that my hon. Friend the

833
Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made the comments to which the Minister of State, and I think the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), referred.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has made a very serious point. In suggesting that DESO should be moved to the private sector, he clearly betrays his lack of understanding of how defence exports are organised. Foreign Governments like to deal with the British Government. That is what DESO is for. If it ceases to be a Government organisation, that will undermine the very purpose for which it was set up.
Mr. Breed: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I know there are arguments around that case. I am not saying that the Government would not support a privatised organisation but that we should certainly consider dividing DESO from the MOD, so that export potential does not influence the procurement of any equipment. There is, however, no harm in the Government supporting, as they do, a considerable number of other private enterprises to benefit the UK.
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is naive. Does he not comprehend the importance of defence diplomacy in the overall context of providing armaments to countries that require them, quite properly, for their own defence under the United Nations, maintaining a good relationship with them and mutual trust and understanding between the officials of the Ministries of Defence of the two countries concerned—the United Kingdom and the procuring nation overseas?
Mr. Breed: Yes, I certainly understand that, but I still believe that it is not totally impossible to maintain those very important links purely by moving DESO from the MOD's principal command, so to speak. Obviously there must be good relationships between countries that export and import defence equipment between them, but to separate that function would make for a clearer responsibility for the defence industrial policy.
Whatever factors are considered in procurement policy, as the Minister of State has said on a number of occasions, value for money should be paramount, but when Lord Bach, on 25 June, told the Defence Committee that
"secondly, we have to maximise the economic benefit to the UK",
the Government must ensure that that does not become a smokescreen for inefficiency and undue influence. In many cases, the UK will be one of the most expensive countries in which to build things. Therefore, where the cheaper option is one that does not contribute to the economy of the UK, the extra factors at play will have to be significant in order to outweigh the value-for-money considerations. I am sure that that was part of the process relating to the Hawk advanced jet trainer, which I was very proud to support. I was proud to be in Brough on Monday for a good launch and to celebrate not only the UK's purchase, which was entirely correct, but the Indian Government's welcome decision to buy the trainers after the UK indicated its support for them. The right decision was made, because it was the right aircraft.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I too was at that event. I understand that Brough falls within a constituency that the Liberal Democrats will be targeting at the next election. Will we now be seeing Focus leaflets going out, supporting the defence industry and also supporting the decision to buy Hawk, which was not the Liberal Democrat view a few months back?
Mr. Breed: I have no idea what my colleagues might be doing. What I would say is that in my constituency of South-East Cornwall, which is very close to Devonport dockyard, we are extremely supportive of anything to do with the defence industry in Plymouth, and although that is not in my constituency a considerable number of my constituents work there, so I have a direct interest in what happens in defence industries in that part of the world.
The Select Committee report rightly praises the UK's record on opening up its defence market, which is, indeed, a notable achievement that can only benefit overall the British taxpayer and contribute to global stability in the future. The report also acknowledges, along with the chairman of BAE, that other countries must be encouraged to follow suit. Closing off the British market and procuring only nationally made equipment is not the way to do that. Progressive opening up of the UK market should go hand in hand with political pressure on other countries to liberalise as well.
The framework agreement with France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden on defence liberalisation and co-operation is very welcome, but the key to a fully open and competitive defence market in Europe is to move away from the exemption on defence in the single market. The European Commission's suggestion for a European defence equipment framework represents an attempt to navigate a way round that difficult issue.
I welcome the Government's efforts to support the proposals for enhanced co-operation on defence in the draft EU constitution, but I urge them not to lose sight of the importance of tackling the exemption to establish that Europe-wide defence market. Even without a wider European defence market, there is certainly scope for more European co-operation on defence procurement.
According to some rumours ahead of the White Paper, the British defence budget may be in some peril. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm in his winding-up speech whether there are plans to purchase more C-17 transport aircraft. Indeed, would it not have been better to purchase those aircraft outright in the first place?
There is a bubble in the procurement budget, which will be felt in about five or six years' time, when many of the big-ticket items currently on the order book come into production. I find it difficult to imagine that the MOD has not done any strategic planning on how it expects those costs to mount up over the coming years. If any such studies exist, will the Government place them in the Library to allow better scrutiny of their decisions? It would be extremely helpful if they did so.
Clearly, if the current Treasury attitude towards the defence budget persists, some radical rethinking of the procurement programme will be required. I urge the Government to consider the consequences earlier, rather than later, so I should like therefore to make some

835
suggestions that I hope the Government will find constructive. If radical rethinks are needed, better and further co-operation with our European partners is something that the Government must consider in more detail.
The European armaments agency—the proposed successor to OCCAR, the four-nation joint procurement agency—is a useful idea in the new draft constitution. The more that we can procure and manage capabilities jointly, the more possible savings will arise for the UK. That is possible in any sector in which the private sector is involved. Indeed, private finance initiative projects are perhaps ideally suited to multinational co-operation. If we are willing to outsource capabilities to private companies, we should have few qualms about pooling those capabilities and sharing the costs with our European allies. No doubt, such ideas will assume more prominence if the international traffic in arms regulations waiver on exports from the USA is not agreed soon.
Mr. Wilkinson: I am sorry to intervene yet again, but could the hon. Gentleman explain a little more clearly how he imagines that defence PFI contracts can be internationalised? They are, of their essence, already extremely complex financially. To organise them nationally is hard enough, so how will that be achieved multinationally? Can the Liberal spokesman enlighten me?
Mr. Breed: I am certainly not saying that that will be easy. The experience of the initial stages of the PFI in this country is one of enormous complication, and a good deal of money was expended for no purpose whatsoever. However, the maturity of those schemes nationally has enabled us to move forward. Greater trust has been shown by both sides in such contracts. In fact, the arrangements have meant that contracts have been more possible, and there has been a proliferation of PFI projects. I do not believe that that excludes the opportunity to conclude international PFI projects. Such projects will be more difficult to establish, but unless we can begin to crack the practical difficulties, we will not obtain the sort of savings that many of us want to achieve, so ensuring that our defence expenditure remains high and that we get real value for money.
In conclusion, of course procurement policy could be improved, and the budget available will reach its limits at some point. I do not know what are those limits and we do not know what value for money calculations are undertaken for each project, but it is right to call on the Government to examine in detail radical ways to find cheaper options, and they should do so soon. That is important not only for the sake of value for money—that is obvious—and maintaining capability, but to forestall future battles that will, no doubt, ensue over priorities for the defence budget. Currently, the tasks undertaken by our armed forces are principally those of nation-building and peacekeeping. Keeping enough troops under arms and keeping them well trained, supplied and well looked after is a priority in that effort, but that priority should not suffer in the future because the MOD refused to think innovatively about its procurement programme now.
3.16 pm
Laura Moffatt: It is incredibility important that we are talking about the resources and the equipment that our armed forces need and deserve. This subject is of particular interest to me, as I was a member of the Defence Committee in the 1997–2001 Parliament, when the whole idea of smart procurement was first mooted in the strategic defence review. Of course, we now know it as smart acquisition. It has been incredibly interesting to see that process not only from the House's perspective but in relation to the way in which companies in my constituency have risen to the challenge of smart acquisition. There is no doubt that it is a challenge to them, but it is a challenge which, for the most part, they relish. They enjoy better relationships with others in the industry and with the Government. That has to be the way forward for the British defence industry, and those companies completely understand that and know that that must be part of their thinking in ensuring that their products are of the highest quality.
I want to say a little about the enormous strides that have been made in the defence industry. Hon. Members on both sides of the House take defence seriously. We may argue about defence budgets, but Labour Members know that the defence procurement budget has served us extremely well and will continue to do so, although we have to consider extremely carefully what sort of equipment we will need in future, and to be very much aware that this is a changing scene.
We know, too, that our most precious defence commodity and asset is the people in the armed forces themselves. When we talk about the equipment that they need to do their job properly, it is important that we recognise their commitment. That was brought home to me just last week, when Lieutenant Colonel Paul Mitchell, the commanding officer of 103 Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Territorial Army centre in Crawley gave me a briefing on the more than 60 members of that TA centre who are or have been in Iraq in the past few months, and described how those people—both men and women—are responding to the enormous challenge. In fact, they do their procurement themselves, since the REME are, of course, involved in recovery and engineering. They have been working closely with the Iraqi people and the Iraqi forces that are able to work with the allied forces. They are recovering an enormous amount of the equipment and vehicles that have been left behind by Saddam's forces, and getting them on to vehicles back to Basra to have them refurbished, made good and made ready for a new Iraqi force. That our forces are assisting in that process in Iraq today is an incredibly powerful thought, and it was a privilege to hear of their work. Having gone through testimonials of people who are there and looked at photographs, it struck me that they did not complain about their equipment: they were comfortable and happy, and felt that they were being treated properly. Certainly, from the perspective of my Territorial Army centre, that was important.
I want to say a little about equipment for the TA and reserve forces. We often become understandably obsessed with big procurement issues and vital, major projects involving our regular forces. It is essential, however, that our reserve forces have the equipment that they desperately need to do the job we ask of them. Their role has changed so much over the years—they are

837
now very much at the forefront, working alongside our regular armed forces, and they need equipment and training. Procurement must refer to them and to making sure that they have all that they need. I hope that the Minister will respond on that issue, because we must recognise the role of our reserve forces, and that procurement of the equipment that they need is as important as it is for our regular forces.
We would not be doing our jobs properly as Members if we did not stress—as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) did powerfully—the importance of defence jobs in our constituencies. I want to talk about a couple of programmes that are very important to the well-being and livelihoods of my constituency of Crawley. Thales, a company of which everyone here will be aware, has 2,500 of its 12,000 UK jobs based in Crawley. That company is doing much of the important work of which many Members will be aware—procuring major projects such as the future strategic tanker aircraft, Watchkeeper, and the simulated vehicle training system. It therefore has an enormous interest in ensuring that the Government make the right procurement decisions, and I hope to spend a few minutes putting the case.
Thales is very important in Crawley. People may ask what is the need to try to secure more jobs and to consolidate jobs in communities in towns like mine, which have very low unemployment rates. Members who are in the same position in their constituencies will completely understand. Given that these jobs are related to good apprenticeships or degree entry and provide a wide range of employment opportunities for our young people, I hope that Ministers will appreciate why we fight like alley cats to ensure that they come to our constituencies. In Crawley, which has Gatwick airport within its boundaries, it is easy to see how much the south-east relies on that airport. Those are good jobs, too, but they are related to the retail and service industries industry. If we do not have a wider range of opportunities, our region will inevitably become over-reliant on one area of investment and economic activity, which is huge mistake. That is why it is incredibly important that we support companies in our constituencies that produce what are excellent materials for our armed forces.
One thing that I would say without hesitation is that our armed forces want the very best they can get. The Minister was correct to reiterate that it would not be right for us to do favours to companies in the UK. The reality, however, is that the British defence industry is now one of the best, and there is no question but that it can rise to the occasion. I firmly believe that the smart acquisition process has made that happen and has pressed it to the challenge, and it is important that we reward it for the work that it has done. It is easy not to appreciate exactly what the industry has gone through. It has gone through enormous change, in terms of accepting the risk, and is now able to say that it is truly partnering Government. As I mentioned that members of the reserve forces from the south-east region are in Iraq, it is also important to say that people from Thales are in Iraq and have been there since day one of the offensive. At the beginning, there was huge nervousness about having such a partnership deal to supply our armed forces. The Defence Committee was nervous that it would not work, and that the people concerned would
838
not have the military ethos to rise to the occasion. I am told from all quarters, however, that the partnership has been extremely successful. We need to thank those people who are not members of our armed forces but who are doing such a good job for us in those scenarios.
We must respect and understand the fact that the industry has responded. We desperately need an active and lively defence industry in the UK for our economy as a whole, and particularly the south-east. We need to support the companies that produce top-of-the-range equipment for the armed forces whom both sides of the House support, and for whom we need to ensure that the very best equipment is available.
This is an incredibly important debate. It is right and proper to make our stand for our constituencies, but we must understand that today's procurement process is leading to a much better system of making sure that we get the best equipment for our UK forces, which must be right.
3.28 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I acknowledge the important points about partnership under the defence industrial policy and the smart acquisition procedures to which the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) referred. She, like me, has a particular interest in her constituency and her constituents' employment in the defence industry, and I shall talk about that later.
It may be one year since we debated procurement issues but for a constituency such as Fylde, which is dominated by BAE Systems and, thus, aviation defence, it is significant that today's debate is being held during the centenary year of aviation itself. When the Wright brothers first flew, I can hardly imagine that they knew where the use of air power would lead: the embryonic use of air power in the first world war; the importance of it in the second world war; its growing strategic importance in subsequent conflicts, as we have heard; and now the precision use of aerospace weapons as demonstrated in the most recent conflict in Iraq. No one can doubt that we should ensure that our defence forces have the best equipment because the best in the air matters a great deal.
It is also interesting to reflect that articles are being written about whether the B-52 bomber will serve as a weapons system for 100 years. That shows that, if the quality of a system is right in the first instance, and if it is updated and modified, a platform can continue to deliver high-quality 21st-century defence solutions at a reasonable cost because things last longer. That theme underpinned the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) when he talked about Eurofighter Typhoon. I shall mention that and other programmes later.
People are at the heart of our approach to defence procurement because it is the intellectual capability of teams in UK companies and agencies that gives us a leading edge. In this day and age, it is relatively easy to make high-quality components almost anywhere in the world, but it is not easy to develop the groundbreaking ideas that keep our defence equipment at the margins of excellence. Hon. Members who have spoken agree with that.

839
I reflect on the fact that some 17 years ago in 1986, when I became the prospective parliamentary candidate for Fylde, the experimental aircraft programme flew. I expect that most hon. Members have forgotten that the EAP was effectively the prototype for the Eurofighter Typhoon. I reflect further that the definition stage must have been completed five years before it flew, so more than 20 years have passed before the aircraft has been received into service. It is therefore important that we spend a few moments reflecting, as I shall, on factors that will shape the systems that we buy in the future because it takes a long time to get from the concept to the delivery of such systems.
We are very pleased with what is going on at the BAE plant at Warton, and I put on record my praise for and appreciation of its aerospace workers—design engineers, systems engineers and those who assemble aircraft—and their talents and skills because we would have no industry without them. They look to the future and say, "Yes, we can see that the order book is full for the time being with tranche 1 of the Eurofighter, and we hope that the Government will confirm tranche 2, but there is a question mark after that." There is a big question mark because if the Government want to achieve their objective of sustaining a top-quality British aerospace defence industry, we must start to fill in answers to questions about what comes next. We must discuss what is embodied in the present state of the future offensive air system programme and other air-based programmes that relate to such issues as the lack of unmanned air vehicle capability of UK origin so that we can answer questions about what comes next.
I put on record my appreciation of the way in which Lord Bach, the Minister for Defence Procurement, has courteously and assiduously kept me informed of issues that are relevant to my constituency. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary would convey my thanks to Lord Bach because I appreciate his willingness to answer letters quickly and give relevant information.
I want to compare and contrast the observations and challenges laid down in the report "A Vision for the Future of Aerospace" by the aerospace innovation and growth team, which was jointly established by the Government and the industry to examine aerospace and the aerospace defence industry, with the Secretary of State's remarks on 14 October 2002 to find out how the Government are setting out their stall to meet the team's challenges. In the team's report, under the heading, "But faces a challenging future", it explains:
"Despite the forecast size of the market, the report shows that the"—
aerospace—
"sector faces a set of significant challenges which will affect the UK-based industry."
The report says:
"There are fewer new programmes for both the civil and military sectors. UK productivity lags behind that of its US and some European competitors. Availability of, and competition for, highly skilled people could limit the UK's ambition."
It points tellingly to the observation:
"U.S. technology leadership could lead to the foreclosure of UK, European and related export markets."
840
Remarks have been made about the imbalance between the roughly $10 billion a year that Europe puts into European aerospace and the $40 billion that the US puts in, which underscores the saying, "What you put in is what you get out."
When the report discusses the defence aerospace sector, it says:
"There is a danger that the USA will become the monopoly supplier of defence equipment; at the expense of European industry. Changing defence requirements are driving priorities towards systems integration and complex subsystems, rather than individual platforms. US supremacy in technology and defence investment is encouraging companies to direct new investment there. The window to maintain a European capability in post-Eurofighter European combat aircraft or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles is closing fast".
Those are big, high-level challenges to which the Government's defence procurement and investment policy in research and development has to respond.
On the vision for the aerospace industry in the UK in 2022, the report says:
"Aerospace will be at the heart of the UK's knowledge-driven economy … It will be the country of choice for integrating and managing complex global programmes. It will be a leading designer, developer and manufacturer of high-level subsystems. UK engineers will be highly sought-after and valued internationally."
In its summary, under the heading, "The consequences of failure", it concludes by saying:
"Ultimately, the UK aerospace industry declines until it is merely a supplier of subsystems and opportunistic services."
That is what will happen if we do not address the issues to which I referred.
One point in the report is especially telling: the implication that we have lost the confidence, or perhaps the vision and ability, to say that we and our European partners will be involved in air system development that produces the complete product instead of acting as the source of intelligent subsystem work. I am aware that we do not always agree with our American partners, so it is vital in the field of procurement and R and D that we invest in a capability that gives us a degree of independence.
On the future of the industry, in his speech on 14 October 2002, the Secretary of State said:
"But there is a wide range of defence industrial capabilities which we would like to retain in the UK industrial base for economic reasons. These bring valuable employment opportunities to particular regions of the country; they add high economic value; and they can contribute to defence exports to civil applications and in particular to our ability to collaborate on defence projects within Europe. We want UK industry to retain and exploit these capabilities. We take this into account when determining the best way forward for a procurement project."
No one would disagree with that, but we should juxtapose those comments with the report's contents. It is important to marry those two strands of thinking together, perhaps in the White Paper, so that we can see with ever-greater clarity how that vision is going to be achieved against the prospect of European or UK programmes of our own origination becoming thin on the ground.

841
In the same speech, the Secretary of State said:
"From the Government's perspective, the UK industry is less about ownership than about where the economic value is generated: where the technology is created, where the intellectual property resides, where the skilled jobs are created and sustained and where the investment is made."
Again, there are some challenging ideas. It shows that the Secretary of State does not see wholly UK solutions to UK defence procurement requirements. I accept that. In a world where we seek to export, we will have to buy from others if they are to buy from us. That means that we must have products to sell. I am concerned that the cupboard looks somewhat bare. In 10 or 15 years' time, particularly in the aerospace sector, what will we have to sell that is of our own invention and making?
Most tellingly of all, the Secretary of State went on to say:
"there are a very small number of these capabilities which we must retain in the UK for national security reasons".
I have ferreted away, trying to find the capabilities that must be retained for national security reasons. My research tells me that those are nuclear matters, nuclear propulsion and encryption. I was disappointed not to find that aerospace or any aspect of aerospace figured on that list. If aerospace is not such a capability, I should be grateful if the Minister, in his winding-up speech or in correspondence later, could explain why not. Already in the debate we have heard of the importance of aerospace in our military strategy. If that is not the type of capability that we must retain for national security reasons, I do not know what is.
I shall deal with a number of issues relating to particular programmes. I put on record my appreciation for the efforts of the Government, building on the success of the previous Conservative Government, in finally securing the order for Hawk aircraft. I am grateful for the efforts that were made, but the way in which the matter was debated in the public prints, where the to-ing and fro-ing about whether we would or would not buy the aircraft, nearly put paid to all that work with India. George Fernandes, the Indian Defence Secretary, made it clear that if we did not have confidence in the advanced jet trainer, neither would the Indian Government. A great debate was conducted in the public prints, with all the damage that that does, when quiet diplomacy and reassuring words might well have helped to secure that order earlier than was the case. None the less, I am grateful for the efforts that were made.
On Eurofighter Typhoon, reference has been made to tranche 2. The Minister will understand that some 6,000 aerospace workers who are involved in BAE at Warton are extremely worried about the fact that there appears to be no clear date for a decision on tranche 2. We are coming under pressure from our partners on the project, who seem to have made up their minds that they know sufficient about the aircraft, its capabilities and its performance to sign up, yet the United Kingdom Government who, in fairness, were in the lead at the beginning of the project, seem to be holding back for some reason. I should be pleased to know when we can expect a decision.
Will the Government sign up to the 88 aircraft? Have they concluded their discussions with the manufacturer about the workflow phasing? Do they fully understand
842
the implications of reaching a decision on the matter, so that the skilled work force can be sustained between tranches 1 and 2, in the interests of the overall size of the project? I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on whether the Royal Air Force will receive the Eurofighter tranche 1 weapons system at the end of 2005, as contractually agreed.
Finally, there are press reports that the Ministry of Defence has commissioned some form of study group into Eurofighter—that an independent consulting firm has been engaged. Can the Minister tell us what that is about, and can he reassure me that if such an exercise is conducted, it will not be to the long-term detriment of the project?
On the joint strike fighter, I commend the MOD for producing the best paperback book I had during the summer, entitled, "Assembling and Supporting the Joint Strike Fighter in the UK—Issues and Costs". It was extremely good reading and I recommend it to all colleagues who want a thrilling tale of how excellence in the UK aerospace industry can be exploited to our advantage. It took an awful lot of prising out of the MOD. After two weeks of correspondence, in which I was told that it contained factual and printing errors, it eventually arrived via the Library. When I turned eagerly, as we all do, to the executive summary and the conclusions, I was thrilled to find that the UK's manufacturing capability presented no barrier to our carrying out final assembly and checkout—I had thought that that was what one did when getting one's coat from the cloakroom attendant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or at Tescol."] Yes, there are checkouts at Tesco, as well. I had not heard that it was an aerospace supplier, but it is getting into all kinds of things—who knows?
To be serious, given that we are to buy 150 of these aircraft, I was delighted that the MOD decided to commission Rand Europe to assess the feasibility and capability of the British aerospace industry putting them together. I was pleased when Warton emerged as one of the most-preferred sites at which it could be done, and even more delighted to learn that, if the Government decide to spend the money on a repair and operational facility for the aircraft, for only £12.9 million more we can secure the final assembly and checkout facility. Crucially for the future, that would give us the opportunity to secure the update work on the aircraft, bearing it in mind that it is likely to have an in-service life of 20 to 25 years.
Will the Minister explain what will happen in the light of that report and address the comments on page 108 about the US Government's policy in respect of classified military information? I shall not read out a long extract. Suffice it to say that I twice wrote to Donald Rumsfeld about that when we were in the sign-up process—that caused something of a flurry on Capitol hill, because people are not used to MPs writing about such matters. If the United States wants its most loyal ally to have interoperability to fight alongside it, it must entrust us with the full technical capability of the joint strike fighter and agree to provide the information to enable us to have the final assembly plant and, most importantly, to carry out update work in the fullness of time. Otherwise, all the talk of partnership in the United States will be as nothing. I return to the Secretary of State's speech, in which he warned against falling into

843
the trap of considering the industry along outdated nationalistic lines, and observed that both Government and industry have a role in promoting the multinational reality of the defence industry today.
In the past 24 hours, there has been speculation that BAE Systems and General Dynamics are in discussions. There have been similar rumours about BAE and Boeing and Lockheed Martin. I would not expect, nor want, the Minister to fuel those rumours. But in terms of our future defence procurement and the programmes that we have in the UK, if BAE does form some commercial relationship, either by takeover or marriage, with a north American prime, it will raise serious doubts about whether we will be in a position to originate projects of a British or a European nature off our own bat. Joint strike fighter assembly is very important because it gives us experience of a 21st-century aircraft, but the Government must clarify the implications for the future of our defence security if a company such as BAE were to marry with a north American prime.
Can the Minister enlighten us as to precisely what has happened to the future offensive air system—FOAS?programme? It appeared to be up and running, devising unmanned air vehicles for the future, then it disappeared into a Europeanised version of a similar technology development programme, then it started to pop up when people asked about the ground attack capability of the Eurofighter. What is FOAS supposed to be doing, and what will it deliver? It has a vital role in providing projects that will sustain our aerospace industry.
Beyond considering Watchkeeper, what is the United Kingdom doing about having its own unmanned air vehicles? An article in the August edition of Aerospace International reviewed capabilities throughout the world. On the United Kingdom, it concluded:
"the UK has expertise—but we could benefit a bit by doing the rough'n'ready ourselves with a technology demonstrator—because then you are ready when the call comes."
Unmanned air vehicles will play an increasingly important role in any future conflicts and it is a great sadness that we are not involved. We do not appear to say much about the use of nanotechnology in aerospace and we have said nothing about materials development, which is clearly vital to developing stealth capabilities.
There are some extremely challenging issues, whether considered programme by programme or in the context of the future or our aerospace industry and its relationships with other companies in the world. I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Ministry can respond to them.
3.51 pm
Mr. Kevan Jones: The debate is important not only because we are considering the procurement of equipment to defend our nation but because the industry provides highly skilled jobs in many constituencies.
The defence industry welcomed the Government's defence industrial policy, which they announced in the House last year. The document was long overdue, but
844
for the first time it transparently linked providing first-class weapons systems and armaments for our armed forces and the need to support a vibrant and important industrial sector in the United Kingdom.
The document also bravely opened up the UK defence procurement budget to a
"healthy and globally competitive defence industry".
Many criticised that at the time and we have heard some critics again today. However, it was the right decision because it acknowledges that defence procurement is a global business.
United Kingdom defence firms have gained greatly through international collaboration, not only in competitiveness but in research, investment and technology. The UK taxpayer has also gained because we have developed defence systems for our armed forces that we could not have achieved alone, without the international co-operation of the past few years.
We gain from an open international market. However, UK firms should not be hampered by the protectionism that our closest ally, the United States, has recently demonstrated. The transfer of investment, contracts and technology has to be a genuine two-way transatlantic street. The UK defence industry warmly welcomed the Clinton Administration's proposals for UK exemption from the US international traffic in arms regulations, thereby allowing free exchange of technology between the two countries. The general commitment to co-operate on projects such as the joint strike fighter and other examples of close co-operation between UK and US prime contractors was a good development.
However, the current climate is not so positive. The failure of the US Congress to ratify the ITAR waiver and the protectionist proposals in Congressman Duncan Hunter's Buy American Bill are totally at odds with our open market policy and do nothing to generate co-operation between the US and our defence industries. I would argue that that damages not only our defence industry but that of the US.
Reference has already been made to the Select Committee's recent visit to Washington, where we raised our concerns on both those issues on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon and in the State Department. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Committee, also raised them at a brief, impromptu meeting that we had with Donald Rumsfeld. We also raised them very forcefully with members of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. I must give credit to the Chairman of that Committee, Senator John Warner. who recognises the damage that the Buy American Bill could do to our co-operation. I would like to put on record the thanks of our Committee for the way in which he received our representation and in which, since then, he has lobbied hard to get the Bill changed.
Alas, our breakfast meeting with Congressman Hunter was less successful. Credit is due to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who delivered a forceful tirade against the Bill. Unfortunately, Congressman Hunter's steak and eggs appeared to be more challenging than the debate that we got from him. The line that we got from everyone in the Administration was, "Don't worry, the ITAR waiver will go through, and the President will, if necessary, veto

845
the Buy American Bill." That view was also reiterated to us when we met the Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. It is therefore of great concern to me that, in the last few weeks, the news from the United States is not as positive as we had been led to believe.
Far from vetoing the Bill, the Administration are now entering into detailed negotiations with Congressman Hunter, and I understand that the latest proposals would mean that the Pentagon would have to draw up a list of components that would have to be bought exclusively from the United States. The so-called compromise element of the proposals is that the US Defence Secretary could authorise a waiver to enable buying from abroad. However, the proposals as outlined at the moment would be hugely complex, and would force defence officials to obtain approval to buy components from overseas on a product-by-product basis.
When we returned from Washington, the ears of the members of the Defence Committee were ringing with grateful thanks from US politicians for our Government's support for US action in Iraq. I would argue that that praise will be rather cheap if blatantly protectionist measures such as the Buy American Bill become law.
Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have seen similar action in relation to our already hard-pressed steel industry, when the US decided to impose tariffs to protect its own industry? There has been very little progress towards getting those tariffs removed. I echo the concern that we should find ourselves in this situation when we have been so supportive of the United States.
Mr. Jones: Alas, I have to agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the climate in the United States at the moment is all about protecting the Americans' interests. I do not think that they realise the damage that that will do to the defence industry not only in the United States but in this country, and also to other sectors such as the steel industry.
If the Buy American Bill goes through, it will sound the death knell of future projects such as the joint strike fighter. It will also drive up the cost of the programme for UK and US taxpayers. The failure to agree the ITAR waiver is already having an effect on the joint strike fighter project. I understand that one third of the project's technology is restricted, which is creating real problems for BAE Systems. My noble Friend Lord Bach and I were in Brough this week to celebrate the order for the Hawk, and a senior executive from BAE Systems there went to great lengths to articulate the problems that the company is already having with the joint strike fighter project. These are not problems that might happen; they are happening now, and we need to recognise that.
Greater co-operation between the two nations will benefit not only the UK taxpayer but the industry in the US. I urge the Minister of State to make those points forcefully when he visits Washington next week. I agree with the hon. Member for Aldershot that the Prime Minister should raise them at the highest level when President Bush visits this country in a few weeks' time.
I have already mentioned the importance of the UK defence industry to our economy. The industry has undergone major rationalisations over the past two
846
decades, owing largely to the general decline of defence budgets not just here but internationally—although that has led to good co-operation and joint ventures on the part of UK, US and European companies. It has also made the industry more diverse, and has brought about sophisticated supply chains involving small and medium-sized companies.
My region, the north-east, was once the armer of the world, dominated by shipyards on the Tyne and famous names such as Vickers-Armstrong. It still sees the defence industry as an important part of the region's economy. The main suppliers are now small and medium-sized enterprises. I pay tribute to the work of Northern Defence Industries Ltd., spearheaded by its chief executive David Bowles, who has brought together small and medium-sized enterprises in the north-east to secure procurement projects not just from the UK, but overseas. NDI now has 170 members, and has benefited from recent UK Government procurement decisions. It would not have been given those opportunities without the work I have described. The companies involved are not just old-fashioned metal-bashing outfits; some are leading practitioners of engineering and electronics technology, and they are important to regions such as the north-east.
I also congratulate the Government on their shipbuilding orders, which have given a great boost to the north-east. The decision to place orders for the fleet auxiliaries Largs Bay and Lyme Bay with Swan Hunter was of symbolic importance to the region, returning shipbuilding to the Tyne and reviving a proud tradition that was ended by the last Conservative Government. The present Government should be given full credit for that.
The Tyne looks forward to working on the CVF contracts, about which I want to ask the Minister a number of questions. According to two headline articles marked "exclusive" in the Newcastle Journal, those projects have been delayed for up to two years, with a potential risk to jobs at Swan Hunter. I accept that yards such as Swan Hunter cannot rely entirely on MOD work, and I think I see the hand of the company in some of the dramatic headlines; but I should like an update on the CVF programme from the Minister and, in particular, a clarification of the procurement process and the issue of size, which will be of major importance to such yards.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), who is not here at the moment, raised the issue of the future rapid effects system. That development too has been followed closely in the north-east. The MOD's recent decision to halt the project has caused great concern to Alvis Vickers. I know that the Newcastle and Telford plants have looked forward to its securing the long-term future of both sites.
FRES was a key component of the new SDR chapter, and I should be interested to know when a decision will be made on that procurement option. I should also like to know why, following the spending of £7 million or £8 million with Alvis Vickers and other contractors, the project was pulled over the summer, and what the competition will be.
The UK defence industry awaits with interest and trepidation the White Paper that will be published before Christmas. The Government are right to look at

847
defence requirements both post-Iraq and in a world that is now, unfortunately, changing very quickly. There are, however, tough decisions to be taken that will have a great impact on the country's defence industry. Lengthy lead times are a problem for the industry, and I hope that the White Paper deals with that.
Listening to my noble Friend Lord Bach on Tuesday at Jane's defence industrial conference, the clear message was that the future was network-enabled capability. The new chapter of the SDR focused on technology and the need for sensors, decision makers and weapons system to connect on the battlefield, and the White Paper will spell that out in more detail. The emerging technology has benefits, but I would like to sound a note of caution—the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that, no matter how much technology we have, it is still vital to have men on the ground in large numbers, particularly if we ask our armed forces not just to fight a war but police the peace afterwards. Wholesale reductions in troop numbers and reliance instead on technology would be a great mistake. Armed forces personnel cannot, without proper support or logistics, do the jobs that increasingly we ask them to do. No matter how much technology they are given, it is difficult for them to perform in harsh environments, such as the conditions that members of the Defence Committee experienced in Iraq. We need to recognise that the threat has changed. The asymmetric low-tech threat in Iraq and Afghanistan may point towards the nature of future threats. The White Paper therefore needs to look at the way in which our technology deals with the simplistic, low-tech threat to our armed forces when deployed in the world's hot spots.
Any review of the White Paper has to ask some fundamental questions, as any expectation that defence budgets will increase greatly will not be realised. It is important that we review all areas, but we must look at our commitment to the UK's independent nuclear deterrent. The arguments about such a commitment are easier for some colleagues to follow than others, such as myself, who were never members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. However, it is the right time to ask questions. The Trident project will come to end of its life in 2024, and decisions will have to be made in the next few years on a replacement. No Government, not even the present one with a commendable record of defence expenditure, will increase defence spending dramatically. It is vital, if our armed forces are to be large enough to do the job that we ask them to do with the technology that they need, that every penny of the defence budget is spent to provide support and equipment. It should not just be used to support legacy projects that served us well in the cold war but, unfortunately, are of little relevance to the security threat that faces us today and in future. In conclusion, I again commend the Government on their defence industrial policy, and look forward to the White Paper to provide the best support and equipment for our armed forces for the vital job that we all ask them to do.
4.9 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: It is a pleasure that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the president of the parliamentary assembly of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has attended our debate. He always takes a benign interest in our debates as Chairman of the Defence Committee, and he will have been pleased, as I was, by the admirable speeches of his protégés, the hon. Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and for North Durham (Mr. Jones). I know that the hon. Member for North Durham takes a serious and well-informed interest in defence from our common participation in the parliamentary armed forces scheme. He is an enthusiast as well as an expert, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). The workers at Warton are very lucky to have my right hon. Friend to represent them, because he is exceedingly forward looking. I thought that his exposition of the challenges facing the British aerospace industry and the importance of the defence equipment programme for his constituents at Warton was a model of its kind.
The factory at Warton, where I worked some 24 years ago on the prototype Jaguar, has produced many remarkable aeroplanes. In those days, Canberras were still being refurbished. The Canberra first flew in 1949 and it is still in front-line service with the Royal Air Force today. It was pleasant to behold demonstrations of the aircraft by the late Roly Beaumont. One could recognise his demonstrations: one had to take only one look at the aircraft to know who was at the controls, the aeroplane was so elegantly manoeuvred into the appropriate aerobatic position. The Jaguar is going strong and looks as if it will continue at least until the middle of this decade.
I am not a particular fan, not instinctively a fan, of the European Union's high representative for common foreign and security policy, Mr. Javier Solana. I wish him well. He is always on the move, a very energetic gentleman, and is the Secretary-General of the Western European Union, on which I serve as well. At least his paper on European strategy, which was produced for the European Council at Thessaloniki in the spring, merits reading, because it stated the four basic security challenges that we face: rogue states, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and organised international crime.
It is in that strategic context that we need to view our defence programme. It is because we are not given the overall strategic and budgetary context that this debate is somewhat deficient, although hon. Members have spoken well, as I mentioned earlier. I ask the House to consider whether we ought not to discuss defence programmes in the context of a two-day debate on the defence estimates and revert to the single service days. That way, we would get multiple opportunities to discuss strategy and equipment programmes and air systems, land systems and naval systems in the context of the respective services that operate them. I am sure that, as in so many things in parliamentary life, my view is a minority one. However, I do not think that it is a minority one when it comes to the importance of making the broad judgments of the Government's strategic defence review effective, and that is becoming harder and harder for Her Majesty's Government as the money begins to run out.

849
I say at the outset that in this era of expeditionary warfare, when we seek to meet the challenges to our security as far from our shores as possible, as soon as they arrive or even in pre-emption in the context of the United States Administration's defence strategy, one of the areas of defence spending that merits examination now is whether we ought not to bring the British Army back from Germany. I regard it as a throwback to the old British Army of the Rhine, the old Brussels treaty commitment, which followed the division of Germany and was perpetuated through the cold war. I do not think that it makes sense now for us to be employing German gardeners and cleaners, providing funding for their economy, when, to put it bluntly, there is not always strategic support from the federal German Administration on key issues such as Iraq and others. So that issue merits examination. There are savings to be made, which could then be put into weapons programmes to give our highly mobile, flexible armed forces the equipment that they need.
Before commenting on European co-operation and ballistic missile defence, I hope that it will not weary the House too much if I offer some thoughts on domestic equipment programmes. The Minister of State claimed that the new carrier programme would provide the most capable carriers in the world, outside of the United States. If carriers are to be reduced in displacement from 55,000 or 60,000 tonnes to some 30,000 tonnes, they will not be so different in size from the Invincible class, the Principe de Asturias, which is in service with the Spanish navy, or the Italian navy's Garibaldi. And I doubt whether they will be comparable with the Charles de Gaulle or a successor carrier of that class, which is in service with the French navy.
Of course, if the Government are conducting a fundamental reappraisal of their planned procurement of aircraft carriers, we should ask—I have put this question to the House before—whether it might not be preferable to have three relatively small carriers, rather than two very big ones. One can be certain that when they are needed, one of those two big carriers will be in refit, and the other will be in the wrong part of the world. We certainly could not have won the Falklands war without being able to deploy two carriers on station. One recalls in naval history what happens when major capital ships—the Prince of Wales at Singapore, and the Hood in the north Atlantic—are destroyed. In this age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, three smaller carriers might be better than two big ones, particularly if Her Majesty's Government have, in essence, already forsworn, by opting for vessels of smaller displacement, the option of operating aircraft off the deck conventionally by launching them with a steam catapult and recovering them on the wire. It will be interesting to discover what the Government decide.
Of course, Commando Brigade will need new helicopters to replace the HC4 Sea Kings. It is important that the Merlin be produced at the earliest possible date, so that we have commonality with Royal Air Force Merlin support helicopters. It is also important—this is the lesson of combat over the Balkans and Iraq—that we have combat rescue capability. We should therefore consider using the Merlin, a three-engined aeroplane, in that role, and replacing Sea Kings for air-sea rescue use around our coasts.
850
I wonder whether the Commando Brigade ought to retain its own organic anti-tank helicopters. I doubt whether the Apaches will be fully marinised, and we can be certain that when our amphibious forces want their own integral anti-tank helicopters, the chances are that the Army generals will want them somewhere else. Although I welcome the joint helicopter structure that now exists within our armed forces, I should like that particular decision to be revisited.
I am surprised that the Minister made so little mention of the tankers for the Royal Air Force. Perhaps he feels that the decision-making stage has been reached, and that he cannot therefore share his thoughts with the House. However, I will share mine. I hope that the industrial imperative of supporting the Airbus consortium with the A330–200 aircraft is taken. It will of course be the more expensive option—much more expensive than buying hand-me-down 767s from British Airways. Nevertheless, the tanker will be an aircraft common with other European air forces, perhaps operated in a common tanker pool. The export potential of such an aircraft would be considerable.
Unmanned air vehicle systems and the future offensive air system were well dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde.
I suggest that we need to consider the organisation of procurement. The Petersberg task has set an ambitious headline goal of an Army corps to be deployed up to 4,000 km from Brussels and maintained in theatre for up to a year, with supporting air and naval elements. The capabilities to make good that commitment should have been fully operational by June, but they are not. They require massive investment, especially in mobile systems. Decisions have been made on the capabilities that are deficient, and project groups have been set up to try to meet them. However, the European members of the alliance recognise that for the foreseeable future there will always be some areas of capability that the Europeans cannot meet, including heavy lift, space-based systems, intelligence and several others. Therefore, the European members of the alliance will have to obtain the Berlin plus category of armaments from NATO, with US support, if the European members are to be able to operate independently and autonomously as they aspire to do.
I urge the continental countries to think carefully about their conscious policy of diverging from the US—I mean the French and the Germans, with the Belgians in their slipstream, who are all flirting to some degree with Putin's Russia—and whether they can, in the present political circumstances, depend on the automatic acquiescence of the US Administration in providing the mobile equipment and capabilities that the Europeans themselves cannot provide. I urge our continental friends either to come up with bigger procurement and research budgets to make up those deficiencies or to modify their political postures to try to assuage the anxieties of the US.
We need the US, not least on the question of ballistic missile defence. An extended air defence system is being evolved by the US, with the support of the Italians and the Germans, which will have a theatre capability and beyond. If the threat of weapons of mass destruction is perpetuated in the world, we will need just such a ballistic missile defence capability of our own. I am surprised that the Minister made no mention of ballistic

851
missile defence in his speech. As I said, the Italians and Germans have been working with the US Administration for eight years and will provide 45 per cent. of the funding for the programme. Why have the Government ignored that threat? They will not even share with the House what preparations they are making to meet it, but it is an important issue that cannot be ducked.
We all want operational requirements to be harmonised within the alliance and for alliance member countries to work better together. The hon. Member for North Durham rightly pointed out the dangers of the Buy American legislation before Congress and the risk of defence equipment protectionism that could ensue on the part of the US, at a time when the European and American components of the alliance are beginning to diverge anyway.
An armaments agency is not a constitutional matter. It has nothing to do with the governance of Europe. We want effective armaments co-operation, based on sound commercial principles. We want operational requirements to be not concocted by some bureaucratic agency but clearly defined by the operational requirement staffs of the respective armed forces working together. In other words, it would be a mistake for the operational requirement aspect of an agency to be blended with the normal executive function of the agency in the procurement of equipment.
I hope that the Government will argue hard for the exclusion of operational requirements in the formulation of the agency. There is a risk, however, because the draft constitutional treaty states that the format of the agency shall be decided by qualified majority voting. That is no way for British defence procurement to be worked out.
Mr. Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that it would be right to have a referendum on that new European constitution?
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman has taken the words from my mouth and on that happy note I conclude my remarks.
4.26 pm
Mark Tami: May I begin by reminding hon. Members of the changing strategic context that confronts our armed forces? In his remarks last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out how the United Kingdom is increasingly involved in ensuring global stability. As he pointed out, to meet that challenge, we need armed forces that are structured and equipped to deploy globally and at short notice.
Obviously, at present, much of the defence effort is focused on supporting operations in Iraq, but let us never forget our commitments to peace support operations in other parts of the world, in particular sub-Saharan Africa. Although there are differences of opinion about British policy towards Iraq, there is considerable consensus, at least on the Labour Benches, in favour of humanitarian interventions in west and central Africa. In addition, as my right hon. Friend also
852
pointed out last week, we need to recognise that the UK is ever more dependent on broad stability in Asia. I am not suggesting that the UK should police the world, but we have to accept that we will be deploying our forces further afield more frequently and more rapidly.
Our focus in the past was rightly to prepare for a threat based on the assumption of a perhaps large-scale Soviet invasion across the plains of Germany. Thankfully, that does not seem a likely scenario today and our strategic priorities have rightly changed. That means that our procurement programmes, in particular those that directly enhance the UK's ability to deploy forces globally, should reflect those new strategic requirements.
The Ministry of Defence has made considerable progress in strengthening our ability rapidly to deploy ground and maritime forces. Similar improvements in the capacity to deploy aircraft are now needed. The MOD's future strategic tanker aircraft programme is designed to meet that gap. The competition is due to be decided by the end of the year, and I urge the Secretary of State to select the AirTanker bid, which has been mentioned. That will benefit my constituents who produce the wings for the Airbus A330 aircraft at Broughton, as AirTanker is proposing. It will also provide the global capacity that our armed forces really need.
Airbus at Broughton will soon become Britain's largest manufacturing facility. It will produce the A330 aircraft, and will account for 1 per cent. of western Europe's gross domestic product—a startling statistic. That is a great success story, especially at a time when manufacturing industry throughout the world is under pressure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) pointed out, such jobs offer good-quality employment with a large number of apprenticeships, and we all want such jobs and skills for the UK. Opting for the AirTanker programme will build on that success and help secure Britain's place as a leading defence supplier.
Why choose the Airbus option over the Boeing competition? The A330 can carry 50 per cent. more fuel than alternative aircraft, without the need for auxiliary fuel tanks. That means that it can deploy more aircraft further, to frequent destinations such as Bahrain and Canada. Twice as many fighters can be carried by one A330 aircraft. Equally important, it can remain on station longer and refuel more aircraft in operation. The 330 can carry passengers and cargo without the aircraft having to be reconfigured, as the Boeing would have to be. Those are all major advantages in taking the AirTanker option.
The recent Iraq war demonstrated the uncertainty in securing overflight permissions. Turkey's decision to deny coalition aircraft overflight rights has made us rethink the way in which we tackle such operations. The greater capability of the A330 will provide the flexibility to work around such problems. We cannot predict what will happen in future, but there is a distinct possibility that we could experience similar situations in other operations.

853
The A330-200 offered by AirTanker for the FSTA programme provides the best and most flexible capability for the job. AirTanker is offering the RAF a modern aircraft for a long-term, 27-year, FSTA commitment. Typically, however, the natural life of the aircraft will be about 40 years.
Aircraft provided as part of the FSTA programme will refuel combat aircraft such as the Eurofighter and the new joint strike fighter, which will enter service during the next 20 years. It is planned that they are to remain in service until 2040 and beyond. It is less costly and less risky to convert a modern A330 for air refuelling than older second-hand aircraft. Unlike the alternatives, the A330 requires no major structural changes to its wing to accommodate the refuelling pods.
Airbus is the only aircraft manufacturer with current experience of refuelling pod integration, and Cobham's Flight Refuelling Ltd., which works exclusively with AirTanker and Airbus, is the only company in the world with experience of providing refuelling pods and fuselage refuelling units. Airbus is currently converting A310s into tanker aircraft for the German and Canadian Governments, using the Cobham pods. As a modern aircraft, the A330 will cost less to operate over the 27-year life of the contract than the Boeing alternative.
Importantly, after that 27-year period, we can still expect an additional 13 years of operational life from the Airbus option. That is a considerable benefit to the UK taxpayer, as I am sure that pressures on the defence budget will continue and probably grow in future years. If Boeing won the order, its alternative would be even older at the end of the 27-year contract than the aircraft that it would replace. That is hardly a step forward for our defence forces.
What are the other benefits to the UK economy? A larger amount of high-tech work will be open to British industry under the AirTanker bid, which is based, as I said, on a new, modern aircraft, unlike the alternative bids based on old, second-hand aircraft. Furthermore, we shall have the intellectual property.
There is more than 50 per cent. UK work content in the "green" aircraft. Only AirTanker will carry out 100 per cent. of tanker conversions in the UK—undertaken by Cobham's FR Aviation. The company will install British mission equipment and conduct the aircraft certification programme in this country. AirTanker's bids for the FSTA programme will sustain 7,500 quality jobs directly and indirectly in companies such as Airbus, Rolls-Royce and Cobham, which are all critical to the UK's aerospace industrial base.
Although Boeing promises to create jobs in the UK they will be far from secure, and unlikely to stay in the long term. For without the intellectual property, which will remain in the US, we can expect the production jobs with this programme to follow future export orders that Boeing may receive.
Success in the FSTA programme will provide Airbus with a platform to secure a significant share of the global market for air-refuelling aircraft—potentially 500 aircraft—and, very important, to prevent Boeing maintaining its last global monopoly. Airbus does have prospects of selling aircraft to France, Australia, other NATO countries and even the United States. The A330 is particularly well suited to replace the United States
854
Air Force's 50 KC-10 strategic tankers, for which Boeing does not have a replacement aircraft of suitable size.
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is making a most important speech and I can concur with all the judgments he has wisely put before the House, but is it not the case that the United States Air Force had the greatest difficulty in putting together a 767 tanker lease programme that could be acceptable to Congress and be proved to work?
Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We have also seen, after the terrible events of 9/11, the lengths to which the American Government went in ordering a large number of Boeing aircraft for the Government's fleet. They would clearly want to follow that road but, as I have said, no available aircraft would really match the needs that the American air force has for its larger tanker aircraft.
Marvin Sambur, Assistant Secretary for Acquisition for the United States Air Force, has said:
"We've been encouraging EADS to develop a tanker. One of the things that we are concerned about is [avoiding] a homogeneous fleet of tankers, so that if there's an issue, we don't have to ground the whole fleet".
If Airbus were to win a conservative 150 export orders, that would sustain 1,000 jobs at Airbus for 20 years and a further 500 among suppliers, on top of the jobs that would already be safeguarded by our opting for the aircraft for ourselves. The UK invented and is a world leader in air-refuelling technology and integration, and this procurement decision is vital for the future of the British aerospace industry.
The choice is a stark one: either we opt for a modern aircraft, suited to its task, with a long-term operational life and good export potential, namely the A330, or we opt for a second-hand, ageing Boeing 767, needing major conversion work, with far less capability and operational range. The latter will not meet our global requirements and would almost certainly be more costly in the long run. I believe our forces and our country deserve the best, and I urge the Minister to ensure that we get the best—the Airbus A330.
In the short time I have left I should like to mention the need for replacement accommodation at our Army bases. I applaud the Government for taking the decision—a decision that should have been taken by Governments many years ago—to replace the very substandard accommodation. The shadow Secretary of State, who was with us earlier—I note he is not in his place now—said in a previous defence Adjournment debate, on 11 September 2003 at column 505, that Army accommodation was "not fit for students", which probably says more about the Conservative party's attitude to education than it does about our armed forces, but I think I understand the point he was trying to get across. Hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledge that something has to be done and that high-quality accommodation is needed, but it needs to be built quickly and effectively. Building Solutions—part of Corus based a Shotton—offers just such buildings and has the capacity to deal with large-scale orders. Our armed forces have had to make do with

855
substandard accommodation for far too long, and we can hardly expect to improve recruitment figures if we fail to provide liveable accommodation. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to examine the Building Solutions proposals, which I am confident will deliver quality quarters for our armed forces.
4.40 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: I apologise to the House and the Minister of State—perhaps the Under-Secretary will pass this on—for missing the larger part of his opening remarks. I was lunching with the Prime Minister of Mongolia at the time, and I promised him that I would put on record the appreciation of the House and the Government of Mongolia's significant contribution to the peacekeeping operations in Iraq. I had not been aware that armed forces from Mongolia were serving there. That just shows how wide the coalition in Iraq is.
I speak primarily for two reasons: first, a constituency interest in rocket propulsion systems—this is one speech that really will be rocket science—and, secondly, a two-year attachment to the armed forces parliamentary scheme in the Royal Navy.
First, I wish to make a relatively less strategic point about the procurement process, which has obviously begun to get a great deal better since the establishment of the Defence Procurement Agency. We can have much confidence that the systems now used are a great improvement on what went before. One of the education reforms that the Conservative party introduced was the local management of schools, which devolved to schools some procurement decisions to which they previously did not have access. Large budgets went directly to them to spend as they thought best, rather than being handed down through some remote procurement organisation. Having spent some time with the Royal Navy, I think that the local management of ships might offer a similar advantage to the Royal Navy. Many procurement decisions might be better made at local chandlers shops where large quantities of cheaper kit could be found, rather than by using the more cumbersome procedures that are still forced on the Navy, even for small items.
No doubt the DPA is doing a good job; it needs to, because it is Britain's single biggest purchaser of manufactured goods, which sets the debate in a clear context. The DPA freely admits on its website that it has made mistakes, and it thinks that it has learned from them. It thinks that it has
"begun to deliver equipment to the Armed Forces 'faster, cheaper and better.'"
What worries me about that website is that the commitments to the DPA's procurement methodology do not seem fully to reflect the new defence industrial policy published by the Government. We hear a lot about excellence, meeting promises to customers, valuing people and integrity, and the DPA says:
"The aim of defence procurement is to buy equipment for the Armed Forces that meets their requirements and timescales, while achieving the best value for money for taxpayers."
856
All that is commendable, but I do not hear in all that mission statement stuff the strong regard for a defence industrial base that seems to exist in the Government's fine words in their defence industrial policy. Perhaps that is a question of willing the ends, but not the means.
I note that, in the evidence to the Defence Committee, on page 114, the Defence Manufacturers Association, in referring to the impact of the policy on small and medium-sized enterprises, said:
"Prime contractors are put under great budgetary pressures by the MOD, operate globally and will seek systems and sub-systems from wherever in the world they can be procured most cheaply for the benefit of the project in hand."
That is the tension that exists in UK defence procurement policy at present, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that I am worrying unnecessarily and that, in fact, the defence industrial policy is being rigorously implemented and considered by the DPA as it does its work.
When I went to Abbey Wood to see the work of the DPA as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I was given a particularly detailed brief on the procurement of the new Type 45 destroyer—an extremely important procurement for the Royal Navy that, in concert with the planned future aircraft carrier, to which I shall address some remarks later, will form the backbone of the Royal Navy's air defences for the foreseeable future. Six ships are currently on contract with BAE Systems. Of course, construction of those ships has begun. They are expensive bits of kit. The contract roughly averages out at about £1 billion per ship, so they are hardly inconsequential items. There is no doubt that they are a great advance on anything that the Royal Navy has at present and that their procurement is greatly to be welcomed. Incidentally, on residential requirements for our armed services, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), those ships certainly represent a quantum leap in the conditions for all the officers and ratings on board. The cabins and messes are modelled on those designed for cross-channel ferries, which is a stark contrast with the conditions that I have seen on Type 23 frigates, for example. That is to be welcomed.
There is a nagging doubt, however. The Government have not made clear what their final commitment to the Type 45 is. A class of up to 12 ships is always talked about—"up to" is the magic phrase. Can the Minister further clarify whether that is an aspiration or a firm target? The commitment is to six, but I believe that the Royal Navy needs all 12. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the pressures on the defence budget will not lead to a reduction in that aspiration for a class of up to 12 ships.
I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that there are only two carriers in the future programme. It seems to me that three is the absolute minimum to provide an effective defence platform, as he explained in his fine speech. I appreciate that there is tension in relation to the size, cost and availability of the proposed carrier. I share his view that three would be preferable, but I am reluctant to advocate a downsizing of the ship itself. I would therefore be interested to hear the Minister's comments about the adequacy of that procurement.

857
The carriers will use the short take-off and vertical landing version of the joint strike fighter. A variant of that fighter with conventional take-off exists, and as my hon. Friend said, we could consider using catapults and wires to retain those aircraft on board. There is concern that the joint strike fighter is overweight, late and over-budget, which could have serious implications for the carrier programme, too. Does the Minister share those concerns?
A lot of doubt surrounded the alliance approach that has been established to procure the carriers. Is the Minister confident that the Ministry can manage the project? Concern has been expressed, as is often the case in public procurement projects in which the private sector is involved, that the Ministry wants to control the project but not to bear a share in the risk that flows from that control. If it wants to control and own, it must share risk, too. There is real concern that that is not happening at present.
I have an interest in the Eurofighter Typhoon procurement, too, not least because Roxel in my constituency will make the motors for the ejection seats, which we always hope will never be used but are a crucial part of the aircraft. I echo all the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) during his excellent speech. Can the Minister confirm that deliveries will be completed as planned? I think that 50 per cent. of tranche 1 should have been delivered by now. Has that happened? Will the weapons system for tranche 1 be available at the end of 2005? In particular—this is the crucial question—can the Minister say anything clear about tranche 2? We saw the reports in the Financial Times on Monday that called into doubt our commitment to tranche 2, making the clear point that
"Orders for tranche two must be placed by the year end to avoid a costly production gap."
Those are important questions for a crucial part of our defence procurement programme.
Generally, British Governments have not been as good at protecting our defence industrial base as those of other countries—our competitors. When I used to advise a number of defence companies in my happy days in the private sector, the complaint was always how much better the French were at looking after their manufacturers than the British. They would pick winners—which company could bid for which international project—while British companies fought each other to the death, letting someone else through.
I accept that there is a need to reconcile competition in the industry with the strategic interests of protecting certain skills and abilities within the United Kingdom. That is not helped when we have dramatic swings in procurement expenditure, which is a matter of great concern at present. I saw an article in the Bristol Evening Post in September—who are we to argue with the Bristol Evening Post?—quoting Paul Beaver, a former spokesman for Jane's Defence Weekly. He made the observation, towards which I am very sympathetic, that the Ministry of Defence was being forced to make savings to offset its commitments elsewhere and in engagements around the world on the current budget. I fear that that unplanned escalation of British military commitments is adversely affecting the need to plan a properly costed and consistent defence procurement
858
policy. That is a matter of much concern. What worried me greatly was Mr. Beaver's hypothesis that the Royal Navy was likely to bear the brunt of costs with a reduction in the number of Type 45s and nuclear-powered submarines. I have to say that that was compounded by a spokesman for the Defence Procurement Agency who said in response:
"However, we do recognise that even though funding for defence has increased year on year since the last spending review, future funding remains taut given the range of operational tasks our armed forces have been involved in."
That brings us back to the same point, which seems to be confirmed by the Government's own procurement agency.
Virtually every hon. Member who has spoken has rightly paid a lot of attention to US policy. That cannot be reiterated too often because although America is our ally and we are proud to have a strong and continuing alliance with it, there is sometimes a bit of a one-way street. It is important to get movement on the waiver on the international traffic in arms regulations. The provision represents closet protectionism because it means that British defence contractors do not get the necessary information to allow them to bid in good time for Pentagon projects. We need the waiver so that the bidding process becomes fairer and more open. I think that the Government share that view.
The Government are also worried about the "Buy America" provision in the new American defence Bill. I shall not labour this point because other hon. Members have made it, but it is crucial that the provision is resisted. I am confident—I hope that my confidence is not misplaced—that the President would veto such a proposal, and I think that the two Houses of Congress have a difference of opinion anyhow, so perhaps we should not worry unduly about the specific proposal. However, the situation highlights our continuing worry that, although America often preaches free enterprise to the world, it does not always practice it with the same enthusiasm in its practical day-to-day decision making.
That leads me on to a point about offset, which is hugely important given the dominance of American manufacturing in the defence world these days. In a written answer on 14 March, the Minister of State said that the total value of industrial participation obligations
"is £5.4 billion of which £2.3 billion remains to be completed".—[Official Report, 14 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 432W.]
That is a lot of money. The problem is that we know little about the detail because the information in the public domain gives no indication of geographical spread or the regional value of individual offset arrangements.
That situation contrasts greatly with the US Department of Commerce's attempt to keep its population informed by publishing its report to Congress on offsets in defence trade. The British Government do not publish a comparable report. Perhaps they will consider doing that because we need confidence that offset arrangements are negotiated toughly and properly enforced.
Such confidence is important for Roxel in my constituency, which is a manufacturer, designer and developer of rocket motors and rocket propulsion systems. It was once part of Royal Ordnance but is now

859
jointly owned by a bewildering array of European shareholders. It is the third largest producer of rocket propulsion in the world and it employs some 350 people in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor).
I am grateful for a helpful letter that I received from Lord Bach—it has been a theme of the debate to pay compliments to him, which I do happily. There has been a great deal of pain in Summerfield and Roxel during recent years and the industry has been in a steady state of consolidation due to domestic and international pressures. Overseas procurement by the Ministry of Defence has not helped. Hellfire missiles for the UK attack helicopter used the US rocket motor, as did the Meteor programmes for Eurofighter Typhoon. Guided multiple launch rocket system procurement has no UK propulsion offset. A further great worry is the fact that investment in rocket propulsion is running at less than 10 per cent. of historical levels, which puts real, dramatic pressures on the industry. Other nations, especially the US, are giving much more support than the UK to their rocket propulsion contractors.
Roxel has an order backlog for a few years, which is encouraging, but a lot of cliff edges will appear by 2007–08. The Government need to take a serious view of that because rocket propulsion is a crucial aspect of many of our defence projects. There has been good news because a three-year propulsion research contract has been awarded for 2003 and a technical demonstrator programme for large diameter insensitive munitions, which is exciting technology, has been awarded. There has also been an award for an extended range guided multiple launch rocket system—ER-GMLRS—which includes a propulsion element.
Although good news exists, the historical levels of research have been slashed considerably and there are many cliff edges in procurement. If the Government are serious about protecting specific key skills—working on such technology is a highly skilled job—they must think what more they can do to safeguard the industry. The company recognises that there is a general need to review and realign defence spending because the world has changed, but hopes that that will lead to a greater focus on ensuring that there is support for the UK defence industry, and especially propulsion, with offset arrangements and research funding.
UK missile propulsion technology must be sustained. We have lost the last indigenous manufacturer of gun propellants. Missile propulsion technology is one of the essential skills and assets in this country. We need to protect it carefully.
4.55 pm
Mr. Bruce George: It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. As Chairman of the Defence Committee, I have the luxury—if it is a luxury—of having hardly any defence manufacturers in my constituency. That allows me to analyse events and what different companies offer from the perspective of what is in the best interests of the country and the Ministry of Defence, not of one's constituency. If I had a large defence contractor in my constituency, I would espouse
860
its cause, but it detracts from the debate if we largely hear "Buy me" advertisements. Frankly, such contributions minimise the importance of the Chamber. We should be considering what is available nationally and internationally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who is a good friend of mine, made an impassioned speech for Thales in her constituency. She does a good job in arguing the case for that "British" company. I hope that when she gets to Crawley, she will jump on an aircraft, head for Charles de Gaulle, get a cab to Thales or, better still, the French Ministry of Defence and its procurement agency, and argue as strenuously there for other people's constituents as she did here. Hopefully, the French Government's procurement policy will be as open as ours. If people support the products of foreign companies in this country, perhaps the French, Germans and, indeed, the Americans will follow us down the route of open competition. Protectionism might be good for their constituents, but it is not good for other people's constituents. If our colleagues represent German, French or American companies, I hope that they will argue the case as strenuously as we have heard it argued here.
The Defence Committee, which I am proud to chair, has taken a deep interest in procurement since 1979 when it was established. We have looked carefully at endless defence equipment programmes and have produced endless critical reports on the way in which the Ministry of Defence procures weapons and other defence systems. Our Committee's interest reflects the concern that British forces have the best equipment available, that the British taxpayer gets value for money, and that the British defence industry remains competitive and world class.
The Committee is fortunate. We have excellent advisers and access to good people who bring their expertise to us. We get information from the Ministry of Defence, the specialist media and defence contractors, who are pleased to talk to us because it allows them to argue the case for their system over anyone else's system. They do not trash their opponents. Instead, they give us a few hints about how their system is infinitely preferable to any other system. We have a good relationship with the people who act on behalf of those companies, be they advisers or specialists in Government relations. They have been hard at work in the House of Commons over the past few days. No doubt if I read Hansard, it will confirm my analysis of that.
One member of that despised profession—I am not talking about journalists or Members of Parliament—
Mr. Davidson: And lawyers.
Mr. George: Who would argue with that? Lawyers are uppermost in our minds when we talk of such professions. A very good friend of mine who was an adviser—a person espousing a variety of causes—died last week. I refer to Roger Harding, whom some hon. Members may have known. I deeply lament his death, because he was able and I admired him for the fact that he could give me sound advice, but did not necessarily reflect the interests of those who were paying his salary.

861
I send my deepest regrets to his family and employees. It is ironic that poor Roger, who was a devotee of Portsmouth FC, died during the season of the club's return to the highest echelons of British football. I deeply miss Roger and his advice.
I am pleased that our report, "Defence Procurement", has figured prominently in the debate this afternoon. We have just received a very supportive response from the Ministry of Defence, which causes me some concern. I am not used to the MOD agreeing with almost everything we say. Perhaps we should write a more critical report. I get rather nervous when my views exactly parallel those of the Ministry of Defence. Since the introduction of the annual defence procurement debates, our Committee and its predecessors have undertaken annual inquiries to inform these debates.
I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley has returned to the Chamber. I shall send her a copy of Hansard, so that she can read how wonderful I said she was, that she was one of my protégés, and that my views on defence are exactly opposite to hers.
The Committee has produced reports to inform these debates. Our latest defence procurement report, the eighth, for the Session 2002–03 was published last July. We examined in depth the Government's defence industrial policy, the opening up of defence markets, the management of risk and the smart acquisition initiative. In our report we consider a series of at-risk projects, which we formally call tracker projects. We ask the Ministry of Defence for a detailed analysis of the status of each of these programmes and we comment on them.
I have heard a little this afternoon about the future aircraft carrier and the debate in the media. Those media comments are slightly alarming to me. When the Government announced in the strategic defence review that they would acquire two real, proper aircraft carriers and have sophisticated state-of-the-art, or rather, state-of-science aircraft on them, I was delighted.
Knowing the MOD from having served on the Defence Committee since 1979, I thought that the Committee would closely monitor the progress of the aircraft carriers. As I know the Ministry of Defence of old, regardless of who the Ministers are, I feared that by 2006 or 2007, some Chancellor might say, "Enough of this. We can't afford it. Let's spin it out even further", so it might be 2015 before the first and 2017 before the second aircraft carrier was delivered. I am a little nervous that we are hardly through 2003, and already people are arguing that we do not need 50,000 tonne aircraft carriers. If we do not want two 50,00 tonne aircraft carriers, we do not want 150 joint strike fighters.
I hope the Secretary of State, if he pops into the Chamber, will tell us whether the aircraft carrier programme is secure, and I hope that he will reassure us that they will be real aircraft carriers, not slightly extended versions of the excellent non-aircraft carriers that we currently have, which have served as aircraft carriers. If there is to be any prevarication, I must express surprise that it has happened so early in the programme. I hope that the two carriers will proceed as they should and that we purchase the aircraft to go on them. We should remember that our whole military strategy is based on expeditionary warfare—in other words, we need the carriers to get our aircraft to where the action is to take place. The last Gulf war showed that
862
very few countries can be relied upon to provide the necessary territory for the deployment of our troops and aircraft. If one has 150 aircraft, a minimum of two large aircraft carriers is essential. I therefore hope that the anxieties will turn out to be merely media-inspired.
Our Committee has produced several reports on procurement. In our forthcoming report on the lessons of Iraq, there is bound to be a strong section on how our weapons systems worked. In Kosovo, the RAF, despite its best endeavours, lacked smart bombs that could land anywhere near the target. It is now in possession of infinitely more proficient and accurate weaponry. My own view, in advance of our report, is that our equipment worked pretty well, and that the failures that occurred were not in war-winning equipment. I am not saying that desert boots are not war-winning—they might be for an infantryman who had been wearing the old-fashioned boots, which were no good anywhere, let alone in the desert.
We are interested in opening up other people's markets to our products in the same way as our markets are open to other countries. As the defence industry continues to rationalise, the number of defence companies continues to decrease. The UK will not be able to rely on open competition if that gives foreign defence companies a level of access to our open defence market that is not reciprocated by other countries. In case our brilliant Hansard writers are not able to see me looking my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley straight in the eye, I hope that she is taking note of my point. I am not opposed to the French defence industry—I just want it to be open to ours. If a British company wants to buy a company in France, it should not be for the French Government to say, "Non." If, say, a French company is going to build another aircraft carrier, but did not do spectacularly well in the building of the last one, perhaps a British company could engage in the kind of competition that French companies—whatever their nomenclature—are able to enjoy in this country. I am not being anti-French, but pro-British. I want British companies to produce quality products that other countries want to buy and to be able to compete on a reasonably level playing field.
Industry witnesses to the Committee told us that the UK is the only major procurer of defence equipment in the world to have opened up its markets. The chairman of BAE Systems, Sir Richard Evans, told the Committee that the Government should not necessarily change their policy, but we should do much more to force other countries to come in line with us.
I detect a subtle change of policy in BAE Systems. If it believes that too many foreign companies are winning contracts in the United Kingdom, it may gain more access to the British market by becoming a foreign company. That leads me to the press speculation, which contains some truth, that BAE Systems has been hawking its wares around the United States and probably Europe, perhaps looking for a suitor to take it over. I shall say more about that later.
Ministers and their officials must maintain the pressure for reciprocal treatment from other defence manufacturing countries. If they do not permit reasonable access to their markets, I would tell them, "We shall look elsewhere. There are other opportunities and if you try to do our manufacturers down, until you change your policies, we will seek partners and

863
purchases from countries other than yours." Ministers must maintain pressure on European and US partners to conclude existing international agreements aimed at opening up defence markets. It is a question not of getting them to change their policies but of their honestly sticking to legislation under which they supposedly operate.
Several colleagues mentioned the United States and the international traffic in arms regulations. I believe—I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm my view—that our anxieties are more about the role of the US Congress and Congressmen who espouse the causes of their constituents to the exclusion of the national interest and of US allies, which do not include countries that are fervently seeking to penetrate our market. The UK and US authorities had largely secured agreement on the ITAR waiver in 2002, but its progress has been delayed in the US Congress. As other colleagues said, the waiver's importance extends beyond its immediate procedural and legal scope because it is a touchstone of our relations with our closest ally.
I wrote a letter at Defence Committee members' behest to key Senators and Representatives, making our concerns plain. That letter is reproduced in our report on defence procurement. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said, we raised the matter on Capitol Hill with the Administration and the State Department in September.
I shall give hon. Members a preview of my next letter to the Liaison Committee, which comprises a wonderful group of people: "Gentlemen and Ladies, the money you spent on our trip to Washington was 50 per cent. wasted because the meteorological conditions rendered our visit to Norfolk, Virginia hazardous." The entire US navy disappeared into the north Atlantic. I always believed that it was safer to remain in port during a hurricane but I was disabused of that simplistic approach from the Napoleonic warfare era. Perhaps someday we can complete the visit that mother nature rendered almost useless after the second day.
Most people consider the US to be the biggest advocate of free trade in the world. However, the recent "Buy American" policy is no example of that. The proposed defence authorisation Act 2004 would require the US military to procure equipment including specific critical items that are produced entirely in the US. I cannot disagree with the concept of looking after one's strategic assets, but that definition of what is essential is so broad as to include almost everything, and defence manufacturers will hide behind those provisions to make it very difficult—indeed, even more difficult—for European, Australasian and especially British companies to sell into the United States. It is already very difficult to do so.
This policy would have very damaging implications. Only last week, the Netherlands Secretary of State for Defence Procurement warned that international participation in the system and demonstration phase of the joint strike fighter—the F35—could become impossible if the US Congress passed the controversial Buy American Bill. We raised our concerns about the ITAR waiver when we visited Washington in September.
864
Frankly, I believe that the US Administration will deliver the goods. We said to them, "Who was with you in Iraq? The British and virtually nobody else. Is this the way to treat your allies? If you treat your allies like this, God knows what you would do to those who were not behind you in a conflict." I strongly believe that the arguments put forward by our embassy, by the British Government and, of course, by the Ministry of Defence and many colleagues here, will deliver the goods.
I mentioned earlier the future of BAE Systems. There has been speculation for some time about the future of our largest defence contractor. Press reports in the summer claimed that BAE Systems had rejected an approach from the French-owned Thales—good on it!—and was looking to merge with one of its US rivals, such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics or probably anyone else large enough. It was reported that discussions with General Dynamics were the most advanced. However, reports in the Financial Times then said that General Dynamics had walked away from this transatlantic merger with BAE Systems.
There would be significant implications if BAE Systems merged with, or was taken over by, a foreign defence contractor. The UK would lose its national defence contractor, there would be serious issues relating to security of supply, and the scope for competition would be further reduced. Jobs in a vital area—particularly high-tech jobs—in the UK would be likely to be lost as a result. A tie-up with a US contractor would also require BAE Systems to dispose of its 20 per cent. stake in Airbus.
I have just received a gesture from a colleague to suggest that the sections of my speech on managing risk and smart acquisition might better be dealt with on another occasion. In conclusion, therefore—this is quite a short speech, for me—I should like to say that the defence industrial policy noted that
"a manpower-intensive, platform-heavy and predictable doctrine of the Cold War has been replaced by the requirement for sophisticated, rapid and precise military solutions".
However, in the Select Committee's report on the strategic defence review new chapter, we concluded that we had seen little evidence of the urgency that the MOD claimed to be devoting to acquiring new capabilities. The way in which new requirements, such as those for the Watchkeeper unmanned aerial vehicle and the FRES armoured vehicle, are managed, and the processes of acquisition involved, will be a test of the MOD's ability to increase its procurement agility and bring important new capabilities into service more quickly. The Defence Committee will, as always, be watching closely to see how the MOD meets those tests.
5.18 pm
Mr. Alan Reid: I wish to assure the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) that I am not going to make a "Buy me" speech. Indeed, it will soon become apparent that it is a "Don't buy me" speech.
There is an old saying, "Where there's muck, there's brass", and that is as true in the defence industry as in any other. It is important to remember, however, that

865
defence procurement involves paying companies to dispose of old equipment as well as buying new equipment. In days gone by, decommissioning old equipment was often done very simply. It was often a case of simply going out to sea and tossing the old ammunition over the side. Certainly, when Holy Loch was dredged after it had been used by the American and British navies, there was plenty of evidence of the "out of sight, out of mind" policy. Fortunately we take much better care of the environment nowadays.
Some of the most dangerous material that we must decommission is in our decommissioned nuclear submarines, and I want to talk about the options for disposal of that material. The MOD currently has 27 nuclear submarines, 16 still in service and 11 out of service. The 11 are currently lying afloat, some at Devonport and some at Rosyth. Although they are safe in their current state, by 2012 more submarines will have been decommissioned and the current storage space will be inadequate. There is a possibility of more berthing space at Devonport that would allow the current storage afloat to continue until 2037, but it would nevertheless be sensible to try to find safe methods of breaking up the submarines and storing the radioactive and toxic waste inside the reactor components.
When the submarines were originally conceived, the Government of the day planned to dispose of them on the "out of sight, out of mind" principle—to sail them out into the Atlantic and scuttle them. Luckily, international environmental conventions prevent that from happening now.
Mr. Bruce George: And the Defence Committee!
Mr. Reid: I am sure that, even without the international conventions, the House would not approve of such methods nowadays.
Before the first nuclear submarines were decommissioned, the MOD had adopted the policy of temporary storage at Devonport and Rosyth, anticipating final disposal of the radioactive waste in an underground deep waste repository. That, however, is now expected not to become available until 2050.
The prospect of running out of berths at Devonport and Rosyth has led to the ISOLUS project. The acronym stands for "intermediate storage of laid-up submarines". Lancaster university is currently conducting a consultation exercise. Like others, I congratulate Lord Bach on the way in which he is fulfilling his brief. He has certainly kept me informed of the progress of the project as it affects my constituency.
There are two main disposal options. The first stage of either would involve removing the reactor components from the submarines intact, because that is where the dangerous material is stored. The rest of the submarine would obviously be safe, as the crew would have been living there. Once the reactor components had been removed, the first option would be to store them intact for about 60 years, until the radioactive waste inside had decayed. The advantage of that would be the absence of any risk in the opening of the reactor components; the disadvantage would be the fact that each component is about the size of two double-decker buses, and would therefore take up a good deal of space. The other option would involve opening the component, removing the radioactive waste inside and packaging it in a secure container.
866
Four companies have advanced proposals for the consultation, but two of them, Devonport Management Limited and Babcock, clearly have their own commercial interests in mind. They want to get rid of the old submarines in the yards at Devonport and Rosyth. They were happy to take them, with their nuclear material, while there was money to be made from refitting, but as soon as no more was to be made and the submarines had become an embarrassment, they wanted to be rid of them. Babcock made clear in its submission that although it would be possible to store the reactor components or the packaged waste at Rosyth, it does not want that to be done because of public concern locally, and because it wants to develop the yard commercially. It has therefore come up with two proposed sites for storing the packaged radioactive waste—Sellafield and Coulport, which is on the east side of Loch Long. This is where the "Don't buy me" part of my argument comes in, as the people in villages on the west side of Loch Long in my constituency—Ardentinny, Strone, Blairmore and Lochgoilhead at the head of Loch Goil—are extremely concerned about the proposal. I do not understand why Coulport has been identified as a location. A small amount of radioactive waste may already be stored there, as it is a naval armaments base, but the proposal to store the radioactive waste from 27 nuclear submarines is far in excess of that quantity. We should not be storing bulk radioactive waste at new sites. Sellafield already stores large amounts of radioactive waste, including most of the defence industry's radioactive waste, so it would be a much better option.
There are three sensible solutions. First, we could continue with afloat storage at Rosyth or Devonport. Secondly, we could break up the submarines, but store their nuclear components intact on-site and, thirdly, we could break up the reactor components and transport the packaged intermediate-level radioactive waste to Sellafield, where the majority of similar waste generated in the UK is managed. That approach would also have the benefit of consolidating all the MOD radioactive waste in one location, rather than two locations at Coulport and the original Sellafield site. To adapt an old metaphor, let us put all our rotten apples in one barrel. Those are the options that should be considered, and the option of a new storage facility at Coulport should be rejected.
5.26 pm
Mr. Ian Davidson: It gives me great pleasure to rise again this week in support of the Government. I fully intend to vote with them on any vote that is called tonight and, indeed, shall do so for the rest of the week.
As secretary of the all-party group on shipbuilding and ship repair, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the future of the British shipbuilding industry has been safeguarded as a result of orders placed by the Labour Government, giving workers in the shipyards the security of employment that they did not have for a long time. That achievement should not go unnoticed. However, I want to raise a number of issues, and if the Under-Secretary cannot respond today, I hope that he can write to me.

867
First, on the aircraft carrier, I should like further reassurance that any changes will be capability rather than cost-driven. I accept completely the point about a possible downsizing of the carrier weight, but I want reassurance that any downsizing would maintain capability and that 48 planes, and not any fewer, will be flown from the carrier. The Minister of State said that delivery for 2012 and 2015 is still the aim, which I greatly welcome. I hope that the Under-Secretary can give me similar reassurance on the Type 45 order, because it has been suggested that the planned order for 12 ships may well be reduced to 10. I hope that the Government can give me a clear assurance that that is not the case and that the intention remains to order 12 destroyers.
I would also like clarification of the MARS—mobile adjustment ramp system—contract. There is an option to specify a civil order, rather than a military one, so that the system can be built overseas, but I hope that the Government ignore that option. Many Members have expressed their views on the issue of foreign defence procurement, the opportunities to buy from other countries and their unwillingness to buy from us. If a Member has spoken on a subject, I do not necessarily refrain from speaking about it myself but time pressures do not allow that today. I hope that the Minister accepts that if the MARS order were placed with British yards, there would be spill-over economies in the aircraft carrier contract. I hope that there would be sensible procurement policy that looked at the loading of work in the yards on the Type 45s, the aircraft carriers and the MARS contract, in order to allow throughputs of work and sharing of overheads, which would lead to economies being made on all those orders.
On shipbuilders' relief, the Ministry of Defence does not have direct responsibility for that, but it is connected with naval exports. I want to clarify whether the MOD has been speaking to Customs and Excise and the Treasury in support of maintaining shipbuilders' relief for military export orders. It seems that most of our international competitors provide considerable subsidies to their shipyards to supply third markets. If not matching them, we should at least be offering some support and assistance. There is a danger that we will disadvantage our yards. If they can win defence export orders, they will once again be able to share the overheads on the contracts with the MOD, thereby possibly reducing the expense to the taxpayer.
In the circumstances, the final point I wish to make arises from a note that I received from the Hansard writers, who said that the microphone was not on when I intervened on Mr. Wilkinson earlier. For the avoidance of doubt, I was—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to other hon. Members in the correct parliamentary language.
Mr. Davidson: I used the hon. Gentleman's name because I could not remember his constituency.
Mr. Wilkinson: Ruislip-Northwood.
Mr. Davidson: Ruislip-Northwood. For the avoidance of doubt, I was indicating that I was in favour of a referendum on the European constitution as soon as possible.
5.31 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: The mentioning of the MARS vessels by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) almost succeeded in frustrating what remains my aim, which is to be the first to mention at least one new topic in a debate when making a winding-up speech. However, I still have a card or two up my sleeve.
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), this is the right debate but at the wrong time. It almost seems as if the Government are intent on trying to cram as many defence debates as possible into the period before what is bound to be a very controversial White Paper appears, so that, after that White Paper appears and we demand answers to very challenging questions in the light of the cuts that it is clearly being forewarned will take place in that White Paper, the Government can say, "But you had all these debates this year." We are used to such tactics, as are the public after so many years of this new Labour Government. I do not think they will be fooled by it any more than we are.
I strongly disagree with the uncharacteristically harsh remarks of the Chairman of the Defence Committee, who, having missed the start of the debate, is showing consistency by not being present at the end of it. He chides hon. Members for representing the constituents and firms in their constituencies who work in and constitute the defence manufacturing industry. I personally think that such contributions show the merit of the single Member constituency system. I do not think that those constituents or firms would be spoken up for half as strongly if we had the sort of list systems that certain minor parties prefer.
That is why I commend the speeches of the hon. Members for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who all persuasively argued the case for UK defence manufacturing work to be undertaken by companies and work forces in their constituencies. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) covered an important local defence industry, but as well as that he ranged over many wider topics, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) raised several more very important topics. For example, he was the first to mention the difficulty in maintaining the cycle of carriers permanently on patrol when there are only two rather than three, and the first to mention ballistic missile defence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) showed his absolute mastery of equipment issues, and stressed the importance of an independent UK defence manufacturing base. The Liberal Democrat spokesman put on the record his party's wish to privatise the Defence Export Services Organisation, and his colleague, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), highlighted the problem of nuclear submarine hulk disposal. My hon. Friend the Member for

869
Aldershot stressed the vital role of our military technology base, and the problems set to affect procurement projects in all three armed services. He also made a strong plea for greater equity in US-UK collaboration in defence projects—a point echoed and reinforced by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones).
I am pleased to see that despite his arduous journey, the Secretary of State has joined us for the end of the debate, and I should let him know that the Minister of State rightly referred to some of the remarks that he made during last week's debate on defence policy. Without a conception of the threats that one is likely to face—as well as those that one currently faces—it is neither prudent nor sensible to determine a procurement policy at all. Procurement has to be tailored to meet the threats currently faced, and it has to be designed to meet future threats, which may be wholly unpredictable.
The longer the lead time and in-service time of a weapons system, the more versatile it must be. It should not be necessary for me to remind Ministers that where naval doctrine—maritime doctrine—in particular is concerned, versatility is valued above all. I shall take a moment of the House's time to point out that on Monday, I had the privilege of sponsoring the last reunion dinner of the crew of a wartime aircraft carrier of which some Members may not have heard. It was called HMS Speaker, hence its connection with this House; indeed, I was delighted that Mr. Speaker was able to meet and greet its splendid veterans. You and others may not have heard of it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it was an escort carrier—a ship not originally designed as an aircraft carrier, but which was speedily converted into a pocket-size carrier to fill a capability gap that was discovered once the war was already under way.
However, with modern systems we cannot adopt the "adjustable in wartime" measures that served us so well in the past. Indeed, the Secretary of State recognised that fact when he spoke in this House a week ago. He said:
"Historically, there are periods when major and rapid changes are necessary. That reflects the emergence of new threats and requirements and the passing of former threats against which the armed forces have previously been configured."
However, in talking about weapons systems that were retained from the cold war period but adapted to the post-cold war era, he said that such equipment was "not always optimised" for the role that it had to take on. What was top of his list? It was our existing aircraft carriers, which, in his own words,
"were smaller than needed for significant operations against targets ashore".—[Official Report, 16 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 273–74.]
Let me remind the House about a little of the history of those aircraft carriers, which very nearly did not exist at all. I am old enough to remember a previous Labour Government, who had a well-thought-of Defence Secretary—Lord Healey, as he now is—who attached his considerable intellectual weight to a reassessment of Britain's strategic requirements, and decided that we no longer needed to be east of Suez. Applying logical principles, he said that if we no longer needed to project
870
power east of Suez, we no longer needed aircraft carriers. If it had been left to that Government, there would have been no aircraft carriers, adequate, adaptable or otherwise. The only reason we have the present three aircraft carriers is that the Navy chiefs had the foresight and ingenuity to commission three special cruisers, which they called "through-deck cruisers." If new Labour thinks that it invented the concept of spin, it should look back to the Admiralty of those days, to which we all owe a debt of gratitude.
The aircraft carriers of the future must be capable of meeting unpredictable threats. The House will recall the comments I made earlier when I mentioned the assurance that the Secretary of State gave us early this year that the carriers would be 60,000-tonne ships, and would
"rank alongside the most formidable and complex weapons systems deployed by any country anywhere in the world."— [Official Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1026.]
I contrast that with the written answer I received from the Minister of State in August, in which he harked back to the SDR in 1998, saying that
"it was envisaged that the two new Future Aircraft Carriers would be in the order of 30,000–40,000 tonnes and be capable of carrying up to 50 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters." —[Official Report, 1 September 2003; Vol. 409, c. 893W.]
One question that we can expect to be answered today is this: if the aircraft carriers are reduced to 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes, does the Minister guarantee that vessels of that size will still be capable of carrying up to 50 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters? I hope that the answer is not simply a yes, because "up to 50" could mean only 20, 25 or 30. I am sure the Government would not shelter behind such sophistry—or perhaps I am not so sure.
The Minister even seemed to suggest that if the aircraft carriers were smaller, it would somehow increase their versatility. That is not the view of Mr. Simon Knight of BMT Defence Services, the naval architect in charge of the project—as he was described in a Press Association press release on 12 October. He was reported as stating in an interview with The Engineer magazine:
"What we had before was a ship that could be a frigate in terms of its self-defence capabilities, and that could be a command and control ship in terms of its communications.
It was the Holy Grail in terms of a ship that had everything, and we are now trying to pare it back to just the aircraft carrier role."
I also wish to ask about joint strike fighter numbers—an issue that has been raised before. 1 was told in a written answer from the Minister of State:
"While no final decisions have yet been taken, our planning assumption is based on 150 of the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing … variant of JSF being acquired to meet the … requirement."—[Official Report, 16 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 453W.]
Does that pledge still stand or has it been thrown into the melting pot together with the great promises that were made about the carriers? We have so often heard from this Government bold commitments that are made at the beginning, only to suffer quiet, incremental retractions as we go along.
I could cover many issues, but I promised to raise one that has not so far been mentioned in the debate, and that is the present threat from terrorism in this context. More attention should be paid than it has been so far to

871
an article in the Financial Times on 20 October by Mansoor Ijaz, entitled "The maritime threat from al-Qaeda". He points out the following facts:
"According to United Nations estimates, up to 80 per cent. of the approximately 6bn metric tons of cargo traded each year is moved by ship. Of that, almost 75 per cent. passes at some point through one of the five main choke points in the seafaring economy—the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, the Straits of Gibraltar, the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits of Malacca. A terrorist attack against one or more of those transit areas that disabled it for weeks or—in the case of a radiological 'dirty bomb', for far longer—could seriously disrupt global trade. The economic calculus of moving cargo by sea would be rendered useless."
The Royal Navy is clearly aware of that threat. I was interested to see an article in the current edition of Navy News entitled, "Sea containers may carry next big terror threat." It is a worrying fact that only a minuscule proportion of containers are checked in any meaningful way before they enter this country. Of the 12 questions that I would have liked to put to the Minister, I shall confine myself to one to allow him his full time to answer as much of the debate as he feels able or inclined to do: will the Government seriously consider initiating a screening system at our ports, and if necessary offshore, to improve the prospects of preventing sealed containers from being used to cause terror in the heart of this country?
5.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I thank the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for his condolences and good wishes to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar). I will ensure that the best wishes of the House are passed on to him.
The House last had the opportunity to discuss these important matters on 17 July 2002. It is clear from today's debate that much has been happening in the intervening 15 months, affecting the constituencies of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is essential that the equipment that we provide ensures that our armed forces remain highly capable and effective and ready to meet the challenges that they face today and in the future.
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State covered much important ground. There were 10 Back-Bench speeches, made up of contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), for North Durham (Mr. Jones), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) as well as from my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is Chairman of the Defence Committee. There were only three contributions from the Conservative party—whose members obviously have issues to discuss elsewhere—from the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull), as well as a short contribution from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid).
I congratulate the Defence Committee on its eighth report of this Session, which deals with defence procurement. I commend the Government's response to
872
it. I am sorry that the Chairman of the Select Committee was worried about the Ministry of Defence agreeing with many of the points made in it.
I shall highlight a couple of areas that have been mentioned in the debate, in particular, the question of opening up markets, which is dealt with on page 3 of the Government's response and in paragraph 33 of the Select Committee's recommendations. We are very much aware of the issues that the Committee has raised. Indeed, when the Prime Minister was in Washington in July and the subject was raised during the debate, he secured an important agreement with President Bush radically to improve the sharing of defence information and technology between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) intervened earlier to suggest that the answer that he had received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was different from statements that had previously been made.
He has just said that my right hon. Friend the Minister was harking back to the strategic defence review, so I shall set out the answer to his question:
"In the Strategic Defence Review, published in 1998, it was envisaged that the two new Future Aircraft Carriers would be in the order of 30,000–40,000 tonnes and capable of carrying up to 50 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. The intention, as with any other new equipment project, has always been to refine the design during the assessment phase in order to best meet our developing capability requirements."—[Official Report, 16 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 703W.]
Dr. Julian Lewis: Of course, the Government said that in 1998; they are saying it again now, but why did the Secretary of State make such a song and dance in January this year about the fact that the carriers would actually be 60,000 tonnes? That is what everybody heard and believed at the time.
Mr. Caplin: The two statements are not contradictory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok, in discussing the role of shipbuilding, welcomed what the Government had been able to do with their ordering processes. I take his point, and welcome the start last month of the third stage of the assessment phase, which was excellent news for the project. It continues to provide further impetus to ongoing operations and confirms the Government's commitment to the programme for the future aircraft carrier.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether the tonnage is 40,000 or 60,000, the commitment to the two CVFs will lead to large amounts of work for shipbuilding communities throughout this country, many of which went through lean years when the Conservatives were in power?
Mr. Caplin: Things were certainly different when the Conservatives were in power.
In his statement of 30 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that various yards—Vosper Thornycroft, Swan Hunter, Babcock at Rosyth and BAE Systems at Govan—would be involved in the projects.

873
The stage 3 assessment will increase the maturity of the design and optimise its capability and value for money. That progress will pave the way for Ministers to place contracts for the demonstration and manufacture of the ships in spring 2004. The Opposition seem to be obsessed with size, but it is actually capability and assessment that we need to consider.
The right hon. Member for Fylde asked me to thank Lord Bach for the way in which he fulfils his portfolio. I shall certainly do so. Other Members also made that point. I was concerned about the right hon. Gentleman's summer reading choice. May I suggest that John Grisham might be more appropriate? I shall certainly write to the right hon. Gentleman about the aerospace issue that he raised.
Several hon. Members referred to Eurofighter Typhoon, including the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, who asked about tranche 1. The contract was signed in September 1998 and it is a secure contract. We aim to place the tranche 2 contract in the coming months. Commitment to tranche 3 is not expected before 2007. The reason is that discussions with the four nation members and with industry are ongoing.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Minister knows that there is concern among our European partners about the British Government's commitment. Can he be more specific about the "coming months"? Is it the Government's intention to sign up for tranche 2 by the end of the year or not?
Mr. Caplin: We are holding discussions and when an announcement is due it will be made in the right and proper place.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) added to the varying list of commitments made by his party and its leader recently by announcing that he wanted to privatise the Defence Export Services Organisation. The Government wholly and fundamentally disagree; we have no plans to do that. He also raised the issue of the C-17 aircraft. We have been reviewing future strategic airlift needs and are considering the options for the permanent retention of a small C-17 fleet. However, any fleet of C-17s would complement our C-130J and future A400M fleets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley spoke about the work that the Territorial Army unit from her constituency is doing in Iraq. I know some of those soldiers as they live in my constituency; many Thales employees also work in Crawley but live in Hove. I know that the work that they do is very good indeed.
Like many other hon. Members, including the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Fylde raised the issue of the "Buy American" provisions. I have to tell the House that the British Government have made clear to the United States our serious concern regarding that so-called provision. Introduction of those provisions would have a significant detrimental effect on the programme and we very much welcome the cross-party support that the House is giving to maintain the pressure on the United States. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence take every opportunity to raise that issue with their counterparts.
874
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside mentioned the air tanker programme. Bids are in the process of being assessed and, unfortunately, it would not be appropriate for me to give him further details this afternoon.
Several hon. Members asked about the affordability of our forward plans and speculated on projects that might face cuts or cancellation. I emphasise to the House that that is pure speculation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in last week's debate, like any big spending Department, the Ministry of Defence has pressures on its budget, but, as a matter of routine, the Department undertakes what amounts to a capabilities stocktake every year against our future plans. We examine the systems that we currently have in place, those that we have chosen to purchase and those that we may need in future. The strategic environment changes rapidly, and we must ensure that our planning evolves with those changes. Like all Government Departments, the Ministry of Defence has only so much money to spend, and it must be spent effectively.
The increase in the defence budget announced after the last spending review reflects the importance that the Government attach to ensuring that our armed forces have the capabilities that they need to deal with the rising threat of international terrorism, as well as the challenges that we faced before 11 September. What it does not do is stop us continuing our efforts to seek cost-effective solutions to our military requirements. It will not stop us pursuing value for money, through competition and other means, in our defence orders, and it does not mean that we no longer need to prioritise our activities so as to deliver those capabilities we most need while spending our budget wisely.
In Iraq, it is clear that our equipment performed well in the demanding and testing environment of war-fighting operations. Challenger 2, SA80, new precision weapons and many equipment capabilities made an important contribution to the success of those operations. But it is vital to remember that, in modern operations, capabilities should not primarily be measured in terms of platform numbers. A far greater focus has shifted to the decisive effects that we can achieve through those platforms and the weapons that they carry. Ensuring that those are as accurate and effective as possible—and can be deployed and sustained promptly in the field—will enable us to maximise the impact our armed forces can achieve.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Caplin: I am sorry; I cannot.
On Tuesday, the Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Bach, addressed the annual defence industry conference, the first since the successful launch of the Government's defence industrial policy. Reactions to the policy have been highly favourable, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said, and since its launch, Government and industry have worked together closely on putting it into practice. At the launch, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Trade and

875
Industry committed the Government to a formal review. I can tell the House that the review has now been completed and will be published soon.
Peter Bradley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Caplin: No.
We are particularly pleased with the way the dialogue between Government and industry has deepened, and we remain committed to high-level engagement with industry through the National Defence Industries Council, and to developing the dialogue that we have established on industrial policy implementation. As more new programmes are conceived and progress through the acquisition cycle, we shall be able to assess the impact of the policy with greater clarity.
I stress that competition is at the heart of the policy, delivering value for money to the British taxpayer and real innovation in the capabilities available to our armed forces. Those are powerful and persuasive benefits, but we are flexible enough to follow other routes—such as partnering, where industry and Government can benefit from stable, long-term relationships—when those alternatives make most sense.
I have two concluding points. First, I was disappointed that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall did not criticise the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), because I can assure him that we intend to fly the flag for Britain in our defence exports. Taken together—
Its being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mr Bill Wiggin be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Mr Nigel Evans be added.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

WORK AND PENSIONS
Ordered,
That James Purnell and Mr David Stewart be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Vera Baird and David Hamilton be added.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 29th October, Private Business set down for Four o'clock by the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon at the conclusion of Government business (whether before, at or after Four o'clock) and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Occupational Pensions
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
6 pm
Kevin Brennan: I make no apology for returning to a topic that I and other hon. Members have been raising in the House for the last year and a half and will go on raising for as long as it takes to find a just solution for our constituents. It is a story of hardworking, honest citizens making the fateful and unforgivable error of trusting their employers and trusting the state. They trusted employers and Governments by putting their money into final salary occupational pension schemes on the basis that those schemes were "guaranteed"—a word that was legally used by employers and Governments in their literature. People were told that the schemes were guaranteed to pay them a pension related to their final salary.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the case of Allied Steel and Wire in my constituency, and I will not detain the House by repeating the personal stories of my constituents who worked for decades and were on the cusp of retirement only to find their hopes of a comfortable and secure retirement snatched away from them by a piece of flawed legislation that was introduced by the last Conservative Government in 1995. It is wrong to blame those people for committing the fatal sin of trusting their employers and the state because, in many cases, they had no choice but to trust them, as Governments of both colours allowed employers by law to compel workers to join those schemes.
How can this situation have come about? How could probably 20,000 people—we cannot be sure because the Government do not count them—have been left with a pension with a so-called guarantee that is not worth the paper it is written on? I profess that, like many people, I was ignorant of the issue until my constituents came to speak to me, to explain how they had lost their pensions. Frankly, at first, I thought that they must be mistaken. I thought that it could not be possible in the 21st century to be left unprotected in that way, but I was wrong. So I went back to look at some of the debates in the House and in the Standing Committee that considered the then Pensions Bill in 1995. After all, the Pensions Act 1995 was passed to put right the scandal of the Maxwell pensioners.
I could not believe that, in dealing with that scandal, hon. Members of whichever party would have wanted to allow workers to be effectively robbed of their pensions. As far as I can ascertain, no one fully envisaged the perilous position that they were creating for today's occupational scheme members. They thought that they were protecting pensioners and putting measures in place that would prevent pension funds from being seriously under-financed.
It is true that, at the time, the TUC lobbied for a pension protection fund and that the then Labour Opposition tabled amendments to that effect, and I am glad that such provisions will be a feature of new legislation in the near future. However, I have read the reports of the 1995 proceedings and spoken to the TUC's adviser at the time, Bryn Davies, and as far as I can see, no one envisaged the possibility of losses on the scale being faced by workers today.

877
When the possibility of schemes winding up without being able to meet their liabilities was discussed, it was generally assumed that that would be rare, and because of the new minimum funding requirement, that losses would be limited. Indeed, in Committee on 13 June 1995 my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said:
"There is an important point of principle, with which I am sure all members of the Committee would agree; in the event of a shortfall in a pension fund, when it will be difficult to meet pension obligations, whatever the cause of the shortfall, the members are innocent parties, although it is they who will suffer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 13 June 1995; c. 526.]
That is absolutely the point—they are innocent victims of a flawed legislative framework.
Despite those comments, the legislation that was passed made the plight of those innocent victims worse. That clearly was not the then Government's intention, and it certainly was not the intention of the then Opposition, but by devising an inadequate minimum funding requirement and putting the rights of deferred pensioners to the bottom of the order of priority—whether they were 30 years away from retirement or 30 minutes away from retirement—the plight of those innocent victims was made worse. Now the Government are acting to put that right for the future. I welcome this week's announcement on that, but it still leaves thousands of innocent victims who should be compensated.
To illustrate that that outcome was not envisaged, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen raised the case at the time of Swan Hunter, by saying that although its scheme would have met the minimum funding requirement, members of the scheme faced cuts of up to 40 per cent. in their expected pensions. In response to those observations, however, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who was then Pensions Minister in the Conservative Government, said that the minimum funding requirement would ensure that
"We are not talking about loss on the scale mentioned by the hon. Member for Itchen."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 13 June 1995; c. 533.]
If only that were so. The latest figure, I understand, from some Allied Steel and Wire workers in Cardiff, is that they are being given not an estimated loss in their pension of 40 per cent. of its expected value, but a total pension of 14 per cent. of the expected value. That is an 86 per cent. cut in their pension. That is the scale of the catastrophe that has been visited on constituents in my part of Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), whose Allied Steel and Wire workers at Sheerness have suffered a similar fate.
The state has not exercised a proper duty of care on behalf of those people. The state did not insist on a proper health warning on occupational pensions—on the contrary, it encouraged workers to enter those schemes. The result has been a real injustice for a few who understandably feel bitterness, bewilderment and betrayal, and uncertainty for the many who, on hearing of the plight of the few, lose confidence in the whole
878
occupational pensions system, when even the most rock solid "guaranteed" form of pension fund turns out not to be worth the paper on which it is written, for thousands of people.
That is an injustice, not just a misfortune. Those people feel that they have been duped, and they have been.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: It is immoral.
Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is right. What rational economic agent would bet his or her security in retirement on the ups and downs of the price of steel? All of them would have put their money elsewhere had they been told the truth about the risk. The fact is that successive Governments have inadvertently mis-sold the concept of final salary schemes and have a duty to compensate the innocent victims. The state tends understandably to be complacent, because its own workers' and its own politicians' pensions—I include myself—are ultimately underwritten by the taxpayer. That is not acceptable. The cost of compensation would be minuscule compared with, to take one example, the surplus in the national insurance fund identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) earlier this week in his Adjournment debate. It would be cheaper than the legal costs that the state is likely to incur if trade unions such as the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation continue with a case under the relevant European directive.
Governments tend to say that they cannot be seen to stand behind private pension arrangements in any way, but that is frankly nonsense. Governments have subsidised private pension arrangements through tax relief. Governments have compelled people to join such arrangements. Governments have taken billions out of the national insurance fund to bribe people into private pensions, and Governments stand behind the entire private banking and financial system as the lender of the last resort. Why do Governments do that? They do it because without such backing, confidence in the entire financial system would collapse. That is not in the public interest, and the same is true for pensions. A promise should be a promise and a guarantee should be a guarantee, especially when the promise and guarantee are about security in retirement.
6.11 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister for allowing me to say a few words and, most of all, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan)—he is indeed an honourable friend. We have worked so hard together to raise the issue of Allied Steel and Wire because the problem affects not only ASW Cardiff and Sheerness—more than 40 companies' pensions have gone into administration since 4 July 2002.
The problem is most serious because many people have tried to commit suicide or have been suicidal. They suffered a double whammy because they lost their occupation pension on the same day that they were made redundant. It is difficult not to sympathise with them because they gave their deferred wages to their occupational pension scheme, but they have now lost everything.

879
There are moral aspects of the problem and a question of duty. This is a proud Government. Things that we have done since 1997 for which we can be proud include providing money to address our debt to the coal miners—no one can take that away. The people who developed lung disease and the Chatham workers who experienced the effects of asbestos suffered an appalling thing.
The Government have introduced such measures before, so we are not asking for something new. We are not asking for next year's Bill to be retrospective because we understand the moral hazard that that might create. However, we ask the Government to think about the cost of the Iraq war—it probably cost the Exchequer £2 billion. What was cost of foot and mouth—probably between £2 billion and £3 billion? What was cost of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease—probably £1 billion or more? We are asking for between £100 million and £200 million, at most, to be given to a special fund to compensate workers. Is that possible? It is not a fortune, especially when one considers how much the Chancellor took out of pension funds toward the end of the 1990s.
I urge the Minister to use his best endeavours to ask his fellow Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions to include a provision to address the matter in the Bill that will be presented after the Queen's Speech. Does he think that the legal advice from inside the Department is sufficiently solid with regard to EU legislation? Will he confirm that the Secretary of State has asked for an independent review from legal experts outside the Department, because it gives us heart if he is thinking again about the legal position? I do not think that Amicus and ISTC really want to go to the High Court to argue the matter under human rights legislation. They would prefer Pensions Ministers to come to the House and accept responsibility, although the problem is not of their making. The people of this country ask for only one thing: fairness in the law.
6.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) on securing the debate. The whole House will want to pay tribute to the way in which he has consistently pursued his constituents' interests on this matter. He began his speech by saying that he did not plan to apologise for raising the issue again, and nor should he. I pay a similar tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), who secured a debate on the subject almost exactly a year ago. Both spoke powerfully and eloquently of the injustice felt by their constituents. The Government and I recognise the sense of injustice felt by ASW workers and others who paid into their employer's pension scheme for years only to lose some or even all of their pension shortly before retirement because the employer went bust and the scheme was underfunded. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, that tragedy is made all the worse by the fact that on the same day that many of those people learned that they had lost their jobs, they also learned that they had lost their pensions.
880
It is a tragic blow for people who thought that they were making adequate provision for their retirement to have their hopes and expectations dashed. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said that they are victims of a flawed legislative framework. It is precisely to address that problem that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced on 11 June that the Government would introduce a pension protection fund as soon as parliamentary time allows. The PPF will, for the first time in the UK, ensure that scheme members whose companies go bust can still count on receiving a meaningful pension and therefore have the secure retirement they were expecting. Once the PPF is in place, we will never again experience the situation faced by ASW workers today.
People involved with the PPF will work closely with the new pensions regulator to reinforce security and confidence even further by monitoring scheme management and protecting against fraud. My right hon. Friend made it clear that, as is normal with legislation, the PPF will apply to the future, not the past. It will not be retrospective. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey recognised that although that will disappoint many, it is not feasible for us to introduce backward-looking legislation. We are, however, ready and willing to listen to sensible and constructive suggestions about whether, and if so how, assistance could be made available for those who have lost pension rights before the PPF is introduced.
Ministers and officials have met some of the scheme members affected and various representatives, including my hon. Friends, several times to discuss the options. We will continue to approach the subject with an open mind. However, we have also made it clear that we cannot and will not raise false hopes or make promises on which we cannot deliver. To do so would add insult to injury for the people affected. Understandably, many have asked why those who will not benefit from the PPF should not receive compensation for their loss. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West suggested that such compensation was appropriate because those affected were misled not only by their employers but by the state as well. We do not accept that people were misled in that way. If people were required to be members of a scheme, it was the employer who made the requirement, not the state.
Mr. Wyatt: Does my hon. Friend accept that the literature produced by his Department uses words such as "guarantee" in relation to occupation pensions? That is what ASW staff at Sheerness and Cardiff keep telling us. It was in the literature and it was guaranteed.
Mr. Pond: We have looked carefully at the literature produced by my Department and can find no evidence of wording that would give the impression that we were making a guarantee. I know that the allegation has been made, but we can find no substance to support it.
Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend not accept, however, that the state has at times permitted and made it legal for employers to compel workers to join occupational pension schemes?
Mr. Pond: My hon. Friend is right that the state has permitted employers to require people to join schemes, but it is the employer who makes the requirement, not the state. The fact that the state allows certain activities does not mean that the state becomes responsible for those who carry out that activity, or for the consequences that might follow from it.
I ask my hon. Friends to consider the cost of compensation, which could be substantial, because it would reflect the substantial losses incurred by those who had lost their pensions. The cost could stretch many decades into the future. If the cost were to fall to the taxpayer, many would ask whether it was right and fair that those who would never have access to an occupational pension should pay for those who did.
I know that some have said that the money to pay for compensation could come from other sources, such as unclaimed money in bank accounts. Although that money is unclaimed at a particular moment in time, it does belong to somebody, and it can be claimed and withdrawn at any time in the future. It is not a stable base for compensation.
As I am sure the House will appreciate, there is no easy solution to the problem, but I stress once again that we are listening to all sensible proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he wants to find a way through and to help in any feasible way he can, without raising false hopes. Between now and the introduction of the pension protection fund, other measures will come into force to improve member protection. The Government have published and consulted on draft regulations that increase the debt due from solvent employers when their salary-related pension scheme is wound up. This proposal will ensure that members are more likely to receive the pensions they expected, should their employer opt to wind up their scheme.
Draft regulations were published just yesterday on amendments to the statutory priority order, which will ensure that if a scheme is wound up in future, its assets
882
will be shared out more fairly between non-pensioner and pensioner members. The degree of protection offered will reflect the length of time a member has contributed to the scheme. The changes will also give priority to the rights of non-pensioners over the future indexation of pensions in payment.
In a world where people move between jobs more and more often, it is crucial that their pension rights are protected along the way. My hon. Friends have joined me in the past in campaigning for the extension of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to pension rights. That is why we are extending the TUPE protection of pensions to private sector transfers. We will insist that where pension rights have been established, the new employer will need to match employee contributions, up to 6 per cent., to a stakeholder pension, or offer an equivalent alternative.
Overall, the Government are going ahead with vital steps to enhance member protection. We recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West told the House, there is a need to restore confidence in the pensions industry in general, and the series of measures that I outlined aims to do just that. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friends on ensuring that the issue remains at the top of the agenda. They will recognise that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the heartache felt by ASW workers and others is never felt again.
In relation to the ASW workers, my hon. Friends know that we will do what we can, and that we will be honest about what we cannot do. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West suggested that Governments are complacent on the issue. I can tell him and the House that we are not complacent. We are doing everything we can to ensure that people are better protected in future. That is a responsibility which we take very seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. MARION ROE in the Chair]

Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, Session 2002–03, HC 614-I, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6004]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Margaret Hodge.]
2.30 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad to have the opportunity to open this debate, and to welcome the Minister to her new post. She can bear no responsibility for what has gone before, but we place on her a heavy responsibility to use her new position to see that things run a great deal better in future. We have high hopes.
The report on the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service was the first major inquiry undertaken by the relatively new Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, now the Constitutional Affairs Committee. It has been dramatic in its consequences, which have included the resignation of the chairman and the appointment of an independent person to conduct the fundamental review of the board that the Committee recommended. By coincidence, the person whom Ministers appointed to carry out that review was born in the same village as I was, lived just up the road from me and went to the same primary and secondary school as me—but we have not seen each other since we left school. I believe that Sir Clive Booth will do an excellent job very quickly. He has been set a timetable of just a few weeks to complete his work, so that the Minister can get on with the job of appointing a new board and chairman.
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service was set up with high expectations and general support to serve the needs of children who were involved in care proceedings or affected by family breakdowns leading to divorce and access disputes in the courts. It drew together children's guardians, who were formerly the responsibility of the local authority's social services department, staff formerly employed by the probation service as children's reporters and some of the activities of the official solicitor.
When we decided to produce a report on CAFCASS, it was widely welcomed. We received a great deal of valuable evidence from those involved and their representatives. On behalf of the Committee, I should like to thank all those who gave evidence, both orally and in writing, and also those who arranged and participated in the visits that Committee members made to local CAFCASS offices. I express our gratitude to our specialist advisers, Professor Judith Masson and Professor Adrian James, who gave invaluable advice and assistance throughout our inquiry, and to the Clerk, Hugh Yardley, who is shortly to move on to other duties
324WH
in the House and who served us with great distinction and skill. I am also grateful to my colleagues on the Committee for the effort that they put into the inquiry.
Before I move on to the Committee's findings, I should also say a word about those who actually do the work of representing and reporting in the family court system. The CAFCASS officer is engaged in a vital profession, and those who choose to take it up deserve encouragement and recognition for the work that they do. Throughout its difficult early period, CAFCASS has continued to be staffed by people who have worked hard to achieve the best outcomes possible for the children for whom they are responsible. Members of the Committee visited CAFCASS offices in their own regions, and I can vouch for the commitment shown by the front-line professionals whom I met. The Committee fully acknowledges the skill and devotion of staff throughout the organisation and their commitment to the children whom they serve. The criticisms that we make of the way that CAFCASS has handled the difficulties should not take away from that, and I am pleased that that was acknowledged in the responses from both the Government and CAFCASS.
Given the difficulties that CAFCASS already faces, I am concerned that some CAFCASS staff face harassment and threats from extremists claiming to speak on behalf of fathers who are aggrieved about denial of access to their children. Whatever the strength of people's grievances about the law or court decisions on access, which are often understandably distressing and frustrating, those parents cannot in any way justify or accuse attacks on officials whose job it is to assist and inform the legal process by ensuring that children's views, concerns and interests are at the centre of decision making. Such actions are unacceptable, and they undermine the position of those divorced and separated parents who are seeking to put their case through the legal and democratic processes, as they are fully entitled to do.
Like other hon. Members present, I am well aware of how frustrated some separated parents feel about those issues. Sometimes CAFCASS has been at fault for the amount of time that it has taken to resolve cases, and at other times the courts have been at fault.
A case has been going on since 2002 in which repeated adjournments have been sought by CAFCASS because of staff sickness. Cases are often adjourned for three months, then the manager allocates himself to the case because there is nobody else to do it, and he says that he wants indirect access to continue because it will be another three months before the officer who can really deal with the case can be made available. The court keeps adjourning the case to which I referred. The magistrates adjourned it again last week, because they had too many remand cases coming up before them. In that case, presents, letters and birthday cards were not delivered to the children concerned for five months. That is unacceptable.
Widespread concern about the performance of CAFCASS had been apparent ever since it was set up. A dispute with the self-employed guardians who made up the bulk of the pre-CAFCASS work force on the public law side of the new organisation led to a judicial review that CAFCASS lost, and to a loss of staff, which had a serious impact on the ability of CAFCASS to deliver core services. CAFCASS was unable to cope

325WH
with increasing demand for those services, and significant delays in the allocation of children's guardians to public law cases persisted. As a result, many vulnerable children were left without full representation at crucial times. In some cases—in inner London, for example—delays in allocation reached unacceptable levels. One of the dreadful results of these delays is that vulnerable children are kept away from home, or denied access for long periods to parents, grandparents, and brothers and sisters, without being able to express their own views on the situation or influence the outcome.
The energy that management put into dealing with the dispute with the guardians was at the expense of other issues, which affected not only the guardians but all CAFCASS staff and their clients. There was too little development of the policies and procedures that a new organisation needed. Important issues involving the harmonisation of terms and conditions of staff were not addressed, and other fundamental matters such as training and professional development, research and IT, were neglected.
One area where CAFCASS was unable to make the significant improvement that had been hoped for was in support services for those involved in private law disputes. Much more could be done to support families experiencing relationship breakdown, but CAFCASS has so far been unable to make any significant progress towards ensuring that support is given where it is desperately needed. That is why there is an additional "S" in its title. The support concept was added during the passage of the legislation that established the organisation, but that role was largely abandoned in the increasingly desperate struggle to get it up and running.
The Committee found that many problems stemmed from serious failings in the establishment and management of the new service. Too little time was allowed for its establishment, leaving it at a disadvantage from the very start. There is no doubt that those presented with the task of meeting the challenge of establishing the new body did not make achieving it any easier by the way in which they approached it, but the Department left the board and senior management with an almost impossible task. In the consultation paper proposing the creation of CAFCASS, it was suggested that a unified service could not be established in less than three years, and that it could take up to five years. However, vesting day for the new body in 2001 came less than three years after the publication of the consultation paper, and less than two years after the announcement of the final decision to create the new service.
The decision to launch it on that date was principally determined by the Home Office timetable for the establishment of the national probation service on the same day. Notwithstanding the pressures on Ministers to proceed, we concluded that the decision to go ahead on that timetable was a serious misjudgment that called into question the Government's commitment to this very important service. I do not accept that that timetable had to be adhered to, as the Government argue in their response.
Governance is a key issue running through these early days. The CAFCASS board lacked experience and expertise in some key areas of the organisation's work,
326WH
and proved unable to exercise effective oversight or provide strategic direction, but the board was hindered by confusion over lines of accountability and the respective roles of the board, the management team and the Lord Chancellor's Department. The dismissal of the original chief executive involved further disruption to the work of CAFCASS, while the Lord Chancellor's Department managed to create the impression that its prime interest in the new service was in keeping costs down. The evidence that the Committee received depicted an organisation, respected neither by all its staff nor by many of its partners and stakeholders, that was failing to provide its core services in a timely manner, and which had been unable to make progress in fulfilling the hopes expressed for it in providing new and co-ordinated support services for children and families.
As we make clear, there is a long way to go before CAFCASS can become the high-quality service, operating at the best professional standards, envisaged when it was first proposed. We made a number of recommendations aimed at enabling that to happen. The priority must be for CAFCASS to get to grips with its service delivery duties and clear the backlog of cases that has been allowed to build up. To assist it in doing that, we recommended a comprehensive work force planning exercise, aimed at ensuring that it knew what resources were needed.
We recommended that CAFCASS establish a dedicated training and professional development strand to enable the effective performance management of its front-line practitioners. We said that it should make plans for a fully-fledged case management system that would allow the collation of reliable information for management and research purposes and relieve some of the burden on hard-pressed front-line managers. CAFCASS had to set out clearly the role that it envisaged for itself in the provision of the support services I mentioned, and it needed to develop its research capacity so that it could establish what works for children who are experiencing family breakdown.
we also recognised that if the recommendations were to be implemented successfully, significant changes would he required at the very top of the organisation. CAFCASS, the Committee said, needed to demonstrate clearly and unambiguously that it was putting children and young people first in all it did. We recommended a fundamental review of the membership of the board, with the aim of bringing to it people of experience and stature who could deliver the strategy necessary to provide an effective child-centred service.
We hoped that the new board would take steps to ensure that it was able to carry out effectively its function of providing strategic direction and holding senior management to account. We recommended that we examine CAFCASS's management structure with a view to ensuring that it had a management style appropriate to the work it does. We said that the framework document should be rewritten so that it explicitly reflected the service's core tasks, and set out the proper constitutional relationship between CAFCASS as a non-departmental public body and its parent Department.
What is to happen now? The chairman has resigned, making clear in his letter to the Minister the need to address issues covered in our report, including those of resourcing and governance. The chairman made a

327WH
honourable decision that cleared the way for the fundamental review. I must place on record that he has made a significant contribution to the welfare of vulnerable children, both in this and other, voluntary, spheres.
The Government and CAFCASS have issued their formal and full response to the report. It is clear from both responses, and from the chairman's resignation, that our report has been the catalyst for much-needed change. However, in the responses there is still too much defending the indefensible, such as the past failures, particularly those of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Both Departments must have contributed to the drafting of the response, and I can see where the LCD's hand must have been.
The most striking aspect of the response from CAFCASS is how candid it is on lack of resources. It says:
"We need to be certain that we are operating effectively and efficiently in meeting children's needs, but there comes a point where we cannot cope with the escalating and changing demands, which inexorably drives increased case costs. The problem is clear, without an adequate budget, we cannot reduce delays and improve the basic quality of our service."
Mr. Hilton Dawson: What credibility does the right hon. Gentleman attach to CAFCASS's protestations about its funding problems, when, in the wake of our report, which urged them not to implement further layers of management, it set about appointing three people, paid some £65,000 per annum, to manage what our Committee felt was in danger of becoming an over-managed and hierarchical service?
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman, who made a valuable contribution to our work on the report, anticipates a point that I will make on that tier of management. On the direct question of what credibility we can attach to CAFCASS's protestations, the first sign is the fact that resources had to be increased so significantly from the amount given to CAFCASS. That was recognised even by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Secondly, increases are being driven by demand, which is in some ways common to a much of the rest of the LCD's budget. The LCD has no control over how many people come before the courts, or the legal aid expenditure that that generates. There is a similar element of demand-driving about the situation CAFCASS finds itself in.
The board concluded that CAFCASS needs a strategic review of its funding against its remit and performance objectives. I look to the Minister to make a commitment to carry out that review, and for an assurance that she will not repeat the mistakes of her predecessors in failing to secure from the Treasury the resources necessary for CAFCASS's proper functioning. CAFCASS performs a vital function for children in a critical time in their lives, and it cannot remain in a position in which, as it says in response to our report, it has to
"meet rising and changing demand, over which we have no control, with a still inadequate budget".
The Prime Minister appointed the Minister to this new post with direct responsibility for children. I take that as an explicit commitment by the Government to raise the profile of children's issues within Government. That gives the Minister a certain authority to go to the
328WH
Treasury with new plans for CAFCASS, saying, "This is important and requires attention. I have the Prime Minister's backing to try to ensure that this service fully delivers what the children need."
We recommended that CAFCASS should aim to allocate a guardian within 48 hours of a request, or sooner in emergency cases. The CAFCASS response says:
"It will be difficult, however, to achieve allocation within two days in all cases … in the short to medium term … The Government has accepted that the reality is that the various parties will not be achieving Protocol standards in 2004–5."
The Committee does not believe that it is acceptable for CAFCASS to resign itself even in the short term, let alone the medium term, to vulnerable children being expected to wait until a guardian becomes available. The allocation of guardians depends on various factors, not just funding. CAFCASS must show a great deal more ambition for itself than is demonstrated by its response to that recommendation. However, it will need the resources to do it—and the Minister must deal with that.
It is not acceptable to name guardians to meet the protocol requirement knowing that they are not in a position to undertake the work at that point. It is wholly unacceptable to just tick boxes to show that a target has been met, when children are being left and told, "No, there is no guardian for you, even though the box has been ticked." I hope the Minister will stamp on such an unacceptable response, because she should not be encouraging such practice.
Peter Bottomley: We are dealing either with children who are very young—let us say those under 10, for whom even a week is a lifetime—or teenagers who may be troubled by the consequences of their parents' circumstances.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman, who has worked hard on the Committee, is right. Such children are often bewildered by their situation, and almost feel guilty that their whole world has collapsed. They may be taken away from one parent, or both, are unable to exert influence and do not have the representation they require.
CAFCASS will need to step up its recruitment and training and try to bring back into the organisation some of the skilled people who left during a dispute with the self-employed guardians. There must be a clear commitment to the mixed economy of employed and self-employed professionals. CAFCASS accepts that in its response, but I do not think that those involved have yet seen the tangible evidence, or the commitment in practice, that there really will be a mixed economy in future. A weakness throughout CAFCASS's response is its failure to identify and target what will be achieved by when, and who will he responsible for ensuring that it is delivered.
The other main area besides funding that I think the Minister has special responsibility for is ensuring proper corporate governance. The Committee was pleased that its recommendation for a fundamental review of the CAFCASS board has been accepted. We look forward to the early outcome of Sir Clive Booth's review and to the appointment of people who will be capable of

329WH
driving forward the improvements that are needed, together with colleagues who can collectively provide the experience and expertise that is needed. In our report we made much of the need for appropriate understanding among board members of CAFCASS's front-line work; that is certainly one vital element. However, a board that is to fulfil its functions properly must contain members who are willing not only to support, but—where appropriate—to challenge and scrutinise the work of the executive team. Board members who have done so in the past have not always found a culture in which such challenges are welcomed as a vital part of good governance, which they are.
I am also concerned that CAFCASS is still pursuing expensive and cumbersome additions to its bureaucracy, against our explicit recommendations—the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre raised that point earlier. The additional management tier that he mentioned was introduced when there were far more pressing demands on CAFCASS's resources.
The Minister also needs to consider the relations between her Department and CAFCASS. Ministers' responses on that point show a degree of complacency that does not appear to be shared by CAFCASS, which welcomed the opportunity afforded by the move to the Department for Education and Skills
"to clarify the boundaries and remit of CAFCASS with its sponsoring body."
Certainly CAFCASS's framework document needs to be redrafted so that it explicitly reflects its core task of securing children's welfare.
The Minister must also ensure that the practice reflects the theory, and that the Department respects CAFCASS's position as a non-departmental public body. It appears that officials at the Lord Chancellor's Department were acting as if CAFCASS were an executive agency, or even part of the Department. Members of the executive team appear to have been instructed by the Department's officials without the knowledge of the chairman or the board. The whole culture and governance must change, and the new Minister needs to ensure that that happens.
The final point on which I consider the Minister's response to be lacking concerns CAFCASS's role in the provision of support services. We concluded that, unfortunately, CAFCASS could not give high priority to support services during the current difficulties. However, its failure to say clearly how it might develop that aspect of its remit was hindering other organisations in their development of such services. We recommended that the Minister consult with appropriate parties about a proposal that CAFCASS take a strategic co-ordinating role in the provision of those support services. The responses from Ministers and from the board leave CAFCASS's long-term role in support service provision unclear.
The Minister and CAFCASS need to talk openly with organisations such as National Children's Home, the National Youth Advisory Service, the Children's Society and a number of others to ensure that they are able to maximise their contribution to the welfare of children who are experiencing relationship breakdown.
330WH
Many of our recommendations cannot simply be addressed by a one-off response and this debate. Continued scrutiny will be required to ensure that the generally positive response that our report has generated is translated into action. CAFCASS's response has shown insufficient ambition, not only on the allocation of guardians, which I have mentioned, but on the development of IT systems, the creation of an appropriate management structure and training programmes. We are passing the file on CAFCASS to our colleagues on the Select Committee on Education and Skills. They have plenty to do in other fields, but we will give them a clear indication that the progress on such issues needs to be monitored soon. We hope that they will be able to include that issue in their scrutiny programme of the non-departmental public bodies that will now be within their remit.
From us collectively, it is farewell to CAFCASS. Individually, many of us will not forget the problems that have been involved, and we may occasionally ask questions on the subject to try to ensure that the things that I have mentioned are done. Meanwhile, CAFCASS needs to use, develop and build on the considerable skills among its personnel to make further steps towards becoming the quality organisation that it was originally intended to be.
Not only the Committee but many organisations that are involved in CAFCASS or that work in partnership with CAFCASS have made criticisms of that organisation and the Department. They have been severe and necessary criticisms, but now all of us need to get behind the organisation and give it the encouragement and the opportunity to make a fresh start. The children for whom it is responsible deserve no less.
2.54 pm
Mr. David Kidney: The report sets out the dedication and commitment of all the individual practitioners who work for CAFCASS, and praises their commitment to their work. I should like to reaffirm my personal thanks to them for the work that they have done in the great adversity of the last two years. I am not a member of the Select Committee, but my experience is in that area. Before I was elected to Parliament, I was a solicitor in private practice for 20 years. I focused on family work, and was eventually accredited by the Law Society as a solicitor in children's care proceedings. I directly represented children in care proceedings and worked alongside their guardians, who were also appointed to look after the children's interests. During my 20 years in politics, some of which overlapped with my work as a solicitor, I have continued to take an interest in children's and family policy. I am concerned about the subject, and about CAFCASS in particular.
The Select Committee could be said to be speaking about CAFCASS's difficulties with the benefit of hindsight, but many Members of Parliament said from the outset that things would go wrong. I was one of the Members who saw the Minister many times to warn about the speedy time scale for setting up the organisation, the damaging disputes with the self-employed guardians and the apparent focus on issues that are irrelevant to the welfare of children, which should be the service's first priority. I am not here today to say, "I told you so." I am here to commend the

331WH
Committee on its thorough work and to emphasise the importance of following through on its recommendations. I shall briefly examine each of the areas.
Public law proceedings concern the liberty of children who have done nothing wrong but who have suffered at the hands of others. There are stories about terrible delays in those proceedings. When I was a practitioner, it was common in Staffordshire and the west midlands, where I worked, for the social services department to take the paperwork to the court to start the care proceedings, for the court to appoint both the guardian and the solicitor there and then and for everybody to turn up in court on the next day for the first hearing of the proceedings. If that was not possible it was regarded as a bad thing and proceedings were adjourned for seven days, after which everybody turned up in court.
The situation has not improved over the years. The report tells us about parts of the country where two-month delays in a guardian being appointed in proceedings are possible, which is anathema to me and is surely unacceptable. The section of the report that explains why delay is harmful to the development of young and vulnerable citizens is powerful.
The quality of the service has been lost because of the dispute with the self-employed guardians. Many guardians with whom I had worked professionally left the service because of their discontent with what was happening. CAFCASS's response to the Select Committee report states that it is writing to those people asking them to return to the service. I would not mind betting that most of them have got on with their lives and have new commitments, which will prevent them from answering that call. That is a loss to the service. It is essential that we urgently rectify the two questions about delay and quality of service.
CAFCASS Legal will perform the role previously filled by the official solicitor. In my 20 years' experience, I came across the official solicitor only occasionally, because they get involved only in particularly difficult, complex and challenging cases. When I came across them, I was always impressed by the thoroughness of the investigation and their ability to marshal the facts and to apply the law to those facts in court. The service was superb—it was the Rolls-Royce of children's representation. The Select Committee tells us that there are worries that the quality of the service might slip. We cannot afford the loss of excellence from that part of the service, which sets the standards for the rest of the organisation.
The Select Committee report explains how private law was the poor relation of the host organisations that took responsibility for private law court advisers before CAFCASS was appointed. There were often great delays, and the people who did the work varied in quality. The report could say that there has been no visible loss of quality because the quality was poor to begin with, but it would be dreadful if we allowed that situation to continue. I would like to think that CAFCASS will improve that service as soon as possible.
Mr. Beith: I would not want the hon. Gentleman's remark to be misinterpreted. Some years ago,
332WH
probation officers routinely did private law work in such children's cases as an add-on to their normal work of dealing with young offenders. However, it must be recognised that a dedicated, specialised team within the probation service has now been built up to do such work. They are valued members of CAFCASS.
Mr. Kidney: I accept that, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that there were not many of them, and that there were great delays in appointing people to take that role in court proceedings. A delay of more than two months from start to finish of a case was not unusual. Improvements can be made.
If we were to consider new suggestions, we might even revolutionise the service in private law. The Guardian on Tuesday referred to projects in America involving early intervention schemes. The courts attempt to take control of disputes in private law cases right at the outset, with parenting classes and information and a much greater role from the start for parents who try to resolve or at least define their differences. The courts make it clear that people have the first responsibility to sort out the dispute for themselves, and that it will be costlier for them in more ways than one if they leave dispute resolution to the court. The evidence from court trials in America is that the result is a huge reduction in the number of times that courts are left to make the decisions.
There was an article in the same newspaper by Mrs. Justice Bracewell, who said that she and her fellow judges in the courts would like that approach to be tried in this country. They appeal to the Government and to CAFCASS to make that possible in the future. I very much hope that we will be able to consider such an initiative.
The Select Committee report makes much of the additional "S" in the title of CAFCASS for its support role. I urge on CAFCASS a narrow rather than a wide interpretation of what that support role means. To me, it means that CAFCASS should conduct the research that has been recommended by the Committee, that it should identify the best practice for dissemination and that it should use the results of the research and best practice to inform and influence existing services. If a service is needed but does not exist in parts of the country, CAFCASS should prompt creation of that service.
Mr. Dawson: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. Would he further agree, particularly in the context of the Green Paper, that there is now every opportunity to develop integrated services at the local level that could provide precisely those support services without an organisation such as CAFCASS being directly involved?
Mr. Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I am about to give an example from my own constituency that exactly illustrates his point, which I hope will be helpful.
In the spring, I held a conference in my constituency on positive parenting. It was very well attended, and a strong message came across that a universal support service should be available to all parents, including information, advice, parenting programmes and one-

333WH
to-one support with relevant practitioners and experts if appropriate. I have taken that forward, and in Stafford we now have a steering group involving health, social services, education and the voluntary sector. All are determined to try to graft a universal service on to what has already been planned for early years and children's information services, so that we are not duplicating services but bringing everybody together. As my hon. Friend says, for that strategic reason CAFCASS is not wanted or needed in such work.
However, there is also a practical reason why CAFCASS should not go that far, and it relates to finances. It is obvious that there is not the money for CAFCASS to provide the services that it has said on paper that it intends to deliver, despite the fact that in just two years its budget has gone from £72 million to £95 million, which is the budget for the present year. That is a substantial increase, but the trouble is, no one knows—the Select Committee acknowledges this—what the right figure is for the service. That rather reminds me of the Crown Prosecution Service. It took 15 years of institutional underfunding before the Glidewell report set out what was required and the budget needed to meet that, and the problem was solved. We now get a very good-quality service from prosecutors, but not yet from CAFCASS, which needs the same treatment.
The Select Committee says that that can be done through a thoroughgoing review by the sponsoring Department and by CAFCASS. We shall see, but in the meantime the board's response makes very clear its view that it does not think that CAFCASS is properly funded. I do not know whether I am alone in having received a letter for this debate from the Solicitors Family Law Association. It, too, makes it clear that it does not think that the service is properly funded. A number of MPs have given the same warning. The message is loud and clear that we have not yet got to the bottom of funding for CAFCASS.
I appeal to other hon. Members not to lose sight of that from today. If CAFCASS provides the right strategic thinking, the report and the justification for the money, it is up to us to stand shoulder to shoulder with the organisation when it goes to the Minister and to the Treasury, and to see that it gets the money to which it is entitled.
That brings me to my last point, which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made, on the change of the sponsoring Department, and therefore the change in the Select Committee that takes an interest in CAFCASS. We have had a good-quality report from the Select Committee that from now on will be investigating the work of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which will not be the sponsoring Department for CAFCASS. That will now be the Department for Education and Skills. That is a large Department with a very busy, active, good Select Committee to investigate its work, but that Committee has so much work that I am worried that it will not be able to give as much time to the future of CAFCASS as this Select Committee has given on this occasion. It is extremely important that Members of Parliament
334WH
ensure that everything is put right that we have been told will be. I urge all my colleagues to keep a close eye on that in the future.
3.6 pm
Peter Bottomley: I want to add the name of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to those to whom he paid tribute. For the first serious inquiry by the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, we have done a pretty fair job. The Government response and the response from CAFCASS are both worth reading as well. For those who do not want to lay out the £15 for our volume one and £8 for the Government and CAFCASS responses, I commend the internet, where our report can be found under Select Committees, with a link to the Government response.
Although the Government response is interesting, the CAFCASS response is even more so. The people who have had the responsibility of bringing matters back into line and who have been trying to do that since things went wrong are the staff and board of CAFCASS working with practitioners in the field. No one should take the view that because the Committee found elements to criticise, we discovered those for ourselves. They were known to people in the field and probably to people in CAFCASS. I suspect that the people who knew most about them were the board members. I pay tribute to them for holding loyally to their responsibilities, even if the way in which CAFCASS was set up was, as predicted, a mess.
One reason why things went wrong is that CAFCASS was on the fringe of the Department responsible for it. That has happened on a number of occasions. When the previous Government took office in 1979, some matters went wrong that were on the border between the Foreign Office and the Home Office, or between the Department of Education and Science and other Departments. That is merely a description of fact.
The level of resources needed is affected by the number of cases. I want to broaden the discussion for a moment—not for long—to say that there is social disadvantage, distress and handicap in this country on a scale not matched in similar countries. The number of children involved in proceedings affecting their parents' separations or divorces, or in court cases over their own future, is almost the highest in the world. That is a disgrace. I am not criticising any individual pair of parents, but we ought to set ourselves a target of halving the avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap. Having been involved in parents' and care proceedings in courts, I suspect that much of that is avoidable.
I do not want to make this a criticism of any one individual, but I should like to see—in this as in other areas—a halving of the proportion of children who require an official decision or official help. I would like to see more help.
I was chairman of the Church of England Children's Society when family centres were being started by Bob Holman in Bristol; they then spread to other areas. We discovered that having a centre where parents could meet, often to do their washing—a sort of unofficial laundrette with a kettle for tea and coffee—led to the number of children taken into care on an out-of-town estate halving within two years. That is not because

335WH
children's lives had necessarily changed, but because the authorities such as the social services, the police and the courts could have greater confidence that the child could be maintained at home without a care order.
I suspect that there are many other ways in which we can learn how solidarity—to use a slightly mainland European expression—community support and community lessons can help. We do not need star charts for parents; we need to help more parents to have the confidence and the competence to do a good enough job. That is what Margaret Harrison was doing when she started home start in Leicester. The home start expansion, and the Government's sure start programme, follows on from those lessons. My wife sometimes talks about streetwise grannies; there are a whole series of ways that one can get solidarity and support so that people can face their problems.
Often it is a question of how one deals with a problem rather than the caricature of marital disharmony where someone goes to a lawyer and the first point put to them is, "Tell me all the bad things that your so-called partner for life has done." If we are going to make those partnerships, whether marital or not, into ones intended to be for life, we all have to accept that no one can hang up a sign saying, "Everything all right here".
We have to raise the welfare chances of children. It is not just their chances that are spelt out in the report and the response, but their experiences. Where there has been failure of the CAFCASS system, we are talking about the experiences of children, as well as what happens to them after the court has come to a decision if one needs to be made.
To put that in context, let us remember that each week 2,400 male children commit a serious criminal offence for the first time. By the age of 30, a third of men could have been sent to jail for six months or more, and a quarter of men by the age of 21. When I last looked at them, those figures were slightly better than they had been, but they still are not good enough. For all I know, they may have deteriorated. Each week, 5,000 of our children take up smoking. They are making the same mistakes that we made, either because of peer pressure or because they are copying those close to them. It is a sign of avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap.
A third example is that 6,000 people each week in this country contribute to a conception that ends in a termination. If we have 170,000 abortions a year in this country, even if some are accounted for by people who come here from countries where it is more difficult to get a legal termination, that is over 3,000 a week. It takes two to tango. Those figures are at least four times higher than those in the Netherlands, which is a country with similar wealth and background. A number of things are going wrong in what I call the family life cycle field.
Having said that, my ideas about effective family functioning are not what concern us today. We are concerned with the CAFCASS report, the response and the future of those services to children. We have to help CAFCASS and the sponsoring Department to get the Treasury to realise that it will need more money to catch up than it will to maintain the service after that. That will require pulling in practitioners on a relatively short-term basis to help get over the backlog. I do not think that we can expect the Department of Constitutional Affairs, which remains in charge of the Court Service, to
336WH
stand back from making sure that the courts can process cases, especially when CAFCASS has provided a reporter to give the child's point of view.
The idea that our Committee, which has existed for a short time as the Lord Chancellor's Committee, can say goodbye to this subject is wrong. We have a responsibility either by ourselves or in tandem with the Education and Skills Committee, to ensure that the Court Service provides the opportunity for cases to be heard as soon as they are ready. For a child, the experience of being:involved in court proceedings that may affect the rest of their childhood is a major one. The fact that they are not getting the care and concern and the listening ears that they need to carry them forward to court makes it worse. A delay of days, let alone weeks, can be disastrous to their idea of having some kind of rock to hold on to at that troubled time.
3.15 pm
Julie Morgan: I congratulate the Committee and its Chairman on an excellent and hard-hitting report, and on all their hard work. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked for Barnardo's as an assistant director and one of my jobs was managing a team of employed guardians. The subject is close to my heart and I know many guardians who have been affected by the turmoil in CAFCASS.
When I worked for Barnardo's, CAFCASS was the guardian ad litem and reporting officer service. Provision of service at that time was mixed. As the Committee report says, there were some directly employed guardians, who were employed by voluntary bodies, some guardians who were employed by a consortium, and many more self-employed guardians. The turmoil that the self-employed guardians in particular faced after the setting up of CAFCASS was inexcusable, and I am glad that the Committee's report has pointed that out.
As the report says, bringing together 117 previous employers and setting up a new organisation was never going to be easy. However, the organisation seemed almost to go out of its way to alienate its most valuable asset: its staff. I know how much distress was caused at that time. I am pleased that the report pays tribute to the staff of CAFCASS, acknowledging in its conclusion the skill and devotion of the staff throughout the organisation and their commitment to the children they serve. We cannot emphasise that too much. We should praise the hard work done at the coal face. In particular, the job of children's guardians, who make recommendations to the court about the future of some of the most vulnerable children in society, is difficult, skilled and painstaking.
There are time limits, as has been mentioned several times. Children's lives pass quickly: a week is a long time in a child's life. The children's guardians need to be able to get on with the job quickly because the clock is ticking. I welcome the aim to appoint a children's guardian within 48 hours, because that has not been happening in many parts of the country. The report rightly criticises the long delays, which I believe are due mainly to the dispute with the self-employed guardians right at the beginning of CAFCASS, which led to many leaving the service. There has been a shortage of staff

337WH
since. As we all know, and as the report says, there is a shortage of experienced social workers. I hope that some of the guardians will return, but it will be difficult to attract back some of the self-employed guardians who were treated so badly.
In Wales in September 79 public law cases were unallocated. Those cases were in particular areas of Wales such as Cardiff, Swansea, Bridgend, Tredegar and Newport—mainly industrial areas. There were no waiting lists in mid-Wales, north Wales and south-west Wales. However, sometimes the wait, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has already mentioned, is eight to nine weeks. That means that a child could be away from home—even without family contact— while the court waits for a children's guardian to be appointed, for eight or nine weeks. That is a long time in a child's life, and they may not be able to recover from such a period of limbo.
The situation is deplorable. It was estimated that the setting-up and reorganisation of CAFCASS cost CAFCASS Cymru the equivalent of 11 and a half members of staff, who, it was estimated, would have been able to work with 195 cases. That was caused in the main by the loss of the hours worked by self-employed guardians, who had been able to work more flexibly, which allowed them to cope with putting in more hours.
There is, however, light in sight in Wales. The rate of allocation currently exceeds that of referrals, and because several new appointments have been made it is likely that the waiting list will be cleared by April 2004. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford asked about future demand. How will we predict the ups and downs of demand and how the service will develop? The CAFCASS budget is very difficult to predict and it will take a long time to determine what it should be.
The blame for the damage done to children who have been waiting must be firmly placed on those who were in charge of CAFCASS. I am glad that the Select Committee report has clearly pointed that out and that there have been resignations. I welcome the hard-hitting report and the consequent changes that have been made.
I am pleased that CAFCASS has moved to the Department for Education and Skills under my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children. I am sure that she will do her utmost to address the issues. It is more appropriate that the service comes under the Minister for Children than under the Lord Chancellor's Department: the move sends the signal that the child will be at the heart of the service. Everyone I have spoken to at CAFCASS—I am in contact mainly with those on the public law side—welcomes the move and hopes that it will mean a new type of service. It provides the opportunity for a fresh start and the chance to put the distressing past couple of years behind us, and it enables a reassessment of the relationship between CAFCASS and its responsible Government Department.
The move raises the issue of the service in Wales, of which I know that the Minister is aware. The Minister with responsibility for vulnerable children and for health and social services in Wales is in the Cabinet of the Welsh Assembly; that creates an anomaly in the new arrangements. However, my right hon. Friend the
338WH
Minister for Children is reviewing how best to serve the most vulnerable children in Wales. It is important to implement changes, if required, as quickly as possible.
Let me flag up some of the difficulties currently affecting organisation and funding of CAFCASS in Wales. Certain issues in Wales differ from those in the English regions, and they put pressure on the budget for CAFCASS in Wales, which is insufficient—I am sure it is in other regions as well. Those issues have not been highlighted in the Committee's report.
A major issue is the fulfilment of the requirements of the Welsh Language Act 1993. In the distressing situations that bring children to the attention of CAFCASS, it is essential that Welsh children and their families can use their first language to talk about their feelings and their emotions. In any case, the law requires that the service be provided. However, it is very difficult to fulfil that requirement in such a specialised service, so Welsh-speaking guardians must travel far more widely than would otherwise be necessary. The geography of Wales, the large rural areas and the difficult terrain in some areas place quite a burden on CAFCASS Cymru.
There are also budgeting problems with Welsh language training. At a corporate level, CAFCASS Cymru lacks an understanding of the Welsh language issue, and its commitment to the needs of Welsh-speaking children is patchy. The only additional money that CAFCASS Cymru has to cope with that issue is for a Welsh language office translator: that helps to get literature produced bilingually and may help with policy, but it cannot help with the actual delivery of the service. There must be Welsh-speaking children's guardians to deliver the service in Welsh. They must speak Welsh fluently because important, emotional issues have to be communicated fluently and properly understood. I do not know whether any of that was brought to the Committee's attention. The work of the official solicitor retained by CAFCASS Legal in London resulted in a complaint to the Welsh Language Board after the one case that was dealt with by CAFCASS Legal in Wales, because it was unable to deliver a service in Welsh.
The other issue in Wales is CAFCASS's relationship with the Welsh Assembly under the present set-up. Policies developed at a corporate level will have to reflect Welsh policies and the regulations and other secondary legislation that are passed by the Welsh Assembly Government, which may be different from those passed here. Regulations developed in Wales in relation to the Adoption and Children Act 2002 are likely to be significantly different from those in England, and only a small part of the children's Green Paper "Every Child Matters" applies to Wales. I know that the CAFCASS response contains many references to that Green Paper, but only a little of it applies to Wales. I have heard tales of members of CAFCASS in Wales travelling long distances for meetings—it is important that they do that, to be part of groups that plan policy—when the whole discussion has had no relevance to what is happening in Wales. Such important issues should be taken on board.
It is very important that the Welsh staff in CAFCASS respond to the consultation documents issued by the Welsh Assembly Government. They have a vital role to play in that consultation. They should take a holistic,

339WH
integrated approach to children. There is no doubt that additional funding is required for the Welsh office under the present set-up.
The new plan for CAFCASS, which other hon. Members have already mentioned today, generates additional strain. It seems ironic that another tier of managers is now being created when what we want is more resources for the children and families who need them. The plan to have three divisions is problematic. Wales will be included in the east and west midlands and south-west region, so it is even less likely that particular Welsh issues will be recognised at corporate level. That is already difficult, but the change will make it even more so. A proposal to separate Wales was not taken up.
There seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the nature of Wales, the nature of devolution and the nature of the issues that relate to Wales. While many organisations are creating Welsh offices and acknowledging post-devolution Wales, CAFCASS as a corporate body seems to be moving in the opposite direction. I understand that the organisation's first corporate plan said that it was a service covering two countries, but the second corporate plan dropped that reference and seemed not to recognise the differences between the two countries in terms of policies, regulations and guidance.
I wanted to use this debate to draw out the particular issues relating to CAFCASS in Wales, but I end by saying that the Committee has produced an excellent report. We know what a valuable service CAFCASS provides. I pay tribute to the guardians and others who have for so many years worked so hard for the benefit of children.
3.28 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: As a member of the Committee, I, too, commend the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for his leadership, and commend all other members and our Clerk and professional advisers. The report is a good and substantial piece of work. I know a fair amount about these issues. Previously, I was a local authority social worker and I managed some social services, including those for children in care, and adoption and fostering services. I had a lot of contact with guardians. I was also a member of the Committee that dealt with the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, which introduced CAFCASS, and I recall the high hopes. At the time, there were one or two queries to which I shall return.
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and Judith Timms from the National Youth Advocacy Service, I have attended meetings with Ministers, including the previous Minister, and the chief executive to express serious concerns about CAFCASS. I was delighted when the Select Committee agreed to take the matter on as its first inquiry because it is fundamentally important. The Committee has done a very good job indeed.
One of the best announcements that I have heard this year was that CAFCASS would come under the remit of the newly created Minister for Children. If one wanted to estimate the degree of neglect and misunderstanding that CAFCASS has suffered from the Lord Chancellor's Department, one need look only at aspects of the
340WH
Government's response to the report. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed claims that he can see the fault lines between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department for Education and Skills. The Government response contains no definitive statement on tandem representation, fails to say anything at all about resources and, in its lack of reference to children in the framework document, fails to recognise the crucial role of CAFCASS in relation to children appearing in court. It frankly avoids the issues and simply provides circumlocutions; at times, it seems as if its author is auditioning to write another series of "Yes, Minister".
The Minister's response is wholly inadequate, and I cannot believe that it comes from the same Department that wrote the far-reaching and outstanding Green Paper that is so much under discussion at the moment. Any Select Committee report should receive a better response than that.
The CAFCASS response is, on the face of it, more reasoned, and tries to address the issues. However, on page 12 it states that CAFCASS will work with others to implement
"the Protocol for the Judicial Case Management in Public Law Children Act Cases".
A few pages later, it says:
"It will be difficult, however, to achieve allocation within two days in all cases across CAFCASS, in the short to medium term."
One wonders what is going on. We need a better response to a well-reasoned report on a very serious subject, possibly the most serious subject that has ever come before Ministers of this House. We are talking about the lives of children; children in this country have died during the difficult circumstances at CAFCASS. We need a much clearer response from Government, CAFCASS and other agencies to well-worked reports.
There is at least one clear statement in the report, namely that both sides accept that there needs to be a fundamental review of the membership of the board. I agree with that. Indeed, I was involved in the discussion of that point during the Select Committee sittings. The Select Committee's view is correct and damning. The board has failed so far to provide the necessary strategic direction and accountability that CAFCASS so desperately needs. The chairman has had the good grace to fall on his sword and he should be commended for that. However, I call on every member of the board to consider their positions when they receive such a review of their work.
We are discussing a serious situation. Before coming into the Room I was handed some information by a magistrate from London, who shall remain anonymous. Yesterday in Greater London there were 172 unallocated cases. Furthermore, it takes six to eight weeks to allocate priority cases and three months to allocate non-priority cases. That is outrageous and completely unacceptable.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children has taken on the greatest role in Government. She has the greatest task in Government ahead of her in transforming children's services and children's lives. In comparison, the task of fundamentally transforming CAFCASS and dealing with the scandalous position we are in is relatively small and achievable. My right hon. Friend has a grave responsibility on her shoulders, but she is more than capable of taking it on.

341WH
The first step in the process must be to change CAFCASS into a child-centred organisation. That was one of the criticisms voiced during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act. There is nothing in the document we have received that says CAFCASS is a child-centred organisation, and nothing saying that this is a vital social work service for children. The members of the board must be steeped in the values of, and must be experienced with good practice in, social work with children. They must be utterly committed to the rights of children.
No one who was working with those values, who came from such a background and experience, or had stature in the world of social work with, or legal work for, children would be prepared to tolerate the current situation with CAFCASS. No one would be prepared to say, "We take on the task of allocating cases within 48 hours, but it is not achievable in the short to medium term. No one would say, "Yes, we agree with tandem representation in public law, but don't extend it to private law, and allow one of the senior officials to make strong statements to conferences suggesting that the organisation does not have a substantial commitment to the tandem representation of children."
The organisation says how committed it is to working with its staff; my goodness, it needs to be. It needs to re-engage with self-employed guardians and bring all staff together. I read that there would be a meeting on 21 October. Did it take place and, if so, what were the results? How are the dedicated professionals who have remained with CAFCASS, and those who have moved on to other careers and opportunities but are still desperately concerned about the organisation, being engaged in the future of that vital social work service for children? I would venture to suggest that this cry has never been heard in the history of debate in the House; we need child care social workers, and we need them right at the top of CAFCASS. We need CAFCASS to be a children's rights organisation.
We cannot divorce CAFCASS from the current crisis in social work. It is a very important if denigrated profession that has been completely undervalued. It is a vital occupation that protects thousands of children every day of the year, but it is demeaned, abused and taken to task outrageously when things go wrong. Social workers are not paid well enough for the important and stressful work that they undertake.
CAFCASS is operating at a time when there are many unallocated cases involving children in all social services departments. The Government are beginning to address that through their Green Paper, which gives children's social services the opportunity 10 raise esteem, bring more people into important work with children and work with other agencies in an integrated fashion to ensure that good practice with children is informed by the values of social work and the rights of children. As I say, we can and must get CAFCASS right. We can make a huge start on making progress in children's social services if we do that.
We have to tackle delays; that is the fundamental issue with CAFCASS. We have to ensure that children who are made vulnerable by family circumstances, are facing the prospect of being removed from home, are
342WH
caught in the war between parents, or are facing the possibility, or reality, of being placed in secure accommodation—the most vulnerable children in our society—are supported. We must ensure also that their rights are protected, and that they have independent representation at one of the most vulnerable times of their lives. If we cannot get that right, we should not be here. It is essential that we make some real progress on this issue.
As an aid to that, I state that I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. CAFCASS is trying to take on too many tasks, particularly as we have a Green Paper that is set on radically transforming and improving children's services at a local level by integrating them, and making the provision of a wide range of them part of the normal experience of children's lives. I do not see why an organisation such as CAFCASS need concern itself with the provision of services for children who are experiencing family breakdown, which, unfortunately, is fairly common.
What we need to ensure is that contact centres, and services for mediation and for supporting children in these circumstances, are made part of the ordinary, full range of services at local level. We should not be encouraging CAFCASS to build itself another child care silo, when other organisations are desperately trying to integrate their services.
We want to ensure that CAFCASS workers do their job; that they allocate skilled experienced staff within the 48-hour period to the children who need their services. That is what CAFCASS should be focusing on. That is what all the resources should be going into. I agree with the Committee that CAFCASS does not need a vast, hierarchical structure or huge layers of management to achieve that. I hark back to the days that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford described, when excellent services were swiftly provided to children and we had nothing like the level of problems that we have now. I cannot see why a child-centred service cannot provide excellent services swiftly.
CAFCASS must have more money because it needs to recruit experienced and skilled people. There is a fear that CAFCASS is currently recruiting people who do not have the level of experience that new recruits had in the past. Representing children, working with the legal profession and ensuring that children's voices are heard at some of the most crucial periods of their lives is important work. Work that has already been done with those children must be understood, and it is necessary to have the stature and ability to question the work that has been undertaken, and to look at possible alternatives and a wider range of services, as well as at the family resources that might be available to those children. This is not the sort of work that should be done by people who took a social work qualifying course only a few years earlier. This vital work requires more experience than that.
I want to discuss an important development of the CAFCASS service that was introduced by the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Properly and rightly, section 122 of the Act introduces the possibility of separate representation for children involved in private law proceedings by adding section 8 proceedings, which include questions about residence in contact disputes. The list of proceedings specified in section 41 of the

343WH
Children Act 1989 allows the court to appoint both a solicitor and a children's guardian to protect the rights and welfare of the child concerned.
Paragraph 1.5 of CAFCASS's response specifically states that it will implement the new arrangements in the 2002 Act on adoption and the direct representation of children in private law exceptional cases. CAFCASS states that one of its key aims is to implement new legislation and that it is preparing to do so. On the face of it, that is welcome, but can we believe that it will happen? Can we infer from CAFCASS's response that it supports early implementation of section 122? Will the Minister give a similar commitment? Without such a commitment, the rhetoric in the document is meaningless.
I have gone on at some length, but the subject is exceptionally important. We have an opportunity, which we must take, radically to improve the service. Frankly, the Government's credibility is at stake. This is a great Government for children, and work has been done in so many spheres, including addressing child poverty and improving education. The Green Paper is especially important, and specific legislation such as the Adoption and Children Act 2002 marks a great step forward for children in this country.
If the Government do not get CAFCASS right, they will be heavily criticised for failing children. The children's commissioner for England is another creation mooted in the children's Green Paper. If we do not get CAFCASS right, I forecast that the commissioner's first job will be to take to task everyone who has failed children in that regard. Let us hope that we can avoid that prospect by making some progress today. We must ensure that there is real change in CAFCASS to make things better for vulnerable children in our society.
3.53 pm
Dr. John Pugh: I congratulate the Committee on its excellent report, which is a catalyst for change. I also congratulate all members of the Committee on their contributions both to the report and today's debate, which has been an education for me. They have performed a true public service. First, they identified an enormous problem affecting vulnerable children and distressed parents. However, they did not leave it at that: they also rigorously analysed and scrutinised the problem and suggested some solutions, which have commended themselves to both the Government and CAFCASS.
CAFCASS and the Government accept the bulk of the report's findings, which are also recognised by clients of the service and by practitioners who work within it. I do not need to reiterate the problems pertaining to the service, which have been pointed out by other Members. I simply want to examine the variety of responses from both the Government and CAFCASS.
There is an acceptance that we must improve the morale of the people who work in the service. When the service is criticised, they take the criticism personally to some extent, even if the problem is not their fault and even if it has occurred despite their most assiduous efforts. However, the issue for us is whether there is enough evidence that sufficient notice is being taken of the report to get a result. Will it substantially change
344WH
things? To deal with that question, we must examine the responses of the Government and of CAFCASS and tease out what differences may exist between them and what problems may still be lurking in their detailed responses on particular points.
I shall not address the information in the responses about the Government's aspirational agenda. We all applaud aspects of the Green Paper, if not the totality. We all think that having a Minister for Children is entirely and inherently desirable. We all hope that there will be a new dawn and a better future, but we must first ask whether the practical, everyday difficulties that the service has so far experienced will be any fewer and whether all the problems dogging current cases will persist for some time, thereby affecting vulnerable children and desperate parents.
It should be acknowledged that some problems could be regarded as unrepeatable. The difficulties of setting up a new service alongside restructuring the probation service will not happen again, although we cannot assume—other hon. Members have alluded to it—that merging CAFCASS into the Department for Education and Skills will be effortless, seamless and without problems. One of the problems that the Committee highlighted is the failure to anticipate problems, and there will be problems ahead. It would have been useful had the Department responded more positively to recommendation 6 of the report, which asks for input from the National Audit Office. I shall discuss later why I think that that would be particularly helpful.
None the less, it is fair to acknowledge that the Government have accepted a range of good recommendations and acknowledged a need to review lines of accountability; a need to look at the personnel involved, particularly the membership of the board; a need for adequate and clear framework documents and proper involvement of stakeholders; and a need to carry out a clear examination of partnership arrangements. The Government have accepted all that without demur. Equally, CAFCASS accepts that it needs better stakeholder participation, improved governance, and improved work force training and flexibility to deal with some of its staffing problems. It says that it is keen to pilot new forms of conciliation. When one puts the two documents side by side, at first blush it appears that all is sweetness and light—a new golden age beckons.
However, the bottom line is whether there will still be significant delays in the process. The Government do not promise to eradicate delays entirely. For example, they say not that they will have fixed targets but that they will set targets in due course. They do not respond specifically to the Committee's recommendation 33 to increase funding further. If one sets that alongside the CAFCASS claim in its response that it has a wholly inadequate budget, one begins to see where future problems may lie.
CAFCASS talks of seeking resources for pilot projects, not of having them. It acknowledges that various parties, including the Government, will not achieve protocol standards by 2004–05. It says that it is unable to allocate cases as speedily as it would like and, ominously, that it works in a difficult professional recruitment market. That means that it has real concerns about finding the appropriate staff to hurry things on and get things done, as its clients would wish.

345WH
Despite the problems that CAFCASS identifies, it promises to put up fees to self-employed contractors and to increase the funding for the voluntary sector beyond the current £ 1 million-plus. It remains to be seen how it will square the circle and get a result without endlessly dipping into or calling on the Government's coffers. Strangely, I can understand the Government's not wishing to write CAFCASS a blank cheque. Whether CAFCASS has spent money as wisely as it could have is arguable. The history of its IT procurement is a cause for concern, and its top-heavy, hierarchical management structure has also been alluded to. I do not know a great deal about that, but it does not suggest that every penny has been spent as prudently as it could have been. The Government have a legitimate right to expect savings, which can be made not necessarily by CAFCASS reducing its efficiency, but by certain procedural changes and the better integration of the agencies involved.
Mr. Beith: Another example of the same problem is the extensive use of expensive agency and consultant resources. That is a direct consequence of not having managed resources to ensure that such services were in-house to start with.
Dr. Pugh: Yes, in any organisation there is a clear case for saying that there are savings 1.0 be made by making procedures smarter and more efficient. Other Members have mentioned, and I agree with them, that CAFCASS is a very hard service to cost. It provides a complex service through a network of different agencies.
The National Audit Office has a role to play examining how money has been and can be better spent. I say that without being a particular friend of the National Audit Office, which appears to be able to comment on all manner of Government affairs, whether or not they are, strictly speaking, concerned with auditing. Without the rigorous examination of how CAFCASS is run—as a prelude, I hope, to substantially increased resources—there is the scope for mutual recrimination, for a decade of further buck-passing and for the betrayal of the interests of the vulnerable children, whom we have come to the Chamber today to help.
4.2 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I commend the Select Committee for producing an excellent report. It is not often that we sit on a Thursday afternoon debating a Select Committee report that has already brought much-needed changes to the area into which it inquired.
I pay tribute to the Committee's excellent Chairman, who delivered his report to us extremely succinctly. Those of us who have not been involved in this matter for as long as hon. Members who have been steeped in it for several months appreciated the way in which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) led us through the report.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), who is temporarily out of the Chamber—I must tell him later that I paid tribute to him—and to my hon. Friends the Members
346WH
for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and all other Members who have spoken and who have put a lot of time and effort into the inquiry.
There have been fundamental problems but the report is brilliantly thorough and positive. The problem with many Select Committee reports that are presented to Parliament is that they pick at the faults. They identify what has gone wrong but they do nothing positive to improve matters. The issue is not party political. We want CAFCASS to work well. It is an important service. The issue has nothing to do with party political opinions, and everything to do with helping people who need help, when and where they need it, efficiently and properly. I therefore welcome almost all the remarks that I have heard this afternoon.
It is, however, sad that we have reached this situation and that an organisation that was set up with the best of intentions and hopes did not live up to expectations. I sincerely hope that, as a result of the work that has been done by the Committee, there will be further improvements to the service, in addition to those that have already been made. I therefore support the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman on a tiny point. He said that cases involving children and courts are often difficult. I suggest that every single case that involves children coming before a court, or a court making a decision about children, whether it is a private law case or a public law case, is difficult and tragic. Every case involves a vulnerable child who needs help there and then—indeed, not just a child, but a family. However, let us concentrate on the children.
The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the penultimate letter of CAFCASS, and I agree with him. It is a support service, not just a court or advisory service. There are so many areas in which support is needed for children, as we have all been examining in the much heralded Green Paper. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss those wider issues in the near future. However, the fact that this is a service for children and families must not be overlooked. In that sense, it is pivotal in helping with children.
I had a meeting yesterday with a gentleman who is setting up a charity to help families—particularly, but not only, fathers—in which parental alienation as a result of divorce and separation is doing enormous damage. He gave me the details of a case that has gone as far as it can in the High Court. It involves children seeing or not seeing their father. All such cases are tragic, because children are suffering from parental alienation. One cannot help feeling that, had CAFCASS or a service like it been involved in that case and dealt with things properly—I am not blaming CAFCASS for this particular case—the problems those children are suffering would have been very much reduced.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also mentioned the culture of box-ticking. That worries me tremendously. We often impose on our public services an obligation to achieve certain targets, by certain times, in a certain way and with a certain budget. In trying to achieve the target, and to protect their jobs, public servants are not able to do the job that they want to do professionally and properly. Were it not for the pressure of targets, the job could be done much better.

347WH
In a sensitive area such as children's services, I strongly suggest that we trust the professionalism of those involved, and not be so keen on box-ticking. Ticking a box does not necessarily mean that the job has been done; it means only that, for example, a guardian has been appointed. It does not mean that the guardian has as yet done anything. That is a perfect example of how targets and statistics can be used to obscure lack of action. I hope that the Minister will note that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West made some excellent points, and now that he has returned I can mention to him that I have already paid tribute to the excellent work that he and his colleagues on the Committee have done. An essential point, which he made, is that the number of children affected by family breakdown, divorce and separation is enormous and growing. That is the situation right across the social spectrum and throughout the country. The report rightly identifies the different approach in private and public law cases. I appreciate that, but we should not forget that these services are needed in a wide range of cases. We are talking not only about the most vulnerable children, although particular regard must of course be paid to them.
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge)indicated assent.
Mrs. Laing: I notice that the Minister agrees with me on that, not surprisingly. As a consequence of the increase in family breakdown, the separation of parents and divorce, we are breeding a generation of children a very large proportion of whom will develop problems because of their family situation. If those problems are not dealt with, they will grow larger as the children become adults. In other areas—I spend much time looking into special needs education—it is recognised that early intervention to provide help to a child who needs it is vital. If we nip a problem in the bud, or help a child over a particular hurdle, that problem ceases to be a problem and the child can go on to develop his or her educational and social abilities unhindered. However, if children carry around with them a problem that is difficult to solve, they are held back in every area of their life. It has perhaps not been properly recognised that the children with whom CAFCASS is or should be dealing are in exactly that position. I ask the Minister to note that early intervention and assistance in this field is vital, as it is in many other areas that we discuss.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) mentioned delays. Clearly, that is one of the main problems. Delays are not always due only to budgeting, but they are very damaging. Others want to ask questions on that. I do not know whether the Minister has already consulted other stakeholders who assist children in this situation, such as the National Association of Guardians ad Litem. It has quite rightly asked how having to wait a long time affects children, and whether that is being monitored. That is particularly important because, as has already been said, a week is a very long time to a child. Children who are separated from parents, siblings and other family members suffer incalculable anxiety, and no one knows the effect that that may have on the children at the time and on their future development. Rather than spending resources on monitoring whether waiting is having an
348WH
effect on children—it is reasonable to assume that delays by CAFCASS and the courts have a detrimental effect on them—we should be using the resources to get rid of delays. That is important.
I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) still has many concerns, and I am sure that the Minister will note them. I particularly agree with him that the ethos of CAFCASS must be child centred, and that it must be seen to be so. It is part of the enormous bureaucracy of our courts and justice system, but I welcome the fact that the Minister for Children is now responsible for the service. I hope that that means that it will become more child centred.
The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) rightly said that it is not always budget issues that are at fault, and that it is not all about money. It is about where CAFCASS fits into the system. For that reason, I commend what the Government have done in moving the whole administration over to the Department for Education and Skills. I hope that the Minister for Children agrees with me, but I would not blame her if she did not, because it seems that her duties increase day by day, or week by week. We realise just how many functions of Government are targeted towards and concerned with the protection of and assistance for children, but this is an important one.
The enormous experience of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has been appreciated in the debate this afternoon. He was concerned that the whole issue may be swallowed up in the huge work load of the Department for Education and Skills. The Education and Skills Committee does excellent work, but there is concern that it has a much heavier work load than the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department and may not be able to concentrate on this specific issue to same extent. It is incumbent on us all to be vigilant and to carry on that Committee's good work in helping to improve the CAFCASS service. We cannot underestimate the importance of its work, and I hope that the fact that we are having this debate will help to highlight that.
I am sure that the Minister recognises the importance of CAFCASS's work and this debate. I realise that none of the shortcomings that have been discussed were the fault of the Minister for Children—it is unusual for me to say that—but the added work load is an enormous responsibility. I wish her well in taking forward the good work and the recommendations of the Select Committee, and I assure her that I shall be vigilant in continuing to ask questions about how CAFCASS is improving.
4.19 pm
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and his Committee on an excellent piece of work. It is a very comprehensive report, and was my learning document on CAFCASS when I was first appointed to this job. It seemed that the Committee might have known something that I did not—namely, that a Minister for Children with responsibility for young people and families was to transfer to the Department. It wanted to set me a challenging agenda, and it has done that very effectively. I concur with the view that the Education and Skills Committee should pursue some of the critical issues seriously as it monitors our Department's work.

349WH
Like all Members who have spoken in the debate, I acknowledge the commitment and knowledge of all the front-line CAFCASS court welfare officers and the work that they do in such a critical area. In any discussion on the organisation as a whole, everyone who has had a part to play in where we have got to has acknowledged that extremely good work.
It may be because I am married to a lawyer, but in the very early days of my appointment I got more representations on the service of CAFCASS than I did on many other areas. Many of the letters from friends and colleagues when I was first appointed asked me to improve the quality of service from CAFCASS. I take the matter extremely seriously. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said. We should have the interest of children at the heart of what we do, which is what the new directorate in our Department and my job are about. We should ensure that children at this most vulnerable part of their lives are given the necessary good-quality support swiftly—whether it is a public or private law case. That is an essential way of measuring whether we are doing what we ought to be doing.
When I first considered some c f the issues involved, I was quite shocked at how long the delays were, and the length of time taken by court proceedings in public law. A week is long time in a child's life, but a year is a heckish long time. The fact that the protocol on public law cases is now set at 40 weeks seems to me far too long for vulnerable children who are at a vulnerable stage of their lives. Although we shall work to that protocol, it is my ambition to re-examine it in order to see whether we can do more.
Mr. Kidney: I see that the Minister has only 65 minutes left to complete her summing up, so I shall be brief. On the crucial point about delay, what does she make of the response of CAFCASS that it will find it difficult to allocate cases within 48 hours?
Margaret Hodge: I shall not promise to resolve the matter overnight. The problems are complex, and I shall allude to some of them. We are attempting to recruit some highly qualified, highly experienced staff, with the appropriate experience to do the sensitive task that is required of them. Many of us are fishing in the same pool, so the challenge of making that pool larger will not be resolved overnight. I want to focus on that area, and put a lot of energy into it. In the Green Paper "Every Child Matters" we talk about investment in the work force, and the importance of recruiting, training, keeping and maintaining highly qualified social workers to work in the front line, in the voluntary sector and in all the new agencies that the Government have established, such as the youth offending teams. We have created a new set of environments in which social workers can support children's behaviour and attendance at school, and work has already been done. We cannot resolve the problem of staff growth overnight, but we are doing everything that we can to speed up the process. I can and will give immediate attention to providing high-quality staff.
I can assure the House that CAFCASS will be a child-centred organisation; its business is to protect children's interests and rights at the most vulnerable point in their
350WH
lives, when they are facing huge change. The Department will give that priority. It is early days, and I am trying to settle into a new job. In my new role, I have identified that as an area on which I must focus.
This has been a good, non-confrontational debate, and I welcome that. Several hon. Members talked about the problems that were created. Looking back may not be helpful, although we must learn from past mistakes. The problem of staffing in the organisation and the dismissal of the chief executive was one thing, but not having enough time to launch it properly was another. The dispute with the self-employed guardians, which the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spent some time taking about, was a damaging period in CAFCASS's development.
There are other issues, such as poor accommodation, where children are often on the same premises as offenders. Such problems became part of CAFCASS's legacy and we must deal with them. Harmonising everything across 117 organisations into one body is a huge, awesome task, and we probably did not realise that it would be quite so difficult. I do not know whether the statistics I have seen are wrong or right—all I can do is use them in this debate. Everything in the garden was not desperately rosy before CAFCASS came into being. In the years leading up to its establishment, there were growing delays in turning around public law cases. In 1996, it took 46 weeks on average to complete a case. By 2000, the time had risen to 50 weeks. By 2002–03, the last year for which we have proper statistics, the average had come down a little to 48 weeks. That is far too long. Nevertheless, the legacy was not good.
The numbers of applications to the courts have also massively increased and are again increasing in this financial year. In 1996, there were 16,000 such applications, and by 2000 that had risen to 22,000. In the six months to March 2003 there was a 15 per cent. increase in care case requests—and those were the more complicated cases.
Mr. Dawson: As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, a number of hon. Members visited our local offices. The figures quoted on the increase in cases were reflected in my local office, although it was felt that a large factor in that was the revocation of care orders. This does not necessarily have anything to do with the problems. It could be about good practice.
Does not the first figure on the length of cases go beyond the influence of CAFCASS? Is it not to do with how court procedures operate? Nevertheless, that does not detract from the fact that a guardian should be appointed within 48 hours.
Margaret Hodge: I take that point entirely. Although we will make every endeavour to support the CAFCASS's board and executive in improving the quality and speed of its service, they do not operate alone. Part of the answer must lie—certainly in public law cases—in how social workers deal with care cases that need to go before the courts, and in the time that the courts give to hearing cases. Members have mentioned examples of delays in allocating a CAFCASS officer, but I have also heard of examples of horrendous delays in identifying sufficient court time to hear cases that CAFCASS has prepared. I hope that the Select

351WH
Committee that monitors the work of the Department for Constitutional Affairs will continue to examine this aspect of its work. I work closely with my fellow Ministers in the Department so that we take an holistic approach, particularly to public law cases, which is where the delays are particularly difficult.
Things are getting better, although they are still not good enough. By July 2003, more than 96 per cent. of private law cases had been allocated 10 weeks before the case was filed. In public law cases, we still have a long way to go, and my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff. North and for Lancaster and Wyre talked about examples of unacceptable delays in London and Wales. Currently, 69 per cent. of public law cases are allocated in seven days, which is below the current target of 80 per cent.
There are huge regional variations: I have no doubt that when the Committee examined this subject it noticed that. In public law cases, there is no delay in the south-west, but there is enormous delay in the north-east. We need to understand better why those regional variations in allocations occur, and try to address that.
Another and more difficult issue, which has not been mentioned this afternoon, is that there are huge regional variations in the number of hours that an individual court welfare officer spends on a case: in Surrey, the average is 182 hours per case, in south-east Wales it is 69 hours per case—that might interest the hon. Member for Cardiff, North—in Merseyside it is 76 hours, and in Devon it is 178 hours. There may be good reasons for these variations, but we need to do more work to investigate why resources are being used in different ways in different areas, and whether there is anything that will support our efforts to try to speed things up.
Mr. Dawson: In doing that work, I accept that it is legitimate to ask such questions. Can the Minister assure me that that will not be a top-down paper exercise, and that it will involve genuine discussion with the people who are doing the hard and sometimes very time-consuming and good-quality work on the ground?
Margaret Hodge: I completely agree that it would be appalling if that were a paper exercise. For us to be able to take any action in respect of those differences, we must have a proper understanding of what is happening in individual cases.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) also talked about that work not being a tick-box exercise. I strongly take that point on board. When there are targets, there is always a danger that people will feel impelled to meet them mechanistically, rather than in a way that reflects the quality of service that we want. As we advance, we must be careful that the allocation of cases does not become a tick-box exercise that merely shows well in terms of the statistics.
The quality of court welfare officers was raised by several Members, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Lancaster and Wyre. I agree that those social workers deal with children at one of the most vulnerable points in their lives. Therefore, ensuring that we have high-quality front-line officers must be a central part of my work as we try to improve the quality of service offered by CAFCASS.
352WH
The issue relates partly to pay—there has been a better pay deal—and partly to training. I welcome the work that CAFCASS has done in introducing a training programme for staff. Good progress has been made on some of the Select Committee recommendations on the training fund. Morale is another difficult issue that we must now confront. The morale of the organisation must be raised so that it can move forward. I accept that we need staff who are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, steeped in an understanding of children and who have appropriate expertise.
Several Members mentioned funding. I find that a difficult issue. The predecessor bodies costed their services at £66.5 million. CAFCASS therefore appeared to be properly funded in its first year. I shall not delve into the history to determine whether it was, but we cannot move away from the fact that it started with a baseline budget of £71.7 million, which has risen to £95 million in 2003–04. That is a considerable increase, but frankly, it is too early for me to know whether the budget is sufficient for the organisation to undertake the job that we have entrusted to it. We will do more work on that. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said that we cannot write blank cheques. We are in a tight spending round, and I have a huge range of priorities in which to invest money for children, young people and families. We must be certain that CAFCASS's massive budget increase is being properly used.
We are holding discussions with CAFCASS. It faces real difficulties, which some hon. Members mentioned. For example, it does not control demand but is a demand-led organisation. When the service was dispersed among 117 different bodies, it was easy to subsume an extra case or two in a larger local authority social services department budget. It is much tougher for a stand-alone non-departmental public body to do that. We must think through the implications of the demand and determine what is happening. Equally, we must ensure that the money is properly spent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, I must assure myself that I know what is really needed by the organisation. I am putting my mind to that.
Several Members spoke about corporate governance. I wish to put on record my thanks to Anthony Hewson for his work in very difficult circumstances as the first chairman of CAFCASS. I have known him for some time—he worked for Scope when I had responsibility for disability issues. He is a very honourable man who puts in a great deal of effort and who cares very much about children. He gave his best to the organisation in its early days.
We appointed Clive Booth, who was chairman of the Teacher Training Agency, to review the membership. He will report to me quickly, and I shall take swift action based on his report. The Select Committee suggested, and we endorse, that necessary aspect of moving the organisation forward.
Mr. Dawson: The website of The Guardian—a newspaper that I try never to read—reported yesterday that Sir Clive Booth
"has been appointed to look at how the board operates, it has nothing to do with families and children."

353WH
Is the Minister able to disabuse The Guardian of that notion?
Margaret Hodge: I, too, noted that little item on the website—it was drawn to my attention; I did not identify it myself. I do not think that that is a valid criticism. Clive Booth has enormous experience of how organisations are run and what makes for good corporate governance. We do not look for detailed knowledge of the specific issues in the corporate governance of the organisation. We look for the appropriate skills and qualifications that will make for a good body. However, we are discussing a non-executive body; the executive is where a lot of experience is needed. I have full confidence in Clive Booth, and I think that he will do a good job for us. I hope that hon. Members present endorse the work that he is doing.
We will also review the framework document when those issues are transferred to my Department—I was unsure whether the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed understood that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North raised some issues about CAFCASS in Wales. As she knows, we are reviewing the matter with the Secretary of State for Wales, his colleagues and colleagues at the Welsh Assembly. We will try to come to a swift decision on how to ensure that children's interests are protected. That is the prime objective in my mind as we move forward with the organisation. My hon. Friend also talked about the importance of a language Act; I understand that CAFCASS is developing a Welsh language scheme and has increased the number of Welsh-speaking front-line court welfare officers—I hope that she welcomes that. She also talked about the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and differences in how it will be implemented in England and Wales, and "Every Child Matters". I take the point entirely; we need to reflect those issues in the training that we give to court welfare officers working in Wales.
A number of hon. Members talked about support services; that was an interesting part of the debate. In these early days we need to focus CAFCASS firmly on its core business. However, one of the joys of bringing all the services that impact on a child's life together is that in time we will be able to use our experience and expertise to reflect more widely on issues surrounding contact, for example, and how best to support children as they go through the court processes. I talked to many of the non-statutory organisations referred to in the debate about those and other issues.
Mr. Dawson: One of the really welcome things in the report is the professed support that CAFCASS gives to the participation and involvement of children. However, could it not become involved with organisations such as A National Voice, the Who Cares? Trust and Voice for the Child in Care, which are already doing extremely valuable work in that area? CAFCASS does not need to reinvent the wheel and erect another structure.
Margaret Hodge: Yes, I completely take that point and will reflect on it.
354WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford talked about the early intervention schemes in Florida and referred us to the article by Mrs. Justice Bracewell in The Guardian yesterday, which I managed to read during the debate. I have looked at the scheme; it is extremely interesting and we are considering whether we can take it forward with Mrs. Justice Bracewell. As with all such things, it would cost money, even on a pilot basis. We have to see whether we can identify the appropriate resources.
Mr. Kidney: As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) said earlier, some responsibilities are for other people to assume. For early interventions, parents need access to information as soon as an application is lodged. They also need access to specialist parenting programmes and to parenting mediators with special expertise and contacts. Those are the responsibilities of others, not CAFCASS, but we should link them together.
Margaret Hodge: Again, I completely take that point. Those who have heard me talking about the Green Paper in various contexts know how important I think parenting is to children's lives. That is a subject on which the Government need to do much more thinking and on which there should be a great deal more policy development. Much more appropriate support should be available to all parents. I was interested to hear about the positive parenting experiment that my hon. Friend is pursuing in Stafford, and would welcome a more detailed briefing from him.
I take also the point made by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) that our ambition must be to reduce the number of children that go anywhere near the court system. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman has read the Green Paper—perhaps he has already done so—he will see that, in evolving and developing services for children and young people, our emphasis is on trying to intervene earlier in their lives, to enable children to develop their potential and to stop them falling through the net and therefore into the court system. That involves the sort of programmes, such as sure start and home start, that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and that I think are extremely important. The aim is to identify problems early, so that we can intervene swiftly before a problem becomes a crisis as a child grows, develops and encounters certain issues.
Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister allow me to add a brief point? Most of what most people know comes from the ordinary media. The Minister may remember—we are probably about the same age—the time when the media gave practically no coverage to people's working lives, whereas now, business and what we do at work are given media coverage. Yet although there are television and radio programmes about gardening, cooking, housing, and antiques, we have no equivalent depicting the ups and downs and ins and outs of ordinary family life. The media should turn their undoubted talents not to the public service message but to some of the

355WH
excitements of family life. We know how to fix a car, but we do not know how to fix a family or marriage, or care for children when their parents are in trouble.
Margaret Hodge: While the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was thinking about the soaps and how all we see on television is things going horribly wrong and the rather vile aspects of family life.
Good parenting in the home has a greater positive impact on a child's life than the most wonderful teacher in the most excellent school. We all know that, and research confirms it. Armed with that knowledge, it behoves us all to think how we can best support parents in their most difficult task. When I came home with my first bundle of joy in my arms, I was completely at a loss. We are given lots of antenatal advice, but we are not given a huge amount of post-natal support, except—I should say before I am attacked for making that remark—the support provided by the valuable services of the health visitor.
This is a difficult area of public policy for politicians at central and local level, because they are quickly accused of interfering in private family life and the Government are quickly accused of running a nanny state. Equally, however, I think that it is an abrogation of our duty not to acknowledge the importance of parenting and provide opportunities for support. There is not enough of that in the public domain.
Mr. Kidney: On the media, it is not a question of Government nannying. Members of the all-party group on children had a presentation about Australia's "triple P"—positive parenting programme—during which we watched an edition of a magazine-style programme about children's issues. The one we saw was about preparing a five-year-old child for their first day at school. It was a super, natural and entertaining piece of television. That is the kind of thing that we should appeal to our media to take an interest in.
Margaret Hodge: I could not agree more. The transition points in children's lives are particularly important, but we find that that is what there is least support for parents in. We want to focus on the transition from hospital to home, home to nursery, nursery to primary school, primary school to secondary school and beyond that. I also completely concur with what the hon. Member for Epping Forest said about the need for early intervention.
I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that we are planning to implement section 122 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 by the end of 2004. Apparently, I am shortly to receive the submission that will tell me all the details of implementation.
In discussing some of the difficulties that confront CAFCASS, we should not lose sight of the achievements, and I hope that all Members acknowledge them. We have terrific front-line practitioners, and we should celebrate that and acknowledge the extraordinarily good work that they do in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. We have more of them: CAFCASS has recruited 174 more practitioners just in the last financial year. The organisation should be commended on that. A
356WH
comprehensive training programme is in place for front-line officers, which is good. There is a better response to an increase in referrals, and that, too, needs to be celebrated. Money is going to the support services. The new organisation can, because it is unified, focus on vulnerable children. It has a specific remit to promote the welfare of children through its services. We should celebrate all of that.
What are our aims? We want to get to a situation in which cases are speedily allocated and promptly dealt with by an extremely high-quality service. We want all those who work on the front line to enjoy the best training and support., and work through what is a difficult period of bringing together many disparate organisations harmoniously, with national standards of practice. We want to see how CAFCASS can better support children and their families at a time of greatest need. We want not only to ensure that we meet the requirements of the protocol that has just been signed by all the organisations that deal with public law cases, but move beyond that if we can.
As the right hon. M ember for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, we want to gel behind CAFCASS. With the transfer of responsibility, we have an opportunity to make a fresh start. I am determined to grasp that opportunity because, like all Members who have spoken in the debate, I believe that our children deserve nothing less.
4.54 pm
Mr. Beith: With the leave of the House, I would like to thank those hon. Members who have taken part in today's debate. They have brought to it a wealth of experience.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) rightly emphasised the need For us and for others to revisit relatively soon the issues that we have discussed today to ensure that nothing is lost sight of. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) broadened the issue by referring to the background that is driving the increased number of cases that place such a heavy burden on CAFCASS.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) raised several important issues specific to Wales, which the Committee did not consider, but which I have discussed quite a bit in the weeks since the report was published. Two questions I had to which I have not yet had an answer are: has the creation of the Children's Commissioner yet made a significant difference; and is there interaction between the Children's Commissioner and CAFCASS? There are questions for the future of CAFCASS Cymru relating to whether it should have more autonomy and therefore an ability to relate to the Welsh Assembly, which will determine the policy issues in its sphere.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was severely critical of the Government's response, both generally and specifically in respect of tandem representation. Perhaps that comes better and more effectively from him than it does from me. He was right to draw attention to those issues. Like the Committee, he levelled severe criticisms at the board. It is fair to say that board members have tried to challenge what was going on in the organisation, and that the board as a whole was handicapped from the start in the

357WH
ways that I have described. I do not want to be unfair, but individual board members will obviously carry the burden of what they know, and I know that they have become increasingly aware of some of the things going wrong with CAFCASS.
The Minister finds herself in the happy position where Opposition Front Benchers are supportive and encouraging of what she needs to do. That applies to both my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who spoke for the Conservatives. I was particularly grateful to the latter for her kind remarks.
The Minister diligently responded to a wide range of the issues raised. The way in which she spoke about resources suggested that she was asking how we had got into the present situation, given that everything was done at a much lower cost before. If I remember rightly, it was discovered at quite an early stage—once it was established just who was working for CAFCASS and how many people were involved—that the salaries bill almost exceeded the base budget set for the organisation. Quite how that happened is a mystery to me, but it illustrated that there was something seriously wrong in resourcing from the beginning.
The Minister will have to knock pretty hard on the Treasury's door, if only to tell it that something must be done to alleviate the situation immediately, which will require some resources. Hopefully, as the hon. Member
358WH
for Worthing, West pointed out, there need not be a permanent shift in the balance, but there are immediate resourcing needs.
The Minister for Children let slip a little-known fact: CAFCASS is still formally the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, because a transfer order is needed. Technically, she should not be here at all, which is one of the absurdities of Government reorganisation; but that need not prevent the start of work to get the framework document rewritten and to establish a new culture in how the Department relates to the organisation. We need to create, through the appointment of a new board, an organisation that takes responsibility for its decisions and is allowed to get on with the job with the necessary resources, without having constantly to respond to ambiguous instruction from the parent Department.
The range of issues that the Minister considered perhaps took our gaze away for a moment from the most fundamental matters, and my final point is to reiterate those. The resources issue must be given careful consideration. There must be a culture change in governance and in the relationship with the Department. There must be effective use of the skills that are available to CAFCASS, or that could become available if it recruits, or brings back in, the people who are outside. Above all, the service must put the children first. It is on that note that I wish to end the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rural Communities
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the role of affordable housing in maintaining the viability of rural communities. [133795]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural White Paper of November 2000 recognised the importance of affordable housing in maintaining the viability of rural communities, as did the Sustainable Communities White Paper this year. That is why we have more than doubled the target for the Housing Corporation's special programme for small rural settlements. Our Rural Housing Enablers are helping to increase the supply of affordable housing. And we are currently consulting on an update of the existing guidance on planning for affordable housing.

  Forestry
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what improvements she plans to make to the forestry infrastructure to allow greater amounts of wood residue to reach power generators. [133798]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra, in association with the Devolved Administrations and the Forestry Commission, is setting up a £3.5 million UK-wide Bio-energy Infrastructure Scheme. This scheme will help develop the supply chain required to harvest, store, process and supply biomass, such as energy crops and forestry woodfuel, to energy end-users. The European Commission's approval of the Scheme is currently being sought. Subject to this, we hope to launch the Scheme in early 2004.

  Sewage
  17. Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her public consultation exercise regarding sewage odour pollution. [133800]

  Alun Michael
  Before announcing their chosen way forward, the Government's immediate priority is to evaluate the impact of the recent High Court decision that odours from sewage treatment works can be controlled through the statutory nuisance regime of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We also have to consider the results from the complementary consultation of the National Assembly of Wales before we can announce our chosen way forward.

  I expect to be able to announce a clear way forward shortly after the House of Lords ruling regarding an appeal on this matter.

  Fly Tipping
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policies to combat fly tipping. [133801]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are developing a wide ranging strategy for dealing with fly tipping.

  Proposals in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill will allow local authorities to use an enhanced set of powers designed to lead to more successful prosecutions.

  Farming
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for introducing whole farm approach pilots. [133802]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The first pilot of the core whole farm appraisal will take place in November 2003.

  Agri-environmental Schemes
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding her Department's agri-environmental schemes. [133803]

  Mr. Morley
  We received 166 responses to the public consultation on our agri-environment schemes held earlier this year, and last week we launched a final round of consultation on more detailed aspects of how the schemes should operate in future.

  Air Quality
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she proposes to improve air quality. [133804]

  Alun Michael
  The Government policies to improve air quality are set out in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, published in January 2000, and the Addendum to the Air Quality Strategy published in February 2003.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy on the support available for growing energy crops. [133805]

  Alun Michael
  The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy was positive in its support for energy crops. It will still be possible to grow energy crops on set-aside land and to receive payments under the new Single Payment Scheme. If energy crops are grown on non set-aside land payments under the new Single Payment Scheme and the new €45 per hectare energy crops payment will be available. The energy crops payment is limited to 1.5 million hectares for the EU as a whole and aid will be reduced if production exceeds that area.

  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made with the reform of the common agricultural policy sugar regime. [133799]
  643W
  Mr. Morley
  The European Commission issued an options paper on reform of the Sugar Regime in late September 2003. A Defra consultation exercise has just been launched to help inform the UK response, covering agricultural, development and trade issues.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next plans to meet the National Chairman of the Tenant Farmers Association to discuss the CAP Reform package of 26 June. [132264]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, has no plans at present to meet the National Chairman of the Tenant Farmers' Association. However, my noble Friend, the Lord Whitty, is currently considering a request from the Chief Executive of the Tenant Farmers' Association to meet him. The Chief Executive attended a meeting with Defra officials and representatives of other key stakeholders on 8 October which unfortunately my noble Friend was unable to chair due to last minute diary pressures. The Chief Executive has also been invited to a meeting with officials on 17 October.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of the CAP Reform package of 26 June on the nation's tenant farmers. [132265]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No specific assessment has been undertaken of the impact of the CAP reform proposals on 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. An additional analysis looking at the impact on distribution of payments of various options for operating the Single Payment Scheme has also been carried out and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  For the first time, the bulk of farm subsidy will not be dependent on what or how much farmers produce. As with the previous system, subsidy would be paid to the farmer, whether owner or tenant, will continue to hold the subsidy entitlement. Tenant farmers, along with other farmers, will therefore be free to produce what they judge the market wants and so be better able to cut costs and increase profits. Farmers will also be freed from some of the bureaucracy associated with the subsidy schemes which are being replaced by the new decoupled subsidy.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the possible impact on tenant farmers of the option available to EU member states to implement the CAP Reform package of 26 June by using regional average payments. [132266]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No such assessment has been done in relation to tenant farmers specifically. However, we have prepared an analysis of the impacts of regional average payments on farming and other businesses generally and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
  644W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the extent of redistribution of payments between farmers if the CAP Reform package of 26 June is implemented using regional average payments as opposed to the historic payment basis. [132267]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are currently consulting stakeholders on whether the historic or area model of the new Single Payments Scheme should be operated in England. Responses to that exercise will help develop our understanding of the range of environmental, social and economic impacts of each of the models including the impact on the agriculture industry and its constituent parts. An assessment has been made of the redistributive effects of a number of CAP direct aid payments. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if it is her policy to ensure that as farm tenants progress to better agricultural holdings they will be free to move their single payment entitlements established under the CAP Reform package of 26 June to those holdings without penalty. [132268]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Entitlements under the Single Payment Scheme will be allocated to farmers rather than holdings. It follows that a tenant would be free to use the eligible land on any new holding to claim payment against the entitlements he or she owns. There is also provision to lease entitlements, but only with an equivalent number of hectares. Leased entitlements would, therefore, revert back to their owner at the same time that the accompanying land does.

  Beef Exports
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the withdrawal by the European Commission of its application to the European Court of Justice for the imposition of a fine on France for its ban on the import of British beef; and what the total fine was for which the French Government was liable. [133017]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]: The UK Government was gratified that France at last complied with EU law and lifted its ban on British beef on 25 October 2002.

  The European Commission withdrew its case in the European Court of justice seeking a daily fine on France after France lifted its ban. Therefore, no fines were payable, but the Commission asked the Court to order that costs of the case be borne by France. The UK Government regretted the decision by the European Commission not to pursue the case for penalties against France. The UK supported the Commission throughout and believed that pressing this case would have sent a firm message to member states that no one country can avoid its obligations and responsibilities.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. [133794]
  645W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department continues to receive a considerable amount of correspondence from a wide range of interest groups. In addition I meet regularly with industry representatives to hear their concerns, as do my colleagues in the devolved Administrations.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's aims in connection with the next Fisheries Council meeting. [133796]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not yet clear what the agenda will be on the 17 and 18 November, but the Government always aims to pursue a sustainable future for the UK fishing industry and the fish stocks on which it depends.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [131601]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend (Ruth Kelly) on 14 October 2003, column 142W.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the sea fisheries committees, naming her appointee to each to represent the interests of recreational fishing. [132526]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: Members appointed by the Secretary of State to Sea Fisheries Committees (SFC) are appointed every four years and are expected to represent all the local fishing and marine environmental interests in the waters of the SFC district. The following were appointed after consultation with a range of recreational fishing organisations. These organisations are consulted as and when mid term vacancies arise.

  Cornwall SFC—Mr. Malcolm Gilbert

  Devon SFC—Mr. David Rowe

  Isles of Scilly SFC—Mr. Timothy Allsop

  Northumberland SFC—Mr. Cedric Bilverstone

  North Eastern SFC—Mr. Frank Nesbitt. Mr John Whitton

  NWNW SFC—Mr. Allan Marklew

  Southern SFC—Mr. Bob Watton

  South Wales SFC—Mr. B Williams

  Sussex SFC—Mr. Peter Reece

  No recreational fishing organisations nominations have been appointed to the following;

  Cumbria SFC

  Kent and Essex SFC

  Eastern SFC

  646W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those fish species which may be(a) caught (i) within the 12 mile limit and (ii) outside the 12 mile limit and (b) landed below their normal spawning size. [132527]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: There is no distinction made in EU or national legislation between species which can be caught within and outside 12 miles.

  Under EU legislation 38 species are subject to minimum landing sizes. Some Sea Fisheries Committees have introduced minimum sizes for additional species. Fisheries scientists generally advise that a minimum landing size should correspond to the average size of first maturity of female fish. However, this is difficult to achieve in practice when fish of different species, which grow to, and mature at, different sizes, are taken together in a mixed fishery, where the mesh size is not ideal for all species. Some minimum landing sizes, therefore, represent a compromise caused by the mixed fishery problem, and a desire to reduce the need to discard undersized fish. The table as follows lists the current minimum landings size, and recommended minimum landing size based on maturity criteria for some commercial species:

  Biologically desirable minimum landing sizes (mls)

  Species

  Current mls

  Mls based on maturity criteria

  Cod

  35

  40–70 (depending on region)

  Haddock

  30

  35–40

  Whiting

  27

  20–22

  Saithe

  35

  60

  Sole

  24

  26–28

  Place

  27

  30–32

  Hake

  27

  55

  Megrim

  20

  26–28

  Large Combustion Plants Directive
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of the responses to the consultation paper on the implementation of the revised Large Combustion Plants Directive favoured the implementation of the Directive by(a) an Emission Limit Values approach and (b) a National Emission Reduction Plan approach. [133178]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]: Some 70 substantive responses have been received so far from individuals, businesses, trade associations, environmental groups, regulators, and Government agencies. Of these about 30 favoured the implementation of the Directive by emission limit approach; about 20 favoured the national plan approach; and about 20 expressed no views. In addition, some 1550 individual letters have been received so far from employees of the coal mining and associated industries, all of which favoured the emissions limits approach.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the effect of the National Emission Reduction Plan outlined in the revised Large
  647W
  Combustion Plants Directive on (a) the English coal mining industry and (b) English coalfield communities. [133367]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]: The Government has just completed a consultation on a proposal to implement the Large Combustion Plants Directive for plants first licensed before July 1987 using a national plan. Officials have discussed the potential impact of the alternative implementation routes with representatives of the UK coil industry and have received consultation responses from the Confederation of UK Coal Producers and other bodies and organisations with an interest in UK coal mining. The Government will take a decision on the most appropriate implementation approach after considering all of the consultation responses.

  Light Pollution
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to reduce light pollution for the benefit of astronomers. [132382]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In 1997 the Government issued "Lighting in the Countryside: Towards good practice". This document continues to be a valuable guide for local authorities, highway engineers and members of the public. It demonstrates what can be done to lessen the adverse effects of external lighting, including security lights and street lighting. The advice within it is applicable in towns as well as the countryside. Copies may be obtained from www.odpm.gov.uk

  Defra considered the control of nuisance caused by security lighting in its recent consultation "Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities". A summary of the comments received to this consultation exercise has now been published. A copy of this document may be obtained from www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consult/pubspace/index.htm

  The Government will consider what additional guidance on light pollution may be needed taking into consideration any recommendations emerging from Defra's consultation exercise and from the House of Commons Select Committee's recent inquiry into light pollution and astronomy that was recently completed.

  New Covent Garden Market
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost of defending the action by the City of London Corporation against New Covent Garden Market. [132549]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Corporation of London have brought proceedings against Defra and the Covent Garden Market Authority. The litigation is at a very early stage and it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of costs.

  REACH
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to reduce bureaucracy in REACH. [133489]
  648W
  Alun Michael
  The UK government's concerns about the workability of REACH have been addressed in our response of 16 July 2003 to the European Commission's internet consultation on the draft legislative proposals for REACH which can be found on the Defra website at http:/www.defra.gov.uk/environment/chemicals/reach/ukresponse.pdf

  More recently on 20 September 2003 the Prime Minister along with the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany sent a joint letter to the European Commission addressing these same concerns, details of which have been made available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/chemicals/pdf/trilateral.Pdf

  Our aim is to support the principles of REACH which are intended to protect public health and the environment while making sure that bureaucratic burdens on the chemical industry are kept to the minimum necessary for effectiveness.

  South American Meat
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what tonnage of meat has been imported into the UK in each of the last five years from(a) Argentina, (b) Brazil, (c) Uruguay and (d) other South American nations. [133228]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following table shows the tonnage of meat and meat preparations, imported into the UK from South American nations, in each of the last five years (1998–2002).

  Thousand tones

  Brazil

  Argentina

  Uruguay

  Chile

  Others

  1998

  58.0

  10.9

  13.9

  2.0

  0.0

  1999

  81.6

  10.1

  11.3

  1.8

  0.0

  2000

  97.7

  10.5

  9.6

  2.5

  0.0

  2001

  124.1

  6.6

  10.0

  4.2

  0.1

  2001

  132.3

  24.7

  16.6

  3.0

  0.0

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities and Food) Consultancy

  Trade and IT, ESD, DEFRA

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Judges (Appeals)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action the Secretary of State takes against judges who are successfully appealed against in relation to(a) sentence and (b) conviction significantly more often than the norm. [134113]

  Mr. Leslie
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Judicial Appointments
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether appointments of tribunal chairmen and members will continue to be made during the period of the consultation on judicial appointments. [134112]
  649W
  Mr. Leslie
  Appointments will continue to be made, to meet the needs of Tribunals, under the current arrangements until decisions on a new approach are implemented following the consultation now under way.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what criteria are applied by the Legal Aid Board in considering whether to grant assistance to defendants in civil proceedings. [133081]

  Mr. Leslie
  In Northern Ireland the Legal Aid Committee of the Law Society of Northern Ireland has statutory responsibility for the administration of applications for civil legal aid. The Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (NI) Order 1981 (the '1981 Order'), provides that legal aid will be available in specified proceedings to any person who meets the prescribed statutory tests. Before granting civil legal aid the Legal Aid Committee must be satisfied that the applicant's disposable income and disposable capital does not exceed the statutory maximum limits. The Legal Aid Committee must also be satisfied that the applicant meets the statutory test of having reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being a party to the proceedings and that it is not unreasonable that he should receive civil legal aid.

  With effect from 1 November the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission will assume statutory responsibility for the administration of legal aid. The Commission will be responsible for applying the same statutory tests as are currently applied by the Legal Aid Committee.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much money has been granted by the Legal Aid Board to defendants in civil cases in the past two years. [133082]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Legal Aid Department of the Law Society of Northern Ireland has indicated that during the year ended 31 March 2002 £2,477,126 was paid in respect of defendants in civil legal aid cases. During the year ended 31 March 2003 £3,025,397 was paid in respect of defendants in civil legal aid cases.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Female Pensioners
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will take into account women's unpaid caring and domestic responsibilities when calculating future female pensions. [133474]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  People who receive carer's allowance are credited with national insurance contributions which count towards all future contributory benefits, including state pension. Others who are precluded from work because they are caring for a child or a sick or disabled person may, since 1978, be eligible for home responsibilities protection (HRP). These provisions are of particular
  650W
  benefit to women. HRP allows for years spent caring to be discounted from the number of qualifying years needed to achieve a full basic state pension.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister for Women what measures are being taken to tackle female poverty in old age. [133473]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has no single definition of pensioner poverty. However, measures since 1997 to improve pensioners' incomes have been targeted largely on those in the lower part of the income distribution, many of whom are older women.

  The main measures since 1997 include: above inflation increases in the basic state pension between April 2000 and April 2003, increases to the level of the minimum income guarantee and earnings uprating of the guarantee so that no single pensioner need live on less than £102.10 a week and no couple on less than £155.80 a week, the introduction of pension credit in October this year to provide extra support for those with modest savings, winter fuel payments of £200 a year for the remainder of this Parliament, an extra £100 a year within the winter fuel payments for those aged over 80 and free TV licences for someone aged 75 or over.

  The Government are spending around £8 billion a year extra on pensioners as a result of these measures. They have resulted in pensioner households gaining £1,250 a year in real terms with the poorest third of pensioners gaining £1,600 a year in real terms.

  Judiciary (Women)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister for Women what measures are in place to bring more women to the higher levels of the judiciary. [133472]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The principle of appointment on merit is central to the judicial appointments process and those appointed should be those who are best qualified for the job.

  Notwithstanding this, the Government believe it is desirable to have a judiciary which is more reflective of the society it serves. While our judges have a reputation for excellence that is second to none, the Government recognise that there is, among other things, a significant gender imbalance within the judiciary.

  Specific measures to bring more applications (including from women) for appointment to the High Court include the abolition of the previous procedure of appointments to the High Court Bench by invitation only, and the removal of lower and upper age limits for appointment to the senior judiciary.

  More generally, initiatives to encourage a greater and more diverse range of applicants for judicial office include:
  the work shadowing scheme (which allows legal practitioners the opportunity to see what it is like to sit as a judge);
  the career statement scheme (which allows applicants for judicial office to explain any concerns they may have if they believe their career progress to date understates their judicial potential);

  651W
  the introduction of salaried part-time working for certain judicial posts (enabling individuals who cannot or choose not to commit to a full time post to nevertheless apply for judicial office);
  the introduction of a system of "block sittings" (which allows those who sit part-time as recorders, and have taken a career break, to obtain the necessary experience by sitting in 'blocks' to enable them to apply for full-time appointments on an equal footing with those recorders who have not had a break from sitting).

  The Government recognise that more needs to be done, and has announced the intention to create a Judicial Appointments Commission. While the precise role of the commission is subject to consultation, we envisage that it will be tasked with looking at ways both to attract a more diverse range of suitably qualified candidates to apply for judicial office, and to find ways of making judicial career progression a more realistic prospect for traditionally under-represented groups, including women. The consultation paper 'Constitutional Reform: a new way of appointing judges' is available in the Library.

  In the interim, the Department will continue to look at other ways of increasing diversity in the judiciary.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 148, what subsequent communication with the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee he has had in respect of disquiet over the 45-minute claim made by members of the Defence Intelligence staff prior to the final publication of the dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, of September 2002; and whether the Defence Intelligence staff brought to his attention the disquiet after he requested that if people had any evidence on the matter they should produce it. [132490]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  This matter was considered by the Intelligence and Security Committee in its report on "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessments" (Cm 5972), copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House. It has also been covered in both written and oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry which has been published on its website at www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk

TREASURY

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to impose capital gains tax on all sales of domestic houses. [134415]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have no such plans.

  Family Income
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net income 652W
  of a family with two children (a) aged 20 in full time education and (b) aged 12 with a gross income of (i) £13,000, (ii) £13,500, (iii) £14,000, (iv) £14,500, (v) £15,000, (vi) £15,500 and (vii) £16,000 a year; and what assessment he has made of the sources of that net income. [134061]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The general definition of a child, as given in the Households Below Average Income publication, is an individual aged under 16 or an unmarried 16 to 18-year-old on a course up to and including 'A' level standard. On this basis a 20-year-old in full time education is treated as independent in the tax and benefits system.

  Given annual gross earnings, a single full-time earner family with a dependent child aged 12 will have an annual net household income in 2003–04 that is tabulated as follows:

  Gross earnings

  Income tax

  National insurance

  Child benefit

  Working tax credit

  Child tax credit

  Net income

  13,000

  1,610

  921

  835

  707

  1,980

  13,992

  13,500

  1,720

  976

  835

  523

  1,980

  14,142

  14,000

  1,830

  1,031

  835

  339

  1,980

  14,293

  14,500

  1,940

  1,086

  835

  155

  1,980

  14,444

  15,000

  2,050

  1,141

  835

  0

  1,951

  14,595

  15,500

  2,160

  1,196

  835

  0

  1,767

  14,747

  16,000

  2,270

  1.251

  835

  0

  1,583

  14,898

  Housing Supply
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of the Barker review of the issues affecting housing supply in the UK; what recent discussions he has had with Kate Barker; when he expects to receive the(a) interim report and (b) final report; and if he will publish (i) the reports and (ii) all the inquiry findings. [134393]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Barker review was commissioned by the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister as an independent review. As set out in its terms of reference, the review has undertaken to deliver its interim report this autumn, around the time of the pre-Budget report. The final report will be delivered in spring 2004. Both reports will be publicly available, and make clear the findings of the review.

  During the course of the review, Kate Barker has undertaken a range of meetings with interested parties from both the public and private sector, including the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister. The review also invited submissions from relevant organisations and has received over 120 responses. These responses, and the review's terms of reference, are available online at www.barkerreview.org.uk.

  Insurance and Corporation Taxes Act
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been generated for the Inland Revenue by sections 660A to 669 of the Insurance and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 in each year since 1997; and what forecasts he has made of future revenue generation. [133857]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available as the amounts charged by these sections of the 1988 Act are not reported separately.

  Mortgages (Fixed Rate)
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with Professor David Miles regarding his review of the fixed rate mortgages market in the UK; if he will make a statement on the progress of the review; when he expects to receive the interim report; when he expects to receive the final report; and if he will publish them. [134391]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor commissioned Professor David Miles to carry out an independent review into the UK mortgage market. We expect the interim report to be delivered around the time of the pre-Budget report and the final report to be delivered by Budget 2004.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make public the findings of the Miles review of the fixed rate mortgages market in the UK. [134392]

  Ruth Kelly
  Yes.

  Inland Revenue (Customer Services)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many and what percentage of telephone calls to Inland Revenue contact centres which were not classed as engaged or abandoned were answered within 20 seconds in each of the last 12 months; [126382]

  (2) how many and what percentage of attempted telephone calls to Inland Revenue contact centres reached an engaged tone in each of the last 12 months; [126383]

  (3) how many and what percentage of telephone calls to Inland Revenue contact centres were abandoned in each of the last 12 months. [126384]

  Table 2

  Number of calls (thousands)

  Received1

  Handled within 20 seconds2

  Handled in more than 20 seconds

  Reaching engaged tone

  Abandoned3

  August 2002

  1,801

  1,167

  545

  3,873

  90

  September 2002

  1,935

  1,117

  727

  3,928

  90

  October 2002

  1,893

  1,271

  550

  2,494

  71

  November 2002

  2,068

  1,509

  464

  1,762

  95

  December 2002

  1,355

  949

  342

  1,689

  64

  January 2003

  3,041

  1,742

  1,047

  3,900

  252

  February 2003

  2,785

  1,570

  862

  1,557

  352

  1Where the caller selected an option for the call steering menu and was put in a queue to speak to an adviser.

  2Where the caller selected an option from the call steering menu, was put in a queue to speak to an adviser, and spoke to an adviser within 20 seconds of being put in that queue. Estimated for calls on the disabled person's tax credits helplines.

  3 Where the caller selected an option from the call steering menu and was put in a queue to speak to an adviser but the call was terminated before the caller spoke to an adviser.

  Tables 3 and 4, which cover March to August 2003, reflect a period where the Inland Revenue's contact centres dealing with new tax credits inquiries experienced call volumes so large that no call centre could have coped, notwithstanding the measures taken to increase capacity to deal with demand. Comparing the number of calls attempted each month with the number of callers, shows, particularly in April-June, a clear pattern of many callers making multiple calls, often using automatic redial equipment. During the same period, due to slow running of the IT system, there were times when calls took longer to handle, thus making it more difficult for other callers to get through.
  654W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The tables give figures for the 12 months to August 2003, for calls attempted, received, handled, abandoned and receiving the engaged tone for all Inland Revenue contact centres in Great Britain, including those dealing with calls concerning the child and working tax credits, WFTC, DPTC, taxes and national insurance. They also give figures for the estimated number of callers attempting those calls. They do not include the many hundreds of thousands of calls handled by the Northern Ireland contact centres, the child benefit centre and the Inland Revenue's network of local offices, using a range of telephony services.

  Tables 1 and 2 cover the period August 2002-February 2003 and describes what is one of the country's top 10 call centre operations in broadly steady state, handling around 2 million calls per month. The number of attempted calls not being handled is in line with industry standards when related to the number of callers attempting to make those calls and the sharp peaks of activity which underlie those numbers.

  Table 1

  Thousands

  Number of call attempts

  Number of Callers1

  August 2002

  5,683

  1,639

  September 2002

  5,881

  1,816

  October 2002

  4,413

  1,793

  November 2002

  3,858

  1,922

  December 2002

  3,064

  1,316

  January 2003

  7,017

  2,780

  February 2003

  4,812

  2,408

  1The number of separate telephone numbers from which call attempts were received on each day, summed over the month.

  Table 3

  Thousands

  Number of call attempts

  Number of callers1

  March 2003

  10,007

  4,005

  April 2003

  22,600

  5,465

  May 2003

  16,220

  4,468

  June 2003

  16,398

  3,465

  July 2003

  9,195

  2,526

  August 2003

  5,215

  2,099

  1The number of separate telephone numbers from which call attempts were received on each day, summed over the month.

  655W

  Table 4

  Number of calls (thousands)

  Received1

  Handled within 20 seconds2

  Handled in more than 20 seconds

  Reaching engaged tone

  Abandoned3

  March 2003

  4,308

  1,600

  1,702

  1,435

  1,005

  April 2003

  4,043

  1,286

  1,827

  5,666

  930

  May 2003

  2,969

  1,138

  1,386

  3,525

  445

  June 2003

  1,652

  716

  834

  1,493

  101

  July 2003

  2,192

  1,135

  915

  2,880

  143

  August 2003

  2,192

  1,373

  692

  2,710

  126

  1Where the caller selected an option for the call steering menu and was put in a queue to speak to an adviser.

  2Where the caller selected an option from the call steering menu, was put in a queue to speak to an adviser, and spoke to an adviser within 20 seconds of being put in that queue. Estimated for calls on the disabled person's tax credits helplines.

  3Where the caller selected an option from the call steering menu and was put in a queue to speak to an adviser but the call was terminated before the caller spoke to an adviser.

  The figures for July and particularly August—when the number of calls handled only falls just short of the number of callers attempting to get in touch with the Revenue—show a steady return towards steady state with the Revenue's call centre operations much better supported by the IT system.

  Money Laundering Regulations
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what implications the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 will have for client confidentiality between professional accountants and their clients; [131853]

  (2) if he will introduce a minimum reporting level in the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 at which professional accountants must report their clients for errors and omissions in their financial affairs; [131854]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact that the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 will have upon the number of (a) persons and (b) businesses evading tax in the UK. [131855]

  Ruth Kelly
  I propose shortly to lay before the House the new Money Laundering Regulations, and amending orders to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Terrorism Act 2000. They will bring those providing accountancy services, along with other specified activities and professions, into the regulated sector for the purposes of the money laundering legislation.

  The Proceeds of Crime Act requires a person who has knowledge, suspicion or reasonable grounds for knowledge or suspicion, of money laundering as a result of information or other matter that came to him or her in the course of a business in the regulated sector to report this to a nominated person in that organisation, or to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. This obligation to report relates to the proceeds of any crime—regardless of the sum of money involved and will override, in this case, the duty of confidentiality owed to that client.

  The new Money Laundering Regulations will require regulated bodies to put in place the systems that will allow them to discharge their responsibilities under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

  The subject of a minimum reporting threshold was debated extensively during the passage of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, and was rejected by Parliament (mainly
  656W
  because of the poor correlation between the sums laundered and the seriousness of the underlying offences). Given that the Act has no minimum reporting level, there can be no such de minimis provision in the Regulations.

  The UK takes the view that tax evasion is a serious criminal offence. The strengthening of the whole anti-money laundering regime within the UK, and internationally, will aid in the detection and reduction of money laundering and underlying crime, including tax evasion. Ministerial assurances were given during Parliamentary debate on the Proceeds of Crime Bill that the civil settlement procedure known as "Hansard" by which the Inland Revenue deals with cases of suspected tax evasion, where the taxpayer is actively seeking to set their affairs straight, would be unaffected.

  Productivity Performance.
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the productivity performance figures were for each year since 1997 expressed as(a) output per worker and (b) output per hour; and if he will make a statement. [132879]

  John Healey
  In the UK output per worker is measured as output per filled job. Productivity performance figures are published regularly by the Office for National Statistics. Figures for 1997 to 2002 (the last complete year for which figures are available) are given in the table.

  Year

  Output per filled job (index 2000=100)

  Output per hour worked (Index 2000=100)

  1997

  94.6

  92.2

  1998

  96.5

  94.8

  1999

  97.6

  96.4

  2000

  100

  100

  2001

  101.1

  100.9

  2002

  102.5

  102.6

  Public Sector Jobs
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many public sector jobs there were in(a) May 1997, (b) May 2000 and (c) May 2003. [133661]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  657W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Redwood, dated 23 October 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning how many public sector jobs there were in (a) May 1997, (b) May 2000 and (c) May 2003. (133661)

  Data for periods to May are not available, but the table below shows the job levels in the public sector for the three month periods ending in August for each of the years 1997, 2000 and 2002 (the latest available data).

  Public sector job levels in the UK

  Thousands1

  August 1997

  August 2000

  August 2002

  Public sector

  4,954

  5,094

  5,298

  1Not seasonally adjusted

  Source:

  Administrative Returns from public bodies

  United Kingdom Companies (Government Subsidy)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what this year's budget is for Government subsidy of United Kingdom companies. [133663]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is no Government budget for subsidies. However, the Government seeks to promote economic growth through tackling the five drivers of productivity (innovation, investment, enterprise, competition and skills).

  Government Departments that run programmes include the Department of Trade and Industry, whose total budget for business support programmes in 2003–04 stands at £425 million, and the Department for Education and Skills.

DEFENCE

  International Security and Peace
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the British armed forces are engaged in operations aimed at strengthening international security and peace. [132273]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Aim of the Ministry of Defence, as set out in the Public Service Agreement, is:"To deliver security for the people of the United Kingdom and the Overseas Territories by defending them, including against terrorism; and to act as a force for good by strengthening international peace and stability".

  The two parts of this aim are interdependent and it is not possible to separate the contribution that individual members of the armed forces are making to each part. However, as at the beginning of October 2003, some 12,500 armed forces personnel and 300 Ministry of Defence civilians were deployed on operations (including United Nations operations) in Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Cyprus, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia/Eritrea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, and Georgia; all operations directly aimed at strengthening international peace and stability.

  New Recruits
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the number of new recruits required to bring each of the Services up to full strength as outlined in the Strategic Defence Review. [132180]

  Mr. Caplin
  The latest audited armed forces manning shortfall figures available show that, as at 1 July 2003, the armed forces had a deficit of 6,060 trained personnel (Naval Service 1,020; Army 4,220; RAF 820).

  Last year, the Services exceeded their numeric recruiting target of 25,381 with 26,220 new entrants. This year, the recruiting target currently stands at 25,618.

  Psychiatric Reports
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the disclosure of psychiatric reports as part of a submission to the courts pertaining to the character of a soldier charged with unlawful killing; and what rank of officer would be charged with approving the contents of such a submission. [131986]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence is required by law to release medical information during the course of certain legal proceedings and its policy is in compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. For the Army, the disclosure of medical records is the responsibility of the Army Medical Directorate. The rank of the individual charged with approving the release will vary from case to case.

  Service Veterans
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to compile a register of Service veterans; what his estimate is of the number of living veterans; and what information is recorded to assess the welfare needs of former members of the armed services. [131960]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence does not compile a register of Service veterans. At the first Veterans Forum held on the 24 July 2001 it was agreed with members of the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations that the definition of a veteran should be as wide as possible and cover anyone who has ever served in HM forces, their widows/ers and dependants.

  I announced, to the House (17 September 2003, Official Report, column 51WS) the publication of a King's College London research paper into areas of unmet need within the veterans' community. This found that although joining the armed forces is generally a positive experience, with the overwhelming majority of Service leavers appearing to do well in civilian life, there is a small minority of Service personnel who have difficulty making the transition back to civilian life.

  Personnel most vulnerable to problems of transition include those discharged for medical reasons, including mental health conditions, as well as those dismissed for disciplinary reasons, premature leavers and those discharged as temperamentally unsuitable. The Ministry of Defence is working with a wide range of organisations across Government, the ex-Service voluntary sector

  659W
  and other non-governmental organisations to further improve the support available to these and other ex-Service personnel.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1111W, on chemical weapons, what further discussions have taken place as part of the Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea; what the British contribution was; whether all Government documents relating to the dumping of chemical weapons in the sea after World War Two have been supplied; what proposals he has to assist in the monitoring and prevention of the leakage of chemicals from dumped weapons stock sunk in Skagerrak after World War Two; if he will make a statement on the environmental risks from the chemical weapons dumped in the Baltic and Skagerrak after World War Two; and what is being done to combat dangers to human and marine life. [133202]

  Mr. Caplin
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Airfield Support Services Projects
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees he estimates are likely to be transferred into the private sector under the Airfield Support Services Projects; and how many of these are employed by his Department's Fire Service. [133429]

  Mr. Ingram
  No decisions about ASSP will be made until the Consortia bids have been fully evaluated. We would need to be satisfied that a Private Finance Initiative/Public Private Partnership solution offered the most cost-effective solution for the provision of airfield support and wider fire services without compromising operational effectiveness or safety before we decided to outsource this activity. Should a PFI/PPP solution be adopted approximately 2,100 civilian staff would be affected, of which it is estimated that some 1,800 would be eligible for transfer (under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Act 1981). Of the latter some 1,500 are Defence Fire Service personnel.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to support an international arms treaty by 2006 to prevent the export of arms where they contribute to violations of human rights and humanitarian law; and if he will make a statement. [132556]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government fully support the aim of raising export control standards internationally. The UK operates the most vigorous export control policies in the world and actively works to encourage other states to apply similar principles. Any instrument that has the support of all major arms exporting states would be an important step towards this goal. The Government are still considering the ramifications of the proposed
  660W
  treaty; however, it is clearly an important contribution to the international debate on arms export control issues.

  cadet Forces
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Air Force and (c) Army personnel were previously members of the cadet forces. [1337541

  Mr. Caplin
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Campaign Medal (Iraq)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to award a campaign medal for servicemen and women who have served in Iraq. [133756]

  Mr. Caplin
  Following my announcement to the House on 8 July 2003,Official Report, column 47WS, that a campaign medal would be awarded for service during the recent operations in Iraq, officials have been preparing the detailed eligibility criteria to be associated with this award. Once determined, they have to be agreed by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals and then passed to Her Majesty the Queen for her approval. The work is progressing well and I hope to make a further announcement shortly.

  Corporal Anthony Green
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the rank and regiment was of each officer present and involved in(a) initial questioning of Private William Graham following the fatal shooting of Private Anthony Green, (b) attending the formal interview and (c) attending each interview conducted by the civilian police. [132195]

  Mr. Caplin
  All of these matters concern the detail of the investigation into the death of Corporal Anthony Green and are matters for the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

  Defence Fire Service
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at which locations overseas elements of his Department's Fire Service have been based in each of the last five years. [133419]

  Mr. Ingram
  Military and civilian personnel have been based, in each of the last five years, in the Falkland Islands, Cyprus, Germany, Gibraltar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. Bosnia and Kosovo, and in Iraq since February this year. In addition, there have been the following deployments:

  Location

  1999

  Italy

  1999

  Turkey

  1999–2000

  Croatia

  2001

  Oman

  2002

  Afghanistan

  2002

  United States of America

  2003

  Republic of South Africa

  Departmental Staff (Medical Retirement)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees of the Ministry of Defence have applied for early retirement on medical grounds in each of the last five years; and how many have been(a) granted and (b) refused. [133499]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Year

  Applied for Medical Retirement

  Approved

  Refused

  1999

  613

  550

  63

  2000

  584

  480

  104

  2001

  629

  465

  164

  2002

  468

  326

  142

  20031

  383

  227

  156

  1 Up to 20 October

  Figures for 2003 relate to cases where a decision has been made

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the role is of BMI Ltd in the process of determining applications for medical retirement from the Ministry of Defence; what the average length of time has been for determining these applications; what the rights of appeal are; and if he will make a statement. [133503]

  Mr. Caplin
  BMTs role in relation to ill-health retirement is in advising employers about whether or not applicants meet the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme's criteria for access to this benefit, from a medical perspective. The final decision on each ill-health retirement rests with the employer.

  Figures for the average length of time it takes to process applications to retire on health grounds are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  An employee who has additional medical evidence to support his or her case may appeal through a three stage process culminating in a Medical Appeal Board. The employee can appeal against:
  termination of employment on medical grounds during probation;
  a decision by the Department to retire them on medical grounds;.
  a refusal by the Department to retire them on medical grounds.

  Depleted Uranium
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rounds of depleted uranium ammunitions were(a) deployed to the Gulf region in 2002, (b) deployed to the Gulf region in 2003, (c) fired during the conflict in Iraq and (d) recovered during UK-led clean-up operations; and if he will make a statement. [133712]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding information about numbers of rounds of depleted uranium (DU) munitions deployed on operations in accordance with exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. With regards to DU firings during the recent conflict in Iraq, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence on 4 June 2003.662W
  Official Report, column 445W to the hon. Member for Islington North (Mr. Corbyn). Surface-lying DU fragments continue to be removed from the battlefield as they are discovered, however the details of DU findings are not held centrally.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what programmes his Department has(a) planned, (b) discussed, (c) initiated and (d) concluded to (i) locate and (ii) collect depleted uranium (A) ammunition and (B) ammunition fragments in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [133713]

  Mr. Ingram
  All surplus depleted uranium (DU) ammunition has now been returned to the UK. Obvious surface-lying DU fragments continue to be removed from the battlefield as they are discovered.

  Deployment
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of UK forces around the world. [132124]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of September 2003, some 20,200 British armed forces personnel were deployed on operations and other military tasks around the world, including:

  Location

  Approximate numbers

  Iraq

  10,500

  Cyprus

  3,300

  Bosnia

  1,430

  Brunei

  1,120

  Falkland Islands

  1.120

  UN deployments

  460

  Afghanistan

  400

  Kosovo

  330

  Gibraltar

  370

  In addition, some 11,500 British armed forces personnel are currently stationed in Germany.

  Detached Duties
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recent representations he has received to exempt or reduce council tax charged on service personnel while on detached duties. [133175]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: Service personnel who own or rent a private property remain liable to pay council tax on their property to the local authority concerned while they are absent from that property as this normally remains their "sole or main residence". Local authorities are responsible for administration of council tax, including the interpretation of regulations concerning "sole or main residence". In this respect, Service personnel stationed in the United Kingdom or overseas are treated in the same way as any civilian who is required to live and work away from home.

  Foreign Contracts
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts let by the MOD to foreign companies since 1997, stating in each case(a) the

  663W
  company concerned, (b) the country of origin and (c) the amount of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [133775]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. (Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information).

  Global Warming
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been undertaken by the Meteorological Office on the possibility of a release of methane hydrate from sea floor sediments caused by increased sea temperatures resulting from global warming and climate change. [133312]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Hadley Centre of the Meteorological Office has made a start assessing the potential destabilisation of hydrates. Analysis of results from the Hadley Centre climate models has shown that the most vulnerable deposits are likely to be marine hydrates in the shallow parts of the Arctic Ocean. Furthermore, it has been confirmed that the gradual melting of land ice-sheets (which tends to stabilise marine hydrates by increasing sea-level and thereby the pressure at the bottom of the ocean), will be too slow to counteract the effects of global warming in the 21st century.

  King's Own Scottish Borderers
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what deployment is planned for the King's Own Scottish Borderers after their tour of duty in Iraq; what timetable is projected for their transfer from their current deployment to their next deployment; and if he will make a statement. [133652]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following their tour in Iraq, one Battalion The King's Own Scottish Borderers personnel should return to Catterick by 1 November 2003. They will conduct an Arms Plot move from Catterick to Omagh (Northern Ireland) during January 2004, on completion of which they will assume operational responsibilities in Northern Ireland; this will be a two year residential and accompanied tour. Pre-deployment training for Northern Ireland begins on 10 November. Post Operational Tour Leave (POTL) will not be affected as steps have been taken to ensure that individuals can take POTL in a reasonable timeframe and within the constraints imposed by their Training commitments and Arms Plot move.

  Lance Corporal Graham
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date Lance Corporal William Graham was discharged from Her Majesty's armed forces. [132194]

  Mr. Caplin
  In accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, I am unable to make public any personal data relating to Lance Corporal Graham.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is concerning the award of promotion to a soldier while released on bail on charges 664W
  of unlawful killing; and what considerations were involved in the decision to promote Private William Graham. [132197]

  Mr. Caplin
  Policy on manning issues governing soldiers's careers is set out in The Queens Regulations for the Army. In accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, I am unable to make public any personal data relating to Lance Corporal Graham unless the relevant conditions are met.

  Manning Control Points
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when manning control points have been suspended by the Army; what the reasons were; and if he will make a statement. [133352]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]: The Manning Control Point policy has not been suspended by the Army.

  Iraq
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amount and type of ordnance dropped on Iraq during Operation Telic; and what the overall cost was of the munitions used during the conflict. [111812]

  Mr. Ingram
  During Operation Telic RAF aircraft released some 840 weapons over Iraq: The types were:

  Stormshadow stand-off missile

  ALARM anti-radiation missile

  Paveway II laser-guided-bomb

  Enhanced Paveway II laser-guided bomb

  Enhanced Paveway III laser-guided bomb

  AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missile

  RBL755 cluster bomb

  1,000 lb inert bomb

  500 lb inert bomb

  CRV-7 Rocket Pod

  AIM-9L Sidewinder air-to-air missile

  Calculating the costs of munitions consumed during the Coalition's 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 ordnance destroyed or damaged. Once this work is complete I will write to the hon. Member.

  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of cluster bombs during the Iraq conflict. [132440]

  Mr. Ingram
  We made every effort to minimise the impact on the Iraqi population of the coalition's military action. Cluster bombs are lawful weapons and were used by United Kingdom forces in a manner consistent with our obligations under international law, against fielded Iraqi military forces in the open or on the periphery of built up areas.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what methods have been used to date to estimate the number of Iraqi civilians killed by United Kingdom or United States military forces in Iraq(a) since 20 March

  665W
  and (b) since the end of the conflict; and what steps are being taken to increase the reliability of these assessments. [133307]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 16 June 2003,Official Report, column 55W, and to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East & Dinefwr (Mr. Price) on 14 October 2003, Official Report, column 7W, respectively.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the use of missile defence for destroying satellites. [133233]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have made no such assessment.

  MOD Estate
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) name and (b) location of premises used, leased and owned by private companies on MOD property, stating in each case (i) the company concerned and (ii) the nature of the relationship. [133776]

  Mr. Caplin
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Precision-guided Munitions
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many types of precision guided munitions are in use by the RAF; and which aircraft are capable of operating precision guided munitions. [133040]

  Mr. Ingram
  13 types of air launched and one ground launched Precision Guided Munitions are currently in use with the Royal Air Force. Of current in-service aircraft, Tornado F3, Tornado GR4, Jaguar, Harrier, Hawk and Nimrod MR2 are capable of carrying and releasing Precision Guided Munitions. The type of Precision Guided Munition that is carried varies from aircraft to aircraft.

  RAF Aircraft
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF aircraft of each type are based outside the UK; and where they are based. [133041]

  Mr. Ingram
  At 16 October 2003 the numbers of RAF aircraft by type based outside the United Kingdom are located as follows:

  Area

  Aircraft

  Number

  Location

  Balkans

  Merlin

  2

  Banja Luca, Bosnia

  East Med

  Griffin

  4

  Akrotiri, Cyprus

  Middle East

  Tornado GR4

  6

  Al Udeid, Qatar

  VC1O

  2

  Muharraq, Bahrain

  C130J Hercules

  2

  Basrah, Iraq

  CH47 Chinook

  5

  Basrah, Iraq

  HS125 Dominie

  1

  Basrah, Iraq

  Nimrod MR2

  2

  Seeb, Oman

  Afghanistan

  C130J Hercules

  1

  Kabul

  666W

  Area

  Aircraft

  Number

  Location>

  Falklands

  CH47 Chinook

  1

  Sea King

  2

  VC10

  1

  C130K Hercules

  1

  Tornado F3

  4

  In addition, the Joint Helicopter Command has helicopters based in Basrah, Iraq. On 16 October 2003, the numbers were as follows:

  Area

  Aircraft

  Number

  Location

  Middle East

  Sea King

  5

  Basrah, Iraq

  Lynx

  5

  Basrah, Iraq

  Gazelle

  3

  Basrah, Iraq

  RAF Lyneham
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 17 September 2003, ref 130872, if he will place the study of the commercial potential of RAF Lyneham in the Library. [132932]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding this information under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Sri Lanka
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's role in the Peace Building and Reconciliation Strategy in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [133711]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence works closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development on the Peacebuilding and Reconciliation Strategy for Sri Lanka. The Defence Adviser and his Assistant in Colombo represent MOD interests on the High Commission's Steering Committee on the Strategy and lead on Defence liaison in country.

  Suez Medal
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether eligible former members of the military Services will need to apply to receive the Suez Emergency Medal. [133625]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement I made earlier today, which details the addresses of the appropriate medal offices and Command Paper 5999 for the eligibility criteria for the award of the Suez medal.

  Tomahawk
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tomahawk cruise missiles have been used in the last nine months; and at what cost their replacements are being supplied. [133394]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to answer I gave on 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 652W, to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).

  Unexploded Ordnance
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what programmes his Department has(a) planned, (b) discussed, (c) initiated and (d) concluded to (i) locate and (ii) collect depleted uranium (A) ammunitions and (B) ammunition fragments in Afghanistan; what other programmes are in place in Afghanistan for these purposes; and if he will make a statement. [133642]

  Mr. Ingram
  Depleted Uranium (DU) ammunition was not used by Allied Forces in Afghanistan.

  The United Nations Environment Programme Post Conflict Assessment Unit (UNEP PCAU) published the findings of their post-conflict environmental assessment of Afghanistan earlier this year. The report does not cite uranium or depleted uranium as causes of concern.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Legislation
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will list for each Bill introduced in(a) Session 2001–02 and (b) Session 2002–03 (i) the date on which the first programme motion relating to each Bill was agreed to by the House, (ii) the dates of further programme motions agreed to by the House relating to the Committee stage, (iii) the dates on which programme motions relating to (A) Standing Committee proceedings, (B) dates for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee and (C) proceedings in consideration on Report or on Third Reading were agreed to in Standing Committee, (iv) whether Sessional Order B relating to programming committees was disapplied, (v) the dates on which further programme motions relating to consideration on Report or to proceedings on Third Reading were agreed to by the House, indicating whether the motion was (X) pursuant to a resolution of the programming committee, (Y) pursuant to a resolution of the Standing Committee and (Z) not pursuant to either and (vi) the dates on which programme motions relating to proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments and Lords messages were agreed to by the House. [134055]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is a matter of public record. The Sessional Returns 2001–02 provide for each public Bill introduced in that Session the date of all programme motions agreed to by the House, and whether they were pursuant to a report. Information for the current session is available from the Votes and Proceedings, and will be collated in due course in the Sessional Return. Information on proceedings in Standing Committee is obtainable from the Standing Committee Hansard.

  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will list for each Bill introduced in(a) Session 2001–02 and (b) Session 2002–03 (i) the number of sittings in Committees, (ii) the number of knives (A) for which provision was made and (B) which took effect, (iii) the number of groups of amendments not reached because
  668W
  a knife took effect, (iv) the number of clauses on which the question that the clause stand part was not reached because a knife took effect, (v) for how many days each Bill was considered at Report stage, (vi) the number of knives (X) for which provision was made and (Y) which took effect at report stage, (vii) the number of groups of amendments not reached because a knife took effect and (viii) how long was spent in debate (1) at second Reading, (2) in Committee, (3) in consideration on Report and (4) on Third Reading. [134056]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is a matter of public record. As the hon. Member is aware, the Public Bill Office has provided detailed information on programming in the current Session to the Modernisation Committee.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance his Department has made available to sub-postmasters on promoting the Post Office card account to their customers. [133386]

  Mr. Timms
  None. The promotion of Post Office products and services is a matter for the company. Post Office Ltd. is providing information to customers and guidance to sub-postmasters on the range of banking options available at post offices, including the Post Office card account.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Post Office card accounts she estimates will be opened. [133389]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from the Department for Work and Pensions that as of 3 October 2003, 1.25 million customers had requested a Post Office card account and that the Government now expects the total number of card accounts to exceed the 3 million operating assumption.

  The number of customers who will eventually choose to open a Post Office card account is difficult to predict: at this stage, as it will depend on a large number of future individual choices.

  Arms Exports
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) of 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1070W, on arms exports, if she will publish the statement to which reference is made. [133317]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government have taken note of the Fund for Peace's submission of 1 May 2003 concerning the US laws on arms brokering, and on this matter, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 630W.

  Biomass Renewables
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representatations she has received from(a) organisations and (b) individuals on biomass renewable projects. [131358]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: Ministers and officials have received a number of representations from organisations and officials on biomass renewable projects covering a number of issues, in particular, the issues of fuel supplies, finance, planning and technology.

  BSkyB
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on early day motion 1711, Monopoly of BSkyB. [133993]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  This is a matter for the Office of Fair Trading to consider. It would not be appropriate for Government to intervene.

  Building Control Work
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the proportion of building control work carried out by the private sector in(a) 1987, (b) 1992, (c) 1997 and (d) 2002; what assessment she has made of the effect of the trend upon standards; and if she will make a statement. [132894]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  Statistics on the market shares of the local authority and private sectors of building control are not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The terms of reference of the Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group include the drawing up of recommendations on performance indicators for the effective delivery of building control, and on procedures for the monitoring of building control bodies. I look forward to seeing the recommendations of the Advisory Group in due course.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has conducted on the likely impact of rates of corporation tax in countries set to join the EU upon levels of inward investment into the UK. [132862]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  Figures from the OECD show that the UK is a relatively lightly taxed economy. Since 1997, the Government have introduced a wide-ranging package of measures to make the UK an attractive place for business to locate and to help small businesses, including cuts in the corporation tax, an R&amp;D tax credit for all companies, and an exemption for gains and losses on most substantial shareholdings. In August 2003, the Government published a consultation document
  670W
  ("Corporation Tax Reform") on proposals for taking forward the Government's commitment to ensuring that the UK has a competitive and fair tax system.

  Directory Inquiries
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the response by Oftel to problems raised by customers with the new 118 directory assistance providers. [132851]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government welcome in principle the opening up of the Directory Inquiries Market to competition. However, the implementation of Directory Inquiries liberalisation is a matter for the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel) and the enforcement of the regulatory regime is for the regulator, the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS).

  Fireworks
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further measures are being taken to enforce the age restriction on the sale of fireworks. [133216]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  No further measures are being taken to enforce the age restriction on the sale of fireworks under the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997. Recent research undertaken indicates that trading standards departments generally give high-priority to firework matters during the firework season including enforcement of the age restriction. This often includes test purchasing by under 18s in many trading standards authority areas.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being taken to prevent firework-related injuries. [133225]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The DTI's annual firework safety campaign aims to encourage the public to take care when using fireworks in order to help reduce the number of firework-related injuries. This year's campaign is focusing on the misuse of fireworks by young teenagers and the safe use of sparklers by young children.

  Also the provisions of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 governing the safety of fireworks used by the public and the fireworks industry's voluntary ban on air bomb type fireworks both help in preventing firework-related injuries.

  Investment in Canada
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will break down by region and by(a) industrial and (b) economic sector investment by UK companies in Canada in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [133650]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Data on investment by UK companies in Canada is available only by industry sector as shown in the following table. Data for 2002 will be published early next year.
  671W

  UK foreign direct investment in Canada by industry 1997–2001

  £ million

  Stock level at year end

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Agriculture, forestry & fishing

  1—

  2—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Mining & quarrying(including oil/gas)

  703

  2—

  900

  2,493

  1,495

  Food products

  786

  808

  900

  1,210

  2—

  Textile & wood, printing & publishing

  157

  126

  168

  137

  164

  Chemical, plastic & fuel products

  619

  487

  773

  576

  891

  Metal & mechanical products

  120

  132

  299

  396

  640

  Office, IT & communications equipment

  2—

  3

  2

  2—

  2—

  Transport equipment

  2—

  77

  308

  387

  70

  Other manufacturing

  570

  253

  243

  81

  369

  Electricity, gas & water

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Construction

  187

  103

  106

  2—

  2—

  Retail/wholesale trade & repairs

  492

  205

  180

  969

  374

  Hotels & restaurants

  2—

  -1

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Transport & communications

  81

  85

  186

  183

  74

  Financial services

  1,467

  988

  1,108

  12,263

  2,012

  Real estate & business services

  511

  990

  379

  275

  420

  Other services

  33

  4

  45

  2—

  2—

  Total UK FBI in Canada

  5,748

  4,952

  5,627

  10,142

  11,843

  1—nil or less than half of one million

  2—disclosive data

  Source:

  National Statistics, Overseas Direct Investment

  Post Office Closures
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices have closed under the Urban Reinvention Programme. [133508]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand that Post Office Ltd. produces information on post office closures, including those made under the urban reinvention programme, on a quarterly basis. There were 342 closures under the Urban Reinvention Programme to end of June 2003, the latest quarter for which figures are currently available.

  Quality Mark
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent by her Department on running the Quality Mark scheme since its introduction; and if she will make a statement. [132847]

  Nigel Griffiths
  From its introduction until March 2003, approximately £6.7 million has been spent on development, marketing and running costs of the scheme.

  The Quality Mark is viewed by the construction industry as a valuable marketing tool to guarantee high quality work, underpinned by independent corroboration of a contractor's competence.

  Leading trade associations in the sector support the scheme and are working with the DTI on Quality Mark.

  Recycled Rubber
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much recycled rubber was imported in each of the last five years; what proportion imports accounted for of all recycled rubber used in each of those years; and if she will make a statement. [132670]
  672W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Figures for the import of recycled rubber are:

  Kilograms

  Imports

  Reclaimed rubber1

  Waste rubber

  1998

  2,712,604

  4,038,920

  1999

  2,200,850

  3,442,150

  2000

  1,186,301

  3,807,662

  2001

  1,325,191

  5,084,458

  2002

  2,246,603

  6,749,131

  1Reclaimed rubber in primary forms or in plates, sheets or strip (CN 400300.

  2 Waste parings and scrap of unhardened rubber and powders and granules obtained therefrom (CN400400).

  Although there is some limited information on the sales of reclaimed rubber by UK manufacturers [PRODCOM Report PRA 25130, available from the National Statistics website http://www.statistics.gov.uk/onlineproducts/PRODCOM2001_annual.asp], it excludes reclaimed rubber not sold because it is subsequently used by the same manufacturer. It also excludes such recycled rubber products as those obtained by cutting up worn-out tyres. As such it is not possible to produce an estimate of the use of recycled rubber.

  Relocation Abroad
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to encourage UK based companies not(a) to relocate off-shore and (b) to transfer jobs to other countries. [133521]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This Government believe that, as UK based companies are operating in an increasingly competitive, global marketplace, they have the freedom to choose where to locate in order to maximise their competitive advantage. The Government are continuing to create a competitive environment in the UK where an educated and skilled work force, better infrastructure and access to European and world markets has made
  673W
  this country the leading country for Foreign Direct Investment in Europe and second in the world only to the United States.

  The UK is a trading nation. Our economic long-term interest must be based on our ability to innovate to produce high value-added goods and services which need a highly skilled work force, high calibre managers, forward looking unions and knowledgeable consumers. A protectionist approach would damage the interests of the UK. Figures on the potential for outsourcing do not take account of the fact that the UK could gain jobs in some sectors as a result of increased competition for services. We are the world's second largest exporters of service products especially in financial services. Our service exports at £82 billion are larger than our service imports at £69 billion. Growing international competition in services could see us gain more jobs then we lose.

  Road Haulage
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations her Department has received regarding(a) Drivertime Recruitment Ltd. and (b) Drivernet Ltd. of Manchester. [132201]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  For reasons of confidentiality my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry cannot comment upon the affairs of individual companies.

  The Department's Companies Investigation Branch is however always ready to receive for consideration any information with regard to companies whose activities give cause for concern.

  I have already responded to a letter received from the hon. Member for Kettering with regard to this matter.

  Sub-post Offices
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the package of funding for the Post Office Ltd. which the Government has provided to maintain the rural post office network will be spent on Scottish post offices. [133487]

  Mr. Timms
  The package of support that the Government have made available for the rural post office network is for the maintenance of the rural network across the UK, including Scotland. The Post Office does not account for assistance by country. Of 8,465 rural post offices in the UK, 1,205 are in Scotland.

  Overall, the Government have made £450 million available to Post Office Ltd. to maintain a rural post office network for a three year period from 2003–04 to 2005–06. This breaks down as follows:

  £ million

  Assigned office payments (fixed payments to sub-postmasters)

  198

  Support costs (provision of computer services, secure cash delivery etc)

  227

  Flexible fund to trial innovative ways of delivering services

  25

  674W
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidelines the Government has set Post Office Ltd. In its use of funds provided to maintain the rural post office network in relation to the devolved regions. [133860]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have placed on Post Office Ltd. an obligation to use the funds provided to maintain a rural post office network throughout the UK. This obligation extends to the devolved regions. The obligation is intended to be achieved by ensuring that there are no avoidable closures of post office branches in rural areas before 1 April 2006.

  In determining whether an individual closure is avoidable, Post Office Ltd. Will follow the provisions of an agreed code of practice.

  Trading Statistics
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on trade levels to EU countries since UK membership in 1973; and what effect this has had on UK trade to non-EU countries. [132937]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK's trade with the EU1 has grown steadily since UK membership in 1973. The value of the UK's total goods trade (exports and imports) with other EU countries has increased 20-fold since 1973 compared to a 12-fold increase in total goods trade with non-EU countries. Consequently, the EU's share of the UK's total trade in goods rose from 45 per cent. In 1973 to 57 per cent. In 2002.

  Data for trade in services with all other current members of the EU before 1992 is not readily available, therefore it is not easy to calculate the exact increase in UK trade for goods and services since 1973. The UK's exports of goods and services to the EU are now worth £142 billion and imports from the EU are worth £166 billion, making the value of the UK's trade with the EU £308 billion. The EU accounts for 53 per cent. Of the UK's total trade, but for trade in services the proportion is 43 per cent.

  The UK's membership and increasing economic integration with the EU, in particular following the Single Market Programme, has generated considerable opportunities for UK businesses. This has been behind the substantial growth in UK trade with the EU. But, as the 12-fold rise in UK trade in goods with non-EU members demonstrates, this has not been at the expense of overall trade with non-EU members, which has continued to grow rapidly.
  1All figures refer to the UK's trade with the other current 14 members of the EU.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Maintenance/Renewal Contracts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what the total cost was of the recall of the House from 8 September to 18 September; how many maintenance and renewal contracts were deferred for this period; and what the additional staff cost was. [132875]
  675W
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes on 21 October 2003,Official Report, column 504W for details of the costs of the September sitting of the House.

  No maintenance or renewal contracts were deferred during this period, because the majority were programmed after the September sitting was announced. The few which were organised before this were re-planned or re-programmed to fit in with the daily sitting times. The costs of this are included in the figures given in my previous answer.

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Noise
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to include the measurement of aircraft noise in the noise mapping the Department is required to carry out under the terms of the EU Noise Directive 2002/49/EC; and what methods it will employ to measure these noise levels. [133774]

  Mr. McNulty
  Major airports will be covered by the Directive. A major airport is defined in the Directive as a civil airport, designated by the member state, which has more than 50,000 movements (a movement being a take-off or a landing) per year excluding those purely for training purposes on light aircraft. The noise maps will be produced by computation using the standard methodology as set out in ECAC Document 29.

  Airport Capacity (South-East)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to make planning decisions involving airport capacity, before he has decided how to tackle long term environmental damage consequent on them. [133333]

  Mr. McNulty
  The air transport White Paper will not take planning decisions, but will set out a long term framework of Government policy for airport development and seek to maximize the beneficial aspects of aviation and minimize the negative effects. In deciding on policies on new airport capacity, we will take account of the environmental impacts and consider measures to control and mitigate those impacts.

  Aviation Security
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent assessment has been made of the security threat posed against civil aviation by terrorists using portable ground to air missiles; [133129]

  (2) what security measures have been put in place at airports and surrounding areas to protect aircraft from potential terrorist attacks; [133130]

  (3)what recent discussions have taken place with (a) airlines and (b) other Governments on international threats posed by terrorists with portable missile units. [133131]

  Mr. McNulty
  The terrorist threat to UK civil aviation, including from portable ground to air missiles or MANPADS, is kept under active review, as too are 676W
  the security measures needed to protect UK aviation against terrorism in all its various guises. The potential threat from MANPADS is among those being addressed, including through joint work with industry and with foreign partners, both bilaterally and in the relevant multilateral fora. Security considerations make it inappropriate to comment further on these matters.

  Buses
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the arrangements for checking increases in costs of tenders for bus services; what the percentage change in tender costs to local authorities in the North West for bus services has been over the last five years; and what arrangements are in place to ensure that local authorities can specify(a) times, (b) frequencies, (c) routes, (d)fares and(e) standards of bus journey. [132560]

  Mr. McNulty
  We keep a close watch on increased tender prices through our own research and the regular survey by the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers. We also have frequent discussions with local authorities, for example through the Bus Partnership Forum, about funding of bus services.

  Our information is that the prices for contracts let in the North West region in 2002–03 were on average around 17 per cent. above the price when the contract was last let (typically two to three years before). There was significant variation between authorities within the region. Information is not available for the region for contracts let in previous years.

  In using their subsidy powers under the Transport Act 1985, local authorities may specify contract conditions on all the aspects listed at (a) to (e). About 17 per cent. of local bus services are provided under these powers.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which use CCTV (i) on buses, (ii) at bus stops and (iii) on buses and at bus stops, listing the (A) the number of attacks reported and (B) the cost of vandalism (1) 12 months before and (2) after implementation; and if he will make a statement; [133947]

  (2)what measures have been taken to encourage (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to improve lighting at bus stops; and if he will make a statement; [133948]

  (3)if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies that have improved lighting at bus stops, providing details of (i) the number of attacks reported and (ii) the cost of vandalism (A) 12 months before and (B) after implementation; and if he will make a statement; [133949]

  (4)what measures have been taken to encourage (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to cut back vegetation at bus stops; and if he will make a statement; [133950]

  (5)if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies that have cut back vegetation at bus stops, listing (i) the number of attacks reported and (ii) the cost of vandalism (A) 12 months before and (B) after implementation; and if he will make a statement; [133951]
  677W
  (6)what measures have been taken to encourage (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to employ full-time schools liaison officers to tackle anti-social behaviour on buses; and if he will make a statement; [134019]

  (7)if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which have employed full-time schools liaison officers to tackle anti-social behaviour; what estimate he has made of the cost of vandalism (i) before and (ii) after the scheme was set up; and if he will make a statement. [134020]

  Mr. McNulty
  In April 2002 the Department published "Get on board: an agenda for improving personal security in bus travel", including guidance and good practice case studies on measures that can be taken by bus companies and local authorities. This included advice on the use of CCTV on buses and at bus stations, the need for good lighting at bus stops, the need to ensure that bus stops and shelters should be kept unobscured by vegetation and on employing schools liaison officers.

  The Government have established the Safer Travel on Buses and Coaches Panel (STOP), bringing together bus operators, local authorities, police, unions, and other stakeholders to exchange and disseminate good practice in tackling problems caused by crime and anti-social behaviour around bus and coach travel. It is currently updating the booklet "Protecting Bus and Coach Crews". This includes advice on CCTV, good lighting and links with schools.

  In its recent publication "Travelling to School: an action plan", the Government ask schools and local authorities to work with the police, bus operators and the local community to promote positive behaviour by pupils on their journey to and from school.

  Data on the extent to which bus companies and local authorities have applied measures such as CCTV, better lighting, cutting back vegetation and working with schools and their effect on incidences of vandalism, assaults and anti-social behaviour are not collected centrally. While the Government provide advice on good practice, its implementation is a matter for operators and local authorities.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to widen pavements at bus stops on busy streets; and if he will make a statement. [133952]

  Mr. McNulty
  It is for local highway authorities to ensure that footways are suited to the surroundings and pedestrian numbers. The Department has published Local Transport Note 1/97 "Keeping Buses Moving", and "Inclusive Mobility—A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure". These give some advice on local build-outs of the footway at bus stops (sometimes called "bus stop boarders") and recommendations for footway widths at bus stops.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies
  678W
  to offer free travel for under-16s on buses when accompanied by an adult; and if he will make a statement; [134017]

  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which offer free travel for under-16s on buses when accompanied by an adult; how many passengers under 16 were carried (i) before, and (ii) after implementation; and if he will make a statement. [134018]

  Mr. McNulty
  There have been no measures to encourage local authorities and bus companies to offer free travel for under-16s on buses when accompanied by an adult. Free travel to and from school is provided by local education authorities under the education acts for school children up to the age of 16 living more than the statutory walking distances from school. Under the Transport Act 1985 local authorities have a discretionary power to provide concessionary travel for children of school age. That power applies to all journeys, not just those to or from school.

  We do not collect information on what bus companies offer for this age group nor on how many passengers under 16 were carried before and after implementation of any discount schemes.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to implement travel training courses for bus travel for the (i) elderly and (ii) disabled; and if he will make a statement; [134022]

  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies which have implemented a travel training scheme; how many (i) elderly and (ii) people with disabilities have attended; and if he will make a statement. [134023]

  Mr. McNulty
  We recognise the value of travel training and familiarisation for older and disabled people. Over the last year, for example, we have been monitoring a programme at a school in Yorkshire to help young people with learning disabilities to be able to travel on mainstream services. We aim to publish guidance on the lessons learnt in that programme for wider dissemination.

  We currently have no formal schemes in place to promote such activity within the bus industry or within local authorities. We do, however, take every opportunity to promote such initiatives in discussions with them.

  There is no centrally held data on individual schemes that have been introduced.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies that have widened pavements at bus stops on busy roads, providing details of the number of pedestrian casualties (i) 12 months before and (ii) after implementation; and if he will make a statement. [134098]

  Mr. McNulty
  This is a matter for local highway authorities. The Department does not hold data on which local authorities have widened pavements at bus stops on busy roads, nor on pedestrian casualties at those locations.
  679W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have been taken to encourage(a) local authorities and (b) bus companies to introduce low-floor buses; and if he will make a statement; [134105]

  (2) if he will list the (a) local authorities and (b) bus companies that have introduced low-floor buses; how many (i) passengers were carried, (ii) disabled passengers were carried (A) before and (B) after implementation and (iii) services have been run; and if he will make a statement. [134114]

  Mr. McNulty
  In recent years, low-floor buses have been introduced in increasing numbers. This change was promoted both by the Department, through a series of research and demonstration projects, and by our statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, who produced a recommended specification for low-floor buses which they disseminated widely.

  Since 31 December 2000, all new buses and coaches over 7.5 tonnes and with a carrying capacity of more than 22 passengers, which have been introduced on local and scheduled services, have had to meet the access requirements of the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000. Those Regulations, which were made under the Disability discrimination Act 1995, set down minimum access requirements for vehicles to address the needs of disabled people, including wheelchair users. The Regulations do allow for high-floor vehicles, but in the case of full size single deck and double deck buses, production has now moved to low-floor designs.

  About one-third of full size local buses are now low-floor.

  There are no centrally held statistics about bus patronage before and after introduction of low-floor vehicles. However, from the research which the Department carried out it, was clear that people were able to board and alight from these vehicles more easily, and that with the elimination of steps in the entrance, many more elderly and disabled people would be able to use buses and to use them for longer.

  Of course, having the right vehicle is only part of the solution. We have also made changes to the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations to introduce new duties on drivers to provide reasonable assistance to disabled passengers. The Department is also working with TransFed—the training body for the bus industry—to update their NVQ disability awareness training material for bus drivers.

  Concessionary Travel
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of the costs to(a) each local authority, (b) London boroughs and (c) local government as a whole of extending the national minimum standards for concessionary travel schemes to give people over the age of 70 a 100 per cent. Discount on fares; [133960]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the increase in the local government finance settlement necessary fully to reimburse local government for the costs of increasing the national minimum standards for concessionary
  680W
  travel schemes from a 50 per cent. Discount to a (a) 60 per cent., (b) 75 per cent., (c) 90 per cent. And (d) 100 per cent. discount for (i) people over the age of 60, (ii) the disabled and (iii) in total; [133961]

  (3)what estimate he has made of the cost to (a) each local authority, (b) London boroughs and (c) local government as a whole, of increasing the national minimum standards for concessionary travel schemes from a 50 per cent. discount to a (i) 60 per cent., (ii) 75 per cent., (iii) 90 per cent. and (iv) 100 per cent. discount for (A) people over the age of 60 years, (B) the disabled and (C) in total; [133962]

  (4)what estimate he has made of the change in the local government finance settlement necessary fully to reimburse local government for the costs of extending the national minimum standards for concessionary travel schemes to give people over the age of 70 a 100 per cent. discount on fares. [133963]

  Mr. McNulty
  The extension this year of the minimum statutory requirement to men aged 60 to 65 cost £50 million per year. The Government do not plan further extensions of concessionary fares. We estimate that free concessionary travel for pensioners in England (women aged 60 and over, men aged 65 and over) would cost in excess of an extra £300 million a year. We have not costed all the variants listed in the question and could do so only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on the recognition and acceptance of public transport concessionary passes, issued in Northern Ireland, by public transport services in England. [133242]

  Dr. Howells
  There are no arrangements in place between England and Northern Ireland over the recognition and acceptance of concessionary travel passes, nor do we have plans to set up such a scheme.

  In England, local authorities implement concessionary bus travel schemes for their eligible residents. Beyond the statutory half-fare minimum requirement, local authorities are free to determine the extent and generosity of their schemes within their areas.

  Local authorities can negotiate with train operating companies to participate in local concessionary rail fare schemes, or ask the Strategic Rail Authority to require franchised train operators to participate in them. The SRA will only do this if it does not result in additional cost to it or the operator. In addition, national discounted railcard schemes for the elderly, disabled and young in Great Britain are protected by the Railways Act 1993.

  MOT Certificates
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles he estimates are on British roads without a valid MOT certificate. [133728]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is not currently available. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) is responsible for supervision of the MOT testing scheme and is involved in a private finance initiative contract with Siemens Business Services to establish a central MOT database which will hold information on every test carried out in Great Britain.
  681W
  Roll-out is currently planned for 2004. Twelve months after the completion of roll-out, when the database is fully populated, it will be possible to compare the MOT data held by VOSA against the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's (DVLA) database of registered vehicles to establish the number of vehicles without current MOT certificates.

  Port of Tyne Authority
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with Port of Tyne Authority concerning issues of environmental pollution connected to the dredging of the river. [133391]

  Dr. Howells
  Officials from the Transport team at the Government Office for the North East have held recent, without prejudice discussions with representatives from the Port of Tyne Authority about the port's application to DEFRA for a licence for the dredging and sea disposal of contaminated sediment from various locations on the River Tyne. This matter is, of course, the subject of on-going negotiations between the port and DEFRA.

  Railway Stations (Wales)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the improvements to railway stations in Wales, broken down by(a) location and (b) cost in each of the last five years; and what the proposed improvements are for the next three years. [1330541]

  Mr. McNulty
  [pursuant to the answer, 22 October 2003, Official Report, c. 567–68W]: In September 2002 £2.4 million was provided by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) for the installation of 'Inform Cymru' at 46 stations in Wales; in April 2002 £99,000 for additional car parking spaces, improved security and better passenger facilities at Haverfordwest Station; and £1.1 million for a new waiting room, toilet with disabled access, CCTV and Customer Information Service/ PublicAnnouncement (CIS/PA) at Trefforest Station.

  The new Wales and Borders franchise agreement which was signed on 20 October 2003 provides £400,000 for improving car parks, including those at Cardiff Central (Wood Street) and Newport. Under the Vale of Glamorgan scheme the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) is meeting the costs for the building of the two new stations at Rhoose and Llanwit Major. The Vale of Glamorgan line is expected to re-open in December 2004. The Welsh Assembly Government has also set aside £2.5 million for Wales and Borders to improve 47 of their stations before April 2004. The Ebbw Valley scheme, which provides for up to six new stations, is still under consideration by the Welsh Assembly Government.

  Railways
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the railway industry has for station renewal and improvement in the Thames Valley. [133665]

  Dr. Howells
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), in conjunction with Reading borough council, is developing a business case for major capacity enhancements at Reading. The project would require a682W
  Transport and Works Act Order, an application for which would be made around 2005. The business case will form part of that application.

  Local stakeholders are also looking to commission a feasibility study on a proposal to relocate Oxford station to increase platform capacity.

  More generally, the SRA has held a competition for the right to run the Thames Trains franchise in the 2004–06 period. The competition required bidders to propose ways of improving station environments. The bids are currently being evaluated by the Strategic Rail Authority. A decision is expected shortly.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans(a) he and (b) the railway industry have to expand track capacity on (i) the Reading to Waterloo line and (ii) the Great Western Reading to Paddington line. [133666]

  Dr. Howells
  The Great Western Main Line will be the subject of one of the first of the Strategic Rail Authority's route utilisation strategies, on which the SRA expect to consult in summer 2004. The work will help inform decisions on any future route upgrades.

  Combining the Thames, Great Western and Wessex franchises from 2006 will create a single operator at Paddington and so free up some capacity. The SRA are also considering track layout revisions at Reading which, subject to affordability, could be undertaken when resignalling takes place in 2008.

  River Traffic
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the introduction of a navigation authority in England to regulate river traffic; and if he will make a statement. [134048]

  Dr. Howells
  No representations have been received.

  Road Journey Times
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce journey times on roads. [133204]

  Dr. Howells
  The 10-year plan for transport published in July 2000, set out a £180 billion integrated investment strategy in roads, rail and local transport of which £59 billion was for roads. The Government's clear priority is to reduce congestion, and offer a wider choice of quicker, safer, more reliable travel on road, rail and other public transport.

  The Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to the House of Commons on 9 July in which he announced details of a £7 billion package of improvements to keep the traffic flowing on some of Britain's most congested strategic roads which will be funded out of the roads element of the 10-year plan.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the action being taken to improve road safety on the A414 between Chelmsford and the M11/Harlow junction. [132928]
  683W
  Dr. Howells
  The section of the A414 between Chelmsford and the M11/Harlow junction is the responsibility of Essex County Council which has identified it as one of the routes to be the subject of a priority route study. Initial analysis has been undertaken and accident measures are being determined for implementation in the next financial year, subject to the availability of funding.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance his Department provides on the siting of speed limit signs on roads. [133356]

  Dr. Howells
  Guidance exists in the form of traffic advisory leaflet 1/95, "Speed Limit Signs, a Guide to Good Practice", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House. It is also available via the Department for Transport website.

  Traffic Commissioners
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the statutory functions of traffic commissioners; what powers he has to intervene in the decisions made by traffic commissioners; if he will list the public inquiries called by traffic commissioners in the past year and the basis on which these inquiries were called; and if he will publish the guidance issued to traffic commissioners in respect of self-employed traffic managers. [132777]

  Mr. McNulty
  Traffic commissioners are statutorily responsible for licensing the operators of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles in their area, including taking disciplinary action against operators who breach the conditions of their licence: the conduct of vocational drivers, and for the registration of local bus services. The traffic commissioner for Scotland is also responsible for taxi fare and parking appeals.

  The Secretary of State has no powers to intervene in decisions by traffic commissioners in carrying out their statutory functions.

  Details of public inquiries are published by the traffic commissioners in their Annual Report to the Secretary of State. The report for 2002–03 is due to be published shortly and copies will be placed in the library.

  No guidance has been issued to traffic commissioners in respect of self-employed transport managers. The requirements for transport managers are set out in the legislation and it is the responsibility of traffic commissioners to interpret whether these requirements are being met in individual cases.

  Trans Consult Ltd.
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action he has taken to investigate claims of discrimination against Trans Consult Ltd. by his Department's traffic commissioners; [132425]

  (2)what his assessment is of the economic impact of the alleged discrimination against Trans Consult Ltd. by his Department's traffic commissioners; [132426]

  (3)if he will launch an independent inquiry into the alleged discrimination and conduct of his Department's traffic commissioners against (a) Trans Consult Ltd.,(b) its clients and(c) its agents; [132427]
  684W
  (4)what the cost has been of bringing (a) small businesses, (b) farmers and (c) transport operators before public inquiries solely because they are connected to Trans Consult Ltd. [132428]

  Dr. Howells
  Statutorily independent Traffic Commissioners are responsible for deciding applications for the licence required by operators of public service vehicles and heavy goods vehicles and Ministers cannot interfere in their decisions. Commissioners must satisfy themselves that applicants meet statutory conditions about good repute, financial standing and professional competence. They are also responsible for taking action against licence holders who do not comply with the terms of their licence. Traffic Commissioners can call public inquiries to assist their investigations. These inquiries are treated as tribunals. Appeals must be made to the Transport Tribunal.

  Widford Bridge
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on repairing the Widford Bridge, Chelmsford; and how long he expects the work will take to complete. [132930]

  Dr. Howells
  Widford Bridge is owned by Network Rail and is included in their national load carrying assessment programme. A draft assessment report on the bridge is being prepared by W. S. Atkins on behalf of Essex County Council as part of a Joint Venture Agreement with Network Rail and this is expected to be delivered to Network Rail's consultant by the end of November 2003. If the report concludes that the bridge is weak, a weight restriction would be imposed as an interim measure.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government is taking to reduce the number of animals used for experimentation in the UK. [132230]

  Caroline Flint
  Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) act 1986 Act the Home Office, and its counterpart in Northern Ireland (the Department of Health, Social Security and Public Safety), license the use of animals for scientific purposes where there is no non-animal alternative, and then only when both the number of animals and their suffering are minimised. This reflects the principles of the 3Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement.

  As the regulator of the use of live animals in scientific procedures the Government is demand-led—it has no control over the number of project licence applications which it receives. While we must seek to minimise the number of animals used in particular programmes of work, we cannot therefore influence the overall amount of animal research and testing which takes place—that is determined by many other factors, including the economic climate and global trends in scientific endeavour. There are current developments—such as

  685W
  advances in the use that can be made of genetically modified animals-which may lead in coming years to more rather than fewer animals used overall.

  The Government fully supports and encourages development and promotion of the 3Rs in a number of ways, and additional impetus has been given to its efforts to that end by the related recommendations recently put forward by the House of Lords Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures. In the longer term we must rely for any further significant reduction in animal use largely on the scientific community's own continuing efforts to develop, validate and accept non-animal alternative methods.

  Drugs
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrestees in(a) Haltemprice and Howden, (b) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (c) the Humberside police authority area tested positive for Category A and B drugs in each of the last two quarters for which figures are available. [133219]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]Drug testing of persons in police detention (after charge) is not currently available in Haltemprice and Howden or the East Riding of Yorkshire.

  Within the Humberside Police Authority, the following figures relate to the Kingston-upon-Hull Basic Command Unit (BCU):

  Out of 121 attempted tests since the drug testing after charge programme began on 8 September 2003, 48 people tested positive for both category A and B drugs. Of those 48 positive results, 52 per cent. Tested positive for cocaine, 15 per cent. Tested positive for opiates and 33 per cent. Tested positive for both opiates and cocaine.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate how many hits on average per registered heroin addict have been seized by the police in each of the last 10 years. [132732]

  Caroline Flint
  It is not possible to estimate the number of hits on average per registered heroin addict seized by the police because only broad ranging estimates of the number of heroin addicts are available. The quantity of drug used in a "hit" will also vary. We do have data on the number of seizures of heroin made by the police, and the quantities they seized: these appear in the table.

  These data are taken from the annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin, and Finding 202 "Seizures of drugs in the UK 2001". These are available on the RDS website and in the Library (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb402.pdf and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r202.pdf).

  Number of seizures of heroin and quantities in kilograms seized by the police by year 1993 to 2001

  Heroin seizures

  Number

  Quantity (Kg)

  1993

  3,480

  130

  1994

  4,340

  160

  1995

  6,340

  360

  1996

  9,700

  330

  1997

  12,340

  490

  1998

  15,040

  360

  686W

  Number of seizures of heroin and quantities in kilograms seized by the police by year 1993 to 2001

  Heroin seizures

  1999

  15,360

  1,500

  2000

  16,120

  1,990

  2001

  18,080

  2,800

  Source:

  Home Office Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, United Kingdom—Supplementary Tables and Findings 202

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) special advisers, (b) press officers, (c) civil servants, (d) advisers to civil servants and (e) permanent staff were working for his Department in each year since 1996. [126483]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The figures can be found in Table C of the annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" published by Her Majesty's Stationary Office for the Government Statistical Service annually, and which covers permanent staff numbers in each Department and Agency from 1995 to 2002. Information on the Civil Service is published annually in 'Civil Service Statistics', copies of which have been placed in the Library. The latest edition, based on April 2002 data, was published on 24 July 2003. These figures include statistics on press officers, but the term "advisers to civil servants" is not one that is recognised.

  Gun Trade
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the(a)trade in and (b) possession of (i) replica guns and (ii) disabled guns and (c) incidence of conversion of such guns to fire live ammunition; and what proposals he has to bring forward legislation to tackle gun crime. [132546]

  Caroline Flint
  There are no reliable statistics relating to the number of imitation and deactivated firearms in circulation. Imitation weapons were involved in 1,201 recorded offences in 2001–02. An examination of 217 real guns submitted to the Forensic Science Service between April-June 2003 showed that 59 had been converted from blank firing replicas, 19 from air weapons and two from de-activated guns.

  Offences involving the use of guns are varied and need to be tackled on a number of different fronts. Tough laws and effective enforcement are important and the current Criminal Justice Bill includes proposals for a five-year minimum sentence for the illegal possession of prohibited firearms. We have also included provisions in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill which will ban the carrying of imitation firearms or air weapons in a public place without reasonable excuse. The sale, manufacture, transfer and import of air weapons which use the self-contained air cartridge system—which is readily converted to fire conventional ammunition—will also be banned. The law already regards any imitation which can be readily converted as a firearm which means that it is banned if it is a handgun.

  Police
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Chairman of the Association of Police Authorities on next year's funding settlement. [133610]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has regular meetings with the Chairman of the Association of Police Authorities to discuss a range of issues, including prospects for future funding.

  Prison Population
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) unconvicted and (b) convicted unsentenced prisoners are held in prisons in England and Wales, broken down by sex. [131767]

  Paul Goggins
  On 31 July 2003 there were 7,163 untried and 4,603 convicted unsentenced males, and 537 untried and 495 convicted unsentenced females in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Football Association (Financial Support)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what level of financial support was given by Sport England to the Football Association in the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement on the purpose to which this expenditure is put. [133231]

  Mr. Caborn
  None. All Sport England Lottery support for football is channelled through the Football Foundation, a partnership between the Government, the Football Association and the FA Premier League. The Foundation receives income from the three funding partners in roughly equal proportions. It received approximately £17 million from public sources in 2002–03. Sport England's contribution to the Foundation was £6 million in that year, the balance of the £17 million coming from the New Opportunities Fund and the Reduction in Pool Betting Duty.

  75 per cent. of the Foundation's total income is used to develop grass roots football, the balance funding community and education projects, and essential ground safety work.

  Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to improve reception to terrestrial television in areas that traditionally have suffered from a weak signal. [130583]

  Estelle Morris
  There are no plans to develop further the analogue terrestrial television transmission network, this is to enable the broadcasters to concentrate their resources on the digital terrestrial television (DTT) network. The Digital Television Action Plan tasks Government to determine and agree a target level of coverage for digital terrestrial public services post-switchover in 2004. This spectrum plan will also enable us to assess the possibilities of improving current 688W
  reception levels of DTT services across the UK. The latest version of the Digital Television Action Plan is available at: www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Breast Feeding
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to ensure that health objectives relating to breast feeding are supported within the school curriculum. [133607]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]: The Department has no plans to specifically address breast feeding in the school curriculum. However, through Personal, Social and Health Education pupils learn about health and well-being, including making healthier, safer choices. They are taught to think about the alternatives and long and short term consequences when making decisions about personal health; and to seek professional advice confidently and find information about health. They also consider social and moral dilemmas, for example, how the choices they make affect others.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the average class size was in secondary schools, broken down by(a) school year and (b) local education authority in each year since 1997; [133688]

  (2) what the average class size in primary schools was, broken down by (a) school year and (b) local education authority in each year since 1997. [133689]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The available information has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Data on class size by year group was not collected prior to 1998 for primary schools and prior to 2001 for secondary schools.

  Early Literacy Support
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what pilot studies were carried out in assessing the effectiveness of the Early Literacy Support approach to the teaching of reading; and if he will make a statement on the study and the results. [128687]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  A systematic study covering the one-year pilot of the Early Literacy Support (ELS) programme was taken forward during 2000–01 by a team of primary HMI, who have evaluated the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies since 1998. Their detailed findings informed the development of the programme and were summarised in Ofsted's third Annual Report on the Literacy Strategy. Participating teachers, teaching assistants and literacy consultants also provided systematic feedback on the pilot which resulted in the materials and the programme being appropriately modified and refined before publication.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will reward the fourth year
  689W
  undergraduate initial teacher training students with similar financial treatment to that for those committing to a Post Graduate Certificate in Education. [133582]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]My right hon. Friend has no present plans to change the eligibility conditions for teacher training bursaries.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information he has collated on(a) the administration costs to (i) local education authorities, (ii) the Student Loan Company and (iii) the Department of Assessment and Implementation of Tuition Fees Remission and (b) the compliance cost to higher education institutions of this system. [133421]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is not available.

  Government funding of higher education institutions in England through the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) takes account of the cost to universities and colleges of administering tuition fees. The forecast income that institutions receive from student contributions to fees is abated by 5 per cent. for collection of fees and any default. For 2002–03, that amounts to an estimated £21.36 million. The latest survey of the non-payment of fee contributions, published by Universities UK in November 2002, found that the amount unpaid at July 2002 across the UK was well within the 5 per cent. set aside for administration and default.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Den Khodaida Water Project
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the aims are of the Den Khodaida Water Project in Afghanistan and the structure of the UK's involvement in it; if he will list the other countries involved in(a) projecting, (b) setting up and (c) running the project; and if he will make a statement. [133646]

  Hilary Benn
  Den Khodaida is a village in the hinterland of Kabul but lying outside the city boundary. The aim of the Den Khodaida Water Project is to repair the water supply system to the village. These repairs are on-going. The project is being implemented by one of the Civil-Military Co-operation teams of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The team is under Finnish command. There has been no direct British involvement in funding, designing or running the project. The EC has also not had any involvement.

  Foreign Aid
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the top 10 Department for International Development performers receive in direct budget support; and what percentage of that in his Department's budget was spent in those countries in the past 12 months. [133096]
  690W
  Hilary Benn
  DFID does not rank partner countries by performance. However, for the 10 largest recipients of bilateral assistance, the table lists total allocations and allocations of direct budget support (DBS) in 2002–03. As the table shows, allocations of DBS to the 10 largest recipients represent 58 per cent. of total DBS allocations and 7 per cent. of the total DFID bilateral programme.

  2002–03 Total spend (£ million)

  Direct budget support (DBS) (£ million)

  Percentage DBS of total DFID programme

  Percentage DBS of total DFID DBS

  India

  161

  30

  2

  14

  Tanzania

  96

  45

  2

  21

  Bangladesh

  77

  0

  0

  0

  Afghanistan

  75

  13

  1

  6

  Ghana

  56

  12

  1

  6

  Uganda

  55

  23

  1

  11

  Malawi

  52

  0

  0

  0

  Kenya

  45

  0

  0

  0

  Ethiopia

  43

  0

  0

  0

  China

  42

  0

  0

  0

  Horn of Africa
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what programmes his Department has(a) run and (b) supported in (i) Somaliland, (ii) Somalia in general, (iii) Ethiopia and (iv) Eritrea; and if he will make a statement. [133657]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK has increased its involvement in Somalia over the last year. Most of our resources are aimed at meeting humanitarian needs, although we have also begun to support activities in regions, which have demonstrated steps towards peace and democratisation. For example, we have supported the electoral process in Somaliland, as well as exploring development programming in education, health and governance. We have also been providing support through the European Union (EU) and the UN.

  We have provided substantial humanitarian assistance in response to current food shortages in Ethiopia. This has totalled £49.1 million since the beginning of 2002. We are also actively pressing ahead with our development programme for Ethiopia, as described in our Country Assistance Plan (CAP), published in March 2003. The CAP outlines our intention to work in three priority areas: education; food security; and capacity building. We will also continue to engage in HIV/AIDS, the private sector, roads and development of civil society.

  We have no bilateral development programme in Eritrea, though we do provide humanitarian assistance and the British Ambassador in Eritrea manages a Small Grants Scheme. Our main avenues of engagement and support are through the EU, World Bank and IMF.

  Iraq
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the £200 million of aid announced for Iraq reconstruction has been taken from his Department's contingency fund for humanitarian emergencies in 2003; and whether it will be ringfenced for particular projects. [133004]
  691W
  Hilary Benn
  DFID's contingency reserve exists to enable us to respond to both humanitarian emergencies and reconstruction needs. The £209 million now committed by DFID to humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq in 2003 has been found from a number of sources, including £75 million from DFID's contingency reserve, an additional £120 million provided by HM Treasury from the central reserve, and money already allocated for assistance to Iraq. About £151 million has been committed to United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs, some of which is earmarked for specific projects and some of which is allocated for an agreed range of activities in a sector. The remaining £58 million has been allocated directly by DFID to particular projects and activities, including DFID secondments to the Coalition Provisional Authority.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent discussions his Department has had with NGOs working with children and adults with learning disabilities in Iraq; [133475]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of people suffering from learning disabilities in Iraq. [133553]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has held no specific discussions with NGOs on this issue, and no assessment has been made to date.

  The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is responsible for institutions which work with children and adults with learning disabilities. UNICEF is working closely with the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs to support them to enhance services for vulnerable and disadvantaged children generally. DFID's programme in Iraq is focused on meeting the needs of all Iraqis, especially the most vulnerable.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total amount of humanitarian aid provided to Iraq since the beginning of the conflict is; and if he will make a statement. [133486]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has so far committed £209 million to humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq. Much of this finance is being channelled though organisations best placed to deliver assistance on the ground: United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and NGOs. The UK also provides 19 per cent. of European Community (EC) funding for Iraq. The total EC commitment to Iraq currently stands at €100 million.

  Substantial additional contributions are being made at the Madrid Donors Conference on 23 October. My written statement to the House of 14 October sets out the details.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures are in place to prevent food shortages after the cessation of the UN Oil for Food programme in Iraq. [133552]

  Hilary Benn
  The ending of OFF will result in a change in management responsibilities for the Iraqi food procurement and distribution system, and not the end of the food distribution system. There is food in the 692W
  pipeline until mid 2004 from contracts already funded and signed. As these contracts begin to expire the CPA will take over responsibility for contracting the supply of food and basic goods. Handover preparations have been under way for some time. The Ministry of Trade within the CPA is assessing expected OFF imports, the so called "food pipeline", against total needs. Where there is a shortfall the CPA is contracting alternative suppliers to provide the food. The financing for this will come from the CPA budget.

  In the South and Centre of Iraq the Ministry of Trade has always had responsibility for distributing food and basic goods purchased under the Oil For Food scheme. This will not change with the ending of the Oil for Food programme. In the three Northern Governorates the Oil for Food programme was run by the World Food Programme. On 21 November responsibility in the North for this system will pass to a new organisation, the "Program Co-ordination Office". This will work under the CPA and may be able to re-employ many of those currently employed on the distribution side. Work is progressing to ensure that this office has the capacity to carry out its new role. The UK has a food security advisor in the CPA Ministry of Trade, and stands ready to provide further assistance against identified needs.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial aid has been granted to Serbia and the Kosovo region since 1999; what has been achieved in the country to date; and if he will make a statement. [132942]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Since 1999, DFID has invested £161 million in the Union of Serbia and Montenegro, including Kosovo. Initially, we provided emergency humanitarian assistance covering such areas as food and drug supplies, emergency shelter, health care, mines clearance and funding for international relief agencies.

  We have since focused on supporting key economic and social reforms and the poverty reduction agenda, through both technical and budgetary assistance. We have funded strategic interventions such as the reform of Serbia's crumbling banking sector and the development of a merit-based civil service in post-conflict Kosovo. We have also provided £14 million as budgetary assistance to the Kosovo authorities to help meet the costs of administration and reconstruction during the post-conflict period. We also work through multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and the European Commission, contributing £393 million since 1999 through our share of EC development assistance. The EC is the biggest donor in the region, financing large-scale reconstruction programmes in the energy and transport sectors, as well as supporting administrative, economic and social reforms that will help the region rejoin the European mainstream.

  Recent reviews of our assistance strategies for the region have found that while international assistance has been successful so far in meeting humanitarian and reconstruction needs, the emerging challenge is to help the authorities to improve the environment for reforms and growth as levels of aid decline.
  693W
  We will continue our support and have allocated £7.4 million for the coming financial year, in addition to a further £2 million through the inter-ministerial Global Conflict Prevention Pool and our continued contributions through the EC.

  Liberia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the projects planned by his Department that are to be run in Liberia; what the(a) structure, (b) aims and (c) methods of each project are, and the projected schedule for project (i) initiation and (ii) conclusion; and if he will make a statement. [133647]

  Hilary Benn
  We have committed a total of £7.6 million this year for humanitarian programmes in Liberia, these are managed by the UN and other international relief agencies. An inter-departmental mission will visit Liberia in November. It will assess the current needs of the country, and the measures being taken by the international community, particularly through the UN, to assist the Transitional National Government to address them. The mission will make recommendations for the future role of the UK.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the issue of(a) short-term emergency aid, (b) medium-term humanitarian aid and (c) long-term development assistance to Liberia; what programmes (i) were outlined to him and (ii) he outlined; when and where these discussions took place; and if he will make a statement. [133648]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has been in regular contact with officials from USAID. In addition the FCO have regular discussions with the US Government concerning all aspects of the co-ordination of aid in Liberia. An inter-departmental mission will visit Liberia in November and will have further discussions with US officials on their plans. We understand that these may include support to security sector reform. There are provisional plans for a donor conference on Liberia, probably in December, at which donors will coordinate and exchange information on their intentions.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions(a) his Department and (b) representatives of the Government have had with representatives of the governments of (i) EU member states, (ii) Norway, (iii) EU accession candidate countries, (iv) the US, (v) ECOWAS member states, (vi) Commonwealth member states and (vii) Japan on the subject of post-conflict reconstruction in Liberia; when and where these discussions took place; what concerns were raised during each discussion and by whom; and if he will make a statement. [133649]

  Hilary Benn
  Discussions on Liberia, by DFID and the FCO, have taken place with a range of governments and agencies. These have included EU member states, particularly France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy concerning aid to Liberia. We have also discussed with Norway the possibility of Norwegian police officers being seconded to UNMIL. We have had regular contact with the U.S. on all aspects of the situation in Liberia. We have had close and continuing contact with 694W
  ECOWAS concerning its role in Liberia, and have contributed £1 million, to its international force. There has been contact with other states. We have had close contact with the European Commission concerning their intentions in Liberia.

  Discussions are taking place on arrangements for a possible donors conference on Liberia in mid December. This will be an opportunity for the international community to coordinate its proposals.

  Malaria
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money his Department will give(a) for medicines to fight malaria and (b) to research into affordable anti-malarials in 2003–04. [133551]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is strongly committed to meeting the Millennium Development Goal to halt and begin to reverse the incidence of malaria by 2015, recognising the importance of malaria, not just in terms of disease burden, but also the potential it has to undermine economic growth and human development.

  Since 1998, DFID has provided in excess of £110 million to support malaria control activities globally and at country-level. This includes support to Roll Back Malaria, an international partnership to reduce competition and duplication of effort, develop technical consensus, increase political commitment and raise the profile of malaria.

  As DFID contributes to a broad based effort to tackle this complex disease, it is not possible to break down our spend to show amounts spent on medicines for malaria by year. Our support at international level is to initiatives which support general malaria control activities and at country level provides finance to governments, either as support to particular sectors or direct into governments' budgets. Our commitment to combating malaria was reaffirmed in May 2003 with our pledge to increase our commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria to US$280 million. Successful implementation of existing Global Fund proposals will result in the number of treatments for resistant malaria in Africa increasing from 15,000 to four million annually and also result in the purchase of seven and a half million insecticide treated nets over the next two years. These nets offer substantial protection against malaria.

  Despite the great complexity of malaria, it remains a disease that is preventable, treatable and curable. DFID is committed to supporting national governments and partners ensure that effective drugs and commodities are accessible to the poor. We have committed over £1.5 billion since 1997 to strengthen health systems to deliver vital drugs and health care treatment. In malaria endemic countries a significant part of drug spend will be for anti malarials.

  DFID also provides support to the Medical Research Council and initiatives such as the Medicines for Malaria Venture (£1 million in 2003–04) to help to find new low cost malaria treatments.

  Cambodia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the(a) de-mining and (b) mine awareness projects (i) directly run, (ii) primarily funded directly, (iii) financially assisted directly by his Department, (iv) primarily funded and (v) financially assisted through (A) local, (B) regional and (C) international non-governmental organisations using contributions from his Department in Cambodia since 1997, including the structure and methodology of each project, and the latest assessment his Department has made of the progress of (1) each project, (2) de-mining and (3) mine awareness in general in Cambodia; and if he will make a statement. [133323]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has provided funding for demining in Cambodia at the following disbursement levels since 1997.

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001– 02

  2002–03

  NGO

  0.56

  0.44

  0.29

  2.61

  2.30

  0.78

  0.45

  UNDP

  0.50

  0.50

  0.48

  DFID funding for Cambodia covers a number of different areas of activity and is part of DFID's global response to humanitarian mine action. In Cambodia specifically we have provided funds on a bilateral basis to the UK NGOs the HALO Trust and Mines Advisory Group (MAG) to carry out demining programmes in various parts of Cambodia. We have also provided funds for the in-country development and testing of mechanical demining equipment.

  DFID has provided additional funds through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to support the Cambodian Mine Action Authority (CMAA) and the Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC) which are indigenous organisations set up with the assistance of the UNDP.

  In March 2001 DFID carried out a review of its support to mine action in Cambodia. We concluded that there had been considerable successes since 1991 with thousands of mines having been cleared and large areas of land restored to economic use. We thought there were institutional weaknesses especially in the area of co-ordination where there was limited interaction between the various organisations working on mine action and the central mine action authorities. Our support to the Cambodian Mine authorities that we provide via the UN aims to address this issue. The UN will be providing support under the UNDP Country Co-operation Framework for 2001–05. Key objectives of the programme include development of the management capacity of the CMAC and CMAA. Specific activities include:
  Strengthening partnerships among entities and stakeholders involved in the mine awareness sector;
  Development of quality assurance and quality control processes;
  Development and review of MRE guidelines and materials;
  Promotion of national compliance with responsibilities detailed in the various national and international instruments pertaining to mine action;
  Assistance in victim rehabilitation programmes.
  696W
  European Union

  The following contributions were reported since 1997:
  1998 £3.0 million (UK share = 19.1 per cent.)
  1999 £0.56 million (UK share = 17.75 per cent.)

  More information on demining in Cambodia can be gained from the publication "Landmine Monitor". A copy will be sent to the House of Commons Library. There are also a number of useful websites on this subject, one of the most informative is the site hosted by the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) www.mineaction.org

  Monrovia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures are being taken(a) to repatriate refugees from Monrovia to their homes in the rest of the country and (b) to reduce their dependence on aid handouts. [133550]

  Hilary Benn
  Such measures cannot be taken until security is restored outside the region of Monrovia. Internally displaced persons (IDPs) are reluctant to return to their homes while skirmishes continue. Aid agencies are unable to support such moves until security can be guaranteed for their own activities outside Monrovia. The situation is expected to improve as UNMIL gains in strength.

  IDPs have returned to camps in Montserrado, Bong and Margibi counties. The UN and aid agencies are supporting relocation of IDPs to these camps from which they previously fled. The World Food Programme has stopped general food distributions to IDPs in Monrovia. NGOs are also scaling down feeding programmes in the light of evidence of access by IDPs to their own supplies of food.

  Refugees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response his Department has made to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees appeal for Sudanese refugees in Chad; and if he will make a statement. [133656]

  Hilary Benn
  The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has requested $16.6 million (approximately £11 million) for 65,000 Sudanese refugees in Chad, including $6.2 million for emergency operations. The refugees have fled the fighting in Darfur, in western Sudan.

  We have been following this situation closely and have been in contact with the UNHCR assessment mission, which led to the appeal. We have also been in touch with non-governmental organisations active in this area. We have agreed to provide £1 million towards the appeal and remain concerned about the plight of Sudanese refugees in Chad.

  Reproductive Health
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 75–76W, what end of programme assessment his Department has made of the Bolivia Health and Sexual Education programme,

  697W
  with particular reference to (a) the aims successfully achieved and (b) issues still outstanding; what replacement programme his Department has (i) planned and (ii) initiated in Bolivia, including aims and delivery methods, with specific reference to sexual education programmes; and if he will make a statement. [133191]

  Hilary Benn
  The Bolivia Health and Sexual Education Project ended in July 2003. An end of project review was undertaken by GTZ on behalf of DFID. It concluded that the project successfully demonstrated the interest and demand for improved health and sex education in Bolivia. The project supported over 1,000 young people (between the ages of 12 and 25) in five departments of Bolivia to take leadership roles in the promotion of health and reproductive rights issues, and promoted better health service delivery to these populations.

  The project was less successful in strengthening the supply side of health and sex education services. The Ministry of Education was not prepared to integrate these activities into its curriculum and hence DFID was unable to promote the successful local experiences at national level and is no longer supporting sexual education programmes in Bolivia. DFID is currently investigating whether health and sex education should be incorporated into its new programme promoting more inclusive citizenship and the realisation of human rights.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 4 October 2003,Official Report, columns 75–76W on reproductive health, what the (a) structure, (b) aims and (c) methods of the Andean Reproductive Health Initiative are; how much of the effort is aimed at (i) Peru and (ii) Bolivia; what support structure is provided to the programme by (A) the Government of Peru, (B) the Government of Bolivia, (C) local and ethnic leaders in Peru, (D) local and ethnic leaders in Bolivia, (E) local non-governmental organisations, (F) national non-governmental organisations; (G) regional non-governmental organisations and (H) international non-governmental organisations; and if he will make a statement. [133198]

  Hilary Benn
  The Andean Reproductive Health Initiative (RHI), which ended in July 2002, was a joint collaboration between DFID, the European Commission (EC), and Population Concern, who managed the project. Population Concern together with local, national and regional NGOs, public sector providers and Ministries of Health and Education in Bolivia and Peru, developed ways of improving demand for and access to reproductive health services for marginalised groups. These formed the basis for identifying innovative ways of delivering services to be piloted, and for establishing management systems to support lesson learning focusing on adolescents and marginalised groups. Other civil society groups, such as the Catholic Church were involved in and supported some project initiatives.

  The project focused on the improvement of human development opportunities for women and men by reducing the risks they face from dangerous pregnancies, and the improvement of adolescents' access to reproductive and sexual health and information services.
  698W
  The lessons learnt from the initiative were disseminated through a communications strategy to the Governments of Bolivia and Peru, donors and NGOs with a view to improving reproductive health policy and programmes. The programme's overall budget of approximately £1,856 million was split equally between Bolivia and Peru, with DFID contributing £630,000 and the EC Euros 1.7 million.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what measures are being taken to re-educate and re-integrate former child soldiers in Sierra Leone; [133547]

  (2) what provisions are being made for the demobilisation and reintegration of child soldiers involved in the recent conflict. [133549]

  Hilary Benn
  A total of 3,039 ex-combatant children are currently in education through a UNICEF community education investment programme. Other child protection agencies, such as CARITAS, have helped provide educational opportunities through the National Commission for Disarmament Demobilisation and Reintegration (NCDDR) supported Training and Employment Programme.

  According to figures provided by UNICEF, 6,845 child soldiers were demobilised over a year ago. 4,894 have been reunited with their families. A further 2,151 non-combatant children have been reunited with their families, with the support of UNICEF.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Sierra Leone and its impact on the humanitarian situation. [133548]

  Hilary Benn
  All areas of Sierra Leone are accessible. UNAMSIL is progressively withdrawing, and currently consists of 12,300 personnel. It is currently scheduled to withdraw completely by December next year. The Sierra Leone Government is undertaking a wide-ranging review of the security sector, which we are supporting. The review is intended to assist the Government to prepare for UNAMSIL's departure. The UK is providing extensive support to reform and strengthening of the security sector, as part of this preparation.

  There is no security restriction on humanitarian activity. There is a general shift in emphasis, by the Government of Sierra Leone and by international agencies, from relief to development activities.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will reconsider the decision not to publish the legal advice provided by the Attorney-General on the legal basis for military action in Iraq. [133313]

  The Solicitor-General
  No. As the hon. Member is aware from my answers to him on the 26 March and 21 May 2003, there is a long-standing convention, observed by successive governments, that advice which
  699W
  the Law Officers have given to the Government is not publicly disclosed. This is consistent with paragraphs 2 and 4(d) of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions, and in what forms, the Attorney-General has been asked to publish the advice she provided to the Government in respect of the legality of military action in Iraq; if she will list the individuals and organisations which have made requests; and what criteria were used in determining a response. [1333141]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers does not maintain any records of the occasions on which the Attorney-General has been asked to publish the advice he provided to the Government in respect of the legality of military action in Iraq. It is not therefore possible to provide a comprehensive answer to the hon. Member's question. The following information is available. Since the Attorney-General made his statement on 17 March 2003 setting out his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq:

  (a) four parliamentary questions have been tabled asking if I will publish the Attorney-General's advice. Three of these questions were posed by the hon. Member himself (on 26 March, 21 May and 22 October 2003). The fourth question was put by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on 24 March 2003;

  (b)the Attorney-General has received four letters from members of the general public asking him to publish his advice. The hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) also wrote to the Attorney-General enclosing a letter from one of his constituents asking for disclosure of the advice; and

  (c)the Lord Alexander of Weedon has written to the Attorney-General requesting disclosure of his advice.

  The reply on all these occasions was to decline the request. The reason given was that there is a long-standing convention, adhered to by successive governments, that advice which the Law Officers have given to Government is not publicly disclosed. This is to enable the Government, like everyone else, to obtain full and frank legal advice in confidence.

  Street Crime
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps the CPS has taken to narrow the gap between the overall levels of crimes recorded by the police and the offences brought to justice(a) in general and (b) with particular reference to hate crimes. [128720]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is narrowing the justice gap by improving performance so that cases are better prepared, increasing early guilty pleas and ensuring more contested cases reach trial. They are taking a number of steps to achieve this, including increasingly giving early advice to the police so that the case is reviewed early and the appropriate charge laid; improving case preparation and communication with the police to reduce the number of committals discharged; providing greater support to victims and witnesses by providing more information about the progress of the case so that they continue to support the prosecution and reduce the number of ineffective trials, and helping them through the trial process by, where appropriate, using video 700W
  evidence, screens, and other special measures; working with local community groups so that local communities can see that the work of the CPS is responsive to their concerns.

  The CPS is working with colleagues in other criminal justice agencies, through the Local Criminal Justice Boards, to:

  (a)bring more offenders to justice; and

  (b)increase public confidence in the CJS.

  With particular reference to hate crimes, the CPS has produced three Public Policy Statements since November 2001 on Domestic Violence, Homophobic Crime, Racially and Religiously Aggravated Crime, and given specific training to lawyers on domestic violence and racially and religiously aggravated crimes. Work is currently under way to develop training with regard to homophobic crime. The training involves lawyers hearing from victims or practitioners who work directly with victims.

  In February 2003, the CPS held a conference in Cardiff specifically on reducing the justice gap in hate crimes. This included representatives from voluntary sector organizations, other criminal justice agencies, the Bar and the Law Society, and a number of academics and focused on ways to improve the performance of prosecutors.

  The success of the CPS in increasing public confidence and reducing the justice gap, particularly as regards vulnerable communities, is subject to scrutiny and comment by HMCPS Inspectorate in their regular reports.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Bursaries
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) further education and (b) higher education bursaries are available to students studying in Northern Ireland. [132788]

  Jane Kennedy
  The payment of further and higher education bursaries is determined by demand. All Northern Ireland domiciled students whose family incomes are less than £20,000 are eligible to apply for bursaries of up to £2,000. These bursaries are payable to eligible NI students studying in Northern Ireland, elsewhere in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

  Figures relating to students studying in NI in receipt of a bursary are currently not available. However, in the 2002–03 academic year, bursaries were awarded to (a) 415 in further education and (b) 11,959 students studying in higher education in the UK and Republic of Ireland.

  Civil Partnership
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that Northern Ireland is included from the outset in any forthcoming bill on civil partnership; and if he will make a statement; [129295]
  701W
  (2)what areas of the proposed civil partnership legislation have been assessed by his officials as requiring distinctive Northern Ireland sections; and if he will make a statement; [129296]

  (3)what research (a) he has assessed and (b) will be commissioned on the consequences for same-sex couples who move to Northern Ireland of a civil partnership law only applying in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [129297]

  (4)what he estimates would be the cost of processing and legislating a civil partnership law separately for Northern Ireland through an Order in Council; and if he will make a statement. [129298]

  Mr. Pearson
  There has been no decision yet as to whether the civil partnership registration scheme set out in the consultation paper issued by the Department of Trade and Industry should be extended to Northern Ireland. My officials are currently examining those proposals with a view to issuing a consultation paper in the autumn. Beyond that, no decision has yet been taken as to whether a parallel civil partnership registration scheme should be introduced in Northern Ireland. In examining the DTI proposals, my officials are considering the possible impact for Northern Ireland of the introduction of a civil partnership registration scheme across a wide range of areas, including those areas where Northern Ireland law and practice differ from England and Wales. This preliminary consideration also includes an examination of the likely impact on couples who register their partnership under the scheme in England and Wales and who subsequently move to Northern Ireland. There is little information on how many such couples there may be, but work is on-going between officials in Northern Ireland and their counterparts in the Department of Trade and Industry. No calculation of the estimated costs of processing and legislating a civil partnership law separately for Northern Ireland through an Order in Council has been carried out.

  Electoral Rolls
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he proposes to enable citizens of countries who will be admitted to European Union membership in April 2004 and who are resident in Northern Ireland to be admitted to the franchise in time for the European elections in June 2004; and if he will make a statement. [132695]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Local and European Parliamentary Elections (Registration of Citizens of Accession States) Regulations 2003 and the Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2003 were introduced earlier this year in time for the annual electoral registration canvass. These regulations permit citizens of states due to accede to the European Union next year who are resident in Northern Ireland to register to vote in local government and European parliamentary elections to be held on or after 1 May 2004.

  Health Service Funding
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what budget funding was given to the Northern 702W
  Ireland National Health Service in each of the last three years expressed (a) by percentage change and (b) as a percentage of Northern Ireland GDP. [132789]

  Angela Smith
  The information is as follows:

  (a)In Northern Ireland, health services are fully integrated with personal social services in a single financing, planning and delivery system—the HPSS (health and personal social services). It follows that the HPSS budget is considerably larger than a separate health budget would be. The figures in the table reflect this fact.

  Health and Personal Social Services

  2000–01 budget allocation (£ million)

  1,976.3

  2001–02 budget allocation (£ million)

  2,238.7

  Percentage change from 2000–01

  13.27

  2002–03 budget allocation (£ million)

  2,475.3

  Percentage change from 2001–02

  10.5

  2003–04 budget allocation (£ million)

  2,898.6

  Percentage change from 2002–03

  17.1

  (b) The following table shows budget funding for the HPSS estimated as a percentage of Northern Ireland GDP. In addition to the fact that they derive from an HPSS (as opposed to a merely "health") budget, the percentage shares reflect Northern Ireland's exceptionally high need for expenditure on public services—health and social care included.

  HPSS budget allocation estimated as a percentage of GDP

  2001–02

  11.65

  2002–03

  12.3

  2003–04

  14

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much each absent parent is expected to contribute towards their children's care; who makes the decision on levels of payment; and what account is taken of the parents' work status. [128073]

  Mr. Pond
  In the new child support scheme non-resident parents with net incomes of over £200 will pay 15 per cent. of their net income for one child; 20 per cent. for two children and 25 per cent. for three or more children. Allowances will be made for any children in the non-residents parent's current household.

  Those with net income over £100 up to and including £200 will pay a reduced rate on a sliding scale. Those non-resident parents with net earnings of £100, or on benefit, will pay a flat rate of £5.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many full-time staff were employed by the Child Support Agency in Essex on 15 September. [132634]
  703W
  Mr. Pond
  In the month of September the Child Support Agency employed 80 full time staff and 25 part time staff in Essex.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research he has commissioned on the cancellation of driving licences for those who have not properly maintained child support payments in(a) EU countries, (b) the USA and (c) Canada; and if he will make a statement. [134063]

  Mr. Pond
  In developing our proposals for child support reform we considered the experiences of a range of countries including the USA, Australia, Canada and a number of EU countries.

  The powers in sections 14A (information-offences) and 39A to 40B (commitment to prison and disqualification from driving) of the Child Support Act 1991 are intended to help the Child Support Agency to secure compliance. Their success is in the extent to which non-resident parents co-operate with the Agency.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what reports he has received of former Child Support Agency employees setting up businesses specialising in CSA cases; what assessment he has made of the implications of these businesses for the administration of the CSA; and if he will make a statement. [125659]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 17 July 2003:

  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You ask what reports he has received of former Child Support Agency employees setting up businesses specialising in CSA cases; what assessment he has made of the implications of these businesses for the administration of the CSA; and if he will make a statement.

  I am aware of a number of bodies who offer a variety of services about child support, for example through internet sites ranging from shared experience to claiming to be able to influence maintenance assessments. I am also aware that some of the bodies attempt to validate their service by claiming to be ex-employees of the Child Support Agency. Where the advice offered is constructive and accurate I welcome its availability. When staff leave the Agency they are reminded of their responsibilities to keep confidential personal information gained during their service.

  Combined Benefits Payments
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people did not receive combined benefits payments owing to the breakdown of the link between Pension Service computer systems; when the link broke down; how long the link was broken; how much in benefit payments was not paid in this period owing to the problem; why the Department did not realise the breakdown had taken place until contacted by a benefit recipient; and if he will make a statement. [125932]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of The Pension Service. She will write to the hon. Member.
  704W
  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Paul Holmes, dated 17 July 2003:

  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people did not receive combined benefits payments owing to the breakdown of the link between Pension Service computer systems; when the link broke down; how long the link was broken; how much in benefit payments was not paid in this period owing to the problem; why the Department did not realise the breakdown had taken place until contacted by a benefit recipient; and if he will make a statement.

  It would appear that the breakdown of the link between The Pension Service computer systems was restricted to a single benefit recipient and was not a national problem affecting numbers of customers. It is of course possible that other cases may have similar circumstances however, we are not aware of any other cases where this problem has occurred.

  The customer was receiving a combined payment of Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) and Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) and then submitted a claim for Retirement Pension (RP). For the RP claim to be assessed and paid, the other two payments for MIG and SDA had to be de-combined as three payments cannot be combined into a single payment for these benefits.

  The customer subsequently withdrew the RP claim and an attempt was made to recombine the SDA and MIG payments. However, due to incompatible data being held in the two benefit systems, we were not able to reconnect the interface. Incompatible data may occur due to a simple inconsistency such as an incorrect office code, resulting in the two pieces of information 'missing' each other when attempting to link.

  The MIG section was notified on the system on 9 February 2003 when an error message 'interface failed' appeared on the customers account. We were aware that a system error had occurred prior to the customer writing to us and took action to issue payments in the most efficient manner.

  Arrears have been paid in full to the customer in question. The customer is currently receiving all benefit entitlement, but these are being paid separately.

  The Pension Service has a duty to ensure that all of our customers receive their payments correctly and on time. Therefore alternative arrangements were made to ensure that the customer received the correct payment amounts on time.

  I hope that this is helpful.

  Compulsory Interviews
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many compulsory interviews have taken place in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) benefit and (b) welfare to work scheme; and what the total cost of interviews was in each year since 1997, broken down by (i) benefit and (ii) welfare to work scheme; and if he will make a statement. [125935]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Paul Holmes, dated 28 July 2003:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the number of compulsory interviews that have taken place in each year since 1997, broken down by benefit and welfare to work scheme and the total cost of the interviews. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Jobcentre Plus conducts a wide range of compulsory interviews in a variety of circumstances. For example compulsory interviews are conducted at the start of every Jobseeker's Allowance claim and in our new integrated offices at the start of every claim for a

  705W
  Jobcentre Plus benefit. Compulsory interviews are then conducted at various stages of a claim and also under a variety of circumstances in our welfare to work programmes.

  We do monitor workflows and activity in Jobcentre Plus offices and maintain statistics for some individual programmes, such as those held on the New Deal database. However, it is not possible to provide the information you have requested on the total number of interviews or breakdowns by benefit or welfare to work programme. Similarly we cannot provide a figure for the cost of compulsory interviews.

  My apologies for not being able to provide the information you requested.

  Disability Issues
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the non-discriminatory treatment of disability issues alongside other equal opportunity issues will form part of the United Kingdom's position in negotiations on the EU constitution. [129980]

  Maria Eagle
  The existing Treaty provides a good basis for legislation to combat various forms of discrimination including discrimination against disabled people.

  Agriculture

  Extractive and utility supply

  Manufacturing

  Year/Employment status

  Fatal injury

  Serious injury

  Fatal injury

  Serious injury

  Fatal injury

  Serious injury

  1997–98

  Employee

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  36

  Self-employed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Member of the public

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  37

  1998–99

  Employee

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1

  22

  Self-employed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Member of the public

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1

  24

  1999–2000

  Employee

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  14

  Self-employed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Member of the public

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Employee

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  14

  2000–01

  Employee

  —

  3

  —

  2

  1

  14

  Self-employed

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Member of the public

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  4

  —

  2

  1

  14

  2001–02

  Employee

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  17

  Self-employed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Member of the public

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  total

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  17

  construction

  services

  All industries

  Year/Employment status

  Fatal injury

  Serious injury

  Fatal injury

  Serious injury

  Fatal injury

  Serious injury

  1997–98

  Employee

  1

  52

  2

  153

  3

  243

  Self-employed

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Member of the public

  —

  3

  1

  203

  1

  207

  Total

  1

  56

  3

  356

  4

  451

  1998–99

  Employee

  1

  76

  —

  161

  2

  263

  Self-employed

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Member of the public

  —

  4

  —

  190

  —

  197

  Total

  1

  81

  —

  351

  2

  461

  706W
  Legislation under the Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community can only be adopted by the unanimous agreement of member states. This allows for the wide diversity between member states' social systems to be respected as demonstrated by the provisions of the Race and Employment Directives adopted by the Community in 2000. Our view is that the existing voting arrangements should be retained in the Intergovernmental Conference.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries at work occurring in the Edinburgh area have been reported to the Health and Safety Executive in each of the last five years, broken down by sector. [128542]

  Mr. Browne
  The number of fatal and serious injuries1 reported to HSE and local authorities (LAs) in the LA area of the city of Edinburgh 1997–98 to 2001–02 are in the table.
  1Defined as reported as a major or fatal injury under RIDDOR
  707W

  construction

  services

  All industries

  Year/Employment status

  Fatal injury

  Serious injury

  Fatal injury

  Serious injury

  Fatal injury

  Serious injury

  1999–2000

  Employee

  1

  79

  1

  139

  2

  233

  Self-employed

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Member of the public

  2

  7

  —

  192

  2

  200

  Total

  3

  87

  1

  331

  4

  434

  2000–01

  Employee

  1

  80

  —

  150

  2

  249

  Self-employed

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Member of the public

  —

  8

  —

  93

  —

  101

  Total

  1

  89

  —

  243

  2

  352

  2001–02

  Employee

  2

  83

  1

  166

  3

  269

  Self-employed

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Member of the public

  —

  5

  —

  76

  —

  81

  Total

  2

  91

  1

  243

  3

  354

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects job points to be installed in(a) Burnt Oak Library, (b) Hendon Job Centre and (c) Mill Hill Job Centre; and if he will make a statement. [133062]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Andrew Dismore, dated 23 October 2003:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the installation of Jobpoints in Burnt Oak Library, Hendon and Mill Hill Jobcentres. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  I can confirm that a Jobpoint is scheduled to be installed in Burnt Oak Library on 28 October 2003. The availability of the Jobpoint in the Library will be publicised in local Jobcentres through posters and leaflets and leaflets will also be issued to customers using the library. To further publicise the new Jobpoint service an official launch is planned later this year in December.

  Jobcentre Plus staff currently visit the Library every two weeks to provide face to face advice and jobsearch assistance. This will continue after the Jobpoint has been installed.

  Hendon already has eight Jobpoints, which were installed in May 2001. Mill Hill also already has eight Jobpoints, which were installed in November 2001.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many representations he has received in the last 12 months opposing the closure of local Jobcentre Plus offices; which organisations submitted these representations; and if he will make a statement. [113260]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Paul Holmes dated 28 July 2003:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, I have been asked to reply to your question concerning representations to the Secretary of State regarding the closure of local Jobcentre Plus offices. This falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  708W
  During the past 12 months, there have been forteen represenations in the form of parliamentary questions or letters to the Secretary of State from MPs expressing concern about the delivery plans of Jobcentre Plus and specifically about the closure of offices. In addition to responding to these representations in writing, both the Minister of State for Work, Nick Brown, and the Project Director for Jobcentre Plus, Jeremy Groombridge, met with a number of MPs to give assurances about the level of service that will be provided.

  At the Jobcentre Plus District level, managers have and will continue to consult with the widest possible range of people about the service they are planning to provide. Local advice and welfare groups, local authorities and MPs are essential sources of guidance in this matter. Any representions resulting from this consultation process are collated by District Managers.

  Jobcentre Plus is delivering a radical change in the way that benefits and employment services are provided to people of working age. By 2006, there will be around 1,000 newly integrated offices across the country which will provide customers with a 'one-stop' service for benefits, advice and jobs. Over 250 offices are offering this new service already and 8 out of 10 customers tell us they are satisfied with all elements of the new service.

  These new Jobcentre Plus services are customer focussed. The new offices enable customers to make enquiries about both their benefits and employment opportunities in the same place. Our new telephone contact centres mean that customers can make enquiries about both benefits and jobs without even having to come into one of our offices. The introduction of new technology is also enabling people to find the information they need about jobs and training via the Internet and our new Jobpoints. Jobpoints are not just being placed in Jobcentre Plus offices, they are also being placed in other public places such as libraries and supermarkets. All of these developments are making it easier for our customers to take advantage of the services we provide.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many job points there are in prisons in the UK. [133953]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Tony Cunningham, dated 23 October 2003:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning how many Jobpoints there are in prisons in the UK. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  709W
  We have piloted a new scheme placing Jobpoints in four prisons to establish if this will assist prisoners in finding jobs. These were installed between July and October 2002 and have proved to be successful. Jobpoints were distributed as follows:

  HMP Featherstone: 1 Jobpoint

  HMP Hollesley Bay: 1 Jobpoint

  HMP Lewes: 2 Jobpoints

  HMP Swansea: 2 Jobpoints

  We are planning to install Jobpoints in a further ten prisons in late spring/early summer 2004.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Liability Insurance
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions his Department has had with the Office of Fair Trading on the introduction of compulsory notice renewal periods for liability insurance; and if he will make a statement. [127832]

  Mr. Browne
  We continue to be in discussion with the Office of Fair Trading on all aspects of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance. In relation to renewals the Government were pleased to see the introduction by the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers' Association of new guidance to insurers and brokers on renewals. The guidance included a recommendation for providing policy holders with at least 21 days notice of their renewal terms. In the first instance the Government will look to see the response of the industry to this guidance.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the value of accrued entitlements to the child maintenance bonus among lone parents in receipt of income support; and if he will make it his policy to preserve accrued entitlements to the child maintenance bonus once the new child support rules are applied to all families. [132487]

  Mr. Pond
  The information on the value of accrued entitlements to the child maintenance bonus among lone parents on income support is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  An extended period of one month, rather than the usual 14 days, to meet the work condition for the payment of child maintenance bonus has been put in place for cases transferring to the new child support scheme. To go further would require the maintenance of a substantial number of records for an indefinite period, thereby increasing administrative costs.

  The child maintenance bonus was a feature of the old child support scheme, introduced in 1997 to give parents with care receiving income support or income-related Job Seeker's Allowance the benefit of up to £5 a week of the maintenance paid, when they returned to work. In the new scheme, the bonus will be replaced by the child maintenance premium, which will ensure that up to £10 a week of the maintenance that is paid will pass to the parent with care, while she is still on benefit. We estimate that the annual cost of child maintenance premium will be more than four times that which would have been spent in a year on a continued child maintenance bonus scheme.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Hendon(a) are receiving pension credit, (b) are entitled to pension credit but not yet claiming it, (c) are receiving pension savings credit, (d) art entitled to pension savings credit but not yet claiming it, (e) received free eye tests in the last year for which figures are available, (f) received free TV licences in the last year for which figures are available and (g) will be entitled to winter fuel payment (i) at the standard rate and (ii) at the higher rate for older pensioners in 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [134038]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested about Pension Credit is rot yet available in the format requested.

  As at May 2003 there were 3,000 Minimum Income Guarantee claimants in the Hendon constituency. Around half of all pensioner households will be eligible for Pension Credit and stand to gain on average £400 a year (around £7 a week). We intend from November to publish monthly reports on the progress of Pension Credit take-on, which will include information on the number of applications. (1–4)

  The number of sight tests paid for by the national health service for those aged 60 and over in Barnet, Enfield and Haringay health authority for the year ending 31 March, 2003 was 54,780. (5)

  The information requested about TV licences and Winter Fuel payments is not available in the format requested, such information as is available is as follows.

  The number of people aged 75 and over, in receipt of a key benefit as at 31 May 2003 in Hendon was 6,600. These people would be eligible to receive a free TV licence. (6–8)

  The number of people in Hendon who received a Winter Fuel payment for Winter 2002–03 was 17,715 and we expect the number to be around the same for 2003–04. Of that figure 4,055 were over age 80 and therefore would be eligible to receive an additional payment. (9–11)

  Notes:

  1. Source: IAD Information Centre.

  2. The number for MIG refers to benefit units where the claimant and/or their partner are aged 60 or over.

  3. The figure for the number of MIG claimants is based on a 5 per cent. sample and therefore subject to sampling variation.

  4. This figure has been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  5. The total number of sight tests paid for by the NHS for this constituency was 146,380.

  6. Source: IAD Information Centre 5 per cent sample

  7. TV licence figures based on 5 per cent. data taken from the Client Group Analysis of the population over State Pension age as at 31 May 2003, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation. These figures are expressed in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  8. As only one TV licence is required per household, the number of free TV licences issued may be lower than the number of people entitled to one. Some households may contain more than one person aged 75 and over and not all households with a person aged 75 or over will have a television.

  9. Source: IAD Information Centre 100 per cent. Sample
  711W
  10. Winter Fuel Payment figures taken from the Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuels Payment 2002/2003 exercise 100 per cent data. 100 per cent data figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  11. Key benefits are Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Severe Disablement Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Minimum Income Guarantee and State Pension.

  Sex Shops
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on advertising jobs in job centres for posts in licensed sex shops. [116465]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the acting Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson he will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Tim Loughton, dated 28 July 2003:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning Jobcentre Plus policy on advertising jobs in Jobcentres for posts in licensed sex shops. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Acting Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The Ann Summers organisation recently challenged Jobcentre Plus' policy in refusing vacancies that are connected to the sale of sex related products. The outcome of the resulting Judicial Review was announced on Wednesday 18 June

  The outcome of the Ann Summers Judicial Review was to quash Jobcentre Plus' decision to refuse Ann Summers' vacancies and the policy that underpinned that decision. In response Jobcentre Plus have considered a range of options, taking into account the judge's observations in the case, the operational implications and the interests of all concerned.

  Jobcentre Plus' decision is to accept all vacancies from the sex and related industries from 21 July 2003, provided that they are legal and fulfil our other criteria for accepting and displaying vacancies.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Small Business Council
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when his Department will be responding to the recommendations put forward in the Small Business Council Annual Report 2003 in relation to insurance; and if he will make a statement. [127831]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department will co-ordinate its response with the Department of Trade and Industry, which expects to respond to the Small Business Council's recommendations in October 2003.

  Pensions
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that the Government's low-cost stakeholder pensions are taken up by the people towards whom the Government is aiming them. [133203]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Stakeholder pensions are for everyone, but particularly moderate earners without access to a company pension scheme. Employers that do not provide a company pension scheme must give their employees access to a stakeholder pension. Charges are capped to 1 per cent. of the value of the individual's fund each year, people can pay amounts from £20 upwards into them, and can stop and start contributions without penalty. Everyone now has access to a good value 712W
  pension. Over three-quarters of first-year stakeholder pension sales (690,000) were to workers earning under £30,000 a year, with around two-thirds of first-year sales (530,000) going to workers earning under £20,000 a year. The Government is working to ensure that individuals actively and regularly plan for their retirement, that they are aware of the various options for saving for retirement, including stakeholder pensions, and where they can get information to help them make decisions.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to change the state pension age. [133518]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Following consultation on the options for equality in State Pension age, the Pensions Act 1995 introduced measures to gradually equalise the State Pension age at 65 between 2010 and 2020.

  Our Green Paper "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement" (Cm 5677), which was published in December 2002, reviewed the issue of State Pension age and announced that we do not propose an increase in the State Pension age. Such an increase would impact most heavily on those most dependant on the State Pension.

  The Government's priority is to address the employment rates of those approaching 65 and to introduce new choices to encourage people to work past 65 where they want to.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the transitional Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo on the subject of child witches. [133618]

  Mr. Mullin
  None.

  East Africa
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process between Eritrea and Ethiopia. [133762]

  Mr. Mullin
  The current situation in the peace process is that the Boundary Commission set up under the Algiers Agreement has made a decision on the position of the boundary between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which is legally binding. We and the UN Security Council, most recently in Resolution 1507 of 12 September 2003, have called on both parties to implement this fully.

  East Timor
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives from the UN Serious Crimes Unit regarding the progress of the East Timor humanitarian crimes trials in Jakarta; what steps the UN is taking to
  713W
  monitor proceedings; whether a UN review of the proceedings is being considered; and if he will make a statement. [132997]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have not had discussions with the UN Serious Crimes Unit (SCU) or any other UN officials about the Jakarta Ad Hoc Tribunal on Human Rights Abuses in East Timor. The UN office in Jakarta, rather than the SCU is responsible for monitoring the Ad Hoc Tribunal, but neither they nor the Secretariat in New York have made public any of their reports on the Tribunal. We believe that the UN is considering whether to do a formal review of the Ad Hoc Tribunal but no decision has been taken on this yet. Our officials at the UN remain in regular contact with UN officials about issues affecting East Timor. In August 2003 the EU issued a statement criticising the deficiencies of the Ad Hoc Tribunal.

  Global Conflict Prevention Pool
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister in his Department has responsibility for the Global Conflict Prevention Pool; and what responsibilities other Departments have for the Pool. [133143]

  Mr. Rammell
  A review of the Government's work on conflict prevention in 1999–2000 concluded that delivery would be improved by bringing together in a more co-ordinated way the existing activities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the Department for International Development (DFID) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in this field. The Government therefore set up joint FCO/DFID/MoD Africa and Global Conflict Prevention Pools in 2000.

  The Global Conflict Prevention Pool is overseen by a Cabinet Committee comprising my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary (the Chair), the Secretary of State for International Development, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief Secretary to HM Treasury. At Ministerial level, responsibility within the FCO rests with me.

  The inter-departmental, tripartite management of the Pool is maintained at all official levels, including in the GCPP Steering Team and in the management teams for GCPP geographical and thematic strategies. While the FCO holds the Chair of the GCPP, responsibility for its management is shared equally between all three Departments.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which countries the Global Conflict Prevention Pool has been active; and when meetings with(a) the UN, (b) the EU and (c) state representatives regarding conflict prevention were held. [133144]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) works through a wide range of programmes grouped under geographical, regional, thematic or international capacity building strategies. Its geographical strategies are:

  Afghanistan;

  The Balkans;

  Belize and Guatemala;

  Central and Eastern Europe

  714W

  Indonesia and East Timor;

  India and Pakistan;

  Iraq, The Middle East and North Africa;

  Nepal;

  Russia and the Former Soviet Union;

  Sri Lanka.

  The GCPP also has the following thematic and international capacity building strategies:

  Security Sector Reform;

  Small Arms Light Weapons;

  OSCE and the Council of Europe;

  The UN.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today (UIN 133142) for more details on these strategies.

  Meetings to discuss conflict prevention with representatives of the UN, EU and of particular states take place regularly. Examples include UK participation in negotiations and discussions in the UN General Assembly and Security Council, and with the UN Secretariat, in the EU Political and Security Committee and during bilateral meetings with visiting Ministers and officials. Recent meetings include a visit to the UK in June for discussions of UN Reform by Jean-Mairie Guehenno, Head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations in the UN Secretariat, negotiations on the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Secretary General's Report on Conflict Prevention in June and July, a call by the Swedish Ambassador for Conflict Prevention on the FCO in September, and bilateral discussions with the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai during his visit to the UK in October 2003.

  Guantanamo Bay (Feroz Abbasi)
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the mental health of Feroz Abbasi in Guantanamo Bay; and if it is intended that he will be repatriated to the UK if he is deemed unfit to face trial. [133396]

  Mr. Mullin
  Any health concerns there may be about the British nationals at Guantanamo Bay are being addressed and we are in contact with the families of those concerned. The issue of the mental health of a British national is information of a private and confidential nature.

  Although Mr Abbasi has been designated as eligible to face prosecution before a Military Commission, he has not been charged. Furthermore, all legal proceedings against the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay are currently suspended. The question of fitness to face trial is therefore hypothetical at this stage. We are pressing the US authorities to move forward with the process of determining the future of all the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay. We have discussed, and are discussing, a range of options with the US, including the possibility of repatriation.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on co-operation by Indonesia with the UN Serious Crimes Unit. [132998]
  715W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am advised that Indonesia has not co-operated with the Serious Crimes Unit's investigations. There was a request to do so from the late Sergio Vieira de Mello when he was the Special Representative of the Secretary General to East Timor, and there was lobbying from the EU in support of this request.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Indonesia regarding the activities of Laskar Jihad members. [133538]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have discussed counter-terrorism issues a number of times with the Government of Indonesia over the past year, although we have not specifically raised the activities of Laskar Jihad members.

  Our bilateral counter-terrorism assistance involves capacity-building assistance, including training in counter-terrorism crisis management skills. We are encouraging moderate Islam in Indonesia to be more vocal. We are also offering specialist help and training in capacity building for provincial officials, focusing our help in provinces where improved governance will benefit the poor. Indonesia is a priority country for the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, and we are working to identify programmes to reduce sectarian violence and relieve humanitarian crises.

  Middle East
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the United Nations to take steps to secure the presence of international observers in the Occupied Territories. [133513]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Quartet, of which the UN is a member, has provided for third party monitoring of its roadmap. On 26 September 2003, the Quartet reaffirmed its commitment to follow closely the implementation by the parties of their obligations. This is done using the resources Quartet Members already have in the region, including the US team led by John Wolf and UN representatives.

  We have no plans to press the UN for more international observers in the Occupied Territories at this time.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom's(a) diplomatic and (b) trade relations with Israel will change as a result of the construction of the security wall. [133150]

  Mr. Rammell
  No.

  Recipient

  Financial year

  Cost (£)

  Description (end use)

  Afghanistan

  Afghan National Army and ISAF/Afghan police and military controls at Kabul entry points

  2002–03

  1.44 million

  Hard and soft-top jeeps, trucks, communication equipment, security equipment including spotlights, radio, metal detectors

  2003–04 (to date)

  1 million

  Follow-on funding for further communications equipment to be provided in October 2003

  716W
  The Government continue to use diplomatic channels to Israel to press for the route of the wall to be reconsidered. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary made clear our concerns over its route and likely impact to the Israeli Prime Minister during his visit to London on 14 July 2003. My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean also raised the matter with the Israeli Foreign Minster during her visit to Israel on 30 September 2003.

  The wall should not be built within occupied territory. As the 17 October 2003 European Council statement made clear, we and our EU Partners are particularly concerned that the route marked out for the fence in the West Bank will cause further humanitarian and economic hardship to the Palestinians and could prejudge final status negotiations. We deplore this seizure of Palestinian land, the isolation of Palestinian villages and the creation of a further physical obstacle to the two-state solution.

  Military Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the military equipment purchased under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, stating in each case(a) the recipient, (b) the amount spent and (c) the end use; and if he will make a statement. [133026]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]The following table indicates the purchase of military equipment under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) since it was set up in 2000, and updates the information given in the response from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Harlow in his reply to my hon. Friend the member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 5 December 2002.

  Pool funding is used to supply military equipment where this forms part of an integrated conflict prevention strategy, and is crucial to ensuring the stability of a conflict area and to the success of the strategy. The GCPP takes into account the risk of any equipment supplied being misused by the recipient or falling into other hands, and the likely political consequences. Ministers will always take the final decision on any supply of weapons and ammunition.

  More general information on the details of the GCPP is available in the recent publication "The Global Conflict Prevention Pool—A joint UK Government approach to reducing conflict", which is available in the Library of the House. A copy of the booklet has been placed on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk) accessible under Global Issues—International Organisations—UN—Conflict Preventions.
  717W

  Recipient

  Financial year

  Cost (£)

  Description (end use)

  Nepal

  Royal Nepalese Army

  2001–02

  285,818

  Land Rovers spares and maintenance training, communications equipment

  2002–03

  3,099,347

  Communications equipment, binoculars, compasses, Swiftscopes, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) equipment, two transport helicopters

  Belize

  Belize Defence Force

  2001–02

  169,555

  Aircraft parts and freight costs, Land Rovers and spares, radio equipment

  2002–03

  127,259

  Uniforms, mess kits, tents, hammocks, radio equipment

  2003–04

  84,434

  Uniforms, trucks, outboard motors, mess kits

  Macedonia

  Macedonian authorities

  2001–02

  282,500

  EOD equipment, body armour, global positioning system, mine detector sets, flares

  75,000

  Four fort-lift trucks

  Sri Lanka

  Sri Lankan Army

  2002–03

  92,000

  EOD equipment

  2003–04

  12,000

  EOD training, MOD short-term training team

  Uruguay

  Uruguay Peacekeeping

  2001–02

  27,014

  Three NERA satellite phones and airtime

  Capacity training

  2002–03

  30,000

  FATS firearms training simulator

  Mobile Telephone Costs
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spent on calls from mobile telephones in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [133531]

  Mr. Rammell
  This information is not held in the form requested and, particularly with regard to posts overseas, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Responsibility for renting mobile phone services at over 200 diplomatic missions overseas is delegated to those missions.

  Morocco
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the forthcoming visit of the King of Morocco, with specific reference to the Government's policy on the Western Sahara. [133614]

  Mr. Rammell
  The King of Morocco has been invited to visit the United Kingdom, but no date has been agreed. We regularly discuss the Western Sahara in our contacts with the Moroccan Government.

  Mr. Kirtan Singh
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the appeal papers in respect of Mr. Kirtan Singh, date of birth 6 May 1973, were sent from New Delhi. [1334801]

  Mr. Mullin
  The applicant has made two applications for Entry Clearance to the United Kingdom as the spouse of Lakhvir Kaur. The first application was made on 20 December 2001 and was refused on 26 June 2002. The appellant's solicitors informed us on 27 January 2003 that an appeal against this decision had been lodged on 5 July 2002. It later became apparent that the appeal had been lodged in error at the Deputy High 718W
  Commission in Mumbai. In view of the circumstances the Visa Department in New Delhi suggested to the solicitors that a fresh application should be lodged.

  The applicant reapplied on 23 July 2003 and was refused on 4 September 2003. Notice of Appeal against the Entry Clearance Officer's decision was received on 23 September. The explanatory statement will be prepared and despatched as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by the United Kingdom in relation to the implementation of the disarmament objectives set out at the end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2000; and if he will make a statement. [133027]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]: The United Kingdom remains fully committed to all aspects of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), including global and verifiable nuclear disarmament. We have an excellent record in fulfilling our NPT obligations on nuclear disarmament. Consistent with the policy set out in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, the UK has gone further than other Nuclear Weapon States in implementing the measures agreed in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

  More specifically, the UK has:
  withdrawn and dismantled the RAF's freefall nuclear bomb so that Trident is now our only nuclear weapons system;
  reduced our operationally available stockpile to fewer than 200 warheads, which is a reduction of more than 70 per cent. in the potential explosive power of our nuclear forces since the end of the Cold War;
  dismantled the UK's last Chevaline warhead last year;
  reduced the readiness of our nuclear forces: only a single Trident submarine is now on deterrent patrol, carrying 48 warheads. The submarine on patrol is normally on several days 'notice to fire' and its missiles are de-targeted;

  719W
  placed fissile material no longet required for defence purposes under international safeguards. All enrichment and reprocessing facilities in the UK are now liable to international inspection; and
  been more transparent about our nuclear and fissile material stockpiles and begun a national historical accounting study for fissile material produced.

  The UK continues to play a full part in the NPT Review process, including most recently in the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom), which was held in Geneva in April and May this year. The UK issued a working paper at the PrepCom on its research into verification of nuclear disarmament and presented the conclusions of this interim study at a seminar during the PrepCom. We anticipate publishing a further paper for the 2004 session of the PrepCom and a consolidated paper at the Review Conference in 2005.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the states in the Middle East that have(a) signed and (b) ratified the (i) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, (ii) Chemical Weapons Convention and (iii) Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. [133028]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]: States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) include:
  Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

  States parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) include:
  Algeria, Bahrain, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen. Israel has signed but not ratified the CWC.

  States parties to the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention (BWC) include:
  Algeria, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen. Egypt. United Arab Emirates and Syria have signed but not ratified the BWC.

  The United Kingdom regularly calls on all states of the region to accede to these regimes whenever the opportunity arises. We have also made clear our support for a Middle East zone free from weapons of mass destruction.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Pakistan on the proposal of exempting religious universities from the imposition of Shariah Law. [133615]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I discussed the Shariah Law with the Pakistani High Commissioner on 22 September 2003. I understand that the authorities in the North West Frontier Province will apply the Sharia Law to educational institutions.
  720W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Pakistani authorities on the current status of the blasphemy law. [133616]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I discussed the blasphemy laws with the Pakistani High Commissioner on 22 September 2003. She told me that her Government was taking action to prevent abuses of these laws. The British High Commission in Islamabad remains in close touch with representatives of Christian and other religious minorities in Pakistan.

  Soviet Arctic Circle Region Medal
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from veterans who wish to accept the Russian Defence of the Soviet Arctic Circle Region Medal. [133543]

  Mr. Rammell
  Since June 2003, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received two telephone inquiries and one letter from veterans wishing to accept the Russian Defence of the Soviet Arctic Circle Region Medal.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the release from house arrest of Dr. al-Turabi by the Government of the Sudan. [133617]

  Mr. Mullin
  We welcome the release of Dr. al-Turabi and other political prisoners. We hope that the Government of Sudan will continue the process of reconciliation with all other parties.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on the potential attendance of(a) Robert Mugabe and (b) Zimbabwe officials and Ministers on the EU travel ban list at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in December 2003. [132573]

  Mr. Straw
  As it is suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth, no invitation has been issued to the Government of Zimbabwe. This is in line with past Commonwealth practice. The EU's travel ban obviously does not apply to Abuja, Nigeria, where the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is being held as Nigeria is not a member of the EU.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the British Government(a) has had and (b) plans to have with the government of (i) Australia, (ii) South Africa and (iii) Nigeria on President Robert Mugabe's attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in December. [132574]

  Mr. Straw
  We have had regular discussions with the governments of Australia, South Africa and Nigeria on this issue. These discussions will continue in the run-up to CHOGM.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Buildmark Warranty Scheme
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make representations to the chief executive of the National Home-Building Council to extend the cover provided by the Buildmark Warranty Scheme to include permanent external fixtures in addition to structural defects. [133357]

  Phil Hope
  The terms of the Buildmark scheme are a matter for the council and board of the National House-Building Council (NHBC). I am aware that the NHBC keeps the terms of the scheme under review. The cover provided in years three to 10 of Buildmark agreements has been extended over recent years to include damage occurring in external render and external vertical tile hanging, tile and slate roof coverings, and multiple glazing, as well as structural matters and various non-structural internal features. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans at present for any representations to the NHBC about adding to the list of non-structural external features included in the cover.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent meetings he has had with the chief executive of the National Home-Building Council to discuss its Buildmark Warranty Scheme. [133358]

  Keith Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Lord Rooker met the chairman and the chief executive of the National House Building Council in April this year, to discuss matters of common interest, including the Buildmark scheme.

  Council Housing Stock
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many local authorities have transferred the whole or part of their housing stock in each year since 1990; [133768]

  (2) how many local councils have transferred (a) all and (b) some of their housing stock to (i) housing associations and (ii) bodies other than housing associations. [133772]

  Keith Hill
  The number of local authorities who have transferred whole or part of their housing stock in each year since 1990 are tabled as follows:

  Number of Authorities transferring stock

  1990

  8

  1991

  5

  1992

  2

  1993

  5

  1994

  12

  1995

  9

  1996

  10

  1997

  5

  1998

  15

  1999

  24

  2000

  18

  2001

  15

  2002

  16

  2003

  110

  1 to date

  A local authority may only transfer its tenanted stock to a Registered Social Landlord.
  722W
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will hold discussions with representatives of local councils wishing to retain control of their housing stock. [133769]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would welcome discussions with local authorities to discuss the options for delivering the decent homes target.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what central government financial inducements are available to local councils when transferring housing stock to(a) housing associations and (b) other outside bodies. [133771]

  Keith Hill
  There are no central government financial inducements available to a local authority when transferring its housing stock. A local authority may only transfer its tenanted housing stock to a Registered Social Landlord, a housing organisation registered with the Housing Corporation, of which a housing association is one such organisation.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that local authorities which retain control of their housing stock receive the same financial assistance as local authorities which transfer their housing stock. [134014]

  Keith Hill
  The Sustainable Communities Plan made it clear that local authorities seeking additional investment in their housing stock, in order to meet the decent home standard, are able to choose from three options: stock transfer, the Private Finance Initiative and setting up an Arms Length Management Organisation.

  The resources available for social housing, although greatly increased under this Government, are limited. To make best use of those resources the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will only provide additional funding to councils that separate their landlord and strategic functions. This provides a strong incentive to better performance; ensures a sharper focus on the two distinct housing functions; and guarantees that tenants have a greater role in the future management of their homes.

  In a number of cases local authorities are able to meet the decent homes standard out of their mainstream funding.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities take into account war pensions when assessing council tax. [131317]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply.

  A statutory disregard of £10 is applied to War Disablement Pensions and War Widows Pensions when calculating entitlement to income-related benefits. In the case of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, local authorities have the discretion to apply a further disregard up to the full amount of any War Pension in payment.

  At April 2003, 392 local authorities disregarded War Pensions in full and two authorities, Middlesbrough and Bolton, applied a full disregard to War Pensions but not

  723W
  War Widows' Pensions. A further 12 authorities applied a disregard in excess of the statutory £10. They are, as follows: Barrow; Chester-le-Street; Gateshead; Newcastle; North Tyneside; Preston; Salford; South Tyneside; Sunderland; Surrey Heath; Tynedale; and Weymouth and Portland. The remaining two authorities, Easington and Wear Valley, applied the statutory disregard only.

  This answer corrects the information given in the reply to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 14 April 2003, Official Report, column 513W.

  Source:

  Ministry of Defence Veterans' Task Force from information supplied by the Royal British Legion.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [131598]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire on 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1027W.

  Fire Scheme
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from(a) individuals and (b) organisations in North Yorkshire on the Fire Scheme. [133586]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister understands the hon. Member is referring to the North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Authority's Draft Integrated Risk Management Plan. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received no representations on the Scheme from either individuals or organisations in North Yorkshire.

  Marine Aggregates
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effects of global warming in drawing up the guidance issued for determining applications for the extraction of marine aggregates. [133249]

  Yvette Cooper
  The effects of global warming were not assessed during the preparation of Marine Minerals Guidance Note 1 (MMG1) published in July 2002. The progressive effects of climate change due to global warming on the marine environment are still relatively uncertain. However, at present, these appear to include rising sea levels, increased storminess, changes to sea floor habitats and modified behavioural patterns of marine organisms. These are all matters that can be taken into account, as appropriate and as knowledge increases, in the Environmental Statements that accompany each marine minerals dredging licence application. Each Environmental Statement is examined carefully and widely consulted upon before 724W
  that application is determined. Licences for dredging of marine minerals are both time-limited and subject to conditions that include monitoring of the marine environment to ensure that action can be taken if unforeseen effects take place. As regards general policy, MMG1, as with all Government guidance, is subject to periodical review and to revision when necessary. Where the impacts of climate change both become more certain and are sufficiently significant to influence the stance of policy in these areas, the guidance can be revised to take them into account.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much marine aggregate has been extracted from UK coasts in the last 10 years; and what his assessment is of the total amount that may be removed within safe environmental limits. [133252]

  Yvette Cooper
  Most marine dredging for aggregate takes place over five kilometres away from the immediate vicinity of the coast. There is little extraction closer to the coast. The total amount of sand and gravel extracted for use as aggregate from all licensed areas in UK waters over the past 10 years is about 253.3 million tonnes. It is not possible to estimate with any certainty how much can be removed within safe environmental limits since the total size of the resource is not yet known. In addition, impacts on the sea-floor, marine currents and waves, habitats and uses of the sea all need to be assessed in detail, on a project-by-project basis, to establish whether any individual proposal is environmental acceptable. Each licence application is subject to an environmental impact assessment which includes a coastal impact study. This is the subject of careful analysis and wide consultation and, if necessary, additional investigations before a decision is taken. All licences that are issued by the Crown Estate are subject to conditions specified by Government to make sure that any environmental impacts are minimised. Licences are time-limited so that the position can be reconsidered if further dredging is proposed.

  Mobile Phone Base Stations
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the maximum distance is from a mobile phone base station that a school can be located in order to meet the definition 'near' thus requiring the relevant body of the school to be consulted under paragraph 62 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (Telecommunications). [133886]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government have not defined the maximum distance from a mobile phone base station that a school can be located in order to meet the definition "near" thus requiring the relevant body of the school to be consulted under paragraph 62 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (Telecommunications).

  The Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development published in November 2002 states that in determining whether a school or college should be consulted the following factors should be taken into account by network operators and local planning authorities:
  the proposed site is on school/college grounds;
  the proposed development would be seen from the school/college or its grounds;

  725W
  the site is on the main access point used by pupils/students to the school/college;
  there is a history of concern about base stations within the local community;
  the local planning authority has requested consultation with the school/college:
  the school/college has requested that it be included in any consultation (DfES has advised schools and colleges that if they wish to be consulted about base stations in their locality they should notify the local planning authority setting out the circumstance in which they would wish to be consulted).

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the calculations, indicators and assessments for each Neighbourhood Renewal Fund authority which led to the identification of 26 such authorities for additional residual NRF support. [132751]

  Yvette Cooper
  A copy of the table showing the allocations to the 26 local authority areas eligible for residual Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) resources in 2004–05 and 2005–06; the list of indicators against which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister measured the distance travelled by each area towards floor target achievement, and the set of base data used in these measurements is available in the Library of the House.

  Ordnance Survey Framework Document
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to publish the Ordnance Survey Framework Document. [133861]

  Yvette Cooper
  My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) announced in July 2002 that a new Ordnance Survey Framework Document would be produced, following the conclusion of the Quinquennial Review.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not in a position to say when the Framework Document will be finalised and published, but the Government is well aware of the need to conclude this matter without unnecessary further delay.

  Planning Law
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his plans to amend the planning laws to give local authorities and planning departments more powers to overcome abuses of planning law, with special reference to the removal of travellers and others from land without the consent of the landowner. [132927]

  Yvette Cooper
  When travellers have bought and developed land without planning permission, this would be an unauthorised development, which is a breach of current planning laws. A range of powers already exists to deal with unauthorised development, which is a planning matter. When travellers have trespassed onto land they do not own, that is an unauthorised encampment.

  The police can issue a Section 61 Direction under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, directing trespassers to leave land. Failure to comply with such a
  726W
  direction is an offence. Local authorities may issue a Direction to Travellers on unauthorised encampments under Section 77 of the 1994 Act. Again, failure to comply is an offence. Landowners have power under the common law to remove trespassers from their land. The procedure to be used is contained in Part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

  There are also proposals contained in Clause 62 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, to give the police power to direct illegally camped travellers to leave land. The new power could only be used if the local authority has available pitches on sites in their area.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if his Department will make a grant to Chelmsford borough council to assist it in offsetting the money they will have to spend to enforce planning laws through direct action at Cranham road, Little Waltham, Chelmsford; and if he will make a statement. [132929]

  Keith Hill
  No. Local planning authorities already have powers under section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to take direct enforcement action and recover their costs from the owner of the land.

  RAF Newton
  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to receive the report of the Inspector into the proposal to build an asylum seekers accommodation centre on the site of RAF Newton in Nottinghamshire; and when he expects to announce a decision. [134062]

  Keith Hill
  The Inspector's report was received on 22 July and is under active consideration. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will proceed to a decision as soon as possible.

  South Sefton Partnership
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps have been taken by the South Sefton Partnership to build a stronger community by helping local people(a) to be involved in planning and decision-making at local level and (b) supporting community initiatives. [128881]

  Yvette Cooper
  This is one of 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:
  Supporting the creation of the 13 Neighbourhood Action Groups (NAG) in South Sefton to co-ordinate regeneration activity at local level.
  Creating and funding 12-month Making it Real capacity-building project to help the NAGs complete neighbourhood audits and develop local action plans.
  Creating the NAG Support Team and the NAG Development Fund to support the on-going work of the NAGs at neighbourhood level.

  727W
  Funding a consultation exercise, run by Venus, to identify ways that young people can be actively involved in the regeneration process.
  Funding the Neighbourhood Skills Works project to provide NAG members with the skilled required to play an active role in local regeneration activities.
  Funding the Volunteer Support Project in Netherton and Litherland which aims to help groups provide a high-quality youth services through training and supporting volunteer workers.
  Launching the South Sefton Key Fund, a project to provide groups with easy access to grants of up to £10,000 to support community projects in South Sefton.

  Sunset Clauses
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to include a sunset clause in all new legislation promoted by his Department unless a specific case can be made to exclude a sunset clause. [120863]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister actively promotes the better regulation agenda and the use of sunsetting where appropriate.

  Sustainable Communities Plan
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will list the sites in each of the growth areas defined in the Government's Sustainable Development Plan that have been designated as sites of European importance for birds under the Birds Directive; [132671]

  (2) if he will list the sites of special scientific interest that are within each of the grant areas in South-East England designated under the Sustainable Communities Plan; [132674]

  (3) if he will list the (a) areas of outstanding natural beauty, (b) ancient woodland and (c) national nature reserves that lie within the grant areas designated under his Sustainable Communities Plan. [132675]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Chilterns and Kent Downs Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) fall within the growth areas.

  A list of Sites of Special Interests (SSSI), National Nature Reserves (NNRs), ancient woodlands and Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive (SPAs), within local authorities covered by the growth areas is available in the Library of the House. All NNRs and SPAs are also SSSIs, as are some ancient woodlands. Owners and occupiers of SSSIs must obtain consent from English Nature before carrying out any operations on their SSSIs that are likely to damage the special conservation interest. Government Departments and public bodies must similarly consult English Nature before carrying out or permitting any operation likely to damage the special conservation interest of SSSIs.

  The Communities Plan sets out a framework for housing growth within the principles of sustainable development. That means high density, high quality design and easy access to public transport and other public services. It restates our commitment to develop brownfield first, and to protect and enhance the green belt, minimising adverse environmental impacts. In the Milton Keynes South Midlands area, for example, local
  728W
  and regional partners have put forward proposals for housing growth which fall overwhelmingly in and around the existing urban areas.

  These and other growth proposals will be examined through the Regional Planning Guidance process. Areas such as AONBs and SSSIs receive a high degree of protection from the planning system because of the national importance of their landscapes and their nature conservation value. National planning policies on these areas are set out in Planning Policy Guidance Notes 7 and 9.

  In order to ensure that growth proposals enhance and improve countryside and nature conservation, we are actively enhancing green spaces within the growth areas. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently drawing up a green space strategy for the Thames Gateway, and are developing a programme to improve the quality and accessibility of strategic green spaces in and around the other growth areas.

HEALTH

  3G Telephone Masts
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been issued by the Department on the effect of 3G telephone masts on public health. [133037]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has statutory responsibility for providing advice on health risks from exposure to electromagnetic fields including radio waves. It has received a number of inquiries about a recent Dutch study, the effects of third generation (3G) signals from the Netherlands and has posted a response statement on its website at www.nrpb.org.

  Government advice on mobile phones and health is based on the Stewart Report, issued in May 2000 and available at www.iegmp.org.uk. In respect of base stations the report concluded:
  "The balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines."

  The operators of mobile telephone equipment, including 3G systems, should ensure that public exposure does not exceed the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Measurements to date undertaken by the NRPB and the Radiocommunications Agency (www.radio.gov.uk) have confirmed that public exposures are very much lower than the international guidelines.

  Research published since the Stewart Report is currently being reviewed by the NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. The group's review is expected in the next few months.

  Breast Cancer
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the members are of the Cancer Research UK study team studying potential risk factors for breast cancer. [133147]
  729W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This is an independent research project, which has not been directly commissioned or funded by the Government. The Department does not, therefore, hold details of the members of the study team. Cancer Research UK may be able to provide the information requested.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in the accident and emergency departments in Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust on 1 October(a) 2003 and (b) 2002, broken down by grade. [134050]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures for the number of staff employed in accident and emergency departments on 1 October 2003 have not yet been published. The figures for 2002 are in the table.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Medical Staff within Hull & East Yorkshire NHS Trust with a speciality in Accident & Emergency medicine As at 30 September 2002

  Numbers (headcount) Of which:

  All staff

  A&E specialists

  Total

  603

  33

  Of which:

  Consultant

  208

  5

  Non consultant Career Grade

  55

  7

  Registrar Group

  106

  4

  Senior House Officer

  165

  16

  House Officer

  25

  1—

  Hospital Practitioner/Clinical Assistant

  44

  1

  1Zero

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Arthritis
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress made by the NHS in providing treatment for arthritis sufferers. [133826]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government is aware that arthritis is a major cause of disability in the United Kingdom and that it has a significant impact, not only on health and community services, but also on the people who experience its painful symptoms. We are sympathetic to the needs of patients with arthritis and have helped make new generation drugs for arthritis treatment such as etanercept and infliximab available to National Health Service patients.

  Maximum waiting times have fallen over the past few years and will continue to do so. By the end of 2005, the maximum waiting time for a first outpatient appointment with a consultant will fall to three months and the maximum wait for inpatient treatment will fall to six months. This will help all NHS patients, including those with arthritis.

  Over the years 2003–04 to 2007–08, expenditure on the NHS in England will increase on average by 7.4 per cent., a year over and above inflation—a total increase over the period of 43 per cent., in real terms. This will
  730W
  take the total spent on the NHS in England from 56 billion in 2002–03 to over 90 billion in 2007–08 and lead to better services for all patients.

  Cancer Research
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on implementation of the promise made by his Department to match charitable spending on cancer research pound for pound in 2003. [133190]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In the NHS Cancer Plan, the government stated its commitment to increasing funds for cancer research so as to play a full part alongside its funding partners. We said that, by 2003, we would be investing an additional £20 million each year in the infrastructure for cancer research and an extra £4 million on prostate cancer research. This new funding would mean that, for the first time, Government (through the Department, the Higher Education Funding Council and the Research Councils) would match the current investment of the voluntary sector.

  In June 2002, we confirmed to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee that Government investment in cancer research had already reached the level of the charities. Nevertheless, we remain committed to investing the extra £24 million, as described in the Cancer Plan.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money will be spent in 2003–04 on research into(a) cures and (b)early diagnosis of (i) mesothelioma, (ii) breast cancer, (iii) other lung cancers, (iv) prostate cancer and (v) skin cancer; and if he will make a statement. [133496]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Over 75 per cent. of the Departments total expenditure on research, including that on cancer, is devolved to national health service providers and details of these figures are not collected centrally.

  The International Cancer Research Portfolio database at www.cancerportfolio.org contains details of projects supported by cancer research funding organisations in the United Kingdom and the United States. Data submitted by the National Cancer Research Institute includes the research portfolios of the 15 largest Government and charitable funders of cancer research in the UK where the research was active on 1 January 2003. The database can be searched by type of cancer, area of research, and funding organisation. It does not contain details of research funded through allocations to NHS providers.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision he has made for the annual cost to public funds of the National Care Standards Commission's inspection of independent boarding schools. [119655]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) is funded partly by grant in aid from the Department of Health and partly by the income it generates through its registration and inspection work. This Department's

  731W
  grant in aid funds the entire range of the NCSC's regulatory activities and is not broken down into components according to service.

  Criminal Records Checks
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees in the NHS require Criminal Records Bureau checks; what the total cost of those checks is; and who pays for them. [133304]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]: Since the start of the Criminal Records Bureau in March 2002, approximately 170,000 disclosure applications have been received by the CRB from the national health service and primary care. The tots 1 cost in fees of these disclosures is estimated at £2,744,000. The fee for disclosures is normally met in the NHS by employers.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England have been registered with an NHS dentist in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [131416]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  At 31 July 2003, 23.1 million patients were registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist in England. The information is shown in the table for 30 September for the years 1994 to 2002 and for 31 July 2003.

  General Dental Service: Number of persons registered with a dentist, 1994 to 2003—England

  Million

  At 30 September

  1994

  28.4

  1995

  27.3

  1996

  26.8

  1997

  26.8

  19981

  23.5

  19991

  23.5

  20001

  23.7

  20011

  23.6

  20021

  23.5

  At 31 July 2003

  23.1

  1Registration data for these years is not comparable with earlier years due to the change in the registration period.

  The registration figures exclude patients who have not been to their GDS 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 patients who access treatment from dentists on an occasional basis.

  The registration periods for adults and children were changed for new registrations from September 1996. This affected registration numbers after November 1997 and, as a result, registration numbers from December 1997 onwards, when the first 15 months registrations expired, cannot be compared with the earlier figures. Some of the reduction in recorded registration numbers is due to improvements in the methods of removing duplicate registration records which were first employed by the Dental Practice Board in 1993.
  732W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each primary care trust the number of children in the last year who have required dental treatment under a general anaesthetic; [132299]

  (2) if he will list for each primary care trust the average cost of dental treatment for children requiring a general anaesthetic in the last year. [132300]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not held centrally. Since January 2002, all national health service dental treatment under general anaesthesia has been carried out in a hospital setting. Information on dental treatment for children carried out in NHS hospitals does not identify where general anaesthesia has been used, nor the cost per case.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was to his Department for(a) ministerial cars and drivers, (b) taxis, (c) train travel, (d) the use of helicopters, (e) airline tickets and (f) chartered aeroplanes in each year since 1997. [123082]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information relating to the cost of ministerial cars and drivers has been addressed in a letter to the hon. Member from the Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency. Information relating to the cost of planes chartered for ministerial travel is the responsibility of the Cabinet Office.

  Information on the various elements of travel costs available from the Department's accounting system is given as follows. Figures are for financial years ending 31 March. Separate information on taxi expenditure was not kept before 2001–02.

  Cost £

  Taxis

  2001–02

  312,226

  2002–03

  336,659

  Train travel

  1997–98

  2,500,136

  1998–99

  3,622,829

  1999–2000

  4,825,844

  2000–01

  3,187,127

  2001–02

  4,741,888

  2002–03

  4,265,410

  Airline tickets

  1997–98

  438,633

  1998–99

  367,992

  1999–2000

  454,484

  2000–01

  614,316

  2001–02

  655,581

  2002–03

  639,508

  There has been no expenditure on helicopters

  All official travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules contained in the Department's published departmental staff handbook and 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 Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) special advisers, (b) press officers, (c) civil servants, (d) advisers to civil servants and (e) permanent staff were working for his Department in each year since 1996. [126472]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Between 1996 and 12 June 2003, there have been two special advisers in the Department of Health. Since 12 June 2003, there have been three special advisers at the Department of Health.

  Information on the number of press officers is shown in the table.

  Numbers

  1996–97

  15

  1997–98

  16

  1998–99

  18

  1999–2000

  21

  2000–01

  22

  2001–02

  22

  2002–03

  23

  The term "advisers to civil servants" is not recognised.

  Data on staffing levels in the civil service is collected from Departments and Agencies twice-yearly, in April and October. Headline figures are published under National Statistics guidelines via a press notice. Those for October 2002 were published on 27 February 2003.

  A copy of the press notice, accompanying media brief and supporting tables is available at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics. Copies of these documents are also available in the Library.

  More detailed information on the civil service is published annually in "Civil Service Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library. The last edition, based on April 2001 data, is due to be published at the end of July 2003.

  Elderly Care
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission research into the provision of elderly care by the independent care sector; and if he will make a statement. [132914]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There are no current plans to commission research into the provision of older people's care by the independent care sector. We believe that older people and their families should be able to choose from a range of options that will best meet their needs. The quality of care available to individuals is much more important to them than the type of organisation that provides the care.

  Foundation Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the criteria he intends to apply when deciding the value of the asset base and the charge on assets for foundation trusts. [132144]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: All national health service bodies are at present required to earn an annual return of 3.5 per cent. of their average relevant net assets held during the year. This charge is
  734W
  paid by NHS trusts as public dividend capital dividend. Relevant net assets are all the assets and liabilities held by the NHS body, with the exceptions of donated assets, assets provided by Government grant and cash held in paymaster accounts. The legislation currently before Parliament requires that the Public Dividend Capital dividend payment required from foundation trusts would be calculated on the same basis as that for NHS trusts.

  Foundation Trusts (Assets)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the criteria which he intends to apply when deciding the value of the asset base and the charge on assets for foundation trusts will be the same for private finance initiative hospitals and other hospitals. [132145]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: All national health service bodies are at present required to earn an annual return of 3.5 per cent. of their average relevant net assets held during the year. This charge is paid by NHS trusts as Public Dividend Capital (PDC) dividend. The assets of NHS foundation trusts will be valued on the same basis as those of NHS trusts at present, using the current cost accounting base.

  The cost of capital charged on NHS foundation trusts' asset base in 2004–05 will also be calculated on the same basis as for NHS trusts at present. Clause 13(4) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will require that the PDC dividend payment required from foundation trusts would be calculated on the same basis as that for NHS trusts. Details of the criteria are available in the "NHS Capital Accounting Manual", which is obtainable from the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk.

  GP Contract
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the new general practitioner contract. [132351]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government remain committed to the implementation of the new practice-based general medical services con tract by April 2004, as set out in contract document "Investing in General Practice", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Home Improvements (Waiting Times)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of waiting times for(a) stairlifts and (b) downstairs extensions and modifications when people have been assessed as unable to climb stairs or to use standard toilet or washing facilities; and if he will make a statement. [133484]

  Phil Hope
  I have been asked to reply.

  Housing adaptations for disabled people such as stair lifts, level access showers and downstairs extensions can be grant aided under the disabled facilities grant programme. This is a mandatory grant available to eligible applicants in order to help them to continue to live independently in their own homes. It is funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and administered through local authorities.
  735W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's budget for this grant has been increased substantially to £100 million for this year. However demand for the grant remains high and waiting lists do occur. Local authorities are required to respond to any full application for a disabled facilities grant within six months.

  The Government do not collect information on the length of any waiting lists. However jointly with the Department of Health we have issued draft guidance to local authorities setting out best practice in delivering this service. This includes target times for the complete delivery process including needs assessment, processing of the application and the completion of building works. These target times will depend on the complexity of, and priority attached to, individual cases but the guidance suggests that the maximum target time for the entire process should in any event be no more than 260 working days and only 80 working days in high priority cases. We are currently considering responses to this consultation and hope to issue final guidance to local housing and social service authorities before the end of this year.

  Hospital Subsidies
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the criteria he will use in exercising his discretion over subsidies to hospitals will be the same for foundation and non-foundation trusts. [132146]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: To the extent that any public funds are made available for any central initiative from the Department (for example, implementation of national service framework initiatives) national health service foundation trusts should have access to an equitable proportion of those funds, whatever the actual source.

  This is why we are taking powers, under Section 11 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to make loans, issue Public Dividend Capital or grants when providing financial assistance to NHS foundation trusts. These powers mirror the equivalent legislative provisions applying to NHS trusts.

  Influenza Vaccinations
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Department is taking to encourage older people to get immunised against influenza. [133213]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We launched a campaign on 1 October incorporating a number of strategies aimed at encouraging older people to receive their influenza immunisation. The campaign incorporates:National television advertising.
  Advertising in national and regional newspapers and magazines, including ethnic media.
  Advertising in buses, on pharmacy bags and online.
  Work with commercial partners, such as Gala Bingo and voluntary organisations such as Heart UK and the National Asthma Campaign.
  736W
  The Chief Medical Officer wrote to all general practitioners with details of this year's influenza programme in his letter of 6 August 2003.

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact the new guidelines issued by his Department on eligibility for protective injections against influenza will have on those with(a) asthma and (b) other medical respiratory conditions. [133091]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The guidelines on eligibility for influenza vaccination has remained unchanged since its introduction in 2000–01. Those with asthma and other chronic respiratory disease should therefore continue to receive their free flu vaccination, as they have in previous years.

  Living Wills
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibility(a) primary care trusts and (b) hospital trusts have to check whether patients have signed living wills; what the procedure is for carrying out such checks; what guidance he gives on recognition of such documents; and if he will make a statement. [134047]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is a general principle of law and medical practice that a person with the necessary capacity has the right to consent to or refuse treatment. A healthcare professional will therefore discuss with a patient possible treatment options. This would, where it is appropriate and as a matter of good practice, include how a patient would like to be treated if he or she were to become incapacitated.

  There are no formal procedures for checking whether a patient has made a "living will". But the process of obtaining consent should lead to a discussion of the subject where a patient's condition makes it appropriate.

  Guidance on advance refusals is included in the Department of Health's Reference Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment published in March 2001.

  The draft Mental Incapacity Bill contains proposals for putting advance decisions to refuse treatment on a statutory footing.

  Meat Inspections
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which(a) countries of the present European Union and (b) applicant countries allow meat inspection by the meat industry. [133119]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  European Union legislation, that applies to all member states and will apply to applicant countries on their accession, requires meat inspection to be carried out by the official competent authorities. The legislation does not allow the meat industry to carry out meat inspection. However, the legislation does permit, in some circumstances, trained plant staff to assist with post-mortem inspection of poultry and rabbits, but only under the direct supervision of the official veterinarian. This system of inspection is currently in place in a number of United Kingdom poultry plants.
  737W
  Information about the extent to which the meat industry in other member states makes use of this provision and the current situation in applicant countries is not available.

  Medical Equipment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 2 October 2003, reference 130874, on training of nurses, what monitoring arrangements his Department has in place to ensure that NHS trusts follow the guidelines in "Working Together—Learning Together", on training for using existing and new medical equipment; and if he will make a statement. [132509]

  Mr. Hutton
  Strategic health authorities are responsible for performance managing national health service trusts on the basis of local accountability agreements. They will ensure that NHS Trusts implement the lifelong learning framework targets, as set out in "Working Together—Learning Together", by monitoring progress through their mainstream performance management processes.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 2 October 2003, ref 130877, regarding re-use of single use medical equipment, if he will set out the results of the previous research; and what action was taken in response to its findings. [132217]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Patients Association, in collaboration with the Infection Control Nurses Association, the Institute of Sterile Services Management and the National Association of Theatre Nurses, reported from a survey in 2000 ("Hospital Acquired Infection and the Reuse of Medical Devices: The Patient's Association") that ten per cent. of responding hospitals were re-using single use devices. The Medical Devices Agency issued a revised Bulletin in August 2000 ("Single-use Medical Devices: Implications and Consequences of Reuse") and further guidance was issued by the Department in circular HSC 2000/32 "The Decontamination of Medical Devices".

  Midwifery
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) began studying as a midwife and (b) completed their studies as a midwife, broken down by region, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what proportion of those successfully completing their studies went on (i) to register and (ii) to practise as a midwife in the NHS. [133168]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: Information on the number of people entering training to become a midwife by strategic health authority in 2002–03 and by regional office area between 1996–97 and 2001–02 has been placed in the Library. Information by region is not available centrally before 1996–97. Information on the number of midwives completing their studies is not collected centrally.

  Information from the Nursing and Midwifery Council on midwives on the register and intending to practise is available from the website www.nmc-uk.orq.uk. Information on midwives going on to practise in the national health service after completing training is not collected centrally.
  738W
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what targets he has set relating to(a) the recruitment of midwives into the NHS and (b) the overall numbers of midwives employed within the NHS; [133169]

  (2) how many midwives worked in the national health service, expressed as (a) a headcount and (b) whole time equivalent, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [133170]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: Information on the number of midwives employed in the national health service is shown in the table. The Government expects to see an extra 2,000 midwives employed in the NHS by 2006, over a 2,000 baseline. As at September 2002, there were 23,249 midwives, an increase of 680 since 2000.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Registered midwives in England as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalent

  Numbers (headcount)

  1992

  20,345

  24,092

  1993

  19,629

  23,443

  1994

  19,337

  23,103

  1995

  18,034

  22,022

  1996

  18,262

  22,595

  1997

  18,053

  22,385

  1998

  18,168

  22,841

  1999

  17,876

  22,799

  2000

  17,662

  22,572

  2001

  18,048

  23,075

  2002

  18,119

  23,249

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2. A new system of occupation coding for NHS non-medical staff was introduced in 1995. The new codes classify staff according to what they do rather than the terms and conditions under which they are employed ie national payscales. Figures based on new occupation codes are not directly comparable with those based on the old payscale classification.

  3. Therefore figures since 1995 are not comparable with earlier years.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost to public funds of supporting student midwives was in the last year for which figures are available; and how many student midwives were supported. [133326]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service-funded student midwives are eligible for financial support under the terms of the NHS bursary scheme. The total value of bursary payments made to midwifery students for the academic year 2002–03 was £14.8 million, with 3,164 students being in receipt of a bursary. All NHS-funded students also have their liability for a tuition fee contribution (worth up to £1,100 for the academic year 2002–03) met on their behalf, without means testing.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when ministers or officials last examined financial support arrangements for student midwives; what principle decisions were made; and what plans there are to re-examine support arrangements. [133327]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department undertook a comprehensive review of all national health service-funded student support arrangements during 2000–01
  739W
  and a number of options for change were considered. It was decided to retain the existing overall format of the NHS package, but to provide a range of other improvements targeted at specific areas of need. NHS bursary rates across all the professions are considered each year and have been uplifted annually since 1998, including an increase of 10.4 per cent, (well ahead of inflation) in 2001. My ministerial colleagues and I continue to keep NHS-funded student support arrangements under review in order to ensure they continue to meet our objectives for the service.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an assessment of staffing levels in NHS maternity units, with particular reference to the number of midwives. [133633]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2; October 2003]: The Government are committed to nationally increasing the number of midwives. By 2006, we expect there to be 2,000 more midwives being employed in the national health service than in 2000. Since September 2000, the number of midwives employed in the NHS has increased by 680 to 23,249. Information on the number of midwives by NHS maternity unit is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the number of places available for those wishing to study to become a midwife. [133634]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October]: The Government are increasing the number of training places for midwives as part of the NHS Plan commitment for an extra 5,500 nurses and midwives entering training by 2004, over a 1999 baseline. In 2002–03, 1,445 students started training for a first qualification to become a midwife, an increase of 42 per cent., since 1999–2000. A further 677 started post-registration courses to become a midwife. Latest figures from workforce development confederations suggest a further overall increase of over 100 in the current financial year. Further increases in the future to improve midwifery services and to achieve the NHS Plan target.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the level of financial support available for those wishing to study to become a midwife. [133635]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]: The Department of Health undertook a comprehensive review of all national health service-funded student support arrangements during 2000–01, and a number of options for change were considered. It was decided to retain the existing overall format of the NHS package, but provide a range of other improvements targetted at specific areas of need. NHS Bursary rates across all the professions are considered each year and have been uplifted annually since 1998, including an increase of 10.4 per cent., (well ahead of inflation) in 2001.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls received by each NHS Direct centre in the latest month for which figures are available 740W
  concerned access to an NHS dentist; and what percentage of total calls in each case this figure represents. [131448]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is not centrally collected in the form requested. The number of clinical calls relating to dentistry by call centre is shown in the table.

  Dentist calls to NHS Direct for September 2003

  Site

  Dental calls

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  302

  Essex

  262

  Thames Valley and Northamptonshire

  279

  West Country

  630

  Birmingham, Black Country and Solihull

  257

  West Yorkshire

  2,375

  East Midlands

  1,115

  Manchester, Cheshire and Wirral

  626

  North West Coast

  3,642

  Midlandshires

  556

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire

  716

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  511

  Hampshire

  573

  Kent, Surrey and Sussex

  227

  North East

  950

  South Yorkshire and South Humber

  269

  Anglia

  373

  North and Central London

  233

  North East London

  98

  South East London

  222

  South West London

  191

  West London

  140

  In addition, NHS Direct will have dealt with a number of health information calls to do with dentistry but these calls are not separately currently identified.

  NHS Overseas Treatment
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 615W, on NHS treatment abroad, whether his Department has considered its position on the European Court of Justice judgment published on 13 May in case C385/99 Muller-Faure/Van Riet; and if he will make a statement. [129673]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 September 2003]: On 1 October 2003, the High Court gave judgment in the case of Watts v. Bedford Primary Care Trust and the Secretary of State for Health. In that case, judgment was reserved explicitly in order that account could be taken by the judge of the European Court of Justice ruling in case C385/99 Muller-Faure/van Riet, which was central to the issues involved in Watts. The Department has been given permission to appeal in Watts and is currently considering whether to proceed.

  Public Health Legislation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reform public health legislation; and if he will make a statement. [133393]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We announced in "Getting Ahead of the Curve", the strategy for health protection published by the Chief Medical Officer in January 2002, that we intend to carry out a review of the infectious disease law. As stated in the answer of 6 October 2003,
  741W
  Official Report, column 1333W, no specific timetable has been set for the review, but we intend that it should take account of the new emergency powers which it is planned to provide through the Civil Contingencies Bill.

  Stroke
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of stroke patients he estimates will be able to be treated in specialist stroke units for the majority of their hospital stay from April 2004. [133011]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Stroke is one of the condition specific standards (Standard 5) incorporated into the national service framework for older people. The target is that, by April 2004, 100 per cent. of all general hospitals which care for people with stroke will have a specialised stroke service, as described in the stroke service model 742W
  and that all people who are thought to have had a stroke will have access to diagnostic services and access to specialist stroke services as appropriate.

  Waiting Times
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Hull and the East Riding waited 13 weeks or more for an out-patient appointment in(a)2002 and (b) 2003. [132393]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of patients waiting over 13 weeks for first outpatient appointment following General Practitioner or Dental Practitioner written referral at Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Number of patients

  2001–02

  18,067

  2002–03

  17,814

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Treasury Solicitor's Annual Report
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  The Treasury Solicitor's Annual Report and Accounts 2002–2003 have today been published and laid before Parliament. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Procedures (Work Permit Holders)
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  On 17 June I announced the introduction of UK residence permits and in parallel to this the introduction of an entry clearance requirement for all persons who want to stay in the UK for more than six months. The entry clearance requirement is being gradually phased in over a two year period. The first phase will require nationals of 10 specified countries to obtain entry clearance from 13 November.

  I have now decided to expand further the scope of the entry clearance requirement in order to streamline procedures for work permit holders. With effect from 13 November all work permit holders and training and work experience scheme (TWES) permit holders who wish to stay in the UK for more than six months should obtain entry clearance before travelling. This will enable these permit holders to be granted their full period of stay in the UK, as stated on their work permit, before they arrive here, saving them from needing to make a further application for stay shortly after arrival.

  There will be a grace period for work permit and TWES permit holders until 23.59 on 13 January 2004 to ensure that those who are not aware of these new arrangements are not unduly inconvenienced on arrival in the UK. During this grace period if a work permit holder arrives in the UK without entry clearance, and would qualify for entry except for the absence of the necessary entry clearance, they will be admitted for a period of six months. During that time they will be able to apply for an extension of stay for a period up to the length of their work permit. This application will not require an accompanying second work permit application to be made by a UK employer.

DEFENCE

  Suez Medal
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  Further to the written answer to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 869W, I am
  46WS
  pleased to announce that Her Majesty The Queen has graciously agreed to the institution of the naval general service medal 1915 to 1962 and the general service medal 1918 to 1962 with the new clasp "Canal Zone" for service in the Suez Canal Zone. Command Paper No. 5999 is laid before Parliament today detailing the criteria for this award. My Department's medal offices will now commence the award to eligible Suez veterans.

  Individuals who served in the Canal Zone during the early 1950s, or their next of kin, are invited to write to the appropriate medal office providing their name, date of birth and service number. The addresses of the medal offices are as follows:
  Royal Naval Medal Office, Room 1068, Centurion Building, Grange Road, Gosport, Hampshire P013 9XA.
  Royal Marines Medal Office, Room 038, Centurion Building, Grange Road, Gosport, Hampshire P013 9XA.
  Army Medal Office, Government Buildings, Worcester Road, Droitwich Spa, Worcestershire WR9 8AU.
  Royal Air Force Medal Office, Room 6, Building 248A, RAF PMA, RAF Innsworth, Gloucester, Gloucestershire GL3 1EZ.
  Civilian Honours Unit, Room 462, St Giles Court, 1–13 St Giles High Street, London WC2H 8LD.
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary Medal Office, SOS R FA CS1A, Room F11, Lancelot Building, PP29, HM Naval Base, Portsmouth, Hampshire P01 3NH.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  Together with my French and German colleagues I visited Tehran on 21 October for discussions on Iran's nuclear programme. We met President Khatami, Foreign Minister Kharrazi and the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Committee Hassan Rouhani. Our discussions were aimed at underlining to the Iranian authorities the concerns of the international community regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the necessity for Iran to comply fully with the requirements of the international atomic energy agency (IAEA) board of governors' resolution adopted on 12 September.

  By the end of our visit, we were able to agree a joint statement, which committed Iran to comply with the three key elements of the IAEA board resolution:
  to engage in full co-operation with the IAEA to address and resolve, through full transparency, all requirements and outstanding issues of the agency, and clarify and correct any possible failures and deficiencies within the IAEA;
  to sign the IAEA additional protocol, and commence ratification procedures. As a confirmation of its good intentions, the Iranian Government states that it would continue to co-operate with the Agency in accordance with the Protocol in advance of its ratification:
  to suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, as defined by the IAEA.

  I will place the full text of the joint statement in the Library of the House today.
  47WS
  This joint statement represents a good start to the process of resolving international concerns over Iran's nuclear programme and we welcomed it as such. But we also made clear to our Iranian interlocutors that the real test will be full and early implementation of the commitments they have offered. They know that the international community will be looking closely at the evidence in the next report of the IAEA director-general, which is due to be presented to the board of governors in early November.

  The joint statement makes clear that, while implementation of the steps outlined should enable the IAEA board to resolve the immediate problem with
  48WS
  Iran, there is also a longer-term issue. Britain, France and Germany remain ready to address that issue through dialogue with Iran on a basis for longer term co-operation, which would provide all parties with satisfactory assurances about Iran's nuclear power generation programme. We made clear that it is only once international concerns are fully resolved that Iran could expect easier access to modern technology and supplies.

  The visit has demonstrated the value of a united approach between Britain, France and Germany, working to uphold the decisions of the IAEA and its board of governors, and consistent with the common approach to Iran agreed by several European Councils.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sex Offences Review
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)
  A review of sex offences in Northern Ireland is being undertaken by officials in the Northern Ireland Office. The review follows on from proposed changes to the law on sex offences in England and Wales, and is looking at ways to achieve a strengthened and modernised body of law on sexual offences in Northern Ireland.

  The terms of reference for the review are:
  "To review the sex offences in the common and statute law in Northern Ireland, and make recommendations that will:
  provide coherent and clear sex offences which protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation; enable offenders, particularly abusive offenders, to be appropriately punished; and
  be fair and non-disrciminatory in accordance with the ECHR, Human Rights Act and the Northern Ireland Act 1998."

  The review will seek to adopt, and adapt to the Northern Ireland context, much of the work undertaken in the Home Office review of sex offences. It will also take into account proposed reform of the law in England and Wales resulting from the Sexual Offences Bill currently before this House. It is our intention to draw upon the knowledge and experience of interested groups and to issue a consultation document in early 2004. Our aim is to introduce legislation in the 2004–05 parliamentary session.

DEFENCE

  Oil and Pipelines Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The first stage of the Quinquennial Review (QQR) of the Oil and Pipelines Agency (OPA), an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB), has been completed. The review focused on the OPA and its role as managing agent of the Government Pipeline and Storage System (GPSS).

  The Stage 1 report found general satisfaction in the performance of the OPA since its inception and that customers both military and commercial were generally content with its stewardship of the GPSS. The report also established that there is a continuing need for the GPSS and hence for it to be managed. Having established this need, the review concluded that the OPA was best placed to discharge this role and, after examining a range of alternative status options for the OPA, considered that it should continue to operate as an NDPB for the present time.
  16WS
  The review also concluded that there were a number of improvements that should be taken forward into Stage 2 of the review, the most significant of which are:

  Developing the 0PA's Management and Business Plans.

  Revising the Managing Agency Agreement between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the OPA.

  Revising arrangements for corporate governance.

  Reviewing the OPA support structure and communications.

  I have given my endorsement to the report's recommendations and Stage 2 is now underway with the aim of completing this work by the end of 2003. A copy of the Executive Summary of the QQR Stage 1 report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Warship Support Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Warship Support Agency for financial year 2003–04. The targets build on progress already made and are as follows:

  Key Target 1: Quantity

  To meet the 100 per cent. available vessel days target.

  Key Target 2: Timeliness

  To meet the <6.5 per cent. upkeep period timeliness target.

  Key Target 3: Timeliness

  To achieve the 95 per cent. target for timely completion of the high priority upgrade programme.

  Key Target 4: Quality

  To achieve the Operational Support Services target of providing the appropriate standard of single living accommodation to 35 per cent. of naval personnel.

  Key Target 5: Quality

  To achieve the Operational Support Services target of meeting the Customers Needs ISO Quality Control Comment Form targets, as follows:

  Group 1–0 failures Group 2–0 failures

  Group 3 <5 per cent. failure

  Key Target 6: Quantity

  To generate the capacity to support the Naval Force Generation Plan target with Green assessments against all elements.

  Key Target 7: Cost/Efficiency

  To make the necessary Agency contribution to the Defence Logistics Organisation Strategic Goal of reducing Output Costs by 20 per cent. by 2005 whilst ensuring that we continue to deliver and, where appropriate, improve the quality of our outputs.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Access to Government Information
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information Monitoring Report for 2002 is being published today. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Control
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The Government are firmly committed to maintaining effective immigration controls while at the same time ensuring that genuine passengers are able to pass through our ports with the least possible inconvenience.

  The number of people arriving at UK airports who are found to be inadmissible is unacceptably high. Certain nationals, who are required to hold a valid visa to enter the UK, may transit this country for up to 24 hours without a visa.

  This provides a relatively easy and inexpensive way for those who are intent on circumventing our immigration controls to do so. We have already introduced measures to tackle this problem with the introduction of a direct airside transit visa requirement for 16 nationalities on 24 June. We now need to take further action and have identified six nationalities (Angola, Bangladesh, Cameroon, India, Lebanon and Pakistan) as posing a particular problem. Therefore from 00.01 hours on Thursday 16 October nationals of those six countries wishing to transit the UK will require a visa to do so. To avoid undue hardship for those who had already made their travel plans, we have agreed to operate a grace period. Until 23.59 hours on Monday 20 October any transit passenger who bought their ticket on or before 15 October will not be refused entry solely on the basis of not holding a valid transit visa. Also, any person on the return leg of a journey they commenced before 16 October and who passed through the UK on the outward leg of their journey will be allowed to transit the UK without a visa until 23.59 on 12 November.

  In parallel with those measures we are introducing changes that will allow certain groups of low risk passenger who would normally require a transit visa to be exempt from such a requirement if they are in possession of specific documents. This will include those who are in possession of a valid US or Canadian visa or certain types of residence permits, long-stay visas for entry to an EEA state, or the EU common format residence permit.

  We have also decided to remove the requirement for nationals of Croatia, Libya and Slovakia to hold a visa when transiting the UK for up to 24 hours. Finally, holders of diplomatic or service passports issued by the People's Republic of China, and holders of diplomatic or official passports issued by India will also be exempt from the requirement to hold a visa when transiting the UK for up to 24 hours.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Estates
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  In my written answer on 24 July 2002,Official Report, column 1583W, I announced that my Department had decided to negotiate with its existing supplier LandSecurities Trillium (LST) to provide estate
  18WS
  and property services to its former Employment Service buildings by expanding the existing PFI (PRIME) contract.

  These negotiations have now reached the point where I can announce that agreement in principle has been reached. Subject to contract, the expansion will occur later this year. As part of this deal, my Department will receive £100 million as a transfer payment as part of the agreed valuation of the former Employment Service estate.

  The expansion of the PRIME contract represents the best value solution. It will provide a uniform and consistent service with sufficient flexibility to meet the Department's future business needs.

  Note: PRIME (Private Sector Resource Initiative for the Management of the Estate) is a PFI contract let to Trillium (now LandSecurities Trillium) in April 1998.

  Social Inclusion
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  Copies of the UK's second National Action Plan (NAP) on Social Inclusion, covering the period 2003–05 have today been placed in the Library.

  The Government's commitment to eradicating child poverty and ensuring that everyone in the UK has the opportunity to escape social exclusion is central to its programme.

  To achieve this, we need to work effectively with a wide range of organisations across the UK—and with people who are experiencing poverty and social exclusion. The UK Government has made clear its commitment to working with the European Union (EU) to make a decisive impact on poverty across Europe by 2010.

  The two-yearly NAPs enable the Government to:
  join up action across the UK, encouraging the participation of the voluntary and community sector, 'grassroots' people and all levels of government;
  identify best practice and assess the effectiveness of our strategy against other EU Member States using commonly agreed indicators; and so
  learn from what works well both within the UK and across the EU.

  In preparing the UK's second NAP, published in July 2003, the Government has achieved unprecedented levels of participation in the anti-poverty strategy and a shared understanding of the challenges which will need to be addressed in the coming two years. The NAP also reflects the success of the Government's broader strategies. In particular, macroeconomic stability has generated resources to target investment in the priority areas of health, education, criminal justice, housing and transport;

  Overall, there are now over 1.5 million more people in employment than in 1997 and around 350,000 fewer children in workless households. There has been good progress in reducing the numbers below absolute low-income thresholds—around 1.8 million fewer children

  19WS
  and 1.6 million fewer pensioners below the 1996–97, 60 per cent. median income after housing costs threshold held constant in real terms.

  Employment
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  Copies of the UK's 2003 National Action Plan for Employment have been placed in the Library today.

  The EU Treaty requires Member States to submit an annual report setting out the principal measures being taken at a national level to implement national employment policies in the context of the agreed EU Employment Guidelines.

  The National Action Plan responds to this requirement. Reporting across the ten Guidelines, it includes detail about: how the UK's institutional and regulatory environment helps encourage job creation and removes barriers to entering and progressing in the labour market; how measures like the New Deal and Jobcentre Plus encourage people back into work; how steps are being taken to ensure that work pays by eliminating unemployment and poverty traps; and how measures are being developed that help create a skilled and adaptable workforce.

  In preparing this plan, the Government have worked closely with representatives from local government and the voluntary sector, as well as the CBI and TUC, so that we have been able to include a broad range of examples of how the objectives of creating more and better jobs and greater social cohesion are being pursued in the UK.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Commons Commissioners
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  This Department is publishing a Report of a Financial Management and Policy Review (FMPR) of the Commons Commissioners.

  The Commissioners act as an independent tribunal, now sponsored jointly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the National Assembly for Wales. It was established under the provisions of the Commons Registration Act 1965 to deal with disputed registrations of common land.
  20WS
  The FMPR Report is available on the DEFRA website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/common/index.htm, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. In summary, the consultant has concluded that:
  the functions undertaken by the Commissioners still need to be carried out;
  the Commissioners provide a cost effective service;
  the functions or the Commissioners should not be transferred to another body at this stage. Once the future role of the Commissioners is clearer, a transfer of responsibilities might be a possibility.

  On the third point, it should be noted that DEFRA is considering this complex area of policy and law in the light of the conclusions of the Common Land Policy Statement published in July 2002.

  The Review also recommended a number of primarily administrative improvements relating to internal audit, the keeping of better management information and the introduction of performance monitoring. The Chief Commissioner and his Clerk will be considering how to take these issues forward, in close conjunction with DEFRA and Welsh Assembly Government officials.

TRANSPORT

  Powering Future Vehicles Strategy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  Last July, the Department for Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Treasury jointly published the Government's Powering Future Vehicles strategy for promoting the development, introduction and take-up of clean, low-carbon vehicles and fuels in the UK, and ensuring the full involvement of the UK's automotive industries in the new technologies. The strategy set out the Government's objective that the UK should lead the global shift to the low-carbon economy, building competitive advantage for our automotive industries. Today the Low Carbon Ministerial Group, charged with oversight of the implementation of the Powering Future Vehicles strategy, published its first annual report, setting out the significant progress made towards the strategy's targets for low-carbon cars and buses and the other objectives A set. The strategy emphasised that a speedy and productive shift to low-carbon vehicles and fuels needed to involve not only Government, but the other stakeholders—the auto and fuel industries, environmental groups, and transport users.

  The Government therefore welcomes the setting up of a Low Carbon Vehicles Partnership, bringing together all those with a stake in and commitment to the shift in the UK's transport economy—with the involvement of industry leaders and others at the most senior level. The report has been published on the DfT website, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Human Rights
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the quorum of the Select Committee appointed to join with the committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Human Rights be two.— (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gambling
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order of the House of 9th September appointing a Select Committee to join with a committee of the Commons to consider and report on any clauses of a draft Gambling Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be amended by leaving out the words "within the United Kingdom".—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 11,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 12 to 26,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 27 to 39,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 40 to 60,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 61 to 97,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 98 to 118,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 119 to 161,

Schedule 7,

Clause 162,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 163 to 169,

Schedule 9,

1726

Clause 170,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 171 to 175,

Schedule 11,

Clause 176,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 177 to 201,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 202 to 206,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 207 to 211,

Schedules 15 and 16,

Clause 212,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 213 to 221,

Schedule 18,

Clauses 222 to 247,

Schedule 19,

Clauses 248 to 254,

Schedule 20,

Clauses 255 to 256,

Schedule 21,

Clause 257,

Schedule 22,

Clause 258,

Schedules 23 and 24,

Clauses 259 to 261,

Schedule 25,

Clause 262,

Schedule 26,

Clauses 263 to 276,

Schedule 27,

Clauses 277 to 280,

Schedule 28,

Clauses 281 to 298,

Schedule 29,

Clauses 299 to 301,

Schedule 30,

Clauses 302 to 305,

Schedule 31,

Clauses 306 and 307,

Schedule 32,

Clause 308,

Schedule 33,

Clause 309,

Schedule 34,

Clauses 310 to 314.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Female Genital Mutilation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
11.8 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretarty of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): 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.—(Lord Warner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 171 [General medical services contracts]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 456:
Page 90. line 13, leave out "suspending or terminating" and insert "as to the circumstances in which a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board may agree with a contractor that"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 456, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 457. Subsection (4)(b) of proposed new Section 28U provides for regulations to be made that would suspend or terminate a requirement in the GMS contract to provide services of a specified type. I have no difficulty with what I interpret to be the purpose of this provision; my only difficulty is with the drafting. It will surely not be possible for regulations on their own to achieve the intended purpose because, in reality, if a PCT or LHB wished to suspend or terminate an additional service, I should have thought that it would almost always be practice-specific. Surely, regulations would not want to provide for a blanket suspension or termination of a service, nor legally could they provide for a suspension or termination of that service by particular doctors. Will the Minister shed some light on that matter and reassure the Committee that the drafting is robust? I beg to move.
Lord Warner: I will try to explain the purpose behind the provision, and in the course of that explanation I hope to satisfy the noble Earl.
Proposed new Section 28U(4)(b) allows for regulations to make provision about the suspension or termination of a duty under the new GMS contract to provide services of the prescribed nature. It allows for GMS practices to be able to opt out of providing out-of-hours services and those services designated as additional services in the agreement between the BMA and NHS Confederation. The regulations will define those particular services and detail the procedures through which the option to opt out can be affected.
We believe that the wording does deal with the practice issue. Certainly, the agreement on the new GMS contract allows practices to be able to opt out of providing out-of-hours and additional services with or without the agreement of the PCT, provided that they follow the procedures that will be set out in the regulations. Only in exceptional circumstances—and provided that the PCC has been able to demonstrate to an appeal body that it is essential for the practice to continue to provide a particular service in order to guarantee patients' rights—will the PCT be able to prevent such opt-outs.
The effect of this amendment would be to undermine the opt-out process because it would give the PCT an absolute veto over a practice's right to opt
1728
out of a service. It cuts across one of the most important parts of the agreement with the profession. Being able to opt out of providing services is a fundamental plank of that agreement that builds on the existing flexibility. There is not a dramatic change here in terms of the areas of services covered, but they are expressed in terms of practices rather than individual doctors. Under the agreement, the practices need to be able to vary their workload according to their capacity to provide those services and, of course, to the income to which they aspire.
Maternity, family planning, child health surveillance and minor surgery have always been optional services for practices. Under the current arrangements, individual GPs can opt out in full or part when they do not have the necessary professional expertise or facilities, or, in the case of family planning, they cannot provide the services for reasons of conscience. Not all individual GPs currently provide those services. The new agreement provides for vaccinations, immunisations and cervical screening to be added to the list. However, those services are also voluntary because practices and GPs could currently opt out of providing them. Again, it is up to the practices. If they opt out of providing services, their income will be reduced.
I could develop those arguments further but I have sought to explain the purpose behind the clause and the effect that the amendment would have on it. We do not think that the drafting is deficient, but I am happy to arrange for the noble Earl, if he wishes, to talk to the lawyers about that outside the Committee.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister. He will realise that I was, essentially, asking a simple question through a probing amendment: how can regulations operate at the level of individual practices? I think that I understand what the Minister told me about opt-outs. I will read carefully what he said. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 457 and 457A not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 457B is agreed to, I cannot then call Amendments Nos. 458 and 459.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 457B:
Page 90, leave out lines 18 to 26.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 458 and 459 not moved.]
Clause 171, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 172 agreed to.
Clause 173 [Arrangements under section 28C of the 1977 Act]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 459A to 459E:
Page 92, line 4, leave out "or section 17C arrangements" and insert ", section 17C arrangements or Article 15B arrangements; or

1729
(iii) under section 19 or 25 of the 1978 Act or Article 56 or 61 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (1972 No. 1256 (N.I.14));"
Page 92, line 24, leave out "an individual" and insert "a person"
Page 92, leave out lines 27 to 37 and insert—
"() an individual who is providing services as specified in subsection (l)(bc)(iii) above".
Page 92, line 38, leave out from ""section 28C employee"" to end of line 39 and insert "for "an individual providing" substitute "a person providing or performing""
Page 93, line 20, at end insert—
"() In that section, after subsection (3C) (as inserted by subsection (9) above) insert—
"(3D) The regulations may also include provision for the resolution of disputes as to the terms of any proposed section 28C arrangements, and in particular may make provision—

(a) for the referral of the terms of the proposed arrangements to the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales; and

(b) for the Secretary of State, or Assembly, or a person appointed by him or it, to determine the terms on which the arrangements may be entered into.""

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 173, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 174 agreed to.
11.15a.m.
Clause 175 [Persons performing primary medical and dental services]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 460:
Page 94, leave out lines 16 to 18.
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 460, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 461 and 462. New Section 28W relates to primary medical and dental services and the lists that restrict and define the practitioners eligible to provide those services. The amendments are probing amendments, and I should be glad if the Minister could comment on them.
Subsection (4)(e) of the new section refers to the declaration of interests, specifically financial interests. It would be helpful to know what interests other than financial a person will have to declare, to whom he will have to declare them and whether such declarations will be published. Will a de minimis provision apply? My fear is that we will go overboard in asking professional people to declare every conceivable interest, however insignificant, and that the process will not only become cumbersome but will cause real discontent among doctors and dentists. We do not need that.
I should be grateful for the Minister's confirmation that subsection (4)(g) is intended to cover the possibility of, for example, fraud or gross malpractice by a practitioner, in a case in which it might be considered inappropriate for that person to remove himself or be removed from the list until such concerns had been resolved one way or the other. I cannot see any justification in other circumstances for keeping someone on a list against his will, but, perhaps, the Minister can clarify that.
Finally, the purpose of subsections (5) and (6) is not clear to me. Subsection (6)(a), in particular, is a complete mystery. What sort of conditions might be imposed to meet the requirements of subsection (6)? Should not those requirements be in the contract, rather than the list of practitioners? I beg to move.
Lord Warner: Many of the provisions continue existing practices. I turn first to Amendment No. 460. It is crucial that, once a practitioner has been admitted to a PCTs list, that practitioner complies with certain requirements. The requirements include notifying the PCT about criminal investigations and charges or other investigations. That continues existing practice.
With regard to the declaration of gifts and financial interests, there must be consistent rules throughout primary care. The provisions simply place in their proper context the existing regulation-making powers. There is nothing new about that. The powers were previously inserted into Sections 29 and 36 of the National Health Service Act 1977 by Section 23 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. The provisions will ensure that gifts and financial interests are dealt with openly and honestly.
We recognise the special relationship that exists between practitioners and their patients and realise that patients will occasionally want to provide tokens of gratitude. We do not want to make practitioners refuse gifts, but we need transparent procedures to prevent abuse. If we did not have that provision, we would have inconsistency between some primary care practitioners, on the one hand, and other NHS employees, such as hospital clinicians, on the other. For example, hospital clinicians are required to declare gifts.
Common sense about the scale of the gifts must prevail. There is a world of difference between a box of chocolates and a foreign holiday. The onus is on the practitioner to recognise sensibly which gifts should be declared. I hope that that clarifies matters for the noble Earl.
I turn to Amendment No. 461. Doctors and dentists whose conduct or performance are under investigation by PCTs are prevented withdrawing from the list until the PCT has decided the matter. That continues the present arrangements.
Amendment No. 462 would have the effect that a doctor or dentist who was under investigation by the PCT or had been suspended or given a notice of intention to remove him would be able to avoid removal from a list simply by withdrawing from that list. That, in turn, would enable the doctor to apply to other PCTs, without having to declare what had happened. That is continuing present practices in that area.
In broad terms, the noble Earl is right. We are largely talking about—certainly from my own experience when I chaired a family health service authority—serious malpractice or financial irregularities. I am struggling to think on my feet of other circumstances that I have experienced in this area. I will check and if there are others I shall write to the noble Earl.

1731
Clause 175 is slightly delphically worded in the sense that we are continuing a longstanding practice; namely, there are particular aspects of the way in which, for example, a doctor conducts himself, but there is scope for remedial action. I am choosing my words with care. Occasionally, a doctor may go through a bad stage in his life—for example, he may have a little problem with alcohol or whatever—but it is a temporary phenomenon. Providing there is a clear plan to tackle the problem, and it is not so serious that services to patients are adversely affected, common sense prevails. Rather than lose a good doctor, conditions are imposed on the way in which he or she practises. We are talking about, and the provision in the legislation is dealing with, that kind of circumstance. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the noble Earl.
Earl Howe: Indeed, it does. I am grateful to the Minister for that, as I am for the explanation he gave with regard to my other amendments. From his remarks, I am not entirely clear, as regards the declaration of interests, to whom a doctor must declare his interests, how, in practice, that will operate and whether such declarations will be published as public knowledge. If the noble Lord can enlighten me further, perhaps he will write in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 461 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 461 A:
Page 94, line 23. leave out '"by a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 462 not moved.]
Clause 175, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 176 and 177 agreed to.
Clause 178 [Special Health Authorities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 178 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: What is the intention that underlies Clause 178, which makes provision for a strategic health authority to carry out the functions of a PCT in respect of dental services? The Explanatory Notes are silent on this matter. My understanding has always been that a strategic health authority would never be a commissioner of services of any description and that its role is entirely supervisory. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain what kinds of circumstances might arise which would trigger the making of regulations under the clause.
Amendment No. 476 proposes that the abolition of the Dental Practice Board should not take place until the matter has been debated in both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. It appears that the Dental Practice Board,
1732
when abolished, is to be replaced by a special health authority, but there is little in the Explanatory Notes that sheds light on how it will operate.
The reason for asking for the affirmative resolution procedure is simply that when a major reorganisation of the NHS takes place, Parliament needs the guarantee of being able to scrutinise the detail of what is proposed. Special health authorities are a convenient device which enable the Government to rewrite how the NHS is run. They can be created with relative ease from an administrative standpoint, yet their functions can be complex and of the highest significance. I hope that the Minister will look constructively on the proposal, notwithstanding any resistance her officials may suggest she should offer.
Baroness Andrews: I am completely impervious to resistance from officials. I do not think that I need to say that. There is great cynicism on Opposition Benches about headlines that say "Reject" and "Resist". I can assure noble Lords that we are at one with our officials about these matters.
The noble Earl asked: what is the point of the clause? Perhaps I could give him the brief explanation, which is purely the legal explanation and then answer his questions in relation to functions. I hope that we can come to agreement on that. Currently, Section 16B of the 1977 Act provides for regulations to provide for prescribed functions of PCTs to be exercised by a special health authority. The provision is needed to enable the rights and liabilities of PCTs—for example, financial rights and liabilities—to be transferred by order to the new special health authority established as a successor body to the DPB. That also enables us to allow for transferred functions to be transferred back by order if and when necessary.
For example, the general dental services contract may provide for payments to dentists under such a contract to be made by the special health authority rather than a PCT. The clause would allow an order to provide for the special health authority to take on the PCTs' contractual responsibility for the payments it makes. Subsection (2) makes similar provisions in relation to the local health boards in Wales.
Perhaps I may describe in more accessible language what we are expecting; that is, why we need a special health authority rather than the Dental Practice Board and what we want it to do. At the moment, the DPB is responsible for the payment or remuneration of general dental practitioners who provide general and personal dental services under the pilot scheme. It also approves higher costs and proposed treatments and fees in relation to certain services that are not specifically provided in the statement of dental remuneration. Therefore, it approves associated charges. Recently, it has also been directed, under Section 122A of the 1977 Act, to recover charges and other payments.
It is established under Section 37 of the 1977 Act, and the legislation also states, that the chair must be a dentist, as must be the majority of its members. At the time that the legislation was written, that made a great

1733
deal of sense: the board itself was making clinical decisions about proposed treatment. The board no longer concerns itself with clinical issues. Indeed, it has dentists on the staff who provide the clinical advice. Therefore, the board no longer needs that in-built dental majority.
The problem with the current structure is that it is inflexible. It cannot take on the additional functions that do not relate to general or personal dental services because its functions are set down in primary legislation. Therefore, it is difficult to match the capacity of the organisation to changing functions. It does not make best use of its staff. A more modern and flexible foundation for the DPB is long overdue. This is the opportunity for that.
Clause 177 provides for the abolition of the PCB and for the special health authorities to be established under Section 11 of the 1977 Act by the Secretary of State and the Assembly. It is a cross-border SHA and will undertake functions both in relation to England and Wales. As an SHA, it is capable of having functions transferred to it by directions.
The DPB has an enviable reputation of paying dentists correctly and on time. The profession draws confidence from that; we aim to maintain that confidence during the transitional period. We are discussing how best to achieve that with the relevant stakeholders. We also know that it plays an important role in verification of patient charges. Even under local contracting it will be important to ensure that the correct charge is being calculated and collected. We spoke a little about that issue in the early hours of Tuesday morning.
The continuing role of the DPB and the special health authority will maintain that important national perspective. Subject to consultation, the assets, liabilities and staff would be transferred, under Section 11 powers, to the new SHA. In addition to the payment function, the SHA will undertake monitoring and quality assurance—an area we want to see developed.
In terms of the transfer of functions, it may help Members of the Committee if I outline the timetable that we envisage. The DPB will continue to pay dentists on behalf of all PCTs from April 2005 at least through the transitional period, which is likely to run to 2008. However, we shall use the transitional provisions set out in the Bill to enable it to carry out functions in relation to the new contract. We anticipate that the special health authority will be established during 2005 and that it will gradually take on the functions of the DPB until the point at which all those functions have been transferred, when it will be abolished.
We have not yet set a date in 2005 for that, so there will be an element of overlap while the transition is completed. Obviously, funds for primary dental services will be allocated to PCTs in the usual manner. The new SHA will pay out moneys on behalf of PCTs, much as the DPB is doing now. That is how we envisage the timetable for the transfer process.
1734
I turn now to Amendment No. 476, which seeks to make the commencement of Section 177 covering the abolition of the DPB the subject of debate in both Houses under the affirmative procedure. As I have said, for operational reasons the SHA will need to be established before the DPB is abolished. 1 suggest, therefore, that the amendment would not be appropriate since a debate on the regulations under the affirmative procedure at the point of the imminent abolition of the body would be less appropriate than the opportunity we have now to consider the implications. A debate at the point at which the regulations are laid would take place rather after the fact.
For that reason, and given the explanations I have put before the Committee, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his opposition to Clause 178 standing part of the Bill.
11.30 a.m.
Earl Howe: The noble Baroness has made a very beguiling point and I am tempted to succumb to it. I apologise to the Committee for having inadvertently misled it by referring to a strategic health authority rather than a special health authority. I am grateful to the Minister for the useful explanatory background to the process.
However, I still feel that, given the current position of the dental majority moving to a membership and a remit that is not yet clear, there is an important role for Parliament to examine the new arrangements. Perhaps the noble Baroness is right to say that it would not be appropriate to do that at the point at which the old arrangements are abolished. However, I shall have to reflect on the matter and. if necessary, return to it at a later stage.
Clause 178 agreed to.
Clause 179 [Charges for dental services]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 462A:
Page 96, leave out line 13 and insert—
"(b) for the manner in which patients should be informed about charges;"
The noble Lord said: I shall be very brief on this subject. Amendment No. 462A is similar in nature to Amendment No. 441A which we debated during the small hours the other day. I think that the Minister accused me of calling him a creature of the night; I would not dream of saying such a thing, but I daresay we could all be so accused. The debate this morning feels rather like the lull after the tempest, which is a far preferable way of considering these issues.
Put simply, it is important to ensure that patients are informed about dental charges as a matter of course. There should be transparency in this and in a number of other related aspects so that they know what their treatment is going to cost. The Minister confirmed that and gave us certain assurances when we debated Amendment No. 441A. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Our Amendment No. 464 has been grouped with this amendment. However, before I speak to it, I wish to point out that, in my view, the

1735
proposal to leave out line 13—that is, the provision for calculating the amount of any charge—and replacing it with,
"the manner in which patients should be informed about charges",
is a little strange. I much prefer the second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which would retain the original wording and add his additional form of words.
I turn now to Amendment No. 464. The Explanatory Notes on clauses explain that under Section 79A of the 1977 Act, the arrangements under the existing regulations provide for dental charges to be calculated on an item of service basis, which is what I suspect the new regulations will do as well. However, the notes go on to say:
"The existing system may act as an incentive for the dental practitioner to maximise the items of treatment provided to a patient to maintain income".
That is quite a charge to make, and to say the least it is a little vague. While it does not say that such practices are going on, it suggests that they could. Clause 179 therefore inserts a new section and schedule into the 1977 Act. My problem is this: how will such possible overcharging by dentists be avoided under the new scheme?
A further point occurred to me while looking at the new arrangements. First, presumably new Schedule 12ZA is to be amended by the regulations to be laid under Clause 179(1). I say "presumably" because it is certainly not made clear in the drafting of the clause. Secondly, as I have said already, if I am right and it is intended to have regulations at some point in the future to amend exemptions, then it is quite unsatisfactory to do so by negative statutory instrument. It should be done using the affirmative procedure, a point that I made over and over again at some time between midnight and half-past two on Tuesday morning.
Baroness Andrews: We all had something of the night about us on Tuesday morning, although I thought that we were heroic in our efforts. However, it is nicer to debate these matters when one is feeling relatively more awake.
Let me put the noble Lord's mind at rest on the various questions he raised. Under the current law, Section 79A of the 1977 Act provides for the charges paid by a patient for dental treatment under general dental services to be based on the remuneration paid to the dentist. As the noble Lord pointed out, the present regulations provide for such charges to be calculated on an item of service basis.
The first problem with this system is that patients, dentists and representatives from the Audit Commission have all said that it is very unclear. Dental charges are difficult to understand and raise concerns about the potential cost of treatment, and blur the point at which treatment provided under the NHS moves across, as it were, into private treatment. According to a recent survey undertaken by the British Dental Health Foundation, some two-thirds of people
1736
are ignorant about NHS dental charges. We want first to clarify exactly what people are paying for, thus answering clearly the question: how much will NHS treatment cost when I go to the dentist?
In future, dental charges will continue to bear relation to the level of service provided, such as a charge per course of treatment or per visit, but they will not be limited to whether one has had scaling and polishing treatments, or those involving fillings and so forth. We are breaking the link between what the dentist charges per item and his remuneration. It will also be based on volume, quality of service and costs, which is much more sensible.
The noble Lord also asked how we know that the system has operated unsatisfactorily and that there has been a degree of over-treatment. Evidence provided by the BDA suggests that dentists themselves have described the system as a "treadmill": the more treatments they offer, the more they are paid, and thus a perverse incentive base is built into the process. That is why, for example, patients who do not require treatment reviews every six months are nevertheless called in, simply to be told that they are all right. There is consensus that the system needs to be changed.
The new system will avoid such overcharging because it is to be based on a more sensible and strategic framework of charging so that people are treated for what they need rather than what dentists provide. Further, the new arrangements will apply nationally. They are not intended to increase the level of charges, but to ensure greater clarity.
Within this process we shall follow the advice which will be generated by Harry Cayton, the director of Patient Experience and Public Involvement. The majority of people on that body are patient representatives who provide consumers with professional advice. They are considering the charging regime, as the Audit Commission recommended, and we are awaiting their findings, which we expect early next year.
The point about exemptions is very important. I stress that there will be no changes to the current exemptions and that it is not our intention to increase charges. Those two important matters need to be on the record.
Clause 179 replaces Sections 78A, 79 and 79A of the 1977 Act with one streamlined section, proposed new Section 79. Amendments Nos. 462A and 463 seek to make clear on the face of the Bill that regulations made under Section 79(1) may include arrangements under which patients are informed about dental charges. Like the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I am not entirely sure why the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to remove the reference to the calculation of charges. It is extremely important—it goes to the heart of the provisions—and should remain in the Bill.
As I said in an earlier debate in relation to Amendments Nos. 439 and 441A, I can confirm our commitment to improving patient information. As I said then, we want that to be set out in national contractual requirements to ensure uniformity and to ensure that these issues can be properly and fully

1737
addressed within the regulation-making power under Section 280 rather than within the proposed new Section 79 regulation-making powers. I am unable to accept the amendments for that reason.
Amendment No. 464 seeks to make the regulation-making power for the recovery of charges for dental treatment subject to the affirmative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made no recommendation in relation to this, but I understand the concerns that it is a large and wide regulation-making power. The kind of issues raised by the noble Lord are related to other issues in regard to the power itself. We shall look again at the provision to see how the regulations might be made subject to additional scrutiny.
Lord Skelmersdale: This is one of those occasions when, from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, it is slightly unfortunate that these three amendments are grouped. Be that as it may, I was delighted to hear in the noble Baroness's long explanation that there is no intention—certainly at the moment—to make any changes to the exemptions. I am also delighted that the department and her noble colleague have decided to look again at the whole subject of regulation-making powers—which is what I understood her to say—from Part 3 onwards through the Bill. Is that what the noble Baroness said?
Baroness Andrews: I was referring specifically to the regulations governed by the clause.
Lord Skelmersdale: I may therefore have to retract on Part 3. But, certainly so far as concerns this clause, I am delighted with the noble Baroness's response.
Lord Clement-Jones: It gives me great pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in such jovial form in response to the Government's response, so to speak, compared to some of his contributions at an earlier hour.
Far be it from me to disagree with the Minister. I entirely agree with both her and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in regard to line 13. I am delighted that her response to Amendment No. 462A is consistent with the Minister's response to Amendment No. 441A. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 463 and 464 not moved.]
Clause 179 agreed to.
Clause 180 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Part 4: minor and consequential amendments]:
11.45 a.m.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 464ZA to 464ZG:
Page 148. line 21, at end insert—
"() in paragraph (d), for "or a section 17C employee" substitute ", a section 17C employee or an Article 15B employee"
Page 148, line 22, at end insert—
"(2A) In subsection (2), after the definition of "the 1978 Act" insert—
""Article 15B arrangements" means arrangements for the provision of services made under Article 15B of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (1972 No. 1256 (N.I. 14)):
"Article 15B employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in accordance with Article 15B arrangements, is employed by a person providing or performing those services"."
Page 148, line 25, at end insert—
"15A In section 28EE(2), for "personal" substitute "primary"."
Page 152, line 43, leave out "a list" and insert "all lists"
Page 152, line 44, leave out "such a list" and insert "a list under that section"
Page 154, line 15, leave out "28U" and insert "28TA"
Page 154, line 24, at end insert—
"38A (1) In Schedule 7A, paragraph 3 is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) after paragraph (f) insert—
"(fa) persons providing primary medical services or primary dental services under Part 1 of this Act;";
(b) in paragraph (g), omit the words from "or under" to "this Act".
(3) In sub-paragraph (2), for "(l)(g)" substitute "(1)(fa), (g)"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 181 [Replacement of Welfare Food Schemes: Great Britain]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 464A:
Page 98, line 36, after "more" insert "pilot"
The noble Lord said: I hasten to reassure the Minister that this is a probing amendment. I was quite amused to read the Minister's response when he stated that, as drafted, the amendment would condemn the scheme to being run as a pilot for evermore. I had a vision of the scheme being held in purgatory. I wondered whether officials had recently been reading Dante's Inferno. I was not entirely sure, but a nice image was conjured up.
There is a great deal of support for the Healthy Start scheme, for the principle of reforming the welfare food scheme and for the broad principle of widening the nutritional bases. However, the devil lies in the detail. A great number of organisations have an interest in the scheme—the National Childbirth Trust, the CPHVA, the Infant and Dietetic Food Association, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing, the Maternity Alliance, the British Retail Consortium, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and so on. So it is not surprising that there are a number of differing views and the Government and COMA have tried to pull together some of the voices on this issue.
But it is not all about differences; there is a great measure of agreement on the scheme and on some of the difficulties it faces. It is this area that I wish to explore and to put forward the thesis that it is extremely important to test out the way in which the scheme will work in practice. Therefore, whether it is called a pilot or a partial roll-out—whatever the

1739
language used—it is very important to try out different ways of making the scheme work. It is not entirely clear how it will operate and whether or not mothers will receive the right balance of nutrition from the scheme.
I shall not deal with registration. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe—which we support—in the next group of amendments deals with that aspect, on which many of the organisations have a common position.
I wish to deal with the value of the vouchers. There is a big issue in regard to their value, currently stated to be the equivalent of seven pints—about £2.20p. That would not be sufficient to pay for the cost of formula milk. For 900 grammes of formula milk, the voucher would need to be worth between £6 and £7. There is great concern that that could cause mothers to move to cows' milk too early, with all the attendant problems that that would involve.
The idea has been put forward, rather imaginatively, by organisations such as the Maternity Alliance and others that a differential could be established so that in the early months—the first six months or, indeed, the first year—the scheme would have a higher value and then in the last years—all within the same overall budget—it would have a lower value. It is very important that that aspect of formula milk provision is dealt with. It would not be cheap, but the scheme could discriminate against mothers who are not breast feeding. Committed organisations such as the National Childbirth Trust—of which I am a patron— and others are very worried about the infant formula aspect.
There is an issue about whether or not the voucher should have a cash value or a food value. Without a food value being attached to a voucher there could be potential discrimination in favour of those with good access to supermarkets. I remember that Tessa Jowell, when she was the public health Minister, carried out a fair amount of work on the aspect of food deserts. We do not all have good access to supermarkets, so that is a real live issue.
There is also the issue of the actual physical delivery of vouchers, which is a problem. In addition, the Maternity Alliance and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health are concerned about the introduction of the new tax credit scheme that comes into force this April. It will reduce the numbers of those eligible for the scheme.
On food choice, there is some divergence of view about whether a unified voucher ought to be given, but that is precisely where a pilot scheme would be beneficial. I sympathise with the idea that we should not be a nanny state, that we should allow mothers the choice and enable them to go to supermarkets with a voucher and, within the overall value of the voucher, choose the foods that they think are appropriate. We should also pilot the scheme to see whether that is the best way, or whether it is better to specify that an element of the voucher goes towards fruit and an
1740
element towards milk. That is quite important. The British Retail Consortium has qualms about that issue.
It is vital that different options should be piloted and evaluated before the national scheme becomes operational. There are quite a number of questions in that context that need to be raised. Is the value of the scheme going to be roughly the same as it was previously? It has been estimated variously at between £147 million and £167 million. Is there going to be a further cash injection? How many mothers and children do the Government estimate will be eligible for the scheme? On the value of the vouchers, have the Government considered whether there should be a differential between the early and later years?
How will the success of the scheme be actually measured? After all, this is an area in which evidence will be absolutely vital. This is a new scheme, and we do not want to be in a situation in which we take a leap of faith and the scheme is not reviewed or evaluated in a proper fashion, but goes on for as long as the original welfare food scheme.
What "healthy foods" will actually be included in the scheme? Who decides? Will it be COMA or an expert committee involving dieticians and paediatricians? What is the process for that? How will the cash value, if it continues to be the value of the voucher, be protected in future?
A great number of questions hang over the scheme. It has a fair wind in terms of general support, but the reason for wanting it to be piloted is the large number of question marks hanging over it. A large number of organisations want to see the answers to those questions. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: We support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his desire for more pilots. He has raised a number of practical issues about how the new welfare food scheme will develop. I shall raise a few concerns now that we would otherwise have raised in the stand part debate. It is probably better to wrap all the concerns up at this point rather than have a separate stand part debate.
We are concerned that, if milk is dropped from the scheme as an essential component, we move from having something of known nutritional value to a scheme in which it may be much less clear whether the equivalent nutritional value will be achieved. We know that the vitamin and mineral intakes for children under five can be, and are, improved by intakes of milk, with some rare exceptions. We do not know how the welfare food scheme might develop in other directions. Dropping milk is a potential problem, because we are moving from something certain to something far less certain.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, did not mention the impact on the dairy industry and, through it, on consumers. I am aware that the Government are aware of that aspect, but they seem to be unconcerned about it. Welfare milk is said to account for around 5 per cent of doorstep milk sales, and not all suppliers could cope with the loss of that business. Of more

1741
concern is the impact on the loss of milk rounds, because the people who will be affected by them are the more vulnerable people in society, who depend on those deliveries. The Government's response seems to be, "Let the milkmen sell fruit and vegetables", but that is not an easy proposition and it is by no means clear whether it is viable.
My last area of practical difficulty relates to the abuse of the scheme. If we have value-attached vouchers, we must have real concerns about whether those vouchers will be used for nutritious food or for junk food, or worse. I take Members of the Committee back to the days of luncheon vouchers, which I recall from the early part of my employed life. I soon found suppliers who would give cigarettes for luncheon vouchers. I have no doubt that something similar would happen if a monetary value were attached to vouchers. That is why we are concerned about rushing into a new scheme without greater knowledge of what we are doing, because we are potentially throwing away something that has been of undoubted value to young children.
Amendment No. 465 relates to the requirement for the affirmative resolution procedure. We believe that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny when a new welfare food scheme is introduced. The Department of Health, in its submission to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, said that it may need to adapt the range of foods regularly. Paragraph 303 of the submission said:
"This flexibility would be lost if the range of food were … required to undergo a separate and more demanding legislative procedure than the affirmative resolution procedure that applies currently".
We are not asking for a more demanding procedure than currently applies, because the current procedure under the welfare food scheme requires the affirmative procedure. We are, in fact, sticking with the affirmative procedure. I would take a lot of persuading that that flexibility means that we have to move away from the affirmative procedure. I accept that scientists' advice, over time, may change the approach to nutrition and, therefore, the composition of the scheme. However, I entirely reject the notion that the affirmative procedure would act as a serious brake on our ability to flex the welfare food scheme over time.
I hope that the Minister considers seriously the points encompassed in the thrust of the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, if not its exact wording, and the parliamentary procedures applied to any new scheme.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I was going to make various points, but the Olympian canter that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made through the whole argument leaves me wanting to make just one strategic point. There may not be a need to support a pilot scheme, but there is a real need for research into the possible outcome of the changes. Having said that, I am very much in favour of modernising the welfare food scheme.
The Food Standards Agency, of which, as Members of the Committee will have heard me declare several times, I am a board member, has, with the Department
1742
of Health, been seriously challenged by the difficulties of developing a good nutritional policy that would change the eating habits and improve the health of the nation. Your Lordships' recent debate on obesity, particularly in children, illustrated the difficulties we face.
The replacement welfare food scheme will ensure the availability of a wider range of foods and will provide greater opportunities for families to receive expert advice on food for children. We shall debate some of the difficulties of registration. The replacement welfare food scheme will contribute to the wider task of the agencies in their strategic aim and give mothers in particular a new relationship with the health service. It is vital to know and understand how it works. I do not necessarily support pilot schemes as I believe that we need to change the whole scheme. However, it is utterly vital that we have something in place to measure the impact of what we are doing.
Noon
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I hesitate to join the debate having missed the marathon session. I am not sure whether my flu did me a favour or a disservice as that session appears to have been an entertaining night. I support the concept of a pilot scheme as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, the devil is in the detail. There is potential for abuse. Until a scheme is implemented and monitored on a day-to-day basis, and the results of that monitoring are available to the Government, the potential for abuse of a scheme, and its potential to educate the eating habits of the nation, will not become apparent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, referred to the debate on obesity. The appalling deteriorating nutritional state of children in this country is evident. There certainly is a need to do something in that regard, but without a careful weighing up of the pros and cons of any scheme we shall be unable to assess the complexities of implementation. Therefore, I strongly support the concept of a pilot to gain the evidence that we so badly need.
Baroness Andrews: I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken in the debate and for the warm welcome from noble Lords on all sides of the House. I understand the difficulties that the Committee has in debating a scheme which is in development, as it were. Many details are currently out for consultation. I hope that I can address most of the questions that have been raised and provide some background.
The Committee is aware that, since its inception, the welfare food scheme has been of tremendous value to millions of families. However, it was introduced in 1940–63 years ago—and was designed to reflect the specific needs and expectations of families during wartime. The needs of families have changed, as have their expectations. Our knowledge of nutrition and child development has changed. We are in a very different situation now from that of 1940. The only thing that has not changed is the scheme itself. We have taken steps to ensure that we can effect

1743
permanent change taking with us not just the people who are knowledgeable about nutrition but also the beneficiaries of the scheme and the dairy industry. I shall discuss that matter later.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, talked about the strategic importance of making the link between what we intend to put in place for young mothers and babies and the nutritional choices and issues facing the nation as a whole. That is indeed part of the context in which we are working to change eating and nutritional habits and to help people to build up a lifelong habit of healthy eating and good health. The second part of that strategy is to create better ways for young disadvantaged families in particular to link into the NHS itself so that they can get the added support, information and help that they need to make nutritional choices that will suit them and their families throughout their lives.
I have outlined the main aim of reforms but the Committee will want to know more about the regulations. I completely accept that consultation and debate are essential if we are to introduce reforms which low-income families want and which food suppliers can operate. In March this year we published our consultation document based on almost 500 responses, which demonstrated broad consensus across the spectrum on the need for reform as well as support for the principles of reform, and particularly the introduction of greater choice in the range of foods provided. Questions and concerns were raised on the detail. We are continuing that dialogue informally but consistently with key stakeholders, including beneficiaries and the dairy industry. Recently we produced a report with beneficiaries which contained germane questions about points of access and registration. To our pleasure, the overwhelming number of responses were positive. We shall let noble Lords have that information as soon as we can.
We do not want to lose out on opportunities to support new mothers in the pre- and post-natal stages. All we know about health inequalities indicates that they start at birth. I refer to low birth weight babies, higher mortality and higher morbidity for disadvantaged families throughout their lives, which result in the tragic statistics of shorter lives. It is extremely important to get young mothers into contact with the health service, to give them the information that they need and to expand the range of nutritional support through the scheme.
Officials have met representatives of the dairy industry, infant formula manufacturers, retailers and health professionals on a regular basis and their views are being, and will increasingly be, fully considered. As I said, feedback has been extremely important. We expect to publish the full details of our plans for reform later in the year. We shall obviously consult fully and publicly on the draft regulations for the scheme in 2004.
I turn to the case made for piloting and testing by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We have full sympathy with that case. The regulations will encompass whatever arrangements for phasing in and
1744
testing prove appropriate. I assure the Committee that we do not think it would be fair on beneficiaries or providers to bring in new systems without ensuring that they will work in the way we hope and expect they will. To that extent we are minded to pilot or phase in the introduction of the scheme. We are still consulting on how best to do that but I certainly give the Committee that assurance. The problem we have with the amendment that the noble Lord has tabled is that it would restrict the scheme only to pilots. That is obviously something that we find difficult to accept. It would prevent us making the changes that we know from our feedback beneficiaries want without further primary legislation. It would also take time. After 63 years we are anxious to move swiftly on this proposal. It is not clear from the amendment what a pilot might comprise, how long it would last and what would happen to the scheme in the mean time.
The noble Lord asked some very specific questions which I shall try to answer. The noble Lord asked about the value of the voucher regarding younger infants. We consulted on that matter. It was widely welcomed. We propose to give the parents of younger infants more help with the cost of infant formula. One of our main intentions is to increase the incidence of breastfeeding. We want to be certain that whatever we come up with will encourage young mothers to breastfeed. That is perfectly consistent with what the Government have said recently about breastfeeding.
At the moment the specific value of the voucher has not been set. We proposed in the consultation document that the value should be broadly equivalent to seven pints of liquid milk. We are taking all views fully into account and considering how best to assess the various options for the voucher value. Currently we spend £142 million on the scheme as a whole. We should like to keep the scheme within those bounds.
I shall now address the question of the number of beneficiaries. I was asked how many people would receive the benefit. Currently, 800,000 new mothers, pregnant women and those with children under the age of five get the voucher. We would expect that number to be sustained. The number of beneficiaries obviously varies according to the number of people on benefit.
At the moment one does not receive the voucher unless there is evidence of pregnancy, and the maternity benefit form is used as evidence of that, so many young mothers do not come into the scheme until quite late in the pregnancy. Through the registration system we are aiming to bring young mothers in earlier so that they have a better chance of being supported through the pregnancy by the health professionals. We believe that that could be a more successful way of dealing with the matter.
The noble Lord also asked about monitoring and evaluation, which is a very important element. As I have said, if we phase it in that will enable us to learn from experience. We are also very keen to get robust evaluation. We shall certainly discuss how best to do that, whether it will be academically-based or practitioner-based. We have no intention of proceeding without a very robust evaluation scheme.

1745
The noble Lord also asked about healthy foods. We have talked about fruit and vegetables and cereal-based foods: that could be pasta or bread. We are still discussing with the nutritional experts the range that might be possible to achieve. As I shall argue in a little while, one of the arguments for flexibility is to have the ability to add different foods. For example, and speaking very personally, fish oil has been shown in recent years to have a significant impact on the brain development of young children. We are constantly faced with new information about nutrition.
I shall now move to some of the questions which the noble Baroness raised. She asked about milk in particular and the difficulty in exchanging its nutritional value for new food. The important thing is that milk is not going to be withdrawn. If families so choose, it will be possible for them to use their vouchers for a high proportion of milk. We are following the scientific advice of COMA in this matter. The scheme has, and will continue to have, a scientific base. We want to be certain about that.
As regards the impact on the dairy industry, the Government are certainly not unconcerned about it. We have consulted widely with the dairy industry. We know that there are a number of milk roundsmen who receive more than 7 per cent of their income from milk deliveries. We know that vulnerable people often depend on the milk round. We continue to consult with the retailers and the dairy industry on the matter. We have commissioned KPMG—the noble Baroness has an insidious influence on our tendering. I am not quite sure how to explain it. We are looking to that company to advise us on the specific area of milk delivery systems.
We are also looking at abuse. There is abuse of the system under the present scheme and most of it seems to derive from the suppliers and retailers charging over the odds, as it were. If we have a fixed rate voucher we believe it will remove that problem. We shall have four teams checking on the retailers to ensure that they sell the right range of foods. We shall require suppliers to sign up to a range of foods on registration. We are definitely not dropping milk. We shall be involving retailers in the decisions as they emerge. If I have not answered some questions I shall be happy to write to Members of the Committee.
I now turn to the affirmative resolution point and try to explain why we are convinced of the necessity for such regulations on this aspect. Affirmative regulations do have some disadvantages in the context of flexibility. The noble Baroness mentioned scientific evidence. Other potential changes are coming along in social security, tax benefits, and changes to health service delivery. The affirmative resolution procedure is more complicated. All the regulations covering the current scheme follow the negative procedure except for those describing the food to be provided. It is very interesting to note that the scheme has been changed over the past 63 years in every respect except this. This one area, which has been subject to the affirmative resolution, has not been changed since 1988. That of itself illustrates part of the problem we face.
1746
In reviewing the existing scheme, the committee dealing with medical aspects of food and nutrition policy was clear that any scheme needed to offer a broader range of foods. So we believe that it is essential that the scheme is sufficiently responsive to the needs of the beneficiaries. As I have said, we propose to pilot, monitor and evaluate; we propose to build in as much flexibility as possible so that we can keep the scheme going. For example, it might be possible to phase in new foods. We need operational flexibility because of the major changes in tax credits and the changes in the way the food is supplied. We are very anxious indeed to avoid inflexibility, restrictiveness, and slowing down the necessity for change after all these years.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not disagree with that proposal. It took the point that the negative resolution procedure served the scheme better. I urge Members of the Committee to think carefully about the implications of the affirmative resolution procedure for low-income beneficiaries who rely on the scheme to contribute 20 per cent of their weekly food budget. We want to move fast and to be flexible. On those grounds and in view of the explanations that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: Before the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, decides what to do about his amendment, perhaps I may return to a couple of points. The Minister said that she needs to move quickly. We cannot see the need for that. The current scheme is not failing. There may be some problems with it and issues of abuse at the margin. But the scheme is delivering milk, which has a known, life-time nutritional effect, particularly on young children. We are moving towards a scheme which has potential problems. I am not disputing that other foods have good nutritional value, but turning that into a food scheme is far from easy. The noble Baroness said that she is sympathetic towards pilot schemes, but she wants to move quickly. I believe that means the exclusion of pilot schemes, which are the subject matter of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
As regards my own amendment, I am far from convinced that the affirmative procedure, which merely adds another few weeks to making changes, is inappropriate. It is certainly appropriate for Parliament to have a really thorough look at the scheme when it is first introduced. I will not be pressing the amendment today, but I put the noble Baroness on notice that we are quite unmoved by her argument on not wanting affirmative regulations for this scheme.
Baroness Andrews: I shall respond to the point about moving quickly. I reiterate that we wish to get the matter right. I am serious when I say that we want a pilot scheme because that is extremely important. We would certainly not sacrifice getting the measure right for the sake of speed. We need to identify potential problems.

1747
The present scheme has been successful, but it was conceived at a time when the need for milk was overwhelming. While milk will not be dropped from the scheme and it will be a major part of it, we are now offering nutritional choices which match our knowledge of what children and mothers need and which can be provided as part of our general drive to try to raise health standards. As I have said, the affirmative regulations are important because they mean we can continue to build in flexibility as the scheme develops and as tax credits, social security schemes and health delivery schemes change. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reconsider her view.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for her reply to my Amendment No. 464A and I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I was interested in the description of me given by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth—going for an Olympian canter. I assume that that makes me Bucephalus for this purpose, but I am not sure.
All noble Lords said that it is vital to know how the scheme is working and to measure its impact. We all accept the point on strategic importance, made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. It was interesting to hear the Minister unpick the strategy. We all accept the nutritional strategy, but the question which will arise under the next amendment is how far should the second limb of the strategy be pushed. It links disadvantaged families into the health service—the gatekeeper issue—and is an important aspect.
There has been a consultation exercise and the broad thrust of the reforms is generally welcome. However, the road map from here which relates to these proposals will be important. We want all the multifarious organisations to get behind the scheme. I welcome the Minister's comments that there is a commitment to a pilot scheme or phased roll-out, whatever it is called. However, the sooner the Government can set down a more detailed map of how that will work indicating what they have in mind, the better—and preferably before the Report stage.
There have been 63 years to work out alternatives, as the Minister made clear, but we have a shadowy outline of the way forward. I believe that it would be possible to say, "Right, this is the way we plan the roll-out and this is the way we plan the implementation. These are the ideas we have about actual measurement. This is the body which we think is the appropriate one. This is the kind of voucher and this is how they will be distributed". It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to get that right at this stage.
I hear what the Minister said about the value of the voucher, but she also talked about additional help with formula milk and so forth. I gained a vague impression that something is happening, but it is not entirely clear what that is.
The noble Baroness also mentioned a total cost of £142 million. That is interesting because it is the first time I have heard a concrete statement about the cost
1748
of the scheme. Some people would have put it rather higher than that. She also mentioned that 100,000 people will be eligible. I welcome the fact that in broad terms the Government expect the same numbers of people to be eligible.
However, many details—for instance, as regards the way in which implementation will take place and the basics of the scheme—have not been addressed. Have the Government addressed the issue of cash or food? There is a genuine point behind that question. Have they really considered whether different types of vouchers will be appropriate? That said, there is a big communications issue. It will be vital to communicate how the proposed scheme will work, starting at the beginning—which is now—saying, "Right, this is how we go forward". I therefore suggest that everyone gets their thinking cap on extremely early, starting this afternoon—
Baroness Andrews: I thank the noble Lord for saying that. We are very keen that the educational and information strategy is as good as it can be.
Lord Clement-Jones: That is great, but perhaps the communication of that to noble Lords at the Report stage would be a good way of demonstrating the Minister's commitment in that respect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 465 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 466:
Page 99, leave out lines 13 to 27.
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to delete subsection (4) of new Section 13 of the Social Security Act 1988. Put simply, subsection (4) reeks of the nanny state which we believe the Government would secretly like to create. They seem to crave interference in the private lives of the citizens, which is why, for example, there has been a massive creation of means-tested welfare dependency. For example, more than half the number of pensioners could, if the Government have their way, be subject to means testing. Of course that will not happen because elderly people value their dignity and privacy and will opt out of means testing, even if it costs them. And even the Government admit that because they anticipate that only two-thirds will receive their pension credit entitlement. Therefore, the Government know that schemes which undermine dignity and privacy will not work. But when we come to the new welfare food scheme, they have not learnt. We have another blatant attempt to interfere in people's private lives.
Subsection (4) can make a condition of receiving welfare foods attendance at a hospital, clinic or doctor's surgery; an examination; home visits by state busy-bodies; or being on the receiving end of lectures. Those lectures are not just about nutrition and diet; they can extend to any other health matter. So the state will exploit the vulnerable to keep its vice-like grip on those people's lives.

1749
Subsection (4) is offensive, which is why we oppose it in principle. We also believe that it is likely to be counter-productive in practice. It will, like the means testing of benefits, drive many away. Others may subject themselves to the indignity, but to what effect? I do not believe that the Government have produced any evidence that their forced intrusions into private lives will have any beneficial effect. Will the Minister say on what evidence this particular part of the scheme is based? Have the Government measured the effectiveness of forced clinical and other interventions?
This subsection is bad law. It is opposed by the Royal College of Nursing and the Maternity Alliance, among others. It should not be allowed to remain in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has typically been extremely cogent in introducing the amendment. We on these Benches support her. Philosophically and nutritionally speaking, we are happy with the overall concept of the new "healthy start" scheme, but the subsection is one of the major stumbling-blocks.
I sense from the Minister's letter that as regards the clause the dish has run away with the spoon. Someone who had clearly been working in the Soviet health system decided that it would be nice to insert subsection (4) and no one spotted it until it was too late. It is now in the Bill and the Government are having to decide whether it is a good idea.
There has been a universal ruffling of feathers from many organisations which are intimately bound up with child health, primary care and general practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned the Maternity Alliance. It states:
"Opposition to the proposal to make midwives and health visitors gatekeepers of Health Start is both philosophical and practical… penalising a child for the non-compliance of an adult could never be justified … far from improving contacts with health professionals, it may simply decrease uptake of Health Start".
The CPHVA states:
"We object strongly that professionals, in particular health visitors, become gatekeepers to benefits in this way".
The RCPCH states:
"Insistence on early registration might exclude. The system should be flexible so that mothers can register at any point during their pregnancy or their child's first five years".
That is a slightly different view.
The RCN has been particularly strong. It states:
"The RCN is opposed to compelling beneficiaries to register for the scheme and believes that it would detrimentally affect the nurse/client relationship and may also deter mothers from low-income families seeking assistance".
Its concerns are highly specific. It is philosophical. It believes—we on these Benches strongly agree, as do, clearly, the Conservative Benches—that the principle of conditionality in respect of this type of welfare is wrong. There is a human rights issue; there are practical objections to the measure; and, as is clear from my earlier quotation, the RCN believes that the nurse/client relationship could be affected by the
1750
measure. Of course, that applies to the other health professionals who are potentially involved in administering subsection (4).
I suggest that the Government take away this subsection, burn it and think of something entirely different and far more appropriate and acceptable in the circumstances. They will find a great deal more buy-in to the scheme as a result.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Chan: Having listened to noble Lords who have spoken about this subsection, I begin to wonder whether the Minister has a special reason for inserting it. I should have thought that the 800,000 people who will come under the scheme would be those living in areas of deprivation. They would also have health inequalities and would, in any case, require help from the NHS—particularly at primary care level. Therefore, they would be in touch with local health professionals, who would assist them and, it is hoped, would also encourage them to make good use of the scheme.
The subsection reads as a rather heavy-handed way of requiring people who use the vouchers to attend hospital and so on. Therefore, I am not clear why this provision is included as part of the scheme. I should like the Minister to help me with an explanation.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: As my noble friend Lord Chan rightly pointed out, the very people who will be subject to this scheme will be those in areas of deprivation. I want to add a little detail to the debate for consideration by the Minister. I want to draw attention to the GP vacancies which exist, particularly in areas of deprivation. Anything that changes the role of the GP in those areas from being a person who works with his patients to being someone who is seen in an administrative role inevitably will drive young trainees further from such areas of deprivation.
In the past year, there has been an increased vacancy factor of 3.4 per cent in general practice. That is a very worrying trend. There are huge recruitment problems in areas of deprivation. One thing that may attract younger trainees to such areas is the possibility of working in a different way—that is, in not such an administrative way—with their patients in the future. Therefore, I am concerned that the scheme may be cumbersome and rebound on areas other than directly on the scheme itself.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I think I understand the aim of the clause, but I believe that the implementation of the scheme would be extraordinarily difficult and therefore I cannot support its inclusion. But I understand the need to get young mums in difficult areas to make a link with the health service. I would support that as part of the broader nutritional strategy, which we are all trying to move forward.
However, I believe that the communication/ education phrase is probably a better one, and there are other ways in which the scheme can be carried out.

1751
To gain the vouchers at all, even under the present scheme, there will have to be a link with verification of pregnancy or of having children in the family. Surely we can develop that. But also, as changes in the type of credit available are introduced, surely we could include leaflets in that information. A wide range of alternatives is available which would not interfere with the relationships between the health professionals and the sometimes extraordinarily difficult to access families with whom they are trying to work.
Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate. There has certainly been some very strong language, especially from the Opposition Front Benches. Nothing could be further from our intention than that we should exploit vulnerable people. The scheme is about creating better links in order to support vulnerable, disadvantaged people. The aim is that the health service should move nearer to their needs in more comfortable and more effective ways so that they have better lifelong relationships with the NHS and so that their children stand a better chance of receiving nutrition which helps them to grow healthily, avoid obesity and become healthy and active citizens. Therefore, I take issue with the language that has been used.
I understand that there are concerns about subsection (4) and I shall address the specific issues. However, first, perhaps I may answer a few of the questions raised. I turn to the matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, who has enormous experience, which I respect a great deal. Our experience and evidence suggests that low-income families are less in touch with health professionals than middle-income families. To an extent, that explains their reluctance to go to the doctor or to make contact with a health visitor. That happens for all sorts of reasons—particularly in the case of young women. They attend later in pregnancy than higher-income women and they come with complications. They come not having had the proper nutrition that, thankfully, people such as us take for granted. We need to encourage and inform them.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the scheme is not about an administrative role for GPs. I hope very much that in the information that we distribute we make that clear. It is about bringing in low-income families on a confident, comfortable basis in the same way as we do with higher-income families and those who are more used to dealing with authoritative figures in society, of whom the doctor is certainly one.
We have also tested out the scheme with beneficiaries. Many beneficiaries welcomed the idea of receiving more support to help them to eat a more healthy diet and to navigate their way through the available information about what is and is not healthy. That information is often very confusing. They also welcomed the idea of being encouraged to obtain help with budgeting and to know that cooking is sometimes an easy alternative. I say that without being patronising. This is nothing to do with nannying; I
1752
believe that many people simply need to get their hands on the right information. We certainly welcome the schemes that exist. The Sure Start scheme has been a great success because it has made the link between low-income families and sources of support. I consider it to be a very good model for this scheme and we want to build on that.
We also know from the Acheson inquiry into health inequalities that breast-feeding confers short and long-term health benefits. However, the vast majority of mothers still choose to bottle-feed and we want to address some of those issues in relation to young mums, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth.
As I said, we are talking about 800,000 eligible people. However, I reiterate that the current scheme is missing a major opportunity to bring the family within the framework of the National Health Service in more effective ways and to tackle health inequalities that start at birth. The aim of the reformed scheme is to make better use of that potential and, indeed, to offer the health professionals themselves a better way of becoming involved. The scheme provides the most significant opportunity that health professionals have had for a generation to achieve their aims of improving nutrition and health outcomes. That is why we want to implement a new system of support, advice and guidance and why information and help is so important. It is important to get the communication right.
It is not our aim to introduce a series of new contact points; nor is it our aim to place undue burdens on the NHS or the beneficiaries or to put at risk the important relationships that exist. That is precisely why we are consulting so widely. We are going to build on existing NHS practices and contact points for pregnant women and young mothers in a way which is proportionate— proportionate with human rights as well—and which complements the role of health professionals. We are going to use the existing network. We want to encourage a more effective take-up of ante-natal services. But I assure noble Lords that we would not expect to set up schemes outside the normal provision which is available to all. We shall not insist that low-income women be subject to any examination outside the normal procedures that take place at present when any woman confirms her pregnancy. To receive maternity benefits at the moment one has to provide proof of pregnancy and that is why people have to fill in forms.
These aims are wholly consistent with our wide objective to reduce child poverty and to reduce disease. As I have said, a similar model is set out in Sure Start, which has a 95 per cent take-up rate. We anticipate similar levels of take-up. If the amendment were to be accepted, this vital opportunity to tackle health inequalities would be severely threatened. We would lose that opportunity. We would lose the potential of a very important change in the way that we do things.
However, I have been listening very carefully to the points that have been made. I understand that people feel seriously about this issue, particularly about the

1753
requirements relating to physical examination. We know that that has caused some concern. Therefore, I am minded to take the amendment away for reconsideration. On that basis I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendment.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. If it had not been for her last comment, my response would have been framed in the strong language that she does not like. If she wants to hear strong language, perhaps she would come to my room later where she could find out what really is strong language.
I thank all other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Some important issues have been raised. We are not at odds with the Government in wanting to help young mothers do well for their children and for themselves. We want that as much as the Government do. The question is the means. We have been most concerned about the compulsion behind subsection (4). The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, spoke of helping, encouraging and informing. That is what we should be doing, not prescribing that a woman has to have a physical examination or a lecture or has to allow someone into her home and so on. That is why we find subsection (4) so wrong—not because we disagree with the aims.
We believe that the scheme could perfectly well be carried out in a proper way—without subsection (4)— by encouragement, and not by compulsion. I am very glad that the noble Baroness will take the amendment away and reconsider it for Report stage. I encourage her to think very hard about it before then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 181 agreed to. Clause 182 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 467 not moved.]
Clause 183 [Appointments to certain health and social care bodies]:
[Amendment No. 468 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 469:
Page 102, line 24, at end insert—
"() If the Secretary of State holds any appointments functions in respect of which he has not made a direction under subsection (2), he shall make an annual report to each House of Parliament setting out the appointments functions concerned and the reasons for the retention of exercise of those functions."
The noble Baroness said: Having dealt with the welfare food schemes, I believe that we have turned the final corner on this Bill. In speaking to Amendment No. 469 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 470. We have already debated the thrust behind Clause 183 on several occasions. It concerns the various appointments that are made in the NHS being delegated to the NHS Appointments Commission. We discussed that when we talked of the regulator, CHAI and CSCI.
Amendment No. 469 simply provides for parliamentary scrutiny of those appointments that are retained by the Secretary of State. It is all very well
1754
setting up a power to transfer the requirements if some appointments functions are retained— I do not think that this is the time to debate which will be retained— but this amendment concerns the transparency of the appointments that are kept, stating the reasons for them being kept.
Perhaps the Minister would mention the directions given by the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) talks of making a direction and of giving a power of appointment to the commission. Will the Minister say whether, having made a direction, the Secretary of State can take that power of appointment back again? I am working on the assumption that that is the case and, therefore, that it would be right, over time, to retain the visibility of what is or is not being delegated. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that.
Amendment No. 470 is a probing amendment. Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 12, which the amendment deletes, transfers the appointment powers of Her Majesty the Queen to the Privy Council, with the intention that the Privy Council delegates to the Appointments Commission. That relates to the General Medical Council. My question is simple: have the Government consulted Her Majesty before attempting to remove her powers? I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Warner: On taking the direction back, the answer is yes, the Secretary of State can.
I put on the record that it is expected that most of these appointments will be delegated to the Appointments Commission but there is a need to retain some appointments. That is particularly so in the area of highly specialised advisory bodies, where the relevant specialist skills and knowledge are likely to be within the department. That puts the matter into context.
As the Committee is aware, the Appointments Commission is a relatively new innovation, but it is an innovation particular to the Department of Health. Most other public appointments outside the health area are still currently handled and made by the other departments and the Ministers concerned. Details of those appointments are published via press releases as well as being set out on an annual basis in the Cabinet Office publication, Public Bodies.
That will still be the case in relation to appointments for which the Secretary of State in the Department of Health continues to be responsible, including both the appointments made by the commission and those made directly by Ministers. Any appointments made by Ministers will be subject to audit by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and she will also consider any complaints made about the appointments process in exactly the same way as she does for appointments made by other government departments.
Therefore, I can see no reason why there is a need for Department of Health appointments to be singled out and treated differently from public appointments made by Ministers of other government departments. It implies that the occupants of Richmond House are

1755
rather more disreputable—that is an offensive remark—than other public appointments made by other Ministers. We are singling out the Department of Health, and if that is what the noble Baroness is saying perhaps we should get it on the record.
Amendment No. 470 changes the context. On the question of whether Her Majesty was consulted, where there is change in legislation that affects Her Majesty the normal practice is that consultation takes place with the Palace. I shall check that and let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for his reply. I did not suggest that the Department of Health was disreputable. That is too strong a term. But the Department of Health has been criticised by the Appointments Commissioner for the over-politicisation of its appointments, which is why the NHS Appointments Commission came into being in the first place. My amendment is a logical end point of that process. The reason is that the Department of Health was perhaps thought, in some quarters, to have had a case to answer. I shall consider carefully what the Minister has said.
Lord Warner: I believe that the department has answered the question and the concerns by setting up the NHS Appointments Commission.
Baroness Noakes: That is quite so. That is why, if the department hangs on to anything, we have tabled this amendment which is about transparency. I shall not pursue that point today. I look forward to hearing the Minister's confirmation or otherwise in relation to my probing Amendment No. 470.I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 183 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Privy Council appointments]:
[Amendment No. 470 not moved.]
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 184 agreed to.
Clause 185 [Validity of clearance for employment in certain NHS posts]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 471:
Page 103, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I shall be extremely brief in moving Amendment No. 471, which amends Clause 185. It is a probing amendment. We support the protection of vulnerable adults scheme introduced by the Care Standards Act 2000. We have no problem with the basic thrust of Clause 185. My question to the
1756
Minister is: what has happened to the scheme? When will it actually start to protect the vulnerable adults whom it is supposed to protect? I beg to move.
Lord Warner: Consultation is still taking place on the scheme. We would hope to introduce it as quickly as possible. That is why provision is being made in the Bill.
Baroness Noakes: Will the Minister elaborate on "as quickly as possible"? It is a little like "shortly"; it is one of those elastic terms that we come across a great deal in Committee.
Lord Warner: I do not have a date in my notes, but outside the Committee I shall be happy to give the noble Baroness our best estimate of when the scheme will come into operation.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 471A:
Page 104, line 9, at end insert—
"() The effect of subsections (1) to (3) is to be disregarded in determining for the purposes of section l of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (c. 6) (power by order to make provision reforming law which imposes burdens) whether any provision of either of the following Acts falls within subsection (4)(a) of that section (provision amended by an Act within previous two years)—

(a)the Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14);

(b)the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14)."

The noble Lord said: The Department of Health, as I said in a previous amendment, plans shortly to begin a public consultation exercise on the commencement of the protection of vulnerable adults (POVA) list provisions contained within the Care Standards Act 2000. There will be a public consultation exercise on that.
The POVA list will be a list of people judged unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. As part of that consultation we shall be asking for views on certain easements; for example, should a check against the POVA list for work with one agency remain valid for work with another agency? At the moment, a person would need to apply for a fresh POVA check each time he or she signed up to a different agency. Once the POVA scheme is commenced, this requirement may cause an unnecessary financial burden on employers and employees, in certain circumstances.
Should the response to this consultation proposal be positive, the Government would consider seeking a legislative vehicle—possibly a regulatory reform order—to provide easements in the Care Standards Act. An RRO cannot be used in relation to legislation that is less than two years old on the date that an RRO is made. Given that Clause 185 of the Bill makes amendments to the POVA provisions in the Care Standards Act 2000 and to the Protection of Children Act 1999, it is doubtful that we would be able to use an

1757
RRO to make further amendments within a two-year period. It is for that reason that we seek this technical amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Section l of the Regulatory Reform Act talks about order-making powers. What is the point of having such a power if primary legislation, such as this, extends the time limit for putting in the order? I do not understand the position.
Lord Warner: The noble Baroness supports the bringing of this scheme into operation as quickly as possible in order to reduce the risk to vulnerable adults. We are taking a precautionary measure so that we will not be delayed by the need for primary legislation in this area. The provision is very specific to this scheme. It merely deals with a public safety issue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 185, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 472 and 473 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 186 agreed to.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clauses 187 to 190 agreed to.

Clause 191 [Orders and regulations]:

Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 474:
Page 105, line 10, at end insert—
"() The Secretary of State shall have a duty to consult the Scottish Parliament or the Assembly before making any regulations under this Act which have an impact on the provision of healthcare by NHS bodies which serve patients both in England and in Scotland or. as the case may be, in Wales."
The noble Earl said: We had an extensive debate last week on the impact that devolution has, and will continue to have, on patients who cross the border of Wales or Scotland for treatment in England; and, indeed, vice versa.
I spoke of my concerns about differing standards that may apply on one side of the border relative to the other. I mentioned the risk of dual inspections and dual protocols. I spoke of the possibility of Welsh patients being at a legal disadvantage compared to English patients if a Welsh commissioning body sought treatment for those individuals in England.
The Minister was, if I may say so, rather too dismissive of those concerns. My amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should have a duty to consult the Scottish Parliament or, as the case may be, the Assembly before making any regulations under this Bill that have an impact on any NHS bodies in England which deliver treatment to Scottish or Welsh patients. I do not believe that that is a lot to ask. The Minister may not think that the issues I have flagged up are all that serious, or even real issues at all; but there are many who do; and I believe that the least we should do is to enable the cross-border impact of this Bill to be minimised from the very outset by allowing all those with a potential interest to discuss the issues among themselves. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: I thought that the Committee was aware that both the Assembly and the Scottish
1758
Executive are and will continue to be consulted as necessary on parts of the development of any set of Westminster regulations. We are not doing anything here which is unusual. We continue to have those consultations. This consultation can take place at ministerial or official level. Day in and day out those kinds of discussions lake place. Of course the Assembly and the Scottish Parliament can hold to account as they see fit Assembly Governments and Scottish Executive Ministers.
We do not think that it is necessary to put the provision in the Bill. Post-devolution settlements are working properly. We do not think that it is necessary to specify this particular change in the area of health.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 474A and 474B:
Page 105, line 14, at end insert—
"(4A) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing—

(a)regulations under section 146(12),

(b)the first regulations made under section 149(2), or

(c)an order or regulations under this Act making, by virtue
of subsection (l)(b), provision which amends or repeals any part of the text of an Act,
unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."

Page 105, line 15. leave out "an" and insert "any other"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 475 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 475A:
Page 105, line 16, after "section" insert "22, 25(3), 28 or"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 475A is technical and corrects a drafting oversight. Its purpose is to change the level of parliamentary scrutiny—from negative procedure to no parliamentary procedure— applicable to the delegated powers concerning various aspects of the operation of NHS foundation trusts, so as to make them largely consistent with similar provisions relating to NHS trusts under the NHS and Community Care Act 1990.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered the amendment and found the change in the level of scrutiny to be appropriate. There was nothing in regard to the amendment to which the committee wished to draw the attention of the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 476 and 477 not moved.]
Clause 191, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 192 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Repeals and revocations]:
[Amendment No. 477ZA not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 477ZB to 477ZE:
Page 169, line 24, column 2, leave out "and (j)" and insert ", (j) and (k)"
Page 170, line 32, column 2, at end insert—
"In Schedule 7A, in paragraph 3(1)(g), the words from "or under" to "this Act".
Page 170. line 40, column 2, leave out "paragraphs 6 and 7" and insert "paragraph 6"
Page 171, column 2, leave out line 42.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 193 agreed to.
Clause 194 [Commencement]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 477A:
Page 106, line 10, after "115," insert "section 143 and"
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment that corrects an error. It simply provides that the power to commence the minor and consequential amendments provided for by Clause 143 and Schedule 9 is exercisable by the Secretary of State, with respect to England, and by the National Assembly for Wales, with respect to Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 194, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 195 agreed to.
Clause 196 [Supplementary and consequential provision]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 478:
Page 107, line 9, at end insert—
"() No order may be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: By any measure, the provisions in Clause 196 are out of the ordinary. They enable ministers to make such supplementary incidental or consequential provisions as is thought appropriate to give effect to the Bill. That includes in subsection (3) a power to modify any Act, including an Act of the Scottish Parliament or subordinate legislation. It is understood that that includes repeals.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform commented that it is not persuaded by the department's explanation of why the negative rather than the affirmative procedure should apply here. It recommends that the affirmative procedure should apply for those orders that amend Acts. I hope that the Minister will sympathetically consider my amendment in the light of that. As the Select Committee noted, this is a wide-ranging Bill. The scope for amending it and any of its subject areas under the powers set out in the clause is enormous. I suggest to the Minister that the Government abandon the negative procedure not just for subsection (3) but for the clause as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: There may be a misunderstanding. In response to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we tabled
1760
government Amendment No. 474A, which we debated—it seems only yesterday but it was actually early on Tuesday morning. That will have the effect of making any order or regulation that amends or repeals any part of the text of an Act of Parliament subject to the affirmative procedure. So we have already responded in part to Amendment No. 478, in that any consequential provision that amends part of the text of an Act would be debated in both Houses.
However, Amendment No. 478 goes further and would require all orders to make consequential provision—whether or not they amend Acts—to be subject to the affirmative procedure. In future, we may need to amend references to certain bodies referred to in regulations—for example, where the functions of the National Care Standards Commission are being taken over by CSCI. In those circumstances, we will need to change references in secondary legislation by order. Such an order would not amend primary legislation and it would go beyond the scope of the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for it to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for drawing my attention to government Amendment No. 474A, to which I should have paid closer attention when he spoke to it on Tuesday morning. Clearly, I shall read what he said then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 196 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill
1.5 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Closure notice]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out "and" and insert "or"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 deals with territory that we covered in great detail in Committee. I do not intend to reiterate that debate. Clause l provides that a closure notice can be placed on a residential property where drugs are being produced or distributed and where there is anti-social behaviour. The only reason I have for returning to the matter is that in his response, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
"A range of measures are in place and it might be useful if I clarify them in correspondence so that I can describe how we see them working. We can then share the knowledge across the House.—[Official Report, 11/9/03; col. 437.] "
I may well have missed something, but as far as I am aware I have not received that reply. It would be useful if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, were to share that knowledge across the House now.
Amendment No. 3 deals with a separate and new issue, but one around which we had much discussion in our debates on this part of the Bill in Committee. There was wide concern that third parties in a group of people, who might be completely innocent of both anti-social behaviour and any use of drugs because they are completely dominated by whoever is committing the offences, might none the less be adversely affected if a closure order was made.
The closure order requires consultation with the local authority, but there are local authorities and local authorities. Consultation can be someone asking the chief executive's department a question and the department saying, "Yes, that is fine. That has been a thorn in our flesh for a long time", without thinking of the possible consequences for innocent parties.
Amendment No. 3 is intended to deal with that situation. The housing authority has responsibilities that are in a sense in conflict with the purpose of this part of the Bill, because it is responsible for housing homeless people. It will always be a delicate balancing act between the priority for closure and the priority of dealing with the social consequences that flow from it, especially for housing. We reworded some of our earlier amendments to explore that issue and draw it to the House's attention once again to enable the Government to give us a more detailed explanation of how they see the provision working.
I shall not spend much time on Amendment No. 4, because we tabled it earlier. We prefer Amendment No. 3, which is rather more precise. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I rise to address Amendment No. 2, which is standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Like high hedges, this is a new subject, but one 1 think exceptionally fitting and appropriate as regards Clause l.
The anti-social nature of drugs in sport; the lessons from the FA handling of the Rio Ferdinand case; the current status of the UK anti-doping regime and the urgent need for government action led me to table the amendment. I congratulate Michele Verroken and her team at the Doping in Sport Directorate of UK Sport for their longstanding commitment. As Minister for Sport I had the privilege to publish a report in 1987 that asserted at government level for the first time that the sports councils condemned the misuse of drugs in sport and that we needed to take action there and then. She has ensured by her actions and dedication that the UK has been at the forefront of the global campaign against doping abuse in sport.
However, we have seen many changes in the intervening 16 years, and the time is overdue for Government to respond to the changes in the current structure. The key issues that should be borne in mind are: first, that UK Sport is now a distributor of the lottery funds established by the Conservative Party and a significant and important funder of athletes and governing bodies. It also plays an important role in representing the Government in the international sports arena, particularly as we bid to host the 2012
1762
Olympic Games. It cannot be right that the organisation that funds and represents elite sport should at the same time be involved in doping control.
The discomfort of being perceived by some, however unfairly, as gamekeeper and poacher requires the Minister for Sport to ensure that the agency for doping control is granted independence of UK Sport as a matter of urgency. With independence it should be directly accountable to the Minister and hence to Parliament. In parenthesis that should lead to a reorganisation of the valuable remaining work of UK Sport, which should be redirected to other agencies.
Secondly, the world anti-doping code has now been published. The Government and the International Olympic Committee have accepted the new anti-doping code, which encompasses all the elements in order to ensure optimal harmonisation and best practice in international and national anti-doping programmes, including the code, international standards and models of best practice. The code places new and more onerous responsibilities on both the national anti-doping agency and the British Olympic Association. It needs to be implemented fully and urgently.
Thirdly, athletes will, when tested positive, often challenge in court the resultant sanctions process. All too often governing bodies have found their own rules and processes wanting; the relationships they have with their member clubs at the very least uncomfortable; and the financial burden of fighting such cases onerous. The process can and has brought a governing body to its knees. It is time to give greater powers backed by legislation to a UK independent agency for doping control. It is unacceptable that governing bodies vary significantly in the way that they deal with doping infractions and sanctions, yet there is no recourse if they fail to meet their obligations.
We need a comprehensive system and a fairer and more transparent structure—which is why I have tabled this probing amendment—a system that speeds up disciplinary processes and ensures independent commissions with appropriate powers. Even if the Government do not take the opportunity provided by my amendment and return to the House with their own proposals, they should at least provide a national framework or code against which all governing bodies deal with cases under the umbrella of recognition of eligibility for funding. Independent sampling officers, for example, should be present throughout every testing process. Confidentiality should be protected, and club doctors and administrators facing clear potential conflicts of interest should be removed from the process immediately.
In coming to these conclusions, the House will note that we are now beginning to lag behind some of the more recent developments in national anti-doping policy for sport around the world. The future is with an independent agency reporting to the Minister. As part of signing the international standards for doping control, the Government have stated objectives to have internationally consistent anti-doping policies

1763
with laws and/or regulations that ensure the authority of the national sport governing bodies to require athletes to undergo doping tests and to sanction athletes who violate doping regulations.
Yet they are not acting. As anti-doping becomes increasingly complex, involving medicine, pharmacology, toxicology, social issues and human rights, the issues arising from doping are too complex for individual governing bodies of sport and make them timid in this area. There is a need to be robust and consistent. The consequences are enormous for sportsmen and sportswomen and clubs both amateur and professional. An independent statutory authority with consistent powers should be the response to this probing amendment, for there is nothing more antisocial than drug abuse in sport. If kids in schools believe that the only path to the top is to take drugs and cheat, we will see more deaths and lifetime injuries from the abuse of performance-enhancing drugs, which all too easily can turn competition between sportsmen into competition between chemists' laboratories.
This legislation gives the Government an opportunity. Now is the time for action. If the Government are not ready to act by Third Reading, I hope for a commitment that within six months the Secretary of State will come forward in both Houses of Parliament with proposals to establish a new UK independent agency for doping control in sport and to strengthen the existing agencies for dealing with doping cases in a robust, consistent and fair way, under a unified system to cover all governing bodies.
Paul Hayward put the matter clearly today in the Daily Telegraph:
"One day, legislators might come to see systematic drug use for what it is: systematic fraud, or obtaining money by deception".
Drug abuse in sport is one of the most anti-social of all activities. It is pernicious because it turns the dreams of our children, the future sports stars—the kids in the classroom—into nightmares. Some of their heroes are exposed as drug ridden cheats; others as foolish, whose mantra lies somewhere between the crass stupidity of, "I didn't know what I was doing when putting THG under my tongue," and, "Sorry, sir, I simply forgot to be tested". Both are inexcusable and now is the time for action.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, attracts my interest. I am not sure whether there is a doorway in the Bill to view the supply of such drugs as a nuisance. However, he raised the significant point that drugs in sport—both illegal and performance-enhancing—are getting beyond the grip of the sporting bodies in this country. Many were set up in a different era when the amateur sportsman took part. They are struggling with the ramifications of greater professionalisation. Virtually all sports are going through that process.
1764
The Government should give some help and guidance. If that means taking this area of responsibility away from the sports bodies that is probably the only way forward. They will always be lagging behind. Will the Government give me some idea of their thinking? That would be a great help. Unless we have government enhancement we will always have catch-up areas and the odd embarrassment to sportsmen, as is currently breaking in the news. Then there is the idea: "Don't worry, your chemists are that little bit better than the part-timers that the enforcing body can employ". We do not want an Olympics where chemists and lumps of meat take part and individuals take part in another competition. The Government should think long and hard about stating whether they have any long-term ambitions over the role.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it may be convenient if I deal with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, first and come back to that of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, because it is nearing time.
I share the noble Lord's abhorrence of the misuse of drugs by sportspeople to enhance their performance and thereby gain unfair advantage over those who act with propriety. I do not know whether the Bill is the appropriate place to introduce such provisions, but I understand why, bearing in mind what has happened, the noble Lord chose the opportunity to explore the issues. I acknowledge that he said fairly that it is a probing amendment.
We do not see that there is any case for extending the powers in the Bill. This Bill was, of course, designed to deal with specific problems caused by class A drugs, and class A drugs and performance enhancing drugs are very different. So while the use of drugs in sport is to be deplored, performance enhancing drugs are not associated at the moment with serious nuisance and do not cause the type of problem that these powers are intended to address. I can certainly assure the noble Lord that we believe that adequate and appropriate measures are currently available to the sports governing bodies to handle athletes who misuse drugs. However, I hear what he said. There appears to be an inherent conflict in being poacher and gamekeeper at the same time.
There may be much merit in looking at this issue in greater depth. However, at this stage it is not an issue that we think should divert police resources from where we think they should be directed on the anti-social behaviour issue. If sports grounds, for example, are associated with class A drug use and there is serious nuisance or disorder, they would meet the criteria for the use of the powers as currently drafted. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Addington, adds his voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I shall certainly take away those remarks and share them with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
I turn to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I now understand better that his amendments, too, are probing amendments which

1765
seek better clarification. I wondered whether we were going to return to the argument about putting together the requirements. I am therefore very grateful that he has clearly indicated that that is not his intention.
On Amendment No. 1, I do not think that it is desirable for us to allow closure simply on the basis of the use of drugs or nuisance rather than the use and serious nuisance. I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating that he now agrees with that position. However, other powers do exist and can be used effectively to manage the anti-social behaviour of non-drug users. The application of these powers to non-drug related nuisance is therefore, in our view, unnecessary. I understand that a letter has been sent to the noble Lord by e-mail, but I am awaiting further clarification on it. Had I known that he wanted to raise precisely this issue I would have ensured that it was available to him. I can certainly undertake to try to get it to him today.
The Bill sets out that the notice must give information on housing support and other help. Any person made homeless has the right to seek re-housing from the local authority, but only those who meet the criterion set out in the law will be re-housed. In other settings, those who do not have a primary homelessness need under the law will not be given access to re-housing. We think that there is no reason why that should apply here. That is in relation to Amendment No. 3.
I am glad that that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that Amendment No. 3 was probing. We think that the amendment would prevent the effective use of the powers, and the noble Lord clearly does not intend that. The closure notice already contains advice for those affected on how to contact legal and housing services. Therefore, if a person is entitled to re-housing, his application will be considered by the local authority on a case-by-case basis. Nothing in the Bill will adversely impinge on any of the other rights and duties in the Bill. So if an individual who has been made homeless falls within the current categories, he will be able to pursue his right.
I turn to Amendment No. 4. When a premises is in multi-occupation, it is possible for only a self-contained part of the building to be closed by the closure order. Consequently, communal areas can quite easily be excluded from the closure order by the court. Where vulnerable persons are involved, they will be advised of sources of help. I hope that that helps to clarify the position.
Returning to the noble Lord's letter, I shall not only seek it for him, I shall send him a further letter of apology for not having had it earlier.
Lord Dixon-Smithan interesting debate to wind-up in view of the intervention of my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who regrettably has had to leave although he was here for the explanation of his amendment. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for dealing with the amendments in that order because my noble friend had a business appointment that he
1766
was absolutely unable to avoid. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his support of my noble friend.
The Minister's response has indicated that the Government understand the problems and difficulties in relation to drugs in sports. My noble friend said that it was a probing amendment. We seem to have been able to address in this legislation quite a few issues of an anti-social nature. My noble friend thought that it was legitimate to raise that issue and I think that it has been worthwhile. If the noble Baroness is going to take this matter to the DCMS for examination, I think it will find that there is an issue that requires attention. The independence of the athletics drugs police is, I think, going to be an essential element in the future organisation of sporting probity.
I am grateful for the Minister's response to my amendments; she has been extremely helpful. It is always difficult to know what to do if one has not received the reply that one was expecting as the result of an earlier stage in the Bill, because replies keep coming through. I would have loved to have been able to stand up and say, "My Lords, I withdraw the amendments because I have had the explanation", even if it had arrived this morning. In the event, that was not so. I have now had the explanation, for which I am immensely grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Closure of premises: offences]:
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 10, after "section" insert", unless they are under the age of 18,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 5 and to speak to the other amendments in this group. Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 address the penalties that might be given to a young person under the age of 18 who offends under this part of the Bill. It inserts on the face of the Bill that someone in this age group should be given a community sentence. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 add community sentences to the range of options available for people above the age of 18.
I raised this matter in Committee, supported I am delighted to say by the expert knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who also supports these amendments but unfortunately cannot be with us this morning. On that occasion, the Minister replied that it was not necessary to put this provision on the face of the Bill because sentencers already know that they can issue community sentences in such cases. However, there is really no reason why community sentences should not be put on the face of the Bill as an indication that they should seriously be considered as an appropriate sentence for adults who commit these relatively minor offences, and that, for young people, for whom custody should always be the last resort, they are the only really appropriate option.
The Minister, in the meetings that she has so generously attended recently with those of us concerned about young people, has often reiterated

1767
that the Government believe that custody should always be the last resort for young offenders. If that is really the case, I sincerely hope that she will prove that statement to be true by accepting Amendments Nos. 5 and 8, thereby avoiding the possibility of a court at some time in the future choosing to use a custodial sentence for a young person committing one of these minor offences. After all, these offences are not among those which indicate that the offender is a danger to the public and should therefore be incarcerated. I therefore hope that she will accept this group of amendments. I beg to move.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am sorry that I have not been able to give the noble Baroness the comfort that she sought. I reiterate that I agree with her wholeheartedly—as I have on each occasion—that custody should be a last resort, not only for juveniles but for all those who come before the court. However, it is always important to allow the courts to exercise their discretion because we cannot legislate for the minutiae and the differences that may occur between individual cases. There is always scope for an exceptional case that does not comply with the normal rule.
The penalties set out in Clause 4 (3) are, as I said, the maximum penalties that the court can impose following summary conviction. We do not see the need for the Bill to spell out all the sentences options. The options available to the court are set out in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, as amended. Options range in hierarchical order from imprisonment, community service order and fines to conditional and absolute discharge. As we said on the last occasion, that Act governs how the courts are entitled to exercise their discretion and puts the limit on what the court can do. Legislation creating a new offence spells out the maximum period of imprisonment that can be imposed or the maximum level of fine, but a sentencing court can always impose a lesser penalty. The court is under no obligation to hand out the maximum sentence. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that it is very rare that the maximum sentence is ever handed out. In those circumstances, detention for those under 18 is unlikely, but there may be some circumstances in which detention for someone under the age of 18 may be the appropriate sentence on the particular facts of the case. It allows the court the discretion to make that decision.
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmy noble friend continues to deal with the question of under-18s, does she not agree that this style of drafting is extremely unfortunate? It does not indicate to the ordinary reader that these maxima are accompanied by a vast range of other penalties, especially because of the way in which they are set out—as two separate penalties that may be imposed or both. Would it not be more sensible to ask the draftsmen to progress to a style that makes it clear that offences under this section are liable to a maxima on summary conviction and indicate the other penalties that are available, as the noble Lord, Lord Sudbury, suggested in Committee?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I disagree with my noble friend because Members of the Committee will know that we have a plethora of Bills in which fines and imprisonment are specified. It would mean that on every occasion we would have to list all the options available under the Sentencing Act. If we decline to do that it could be said that an option that is included in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was implicitly excluded because it was not enumerated on the list. It would make the drafting incredibly complex. It has been a totally accepted way to specify the maximum penalty in each section and then the whole of the 2000 Act comes into play. That is why we passed that Bill.
Thankfully, the people who have to interpret these provisions do not lack expertise—judges will have their attention directed to the powers under the Act. We are in a happy position because our lay justices and professional judges are able to discharge that task with great facility.
I understand the reason for the noble Baroness's amendment and her anxiety about the matter, but this is the way that we have accepted that we will introduce Bills. When we went through the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, as amended, we made that clear. We have done a good piece of work on that Bill, and it will also apply in this provision. The noble Baroness knows that, in the ordinary way, there will be guidance and support for juvenile Benches that have to apply the provisions. We will examine all such issues in the ordinary way in terms of the rules and how they should apply.
I repeat that I understand entirely the noble Baroness's concern, but it is misplaced. We have the necessary security. It was the work of this House and the other place that achieved that in the 2000 Bill.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her reiteration that custody should always be a last resort, especially but not exclusively for young people. She will be aware that what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and I are both looking for is clarity, as she is herself. One of my concerns is the plethora of Bills to which she referred. With that large amount of legislation, I fear that sentencers will look to this particular legislation and may overlook the fact that custodial sentences may not be the most appropriate. We would like to see more community sentences.
I differ from the Minister in her statement that it is necessary to have a maximum statement of custody for under-18s. I do not believe that for these offences a custodial sentence is ever appropriate. Some of her honourable friends in another place would agree with me—honourable Members who have a great deal of knowledge and expertise in issues involving young people. However, I see that we are not able to change the Minister's mind, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this seems to be a convenient moment, so I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until this afternoon after Starred Questions.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.37 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

Privy Council and House of Lords Reform
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether as part of their modernisation programme they propose to abolish the Privy Council.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):
My Lords, no.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that reply, but is it not time for some more vandalism masquerading as modernisation? Does the noble Baroness remember that the previous Lord Chancellor—now something of a cult figure on this side of the House—said that the decision to retain 92 hereditary Peers until stage 2 was complete was an agreement made between Privy Counsellors on Privy Council terms and was binding in honour? Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that no mention was made of any small print that the promise could be broken if the Government could not make up their mind about what to do about stage 2? Is not the simple truth that the Government have broken their word and devalued the word of a Privy Counsellor?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, no. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who will be aware that this House came to one conclusion in respect of the next stage of House of Lords reform, voting 3:1 for an appointed House. The noble Lord will also be aware that in another place, when the seven options were put forward, there was no clear decision on any of the options. In view of that, the Government have made it clear that they will go ahead with the next stage, which is the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, while I accept that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House gave a clear answer to the first part of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I must confess to some sympathy with the second part of his question. The commitment made to this House about the second stage was understood by most of us at least to involve a serious attempt to discuss with all parties in this House what would now happen as a result of the differences at the two ends of Parliament. Is the Minister aware that many of us are deeply disappointed that the
1770
Government are now going ahead with one part of their reform without paying too much attention to anyone else's proposals for reform?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that. There has been a White Paper; there has been a joint committee. The joint committee put proposals to the two Houses. There has been no agreement between the two Houses. In the absence of any agreement, the Government have put forward proposals for consultation. We are expecting the results of that consultation after December.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there are some advantages in the present Privy Council system? For instance, the oath taken by a Privy Counsellor is equivalent to signing the Official Secrets Act as regards protecting sensitive and confidential information, such as records of Ministers' discussions, as well as official secrets.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, members of the Privy Council sign an oath which enables them to have conversations with each other that can remain secret. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that there are some advantages to that system.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, as the son of an MI6 officer, perhaps I may steer your Lordships back to the question of House of Lords reform. Does the Government agree that one of the issues that needs to be revisited is not the either elected or appointed issue, but the different modes of election and different modes of appointment? That is something which we need to look at again.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that may well be something which this House feels the need to look at again, but I must say that there was a clear majority in this House in favour of an all-appointed Chamber.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as regards the answer that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House just gave to the right reverend Prelate, surely the Government have made up their minds on the nature of this House? Is not this policy a sign of the failure that the Government have had on constitutional reform? They started with broad agreement on change; they are now entirely isolated. No political party agrees with their way forward on the reform of the House of Lords.
Baroness Amos:My Lords, if there had been broad agreement on change, we would not have gone through the lengthy process that we have gone through until now. The Government tried very hard to ensure that there was a degree of consensus. That is why there was a Royal Commission; that is why there was a White Paper: and that is why there was a joint committee.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree, or is she aware—she was not

1771
here at the time—that the essence of this arose because there should be no stage 1 before stage 2? Is the noble Baroness aware that it was to accommodate that contention that this deal in honour was struck? It is quite contrary to the essence of the deal to proceed as the Government are now proceeding. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on this matter.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord's memory is slightly different from mine. I understood that one of the reasons that we came to that deal was to enable pressure to be brought for a further stage of reform. My reading of the debates in this House indicates that. However, I must repeat that there has been no agreement between the two Houses about the next stage of reform. In the absence of that agreement, the Government have put forward their own proposals.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the greatest obstacles to a consensus within this House on the subject of House of Lords reform is that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition, is wholly out of step with virtually every member of his own party?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are very clear differences on the Opposition Benches, but I have to say that there are differences on our Benches too.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, declaring an interest in this matter as a Privy Counsellor, perhaps I may go back to my noble friend's original Question. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell us what is the use of the Privy Council at the moment, apart from oaths and such like? Given that there are a number of members of the Privy Council from the Commonwealth, would it not be helpful to seek their advice and experience about how either their elected or partly elected Houses work in their countries? Would that not be useful information for the Government, who are rather lacking in inspiration on this matter?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have a considerable amount of information, not just from Commonwealth countries but also from other countries, about the operation of their parliamentary systems. With respect to the noble Lord's question about the use of the Privy Council, given that the noble Lord is a member, I am sure that the Privy Council must have some use.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as a hereditary Peer who has been prepared to step down at any time during the past 21 years—far too long a period for me to have been here—it seems rather strange that when the House of Commons could not agree, the Government should say that that was the end of the matter. Surely, when an impasse like that has been reached, should not the
1772
answer be for the Government to say, "go back to the drawing board", and not to say that that is the decision?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will recall that, historically, it has been incredibly difficult to reach a degree of agreement on House of Lords reform, not only within this House but across the two Chambers. In the absence of that agreement, the Government have put forward their proposals. Otherwise, we could go on debating these issues ad infinitum.

Legal Aid
3.10 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to address the potential withdrawal of many solicitors from the legal aid scheme in England and Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin):
My Lords, the Legal Services Commission monitors the supply of legal aid services monthly. Indications from the new bid round for civil legal aid suggest that there will not be a significant reduction in the number of solicitors' firms providing publicly funded legal services.
A joint review by my department and the Legal Services Commission is under way, looking at demand, supply and purchasing arrangements to determine whether the current legal aid remuneration strategy and contracting structures represent the most cost-effective way of providing publicly funded legal services. The review will report in December 2003 and it will be published.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, under the Human Rights Act 1998, there is a fundamental right to access to independent legal advice and that currently approximately 40 per cent of our population is deterred from receiving it? Is he aware that there is a growing crisis in the legal aid system, whether or not he agrees with that assertion, in particular as regards the civil legal aid arrangements? Since January 2003, one in four solicitors has dropped out of the system. What is planned immediately to deal with those situations?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we think that there is a risk of problems arising, but we are satisfied that there is not an immediate problem. That is not to imply complacency. We have to look also at how we can move back to the aims that this party has held for some 50 years; that is, to try to ensure that legal aid is made available to those in the greatest need. That requires not only a review of how we effectively commission work from lawyers, but also where, how and who we

1773
subsidise in the system so as to try to ensure that the very considerable increase in resources is directed to where it can give best value and is most needed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for tabling this very important Question. May I ask the Government to bear in mind that the strengthening of the legal aid system is much more important in ensuring the success of our system of justice than are any of the proposed changes that the Government have in mind?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not think that there needs to be a choice in this: we should do both. Much work is being undertaken by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, first, to ensure better value in the short term from the current legal aid budget, which is now £2 billion; and, secondly, to consider how the systems should be restructured to ensure that people get earlier resolution, often in ways that may be less adversarial and result in greater satisfaction than is currently the case.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to review what I think many practising lawyers will consider to be his overly complacent response to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis? I declare an interest as someone whose firm has a legal aid franchise and therefore I speak from the coal face. There is now more severe discontent within the legal profession as regards legal aid than there has been at any time during my 40 years in the profession.
The noble Lord mentioned that there has not been, as he put it, a significant decrease in the number of firms seeking certificates. However, does he accept, first, that the number which are minded to withdraw from the legal aid scheme—and that includes my own firm—is really very significant? Secondly, there are already certain parts of the country where someone requiring legal aid has no access to a solicitor because none is available. Thirdly, in a recent survey, the Legal Services Commission itself found that some 2 million people with significant legal problems are currently receiving no legal help. Does the noble Lord accept that we have on our hands a real crisis?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is difficult to respond quickly to so many questions. We are certainly not complacent. We are aware that it is not necessary to have a lawyer physically in every town in order to provide a legal aid service, and therefore we have developed considerable initiatives in piloting alternative means of delivering those services.
Recent evidence derived from the civil legal aid bid suggests that a large number of lawyers wish to continue providing legal aid services. However, I repeat that we are not complacent; we are also aware of some concerns. The answer is not necessarily to throw about increased fee rates, but to consider trying to reduce levels of bureaucracy and to put in place better procurement arrangements with firms so as to give them greater certainty about the volume and flow
1774
of work, thus playing to the strengths of many legal firms which have demonstrated, through their scale and professionalism, that they are able to make good earnings out of the system.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, is not part of the trouble that the Government have relied on speculative legal practice, something which was looked on as being contrary to the public interest? It has now transpired that a high proportion of solicitors no longer wish to speculate because it is not a good basis on which to advise clients. One's own interest is often in conflict with that of the client.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that I have the gist of the question put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. If he is asking whether we think it is important to focus legal aid on those firms which demonstrate that they can deliver quality services and try to reduce funding to firms delivering poor quality services, then I very much agree with him in that respect. Indeed, that is the thrust of many of our reforms.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in many areas of the country there are no solicitors providing a legal aid service, which people may well need? That is due to the withdrawal of many firms of solicitors from providing civil legal aid in the way outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I can only say in all honesty that that is not the picture shown by the current evidence. While there are some pockets of problems, in some areas those are being covered by alternative arrangements. The best answer I can give to the noble Lord is to say that when we publish the promised report on supply, demand and procurement, it will put into the public domain the evidence we have gathered from our surveys, all undertaken with good co-operation from many solicitors' firms in response to our questions.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we are well into the 16th minute of Question Time.

Crystal Palace Refurbishment
3.17 p.m.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What urgent steps they intend to take to ensure the long-term refurbishment of Crystal Palace as a centre of excellence for British sport, in light of the proposed closure of its 50-metre swimming pool.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the London Borough of Bromley and Sport England are working closely together to establish a framework for the future of Crystal Palace which meets the needs both of the local community and of élite sport in London. I understand that they are making good progress and that local residents have been briefed on developments. The parties are in regular dialogue with both London and central government.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, why have the Government not acted sooner to secure the long-term future of Crystal Palace with private-sector support, rather than oversee a situation in which the Amateur Swimming Association is considering the closest equivalent venue for its 2004 Southern Counties swimming championships in Dunkirk?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, responsibility for Crystal Palace lies with the London Borough of Bromley and Sport England. I would not wish to say anything that could interrupt their dialogue which, as I have pointed out, is progressing well and which we hope will reach a successful conclusion. As regards the plans of the Amateur Swimming Association, I understand that while it may be literally true that, as the crow flies, Dunkirk is the nearest venue, the association is also looking at the possibility of using a 50-metre pool with accommodation for 800 spectators in both Aldershot and Norwich.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the entire site at Crystal Palace is extremely important from the point of view of any bid for the Olympic Games to come to London? Am I not right in thinking, for example, that accommodation is available there for foreign competitors which would make it much cheaper as an asset when it comes to putting the bid before the necessary authorities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before I respond to her question, may I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on her birthday today? I wish her a happy flight on Concorde tomorrow and I hope that she comes back!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I was thinking of asking permission to have the entire Chamber on Monday afternoon to tell noble Lords all about it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, the noble Baroness is right. While Crystal Palace would not be used for main events in the Olympics, the facilities could well be used for training and practice purposes. Barbara Cassani, who is leading London 2012, is fully aware of those facilities and of the current negotiations.
Lord Addington: My Lords, one of the worrying things about the situation at the Crystal Palace sport
1776
centre is that a huge series of ad hoc committees will have to be put together to handle its transition from a front-line élite sports venue to a community services centre. There is a danger that those committees may not come together and deal properly with the transition. Do not the Government have a duty to ensure that such a transition of usage should be built in to any future planning?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when referring to transition of usage we should remember that the Crystal Palace sports centre is now used mostly by the people of Bromley and its surrounding boroughs. It is used particularly by the people of its surrounding boroughs because the centre is right on the edge of Bromley. So there is no question of a transition from or to élite sports in the case of Crystal Palace.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Government set up a swimming advisory group in January 2001 to help teachers to provide instruction in swimming for pupils? Subsequent to that, very little seems to have happened. It would be a major disaster if the pool— which is the largest and most efficient in the south of England—is not available and disappears. Can the Minister give a firm assurance that the pool will continue in use for local people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot accept that nothing has happened since 2001. The Government have allocated £1.2 billion for school sports facilities, which include, of course, swimming pools. At the same time, the New Opportunities Fund is providing £100 million for community facilities in the United Kingdom. An additional £31 million has been allocated in England by Sport England itself. Of course the pool at Crystal Palace is a valuable resource. We do not anticipate that that resource will disappear.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, the Government's lack of foresight and attention to Crystal Palace is yet another signal in respect of their attempt to win the Olympic Games for this country. Do the Government believe that it is more important to compete in the event of gaining the Olympic Games than it is to win it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, should frame his question in that way. I do not accept that there has been a lack of forethought in regard to Crystal Palace. I am sorry that he asked a question which will have the effect—whether he means it or not—of seeking to undermine our efforts to gain the Olympic Games for this country.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, are the Government concerned that the closure of any sports facility sends a powerful message which runs counter to the policy of tackling obesity and increasing the amount of exercise taken by the population at large?

1777
Exercise is particularly important for people rehabilitating after some illnesses and accidents, and swimming can be the safest form of exercise for them to undertake as they begin to resume the activities of daily living.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree. But in the case of Crystal Palace we are not facing the closure of a facility. The position is that on 31st March 2004 Sport England's lease from Bromley Council expires and it has indicated that it wishes to surrender that lease. That in itself does not mean that there will be a closure either of the pool or of the sports centre. The efforts that I described in my first Answer will go towards ensuring the survival of sports facilities. That was one of the reasons to which the noble Baroness referred.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recognise how far this country is falling behind some of our competitors in the provision of competitive 50-metre swimming pools? On successive visits to Germany over the years, I have swum in 50-metre swimming pools all over that country. Most medium-sized towns seem to have them. There are several in the Frankfurt area alone. Is not this something the Government should look at?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I yield to the expert evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, of his experience in Germany. I was not familiar with it. I shall convey what he says back to Sport England and to the sports authorities. We do what we need to do and what we can do; we do not do it because other people do things differently. But it is a valid point.

Iraq: Security Situation
3.24 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
In light of the most recent bomb incidents and deaths in Baghdad, what view they take of the overall security situation in Iraq.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, much of the country is remarkably stable. Attacks against the coalition are largely concentrated in a particular area north-west of Baghdad. Overall, the Iraqi people welcome the presence of coalition forces. Nevertheless, we accept that significant challenges remain, which we are resolved to meet. We are giving the Iraqis a greater role in security and we are taking urgent steps to ensure the supply of basic services on which the support of the Iraqi people depends.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that, with respect to Iraq, the media exaggerate the difficulties and ignore the successes? Would it not be helpful if the Minister
1778
provided your Lordships with a sanitised version of the regular situation report that she receives in order that we may be better informed?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree that the difficulties are exaggerated. There have been a number of significant successes, particularly with respect to reconstruction. There are now some 13,000 reconstruction projects across Iraq and we recently agreed a £20 million construction fund for the south. Regular reports are placed, for example, on the DfID website, but I shall check with my colleagues to ascertain whether there is any further information we can give to noble Lords.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that recent events in Najaf underline the importance of disarming various militias—for example, one called Al Madi, connected with a Mr Al Sadr? Does she further agree that the murders of certain prominent Shia clerics urgently need to be investigated?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree that we need to disarm the militias. It is also important that Iraqis take responsibility for their own security. In that respect, police numbers now stand at some 40,000 and will progressively rise to 70,000 by the end of 2004. I also agree that the sooner we find those responsible for some of these attacks the better it will be for the security of the Iraqi people.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, how much influence do we have over CPA policy on the development of Iraq? The Iraq survey group is clearly under American command without substantive British influence. I was told by a Washington contact the other day that the Pentagon had vetoed the idea put forward by the British that Sir Jeremy Greenstock should formally be the deputy in the CPA to Paul Bremer. Is this an American-led occupation in which the British go along under American command, or do we have any substantive influence in its future direction?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course we have influence in regard to CPA policy. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will be aware that CPA South, for example, is led by Sir Hilary Synnott, who is a former Foreign Office diplomat. We have a number of staff who are working in different areas of CPA activity and giving support to Iraqi Ministers and ministries. The noble Lord will also be aware that there will be discussions about future policy and that there will be occasions on which the advice that we give is not always the advice that is taken. That is the nature of the situation we are in. For example, the governing council may well choose to go down one road when perhaps the members of the coalition would have advised it to go down another.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as regards security, will my noble friend look at the issue of food security, which

1779
has a slightly different meaning but which is, I believe my noble friend will agree, equally important? Can she confirm or deny whether a member of the CPA recently said that it was going to dismantle the food distribution system in Iraq—which has been a highly efficient combined operation between the United Nations and the Iraqis over the past 10 years—as the CPA disagreed with it because it was socialist in principle?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not aware of that. The food distribution systems have been restored and have been a great success. What may be happening is that, because the Oil for Food programme that is linked to the distribution pipeline is coming to an end, discussions are going on about the next stage in relation to distribution. I shall try to find out more about the matter and write to my noble friend.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is some good news coming out of Iraq at the moment? Only this morning, we heard the news that 10,000 new enterprises have been started since the end of the war. We also wish well the efforts of the Minister's colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who has gone to Madrid to work with the Madrid donor conference. We hope that the substantial sums already pledged by the British Government, and even more by the Japanese Government and the Americans, do their bit in rebuilding the basic infrastructure.
Does my noble friend Lord Attlee not have a substantial point, however? These things come out in dribs and drabs. Would it not be helpful to have something—I hesitate to say a dossier—that gives a coherent account of exactly what is happening on the positive side in Iraq, although that is overshadowed by the security difficulties? Is not the real need, even beyond aid and getting local enterprise going, to re-establish the rule of law and to overcome all the various groups trying to undermine it? Does that not mean that we should be putting every effort into localising the police and reintegrating the former Iraqi soldiery into a proper army so that they can look after their own security and the coalition troops will not have to walk around the streets being targets for pot-shots by terrorists?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is regular reporting put up on the DfID website. I shall quite happily write to the noble Lord giving him details of that. There have been reports in between those reports that were placed in the Library of this House and in the Library of another place. A coherent strategy is in place.
With respect to the Madrid donor conference, we will be pledging more than £300 million, in addition to the money that we have spent on humanitarian aid so far. We have paid a huge amount of attention to localising the rule of law. The goal is to have 70,000 Iraqi police officers by the end of 2004. There will be 3,000 police officers trained every eight weeks at a facility in Jordan. The reintegration of the army is also going ahead.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill
3.32 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 12 [Anti-social behaviour: landlords’ policies and procedures]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 9, line 25, at end insert "who is a tenant of that landlord or to any person seeking to become a tenant"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with a difference of opinion between the Government and myself over the best wording of the Bill. At present, the Bill states that, in relation to antisocial behaviour:
"The landlord must… prepare a summary of its… policy and procedures … to any person who requests it".
That is not sufficiently specific.
It is clear to me that every tenant should have that document and the landlord should be required to provide it, although, if the policies and procedures in relation to anti-social behaviour are included in the tenancy agreement, I readily concede that the tenants will have it. Whether those policies would be spelled out in full in a document that relates specifically to the right to occupy a property is another matter, although I do not doubt that they would be referred to.
More importantly, where the Bill says,
"to any person who requests it",
social landlords, or any landlord who has a policy towards anti-social behaviour, ought to be required automatically to provide it to people seeking to become tenants. It is to correct that difference of opinion, or to advance my opinion as being superior to that of the Government's—although I would not claim such arrogance in the matter—that Amendment No. 9 is before us.
I do not intend to debate the matter for a long time. We debated it in Committee and had a useful discussion but not, quite frankly, a satisfactory one. We need to be precise in such matters, and there are other areas of the Bill, to which we shall come later, which could be improved.
Amendment No. 17 has been tabled because of a complete failure on my part. I do not like putting matters that are "immaterial" in the Bill but, in trying to make those matters material, I failed. However, it would still be better not to have immaterial matters in the Bill, and that is why Amendment No. 17 has been tabled. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there continues to be something of a disagreement here, and I intend to explain why that is the case.
Amendment No. 9 would require social landlords to provide copies of summaries of their policies and procedures on anti-social behaviour to existing tenants, and to anyone who is seeking to become their tenant only. However, the amendment would remove the requirement to provide free copies to anyone, other than tenants or prospective tenants, who asked for

1781
one. Under existing provisions, the summary will be available to anyone at all with an interest in it. While we agree with the noble Lord that the information should be available to tenants and prospective tenants, we would not want to restrict access to the information in any way, and certainly not in the way that the noble Lord suggests. So we are dealing there with an unintended consequence of the noble Lord's amendment.
The effect of Amendment No. 17 would be that social landlords could use the housing injunctions introduced by Clause 13 to prohibit only the anti-social behaviour that occurred in the housing accommodation or its locality. That would have highly undesirable consequences. The wording is not immaterial to the legislation; it refers to where the anti-social behaviour takes place, so it is material.
It is not our intention that social landlords should police the activities of perpetrators of anti-social behaviour wherever they are, regardless of the circumstances. Where such behaviour happens outside the neighbourhood, there must be some link to the housing management function. However, there are numerous incidents where such a link is easy to establish and where it is perfectly reasonable for a landlord to seek to protect the victim wherever the behaviour has occurred.
If the noble Lord thinks back, he will remember that I gave some examples in Committee. For example, our intention is that a housing officer who refused a tenant a transfer could be protected if the aggrieved tenant later saw him in a supermarket some miles away from his place of work and attacked him. A dispute outside a school could also be covered, where it had started as a neighbour dispute on the landlord's estate. The amendment would remove that important protection.
Powers under Clause 13 are intended to allow social landlords to deal with real problems affecting the lives of real people. Anti-social behaviour is not neat and tidy, as I am sure the noble Lord understands, and victims cannot always escape it by stepping away from the neighbourhood. We will have failed victims if we allow housing-related anti-social behaviour to follow them away from their home or their work, but do not allow protection to follow them as well. Wherever it is reasonable for social landlords to seek to protect people, we must allow them the flexibility to do so.
I hope, having heard that and having reflected on the importance of the wording, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. As regards Amendment No. 9, I admit that it might be disadvantageous if social landlords, or, indeed other landlords in this field, were not required to provide their policies to anyone. To that extent I am prepared to accept that my amendment could be improved. I may well take it away to see whether I can improve it.
As regards Amendment No. 17, the Minister said that this matter, which is described in the Bill as "immaterial", is material. He made it clear that it was
1782
material. In the circumstances, therefore, will he take the measure away and consider whether he can do something with the wording so that the Bill does not state, "It is immaterial where"? It seems to me that that is a problem. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Injunctions against antisocial behaviour on application of certain social landlords]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 10, line 7, after "to" insert "unreasonable"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 is the first amendment in a very large group which I expect we shall spend some time on, all of which arise because there is considerable unease over the definition of "anti-social behaviour". As the Bill states, the definition applies to conduct,

"(a) which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person, and

(b) which directly or indirectly relates to or affects the housing management functions of a relevant landlord".

I accept the second part of the definition which provides a qualification. But conduct,
"which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person",
is an extremely wide definition from any perspective. In Committee we tried to tighten up the measure. My "runner" at that time was "persistent and unreasonable behaviour". The use of the word "persistent" drew the fire of the noble Baroness., Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, who rightly said that occasionally anti-social behaviour could be so bad that simply one instance of it was beyond all reasonable behaviour. I have removed the word "persistent" and refer simply to "unreasonable behaviour". Some of the other definitions which we shall hear about in a moment may be more favourably considered. However, what we are relying on here are the courts. I have immense faith in the courts; they will have to decide these matters if push comes to shove. I do not doubt that they will decide the matter sensibly. We are fortunate that we live in a sensible, law-abiding country and we have a very good system of magistrates' courts where decisions and justice are sensibly administered.
However, I still think that legislation should say what it means to say rather than say something and rely on the good sense of a third party to administer it appropriately. My Amendment No. 10 seeks to insert the word "unreasonable" so that the Bill would read:
"This section applies to unreasonable conduct—
"(a) which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person".
I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 11 and 47. In Committee we had a short debate on similar amendments to Amendments Nos. 11 and 13. An amendment similar to Amendment No. 47 was tabled but not spoken to.

1783
I believe that it is common ground across the House that a person with an autistic spectrum disorder can sometimes display challenging as well as obsessive and ritualistic behaviours. That may include stereotyped movements, poor awareness of personal space, repetition of strange sounds and words, lack of flexibility of thought or becoming very upset or angry because of changes in routine. These behaviours could be interpreted as being anti-social. In Committee we on these Benches expressed concern that the provisions in this Bill could lead to people with autism being wrongly stigmatised or, indeed, criminalised. That applies both to anti-social behaviour injunctions under Part 2 and to parenting orders under Part 4.
If the Bill is passed in its current form, we are extremely concerned that there could be more examples of parents who have a child with an autistic spectrum disorder receiving an anti-social behaviour order. In Committee I referred to parents who received an anti-social behaviour order because their son had trampolined in his own garden and made what were termed "strange noises" which caused distress to neighbours. Under the wording of new Section 153A to the Housing Act 1996, which refers to conduct,
"which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance",
that kind of behaviour is almost bound to fit into that definition.
When pressed in Committee after a fairly tense debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said:
"We understand the sensitivity required when dealing with people who suffer from particular syndromes, which contribute to their appearing in court, to be dealt with in the way in which this legislation will deal with them. I do not want the noble Lord to leave thinking that I am patronising, a bad cop or unsympathetic—I am not usually. I understand the points entirely".—[Official Report, 11/9/03; col. 499.]
I think no worse of the noble Lord for reading his ministerial brief and then going off piste and drawing on his personal experience from his time as a councillor. I appreciated that as, after all, it is experience on the ground which is so important in this respect. I appreciated the fact that he addressed the point. However, the noble Lord needs to go further and really address the point in the Bill.
In a letter to the National Autistic Society the Government have stated that the courts,
"will consider everything relevant to the case, including reasons for the behaviour".
However, an innocent person with autism should not be subjected to legal proceedings in the first place. I do not believe that it is the Government's intention to criminalise people with autism, but without appropriate training and the right definition in the Bill, police and other front-line professionals will not be able appropriately to manage a situation involving an individual with autism.
In Committee a number of noble Lords made the helpful suggestion that rather than go all the way in terms of mens rea towards insisting that there should be intention—I understood the points that were made
1784
in that respect—the concept of recklessness, which is in a sense halfway between negligence and intention, might be usefully inserted into the definition to differentiate between those whose behaviour is knowingly anti-social and those whose behaviour is directly related to their disability.
I know that draftsmen and lawyers, being one myself, much appreciate precedent in this respect. The use of the word "reckless" in legislation is legion. I have a whole series of definitions such as the Criminal Damage Act 1971; Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983; Sexual Offences Act 1956; Terrorism Act 2000; Theft Act 1978; Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001; Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985; the very recent Communications Act 2003; Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001; Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and Protection of Badgers Act 1992. There are quite a few precedents here. Without bludgeoning the Minister into submission, I hope that I have made the point that the concept of recklessness is extremely common. It is the kind of precision tool that is required in these circumstances. I very much hope that the Minister and his colleagues will be considerably more sympathetic to these two sets of amendments than they were in Committee.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may put a thought in the Minister's mind. Far be it from me to try to judge between the desirability of my noble friend's amendment and those of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. But both attach the requirement of reasonableness to the behaviour. I have met people whose mission in life is to be annoyed and upset. In fact, it is addressing only one half of the problem. At Third Reading there should be some requirement for reasonableness in the person who is to be annoyed. When I was a child everybody who was annoyed with me was unreasonably annoyed. But now I regret that as an adult and as a man of more mature judgment, I still find some people's annoyance with me to be unreasonable and that should be somewhere in the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps that will be the Mildrew amendment. I speak to the amendments which are in my name. I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is longing to intervene. It may be more helpful to the Committee if he is able to bring his expertise to all the amendments rather than to just the ones which have been spoken to so far.
I speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 34. The general point is the same. Amendment No. 12 is to apply to the new Section 153 A conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or serious or repeated annoyance. The words "serious or repeated" are the subject of the amendment. Following the entirely correct point made by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who made this proposal originally, we have not sought to qualify the term "nuisance". I will come to that in a moment.
Amendment No. 14 would narrow the condition required to be fulfilled to conduct fitting the description which I have just given. Amendment No. 19 is to apply

1785
the same description to conduct which entitles a landlord to apply for an injunction. Amendment No. 27 is similarly to define or limit behaviour which is the subject of the 1985 and 1988 Housing Acts, which deal with possession proceedings. Amendments Nos. 28,29 and 30 similarly are concerned with the annoyance which the court must take into account when it is considering the effect of a proposed possession order under the 1985 Act. Amendments Nos. 32,33 and 34 are similar amendments regarding the 1988 Act. I was not quick enough to spot that, for consistency, I should have tabled the same amendment to the Minister's Amendment No. 69.
At the previous stage of the Bill we were challenged by the Minister, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, has said. He felt we were being rather soft. We were aiming to get the legislation to express accurately what the Government mean.
I do not regard it as an adequate response to a problem which my senior partner would have called sloppy drafting. We were told that "nuisance" and "annoyance" were adequate—a reliance on the judiciary. To say that it is sloppy drafting is not intended as a criticism of the Parliamentary counsel who dealt with it. I believe that it is slightly sloppy thinking because counsel will have reflected the Government's instructions.
The Minister told us to take a reality check. We have done so and we still find the Bill wanting in that regard. As my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said, "nuisance" is a term which is well-known in law and in its application by the courts. It does not need qualifying and should not be so. But "annoyance" is a term not known to common law in the same way. It is unsupported to any great extent by case law. It is not defined or described by the Bill. It is all very well to say that the courts will not grant an injunction or make a possession order if the behaviour in question is merely irritating. But I do not believe that we should be promoting legislation which allows for a disproportionate response and which relies on the courts to apply the reasonableness which the Government should apply in the first instance.
"Annoyance" is different from "nuisance", which is self-evident, otherwise it would not be necessary to use the two terms. It is evident to me that it is something less than "nuisance". The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, referred to it in a letter, for which I thank her. She wrote,
"Although "annoyance" is perhaps something less than "nuisance" the difference is slight".
She provided details of some cases which have considered the term "annoyance", but I believe only three referred to it rather than "nuisance". That is not very many considering our judicial history. The most relevant concerns the case of Tod-Heatly v Benham 1988. Lord Justice Bowen stated,
"the expression 'annoyance' is wider than 'nuisance', and a thing that reasonably troubles the mind and pleasure—not of a fanciful person or of a skilled person who knows the truth"—
so perhaps not Victor Mildrew—
"but of the ordinary sensible inhabitant of a house, seems to me to be an annoyance, although it may not appear to amount to a physical detriment to comfort".
1786
That is a pretty low test to pass and too low for the legislation we are considering. I thank the Minister for the letter, but it passes the buck to the judiciary in an inappropriate way. It is not necessary because we have found ways of dealing with the term which strikes the right balance on the face of the Bill.
Finally, in her letter the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said,
"It would not be in the landlord's interest to proceed with cases based on trivial complaints".
That is quite right. She went on to say,
"Local authority landlords could lay themselves open to judicial review if they misused their powers in this way".
That is heading into a porridge of confusion which we can avoid. I hope that the Minister will take the suggestions which are being offered.
4 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I must confess that I am a little confused by the proposed amendment. As the subsection stands, it reads:
"This section applies to conduct—
(a) which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person".
The amendment would read:
"This section applies to unreasonable conduct—
(a) which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person".
Like the late Mr Fowler, I am not enamoured of adjectives unless they are essential, but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, could help by giving an example of reasonable conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance and unreasonable conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. I could then see whether I feel that the adjective would satisfy the standards of Mr Fowler.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend Lady Hamwee put the case extremely well and there is little more that needs saying. The difference between being irritated and annoyed is no difference at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, wrote after the previous debate when I moved the amendment. It is fair to say that the judgment of landlords is not always perfect. It is by no means impossible that if the test remains simply that of annoyance, there could be a feud between tenants leading to sustained pressure on the social landlord to bring action against one or more tenants on the grounds of, "I and my family are being annoyed".
A simple issue of good parliamentary draftsmanship is involved, while accepting that the issue derives from the instructions given by government. It is not good parliamentary draftsmanship to harness together nuisance on one hand and annoyance on the other. That is so largely for the reasons explained by my noble friend Lady Hamwee; that nuisance is a well-defined term. Moreover, the nuisance test at common law is strict. One cannot waltz into court and claim nuisance on the kind of grounds that will be available if, as an alternative, you can plead on grounds of

1787
annoyance. That is my main complaint. Left on its own, annoyance could encourage thoroughly ill-considered, ill-advised and sometimes pressured court action on behalf of people who are grinding an axe.
Then one must consider what would be the position of the judge if he or she had to apply Section 153A without the amendments now being argued for. There is a limited discretion on the part of the judge if annoyance, plain and simple, is proven. I believe that we have a duty to try to make life as easy and practical as possible for the judiciary. That effect would be achieved by inserting "serious or repeated". That formula is common in employment contracts and is used to overcome precisely the problems we are contending with here. Dismissal is frequently expressed in contracts of employment as being possible where there is a serious or repeated breach of the terms of the contract. One realises that many terms of a contract, if breached on their own, should not be such as to entitle a severe remedy.
We are dealing here with severe remedies. We are dealing with injunctions and, in subsection (6), the fact that once the injunction has been granted the person against whom it has been granted shall not,
"engage in conduct to which the section applies".
I suggest that not only must judges construe what "annoyance" means in this context, but so will members of the public. I believe that they do understand "serious or repeated" annoyance. If no qualification is made in the manner suggested, someone against whom there is an injunction is left in a wholly unsatisfactory position.
Finally, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in the challenge he posed to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. It was a nifty challenge because my good friend Lord Dixon-Smith will have some problem in answering it effectively. Furthermore--dare I say it?—considering the other amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, inserting the words,
"reckless as to whether it causes",
annoyance, I am not sure that it is an easily applied test. The test of recklessness might be a little too high in relation to what I understand the legislation is directed at. "Reckless" is a very high test.
We on these Benches do not want to frustrate or impede the underlying intent of the clause, with which we wholly agree. I am not in business to shoot down amendments from our own side. However, I merely put in the mind of the House and the Minister that if he had to choose between the three amendments tabled, this might be the more practical and concrete.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it seems to me that the distinction between "nuisance" and "annoyance" is absolutely clear. "Nuisance" has ever been one of the old forms of action in tort: "annoyance" has not been. We are here dealing with a statute. If you are using "nuisance" you do not need to qualify it. But of course, as the noble Lord said, you do
1788
not just walk into court and obtain an injunction saying that something is a nuisance. It must be a substantial nuisance; a reasonable complaint.
"Annoyance" is different. It must be qualified as being reasonable. If you do not, you are placing too high a burden and it would be impossible to administer fairly. That is only my opinion.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, when the Minister comes to reply for the Government, will he bear in mind that Members of the House on all sides want to restrain anti-social behaviour, but to do so without many unnecessary cases having to come before the courts?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging discussion about definitional issues and I understand why that might be the case. Colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches were irritated— perhaps slightly wound up—by some of the responses given during the Committee stage. They are perhaps annoyed, finding it a nuisance, worried about it being trivial and certainly they do not want to be reckless today.
I can well understand the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, being confused. Having listened to responses from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am slightly confused as to where they are coming from and not altogether certain whether they are playing on the same football field. I was not entirely convinced— ultimately, not convinced at all—by their range of arguments, interesting though they were.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, began to put her finger on the issue. Initially, she appeared to be concerned about sloppy draftsmen. She then let the parliamentary draftsmen off the hook by saying that it was sloppy thinking. Presumably, she believes that it is sloppy policy thinking. I disagree with that. This is not sloppy policy thinking—we know exactly why we are here and what we are trying to achieve.
I can see that the Liberal Democrats in particular have a difficulty with this whole approach and strategy and with the Government's drive against anti-social behaviour. What they are trying to do—and I can understand why they are doing it—is to pick away at the policy. That is what they do not like—they do not like the thinking behind what is here.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will let me finish the point. I shall deal in turn with his comments, and I remind him that we are on Report. I understand some of the amendments in terms of their desire for perfection and for getting things absolutely right. I certainly understand why the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made his observations. He rightly said that I was sympathetic to the points that he made. It is simply that, ultimately, I disagree with the means that he chooses to achieve a desirable understanding of people who have a

1789
condition such as autism or Asperger's syndrome, and so on. I well understand that and the practical difficulties that it can create for the courts.
I want to go through very carefully—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am reluctant to give way. This is a long group of amendments containing many different points, and I want to give them time and pay due respect to them. I am not sure that I can do so if I am constantly interrupted by the noble Lord. 1 shall give way this once.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful. The noble Lord will not be constantly interrupted so long as he does not make misleading remarks, such as he has just done. There has been no suggestion at all from this side that we are in disagreement with the policy objective. In fact, I believe that everyone has gone out of their way— during this and the previous stage of the Bill—to say that we agree with the policy objective. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not base his argument on a misrepresentation of where we stand.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Am I now receiving fulsome support for our anti-social behaviour strategy? If I am, then that rather differs from the impression that I had previously. However, perhaps I may make progress.
I believe that Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19 are all in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Essentially, they seek to make it harder for social landlords to obtain injunctions forbidding anti-social behaviour. New Section 153A deliberately widens the definition of "anti-social conduct" to include behaviour that is "capable" of causing nuisance and annoyance. That will enable social landlords to be more proactive in their management of anti-social behaviour and, in our view, will avoid legal arguments about the exact severity or likelihood of anti-social behaviour causing nuisance and annoyance.
Amendment No. 10 introduces a new criterion which must be proved in court: that the behaviour complained of is unreasonable. We do not consider that amendment to be necessary. When an application for an injunction comes before the court, the judge considers whether it is reasonable, given all the circumstances, to grant that injunction. That will include a consideration of whether the behaviour was reasonable.
There is no objective test of what is "reasonable behaviour" in all circumstances. As another noble Lord stated, something may be reasonable in a house but not in a flat. It may be reasonable at 6.30 p.m. but unreasonable at 10.30 p.m., 11.30 p.m. or midnight. It always depends on context, and that is what judges will have to consider.
The amendment would also affect the court's power to grant a demotion order and force it to consider "reasonableness" twice—first, in relation to the
1790
conduct alone and then in relation to the order as a whole, as required by new Section 82A(4) of the Housing Act 1985 and new Section 6A(4) of the Housing Act 1988.
We believe that the concept of reasonableness in respect of both injunctions and demotion orders applies in relation to whether it is reasonable to grant the order in all the circumstances of the case. That is already reflected in the level of discretion given to the courts by the provisions introduced by Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill
Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 narrow the circumstances so that the perpetrator of anti-social behaviour needs to be actively reckless rather than simply acting in a way capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. The word "reckless" implies some sort of test as to the defendant's state of mind, as appears in criminal cases. We believe that inquiring into the state of mind of the perpetrator is particularly unhelpful. If someone plays music until 4 a.m. and disturbs his neighbour, then the neighbour does not care whether the perpetrator has thought about whether he might be causing nuisance or annoyance to those around him, or even that he might have thought about it but chose to ignore the possibility. He simply wants the music to stop.
These amendments suggest that landlords should be required to provide evidence akin to that required to establish recklessness in criminal proceedings in order to obtain a civil injunction. We do not believe that that is right. In fact, in a sense, I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. We do not consider that higher test to be the right one in those circumstances.
An injunction is simply an order of the court asking someone to stop doing something. It is not a punishment in itself, although I believe that it has been misinterpreted by some as being that and, accordingly, it does not need to be restricted in the way that it can be necessary to restrict criminal sanctions. Mixing up civil and criminal concepts in the way that the amendment would—and it has been suggested that it might—has the potential to make the application of anti-social injunctions far too restrictive and would lead civil courts into highly complex inquiries as to the state of mind of the perpetrator. I do not consider that to be helpful.
I want to make one or two other comments, in particular with regard to the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whose contribution I greatly respect. I can well appreciate the difficult circumstances that might arise from these processes being put in place when someone who suffers from a form of autism or Asperger's syndrome, or one such behavioural syndrome, is introduced into the court scenario.
I believe that the noble Lord was alluding to the fact that much of the work and preparation in bringing forward these orders must be undertaken. During that process, the authorities involved—whether they be the police, the housing authority or the local authority— will want to give very careful thought to the

1791
appropriateness of going along this route. I believe that is where the important work will be done. Because of that, matters such as guidance, the way in which the guidance is phrased and the way in which we, as government, consult on the quality of that guidance will make a profound difference.
I do not believe that chiselling away to put perfect words on the face of the Bill is necessarily the right way to approach the problem. However, I understand the points that the noble Lord made. We certainly understood them when he made them at an earlier stage in the Bill, and those considerations will have to be carefully thought through. Therefore, it is not that there is a lack of interest or a lack of seriousness in relation to this matter; I simply do not believe that this is the appropriate way to deal with it. However, I can see the temptation to do so and I applaud the noble Lord's efforts to bring forward that argument into this debate because clearly it is an important consideration.
Perhaps I may go into more detail and turn to Amendments Nos. 12, 14 and 19. Again, these amendments narrow the circumstances in which an anti-social behaviour injunction can be ordered. They require the conduct to be a nuisance or, if it is an annoyance, to be serious or repeated.
Amendments Nos. 27, 28,29, 30, 32, 33 and 34 place the same additional consideration upon the judges in deciding a possession case. The judge will be required to consider separately whether the conduct comes within the meaning of nuisance or annoyance and, if it is an annoyance, whether it is serious or repeated. The effect of these amendments would be to split up a phrase which already has legal meaning. "Nuisance or annoyance" is a well-established legal test which the courts are perfectly comfortable to use. We do not believe that it is necessary to re-write it. The amendments distinguish between nuisance and annoyance in an artificial and unhelpful way. When the courts consider nuisance and annoyance, they automatically take into account whether the conduct has been serious and on how many occasions it has occurred. I argue that the proposed amendments introduce extraneous new tests which, in reality, would achieve little.
Amendment No. 47 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, would change the definition of "anti-social behaviour" for the clauses relating to parenting orders and contracts. That would make parenting orders under the Bill inconsistent with those under the Crime and Disorder Act. The amendment could also hamper agencies seeking to improve people's daily lives and the communities in which they live.
I also suggest to your Lordships that this change is not applicable or necessary in the case of parenting orders or contracts because the child or young person is not on trial. Indeed, these free-standing parenting orders are intended as an early form of intervention to help to change behaviour so that children do not end up in court.
1792
The Bill allows parenting orders and contracts to be used to tackle misconduct by children below the age of criminal responsibility who are deemed not to have the moral and intellectual maturity to understand the consequences of their actions. The amendment, by requiring recklessness to be proved, could prevent parents of under 10 year-olds, as well as parents of older children, from receiving from youth offending teams the early intervention support that they need before behaviour becomes entrenched and leads on to more serious problems. That amendment could have a very unfortunate consequence.
I detected head-shaking and nodding on the use of the term "nuisance and annoyance", so perhaps I should explain the situation more fully. We consider the use of the term "nuisance and annoyance" to have a useful history. It is used in existing injunctions and it is worth reminding the House that those injunctions exist under Sections 152 and 153 of the Housing Act 1996.1 believe I made that point in Grand Committee so there is an understanding there. Of course, the term is also used in possession proceedings under the Housing Act 1985 and more recently under the Housing Act 1988.
I do not accept that the term is not understood by the courts; they understand it. Placing the words together makes it clear to the courts that the word "nuisance" is being used in a usual everyday sense, not as a legal, technical form of jargon. The courts do not usually consider words in isolation from one another. It is clear from the cases that the "nuisance or annoyance" must be such as to annoy an ordinary, reasonable person, not one who is unusually sensitive. I believe that the terminology is well understood by the courts and it is for that reason that we want to insist on it in this legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in his short observation, tried to suggest that we are talking about behaviour that is used to restrain. That is right. I believe that he was trying to suggest to us that we should reflect on that and ensure that we are not excessive in what we are trying to achieve here. We have thought very carefully about the powers that we wish to take in this legislation. We believe that we are on the side of the public. This is not a populist gesture on our part. Our proposals are a response to a very real and perceived set and range of problems. We have tried to hone the legislation and its wording so that they are perfected and match particular circumstances. That is why we have adopted this approach. In bringing forward this legislation we have listened carefully and we have consulted widely and extensively on the way in which it will work and we believe that we have support for this general approach.
If during the course of our exchanges on this part of the Bill we have, at times, irritated some Members of your Lordships' House, it is because we believe that we have the matter about right. We want to ensure that we can get the Bill through so that people are provided in their homes and in their communities with the right level of protection from what most in your Lordships' House would accept is unreasonable and anti-social behaviour. If we have better law that can be used

1793
flexibly, it can be used for the benefit of the public. Having heard those points I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say why the Bill at line 18 on page 10 reads,
"is capable of causing nuisance"?
Would it not be better to say, "conduct is causing nuisance"? Would that not make the text more precise? This point was raised at a previous stage. If the noble Lord has difficulty with the point, perhaps he will write to me.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—his calf muscles must be getting a little tired—will he confirm that although in the major part of his remarks he has referred to "nuisance and annoyance", the terminology on the face of the Bill is "nuisance or annoyance"? Does he wish to deal with "nuisance and annoyance" or "nuisance or annoyance"? Perhaps he will tell the House whether guidance on the application of these sections of the Bill will tell landlords how the term "nuisance and/or annoyance" has been applied by the courts in the past. The Government appear to be relying heavily on the experience of how courts have applied the term.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, first, I should remind the House that this is not the way to proceed on Report. The point raised by the noble Baroness will have to be carefully detailed in guidance. I have no doubt that that will be the case and that there will be important consultations on that. There will be a degree of interpretation. I do not believe that it is right for me to say more than that.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that reply. He has my sympathy because he thinks—as he is obliged to sitting where he sits—that the Government's intentions are perfect and that the Bill is as near ideal as the Government can make it; therefore, who are we to criticise it? However, our problem is that we all know a camel when we see one, but I doubt whether we would all recognise the verbal description that each of us might give to a camel. So we have a little difficulty.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, asked for an example of reasonable behaviour that might cause annoyance—I think I have it the right way round. I would give him an example that I would not expect him to have come across in his experience because I believe that he has not been as active in the political arena as many noble Lords in the House.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, forgive me for interrupting. I wanted an example of reasonable conduct causing a nuisance or annoyance and an example of unreasonable conduct causing a nuisance or annoyance. According to the Marshalled List, the adjective "unreasonable" appears before the word
1794
"conduct" and not before the words "nuisance or annoyance". Perhaps I may have an example of each. I am sure it could be done very simply.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, as I said, I would not expect the noble and learned Lord to have such experience in his locker. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for this illustration. An example of what I would regard as reasonable behaviour that can cause extreme annoyance—which is why in the past some of us may have done it—would be putting up a Conservative poster at election time in a known Labour garden. I guess that most of us would have done that in our youth. An example of unreasonable behaviour, which of course probably causes equal annoyance, is fly-posting the whole place with election posters. There is a clear distinction between the two.
We have a problem here. I am not sure whether the Minister has completely resolved the issue. We need to exclude from what I would call "the general debate", the specific points introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in relation to people with autistic and possibly other mental health problems, or, indeed, people with any health problem. We should exclude them from the argument, although as the Bill is drafted they are relevant to it. That is the problem that we face.
Our difficulty is the camel syndrome. I accept that the Government's intentions are entirely honourable and straightforward, and that they are trying their very best to produce a provision that will work. I accept that nuisance and annoyance in various forms is already in existing law and that the courts are now used to dealing with the problem. We are talking, however, about anti-social behaviour. That is what we are trying to define.
Noble Lords will have to think carefully about what the Minister has said because I am not sure that he has satisfied us. Equally, as our existing forms of words are not acceptable to the Government, I am not sure whether we can devise others that will be. They must be satisfactory not just to us but also outside this House and in courts of law. We need to consider everything in that context. We still have a little problem. The Minister has done his best to allay it, but I am not sure that he will have satisfied us. We shall study very carefully what he has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 10, line 8, after "or" insert "serious or repeated"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 12 shall be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Content? Clear the Bar.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 87.

Division No 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.[Teller]

Monson, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Newby, L.

Avebury, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Barker, B.

Onslow, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Razzall, L.

Clement-Jones, L.[Teller]

Rennard, L.

Dholakia, L.

Roper, L.

Hamwee, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hylton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Laird, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Taverne L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Maddock, B.

Tope, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Walmsley, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Golding, B.

Ahmed, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Alli, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Andrews, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harrison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hayman, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Berkeley, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Billingham, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Borrie, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brett, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brightman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chandos, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Christopher, L.

Morgan, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Parekh, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Patel, L.

Condon, L.

Pendry, L.

Crawley, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Puttnam, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Donoughue, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rooker, L.

Elder, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sawyer, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Stallard, L.

Fowler, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gale, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Tenby, V.

1796

Turner of Camden, B.

Whitty, L.

Warner, L.

Wilkins, B.

Whitaker, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.44 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 24, leave out "locality of the" and insert "neighbourhood of"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that this group of amendments will take a little less time than the previous one, but they require careful explanation. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 have two effects: they replace the word "locality" with the word "neighbourhood"; and they change the words "the housing accommodation" to "housing accommodation".
Landlords have a responsibility for the protection of the communities who live in and around their housing stock. As I argued earlier, that responsibility does not stop at a particular distance from a particular unit of housing. Nor is the responsibility to non-residents in the area limited to protecting certain people carrying out certain activities in relation to individual premises. Landlords have a wider responsibility to the community and the neighbourhood.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 emphasise that and make clear that it is the landlord's stock as a whole that is relevant, not just individual premises. Amendment No. 21 makes clear that "housing accommodation" does not refer to single premises. Rather, it refers to the whole of the landlord's stock in a particular neighbourhood and encompasses, for example, the common parts of an estate.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 69 and 140. Other parts of the Bill provide strong powers for social landlords to seek anti-social behaviour injunctions. However, there are times when anti-social behaviour will not fall within the responsibility of social landlords. In those cases, we want to ensure that local authorities have sufficient powers to tackle anti-social behaviour more generally within their area.
Where anti-social behaviour injunctions are not available, the local authority can use other powers, including applying for an injunction under Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972. Local authorities already use Section 222 to deal with anti-social behaviour, including to prohibit the activities of drug dealers or to obtain injunctions to prohibit assault or trespass to protect their staff. However, practitioners have expressed concern that such injunctions cannot be strongly enforced as easily as can housing injunctions. We share the desire to see that as wide a range of people as possible may be properly protected, and have listened to their concerns.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that injunctions that prohibit anti-social behaviour obtained by local authorities in any proceedings can be properly enforced. Where the conduct prohibited includes violence, threatened violence or a risk of significant harm, we want to give the courts the right to attach a power of arrest to the injunction.
The changes that the amendments make is modest, but the practical effect may be significant. Amendment No. 140 provides that the provision will be commenced in England by the Secretary of State, and in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales. That is ample explanation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 10; line 26, leave out "locality of the" and insert "neighbourhood of"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 7, at end insert "other than the home of the person"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20. In the long group led by Amendment No. 10, I wondered whether the Minister's notes for Report were headed not only, "Resist", but "Take a swat at the Liberal Democrats and suggest that they do not like the policy", when all that we are trying to do is to improve the Bill; we do not oppose the policy.
Having got that off my chest, I turn to the amendments, which were tabled to ask the Minister to explain what is achieved by excluding someone from his home when what is sought to be remedied may be dealt with by remedies elsewhere. I immediately thought of the example of domestic violence, where one might indeed suggest that the perpetrator of violence should be excluded from his—it is normally his—home; but that does not seem to be what the Bill is aimed to achieve.
There are other sanctions than those provided by the Bill against the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour. As I said, I do not follow what is intended to be achieved by excluding an individual from his home by means of injunction. If necessary, that can be achieved by possession proceedings.
We are all of course aware—although we do not mention it on every group of amendments—that the consequence of such injunctions or possession proceedings may well be homelessness. Creating homelessness cannot have any of the benefits intended by the Bill. I do not need to describe the consequences: the social exclusion of individuals and the real problems that may contribute to a fast, vicious downward spiral.
The legislation affects those living in social housing. It emphasises large differences between those in social housing and owner-occupiers. I am sure that, as a group or class, owner-occupiers are not immune to
1798
conducting themselves in an anti-social manner. If the intention is to prevent anti-social behaviour by making anti-social behaviour injunctions an alternative to possession proceedings, does not that power defeat the legislation?
I hope that the Minister will assist the House with an explanation of what the provisions I am probing with my amendments are aiming at. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness explained the impact of her amendment expertly as always. Its effect would be to remove the ability to exclude a person from their home as part of a Clause 13 injunction. I appreciate that the noble Baroness may feel that excluding someone from his or her home is a very strong power. She is right. It is a very strong power. However, it is a crucial part of the overall protection offered by the injunctions. In the most serious cases, where people within a neighbourhood require immediate protection from violent or threatening behaviour, or forms of harm such as racial or sexual harassment, it is an appropriate remedy.
Having said that, of course there will be safeguards against the misuse of the power. It will be available only where there has been violence; a threat of violence; or there is a significant risk of harm to a person mentioned in new Section 153A(4). Judges will grant an injunction excluding a person from their own home only where they consider it necessary and proportionate, given all the facts of the case. There will be no change to long established tests that courts apply when granting injunctions. A power of exclusion will not be used lightly by the judiciary and it is certainly not the case that in every instance of violence, the threat of violence, or a significant risk of harm, an excluding injunction will be granted. The clause is clear that a power is being given to the courts, not an obligation imposed on them, which is an important point to bear in mind.
The amendment would have an unintended consequence. Those living in the next street to an anti-social tenant could, where the court was satisfied that there had been a threatened use of violence against or that there was a real risk of harm to residents of that street, be protected from contact with a violent or abusive person by way of an antisocial behaviour injunction. Those living in immediate proximity to that anti-social tenant could not be protected by way of injunction. I suggest that direct neighbours need this protection just as much as those living marginally further away. I am sure that the noble Baroness did not intend such an anomaly to arise as a result of her amendment. Allowing the amendment to pass would mean that those often in most immediate need—those living in the closest proximity to an anti-social tenant—could not be adequately or properly protected.
I do not need to remind the House that social landlords face a huge problem in their attempts to deal with anti-social behaviour: the reluctance of victims and witnesses to come forward and give evidence in court, which makes their job even more difficult. Even

1799
if there is no explicit intimidation, the possibility of having to confront that person as one comes and goes from one's home can be hugely stressful. I am sure we have all experienced such cases. Under the clause as it stands, the perpetrator can be immediately excluded from the place where they have been causing problems. Victims and witnesses who live in close proximity to the perpetrator will be protected from such intimidation and given immediate relief in the run-up to a court case. That should, in turn, increase attendance at court by victims and witnesses and result in more successful outcomes.
As we now seem to agree that the legislation is worthy of support, I hope we will agree that that is an aim worth pursuing. The noble Baroness asked whether the injunction would exclude only the perpetrator. Eviction would affect the whole household. I hope that explanation clarifies the matter.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister elegantly did it again. We have not challenged this part of the Bill and this policy at this stage or any other. In his rationale for the provisions he relied on the need to protect victims of anti-social behaviour who live closest to the perpetrator. I am not sure whether that includes those who live in the same premises as the perpetrator. He gave the example of close neighbours. Where he confused me is that it is still open to the courts to make an injunction against behaviour without making an injunction against someone living in a particular residence. I am trying to find a way by which I can understand and justify what he is saying. It may be easier to enforce an injunction excluding someone from premises than to enforce an injunction against a series of acts of behaviour. I make the point because the Minister might want to say that is part of the Government's thinking, but he is not rising to do so.
I will read in Hansard what he said. I cannot say that I am wholly persuaded, but 1 thank him for his answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 12, line 14, at end insert—
"(c) in relation to a neighbourhood, the whole of the housing accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord in the neighbourhood and any common areas used in connection with the accommodation."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Security of tenure: anti-social behaviour]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 13, line 35, after "unless" insert "an anti-social behaviour injunction has previously been made against the tenant and remains in force and"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. The amendment takes us to the issue of demoted
1800
tenancies in Clause 14. As drafted, the court can make a demotion order in respect of a tenant whether or not an injunction has been made against the tenant, although the injunction cannot be made in the absence of the conduct at which it is aimed.
If an anti-social behaviour injunction is made, the person against whom it is made should have the chance to comply with it before any further sanction is applied. If the perpetrator—I do not know whether injunctee is the correct term—adheres to the terms of the injunction, why is it necessary to impose a further penalty by way of demotion of the tenancy? If there is an injunction there is already a sanction in any event against the breach of the injunction because the person in question would be in contempt of court.
There is also a sanction regarding the status of the tenancy, as the court has in any event the power to make a suspended possession order based on a complaint of anti-social behaviour in a claim for possession based on one of the existing grounds for possession. The amendments seek to give the tenant a last chance. A number of noble Lords spoke at the previous stage of the Bill about the importance of prevention and of persuading tenants who behave badly to improve their behaviour. This is part of that.
At the last stage, the Government also clarified the position with regard to right-to-buy and confirmed that a demotion would take the tenant back to square one. That had been puzzling me and I was glad to hear the Government's explanation. I considered the point and, after consultation with others, took the view that, if the objective was to prevent anti-social behaviour, the loss of right-to-buy was a logical sanction. That decision was influenced by my agreeing with comments from the Government Front Bench about prevention and changing attitudes and behaviour. The amendments would apply that approach one stage further. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendment in that way and giving us an explanation of the thinking behind it. I am also grateful to her for putting on record her reflections on the effect of the demotion orders on right-to-buy. It is refreshing to know from where colleagues are coming on that issue.
The amendments would prevent the court granting a demotion order unless an anti-social behaviour injunction is already in force against the tenant. They would encourage the use of injunctions over the use of demotions. Demotion and injunctions are intended to be free-standing options which the social landlord would be able to use separately or in combination depending on what was most appropriate in the circumstances. 1 think that the noble Baroness understands that we are trying to use powers that fit the purpose and match how the problem is perceived by the victims. It may often be a good idea for landlords to seek injunctions before taking other action.

1801
In cases of low-level, persistent anti-social behaviour, however, a demotion order may be more appropriate than an injunction—the loss of the right to buy may mean more to some anti-social tenants than the imposition on them of an anti-social behaviour injunction, especially if they were about to send in their right-to-buy application form. It would not be helpful for landlords or those suffering from anti-social behaviour if the power to obtain demotions were restricted in the way suggested in the amendment.
Demoted tenancies are a new measure that act as a punishment but are also used—as the noble Baroness said—as a last chance. We know that tenants hold their security dear. They have argued ferociously for it in the past and rightly obtained it, but sometimes only the threat of the loss of that security can make them alter their behaviour. The amendments make achieving demotion a two-step process, which is in no one's best interests. It could lengthen the amount of time a community has to suffer from a particularly unpleasant form of anti-social behaviour and would waste landlords' and the courts' time and resources. That is not a sensible approach when it is already possible for a landlord to seek both remedies when it is appropriate to do so.
Finally, it would make demotion orders harder to obtain than possession orders. In those circumstances most landlords will choose to ignore demotion orders and apply for possession orders which would lead to more evictions and could increase levels of homelessness. I do not think that the noble Baroness intends that, but that could fulfil the unintended law of consequences. Having heard that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider her amendment and feel happy to withdraw it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—1 thought that he was looking a bit pained, but I genuinely want information on this point—is there anything in the Bill that requires the local authority or social landlord to serve notice on the tenant that they intend to issue a demotion order, so that the deterrent effect of the order might be felt by the tenant without having to serve it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure whether that is specified in the Bill, but it may be set down in rules of procedure. If the noble Lord will bear with us, we will take that point away and make sure that he is furnished with a more precise answer.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have a feeling that, if I talk for a moment, we may have the answer— perhaps not.
The Minister said, and I hope that I wrote this down correctly, that with low-level anti-social behaviour, demotion may be the more appropriate response. I am puzzled by that. In an earlier debate, he talked about the distinction between an injunction and a possession order. He said that an injunction is not a sanction in the same way—it is not a penalty. I am not sure that what he has said on this occasion is entirely consistent. However, my noble friend raised an interesting point
1802
about how the procedures flow. We will wait for the response and examine the whole package. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 13, line 41, at end insert—
"(4A) A demotion order may contain conditions for the landlord to provide or secure the provision of support and rehabilitation services as appropriate to the tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house who has engaged or has threatened to engage in conduct to which section 153 A or 153B of the Housing Act 1996 (anti-social behaviour or use of premises for immoral or unlawful purposes) applies."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 25. The first applies to a secure tenancy and the second to an assured tenancy. The purpose of both is to give the courts discretion to include the provision of support and rehabilitation as part of the conditions of a demotion order.
In Committee in the Commons, the Minister explained—they were his words before they were mine—that the policy intentions behind demoted tenancies were to give the tenant a last chance to change behaviour. I had absorbed that without realising and it is only now when I look at my notes that I see where that phrase comes from. At the last stage in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the proposed amendments linked too closely the provision of support with the demotion order. He said that they were linked, "too closely for us". He was worried that the court would refuse a demotion order if the landlord did not have a support package in place.
There is nothing in the amendments to prevent the court from granting a demotion order without support if the court feels that that is the right thing to do. However, if it thinks that support or rehabilitation is appropriate, a mechanism should be in place to ensure that it is provided. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred to people whose behaviour is the outcome of bad health or other problems. This amendment would give people who are the subject of his remarks a fair chance to alter their conduct with the support that would be needed in that situation. The approach is in line with what I understand to be the Government's aims. As we know and as Shelter has powerfully illustrated, there are some social landlords who do not exempt vulnerable tenants from possession action.
Reference was made this afternoon to the guidance that the Government will issue. Will the Minister, if he is not minded to accept the amendments or something like them, assure the House that the range of intervention work and the circumstances in which a landlord should work with a demoted household or individual tenant will be dealt with in the statutory guidance?
I must also ask a quest ion that properly reflects the concern of the Local Government Association, whose briefing for today I have read. I received the briefing only today, so I have not had an opportunity to check with the association. It is concerned that tenancy

1803
conditions applying to the original secure tenancy— for instance, clauses on acceptable behaviour—will be applied to a demoted tenancy. Will there be a read-across of such tenancy conditions? Can the Minister confirm that? If he cannot do so today, I ask him to write to me about it. We must find a way of ensuring that those who need to know do know. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendments would allow a court to include provisions in a demotion order requiring a landlord to provide support and rehabilitation services to the tenants.
I think that I made it plain earlier that we saw support and preventive work as crucial in tackling the causes of anti-social behaviour. The noble Baroness has acknowledged that. Good practice in such circumstances is to work with the tenant or other members of the household or extended household to help them amend their behaviour. That is what we are trying to effect. In many cases, that will remove the need for legal proceedings. That is an important objective. However, making the consideration of a support package a statutory requirement before a demotion can be used will act as a disincentive for social landlords and others and encourage them to go straight for a possession order.
Before going to court, landlords would need to establish, in every case, whether the tenant would be willing to engage in support, whether the support is readily available and whether the funds required are available. All of that could delay proceedings and leave the victims of the anti-social behaviour angry and distressed. They will not understand why there is what they will regard as a delay. They could understandably and, perhaps, rightly feel that the law put more emphasis on ensuring that the perpetrator of anti-social behaviour is looked after than on their need to live free from its adverse and unpleasant effects, which, as the noble Baroness will recognise, have an impact on their daily life.
We must understand that, as well as being a "punishment", the demoted tenancy is intended to be a preventive homelessness tool. It is intended, as we are agreed, to give the tenant a last chance. If an outright possession order is seen to be easier to obtain than a demotion order, that is what landlords will use, leaving more people homeless.
I shall make the point again because it is important: the amendments could lead to unnecessary legal challenges. I am sure that the noble Baroness will appreciate that, being a lawyer. For example, if the landlord failed to have a complete support package in place at the time of seeking an order, the courts could refuse the order. There would be further delay, more obfuscation and more confusion for those affected by appalling behaviour. Similarly, landlords need the flexibility to change the type of support offered during a demoted tenancy, if the tenant is not responding well. I am sure that that point is well understood. If things are not going according to plan, one needs to adjust one's strategy and make sure that one is doing things that are more appropriate and effective. Ultimately,
1804
we are trying to achieve a change in behaviour. We must ensure that we do the things that will make that change take place.
The noble Baroness asked specifically about guidance. She knows that we will not give ground on the amendment. Our intention is that there will be guidance on policy and procedures. Best practice will be flagged up. As I said, we expect that best practice will be adopted. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness to accept our arguments and that she will withdraw her amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords. I will withdraw the amendment, but, before I do, I observe that we seek to avoid a situation in which the problem is shifted, rather than solved. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree. We are talking about demoted tenancies, under which the tenant would stay on the same premises but on different terms, but the point applies generally.
I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Avebury. While we deal with the detailed terminology, he is sitting a couple of rows back thinking about real life and how the system will apply. He did not put it to me this way, but we cannot expect those whose behaviour is the subject of the Bill necessarily to be converted on the road not to Damascus but to Acacia Avenue or a flat in High Point. That will simply transfer the problem to their new neighbours.
The noble Lord said that the amendments would open the way to legal challenge. He said something similar last time. The provisions are intended to be discretionary. If the noble Lord thinks that we have a point, I am not too proud to welcome help with the drafting of the amendments. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Demoted assured shorthold tenancies]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 16. line 4, at end insert—
"() In the Housing Act 1988 (c. 50) after section 21 there is inserted the following subsection—
"(8) No order for possession under subsection (1) or (4) may be made in relation to a dwelling-house let on a tenancy to which section 20B above applies unless the court is satisfied that the tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling house has engaged or threatened to engage in conduct to which section 153A or 153B of the Housing Act 1996 (anti-social behaviour or use of premises for immoral or unlawful purposes) applies.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 147, 148 and 149. The amendments would ensure that the fast-track eviction proceedings available for demoted tenancies cannot be used for any reason other than further anti-social behaviour. The amendments would align the situation for all social housing tenants. The first relates to registered social landlord tenants who have previously had a short tenancy, and the others relate to local authority tenants who had a secure tenancy.
We have a concern that tenants who have addressed their anti-social behaviour since being put on a demoted tenancy, in which case the Government have achieved their objectives, could still be made homeless as a result of a breach of the more stringent tenancy conditions that would then apply, in particular those relating to rent arrears. That is what happens to many tenants who are placed on introductory or starter tenancies, so the amendments would ensure that eviction from a demoted tenancy can be carried out only for further incidents of anti-social behaviour.
In the Commons, the Minister argued that the amendments watered down the notion of demoted tenancies as a sanction. However, at this stage, as on previous occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was more positive about encouraging landlords to use demotion where they feel they can work with a tenant to change the behaviour and therefore sustain the tenancy rather than end it.
I question the use of guidance. If the Minister is not persuaded, assurances that the statutory guidance will make it clear that final possession of a demoted tenancy should be on the basis that I have outlined would be helpful. I should be grateful if he could comment on that. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 provides that the court should not make a possession order to end a demoted assured shorthold tenancy unless there has been anti-social behaviour, either by the tenant or by someone else living with or visiting the tenant, and not for any other reason. In effect, that would mean that a landlord would have to return to court to prove that there had been further anti-social behaviour.
Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 would also require landlords to return to court to prove that there have been further acts of anti-social behaviour in order to end a demoted tenancy. I understand that the noble Baroness wants to ensure that tenants are not evicted from their homes without good reason, but these amendments would make the whole principle of demoting tenancies worthless.
Demoted tenancies have been designed to be both a warning and a last chance. We want to encourage landlords to use them instead of seeking suspended or outright possession orders. Demotion is not a soft option. As well as being a warning and an incentive to behave, it is a real sanction. The tenant, through his or her actions, has lost security; we want him to understand that this may have serious consequences. Tenants need to understand that when they are considering how to conduct themselves in the first instance.
Where a landlord has put his energy into seeking a demoted tenancy instead of a possession order, it will be because it is seen as a real chance to work with the tenant to improve behaviour. That kind of landlord would not subsequently seek to end the demoted tenancy on a whim. It is important, however, that if the tenant fails his or her last chance, the landlord is not expected to make a further trip to the courts.
1806
Possession proceedings are time consuming and can be very costly. Many witnesses and victims may be reluctant to attend court for a second time. Such action will have the effect of discouraging the use of demoted tenancies and, ultimately, could lead to more evictions.
A tenant would have been demoted in the first place only if the landlord was able to provide sufficient evidence to a court to obtain a demotion order. If the tenant's behaviour fails to improve, it seems unfair to expect the landlord to gather evidence to convince the court for a second time. The tenant would have already received the last-chance warning.
The procedure for ending a public sector demoted tenancy is based on the procedure for ending an introductory tenancy. It is a decision taken by the landlord, following a statutory process, followed by a possession order granted by the court. The tenant has the right to an internal review of the landlord's decision. That procedure has been approved by the courts.
Registered social landlord demoted tenants are assured shorthold tenants and their landlords can obtain a possession order by giving two months' notice. They do not have to give any reason. That is in line with the way that the registered social landlord starter tenancy scheme operates. There are checks on the appropriate use of starter tenancies. Housing Corporation guidance sets out that RSLs should follow a similar process to that for local authorities when taking possession action against starter tenancies. Housing Corporation regulations, in conjunction with Audit Commission inspection, help to ensure that RSLs act appropriately. That protection will be extended to demoted RSL tenancies.
Amendment No. 147 seeks to clarify that a notice of proceedings for possession against a demoted secure tenancy must be served under Section 143E of the Housing Act 1996; that is, a notice of proceedings for possession. The amendment is not necessary; the clause already has the effect that the amendment seeks to achieve.
The noble Baroness asked a question about the contents of guidance. I have made it clear that there is already guidance for RSLs. No doubt, this will be one of those issues on which we will promote best practice. The points raised in this short debate will be reflected on when providing guidance towards best practice.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could not the guidance provide that during the internal review which the noble Lord says would be conducted before a possession order is sought specific consideration is given as to whether the tenant's behaviour has improved?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it may be that that is included in best practice. The behaviour of the tenant is very much germane to the whole way in which

1807
demotion proceedings will work out. I am sure that that is a point we can take away and think about. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for making that point.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I expressed the fear beforehand that in certain cases an unintended consequence might be to reinforce the downward direction of a spiral. However, I thank the Minister for his response. I shall consider the points carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Proceedings for possession: anti-social behaviour]:
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 16, line 25, at end insert—

"(d) whether the tenant or a member of the tenant's household suffers from an illness or disability which might diminish his personal responsibility for the nuisance or annoyance;

(e)whether the tenant or a member of the tenant's household is vulnerable as a result of childhood, old age, mental illness, disability or other special reason;

(f)whether the tenant or a member of the tenant's household is willing to give an undertaking to the court in respect of his future conduct; and

(g)whether other means of dispute resolution are available
to deal with the allegations of nuisance or annoyance."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 31 and 35 broaden the scope of the court's discretion when dealing with possession cases based on nuisance or annoyance. The amendments propose that the court's attention should be drawn to factors which may mitigate the personal responsibility of the perpetrator or relate to the hardship which will be suffered by other members of the household if a possession order is made—we referred to the first of those points earlier today. The court's attention should also be drawn to the willingness of the perpetrator to give an undertaking to the court and to other means of dispute resolution that may be available.
As the clause stands, the matters which the court must consider are those that relate exclusively to the effect on other people which the behaviour is having and will continue to have. Effectively, the clause gives rise to a presumption that a possession order will inevitably follow if the behaviour has had an adverse effect on other people, which may be the case where the behaviour is violent or persistent.
However, the Bill is directing the court in one direction only; that is, towards eviction. To that extent, I might suggest that it is interfering with the ambit of the court's discretion to an unjustified degree. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these amendments seek to require the court to consider
1808
certain issues before granting a possession order, including any issues relating to disability or vulnerability of the tenant or their household members, and the availability of other remedies such as alternative dispute resolution or an undertaking by the tenant.
The amendments focus on the needs of the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour. None of these matters is irrelevant and will already form part of the court's consideration of whether a possession order is justified. However, Clause 16 seeks to ensure that, in considering the needs of the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour, the courts do not concentrate so closely on the circumstances of the perpetrator that they do not pay sufficient attention to the impact of anti-social behaviour on its victims. That is, after all, the objective of this legislation. The clause aims to redress that balance, not to discriminate against persons with disabilities.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, withdrew his proposed amendments on disability, having been assured by my noble friend Lady Scotland that the protection offered to disabled people by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 would remain in place. I refer the noble Baroness to Hansard of 11th September at cols. 489 to 490. The Government stand by that position.
We are keen to ensure that disabled people are not unfairly discriminated against. The Disability Discrimination Act was introduced to ensure that disabled peopled are treated fairly as regards the services they receive and housing rights are included within that. Landlords, including social landlords, are already within the scope of the DDA and the provisions of that Act, along with all other discrimination legislation, will be read into this Bill.
The correct balance must be maintained between ensuring that effective remedies against anti-social behaviour are available to protect all members of the community and that people with disabilities are not unfairly discriminated against. I refer the noble Baroness in particular to Section 22 of the Disability Discrimination Act which makes it unlawful for a person managing any premises to discriminate against a disabled person occupying those premises. In relation to eviction, such a person would discriminate if, for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, they treat that person less favourably than they would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply, and they cannot show that the treatment in question is justified in accordance with Section 24 of the 1995 Act.
When reaching their decision as to whether a possession order is justified, judges are required to take into account all the relevant legislation. Where there is a question of disability, this will include the 1995 Act, thus ensuring that such people are not unfairly treated. Judges already consider what other action landlords have tried before reaching a decision on possession hearings and whether or not undertakings relating to behaviour are appropriate.
Perhaps I may reiterate that I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned that some people may lose their homes as a result of behaviour which may appear to be anti-social, but which derives from a disability. I should like to reassure her that the protections offered to the disabled tenant by the 1995 Act are not affected in any way by this provision. Clause 16 is about ensuring that the impact of anti-social behaviour on victims is considered by the court. It is not in any way intended to encourage discrimination against disabled tenants.
I hope that, with those reassurances and with our continued commitment to finding other means prior to using these more severe penalties, such as dispute resolution and mediation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister's response is helpful and I shall consider further the relationship between the DDA and the provisions set out here. The prompt for the amendments was that, under what is set out in this Bill, the court has to consider "in particular"—those are the words used— the three matters to which I referred earlier, all of which concern the effect on other people. I am concerned about the relationship between the two pieces of legislation.
I am sure that what the noble Lord has just said was worded very carefully, so I shall do justice to those words by reading them with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 35 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Parenting orders under the 1998 Act]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 17, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 46. The amendments relate to the issue of residential care, which we discussed at some length in Committee. The Minister's response to the probing amendments tabled at that stage, along with the draft guidance which has now been published by the Home Office and the DfES, do not provide a sufficient explanation of how residential parenting orders will work in practice, and how they will comply with the Children Act 1989 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ensuring that all decisions are taken in the best interests of the child.
Because we have reached a different stage of the Bill, I shall repeat the list of organisations which I believe has come to be known as the "Sharp list": Barnardo's, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, the Children's Society, family service units, NACRO, the National Association for Youth Justice, the National Children's Bureau, the NCH, the NCVCCO, the NSPCC, the National Youth Agency and YMCA England all continue to have very serious concerns about the compliance of these clauses with the
1810
principle of the best interests of the child set out in the Children Act 1989 and Articles 3 and 9 of the UNCRC.
I am aware that the Minister has addressed this matter in a letter sent to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, which he has shown to me. However, it would be helpful if she could put on the record her reasons for being confident that there is no breach either of the Act or of the articles.
In addition, five other specific concerns have been raised by these organisations. The first is that, as it stands, the provision is unnecessary. Arrangements are already in place under the Children Act 1989 and the Care Standards Act 2000 for a family to be placed in a residential family centre where available and appropriate. The decision to require parents to undertake a residential assessment is usually taken as a part of care proceedings under the Children Act 1989 and only after a full assessment of the child's needs. The decision would be taken on the basis of an assessment of need made under Section 17 of that Act. This defines children "in need" as being those who are,
"unlikely to achieve or maintain … a reasonable standard of health or development… or whose health or development would be significantly impaired, without the provision for him of these services".
The second issue that these organisations are concerned about is that in order to require a parent to attend such a course an assessment needs to be undertaken by a local authority's social services department. Social services would normally require parents to engage in a residential assessment only if they had concerns about the safety and care of the child or children. Residential family centres are often used for very vulnerable families with young children to provide support and to identify work to be undertaken to help the family. The focus is on monitoring and an assessment of parental ability, and children attend these centres with their parents.
Neither the Home Office nor the DfES draft guidance refer to undertaking such an assessment of the child's needs as part of the youth offending or local education authority recommendation to the court. Both sets of guidance refer to the fact that counselling or guidance on problems may be provided by the LEA, by the youth offending team, by the local authority social services department or voluntary sector organisations. Social services departments will not provide services without having first undertaken an assessment of need.
The organisations concerned about these issues do not believe that it is appropriate for either the LEA or the youth offending team to undertake the kind of assessment required in order to assess parental capacity. At the very least, they argue, an assessment under Section 17 by social services departments should form part of any evidence before the court. Will the Minister give assurances that any guidance on parenting orders will include the requirement for youth offending teams and LEAs to make such referrals to social services departments prior to their application to the court?
Thirdly, it is unclear whether residential centres will be required to register with the National Care Standards Commission. These organisations are also concerned that there is no clear direction about making arrangements for the care of any dependent children. In Committee, the Minister stated that,
"the whole point of residential places is to target those issues that are of most concern to the families and the children involved. A weekend residential period may be appropriate in order not to disturb the ordinary day-to-day life of the family and it may be necessary to invite the parents to take the children with them. In other cases it may be more appropriate for the child not to be there for a short period to enable the parents to concentrate on other matters".—[Official Report, 11/9/03; col. 525.]
This view is reflected in the DfES guidance, where paragraph 184 states:
"In order for the court to decide whether any likely interference with family life is proportionate it will be necessary for LEAs to inform the court what the programme will be. A small number of residential weekends structured within a wider non-residential programme might be a suitable approach. Arrangements for the care of the child (and any siblings and dependants) will be a crucial consideration. It may be that the child and siblings attending voluntarily will be desirable as family work can be particularly effective".
It is unclear as to what arrangements will be put in place, either for children who attend with parents or for those who do not. Currently, the residential family centres are required to register with the National Care Standards Commission. They are defined as,
"any establishment which accommodates children with their own parents, and where the parents' capacity to respond to their children's needs and to safeguard their welfare is monitored and assessed, and the parents are given advice, guidance or counselling about parenting as necessary".
Can the Government confirm that any provider of the residential component of the parenting order will be required to register with the National Care Standards Commission? If children are not attending with their parents there is need to ensure that they are being appropriately cared for and that should be undertaken with the involvement of local social services departments to ensure that arrangements are suitable.
The fourth point that has been raised is that there is little evidence of research on the effectiveness of residential courses. Clauses 18,20 and 26 state that the court must be satisfied that attendance at a residential course would be more effective than attendance at a non-residential course in preventing the behaviour for which the order was given, or in the case of parenting orders for exclusion from school, in improving behaviour.
The guidance states that the LEA or the youth offending team must provide evidence of how the residential requirement will be more effective. It is not clear how such an assessment will be made as to the effectiveness or not of this residential requirement. There is no detail as to the model of parenting programme that would be used in a residential setting. There are a range of such models currently used within residential settings, including therapeutic and behavioural. Can the Minister indicate what model of intervention is being used, what research backs this up
1812
and whether they have consulted those specialising in providing residential family support in making these proposals?
There is no indication as to how far there is capacity to meet these requirements or how costs will be met. The recently published Home Office action plan— Together: Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour—states that the residential parenting scheme will be piloted through the Youth Justice Board in partnership with the Juvenile Offenders Unit at the Home Office. Can the Minister tell us a little more about the proposed pilots and about the capacity and funding for parenting courses, in particular the residential component?
Finally, I shall say a word on costs. Paragraphs 162 to 165 of the department's guidance set out that the LEA will be responsible for covering the costs of the application for a parenting order and meet the costs of any counselling or guidance programme. However, in some circumstances, the governing body of a school will be expected to meet the costs of the counselling or guidance programmes. Will the Minister clarify who will be responsible for meeting costs in the case of residential courses? I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I share many of the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, but at the same time I recognise a serious weakness in our society, in the form of the children of parents who were themselves children when they became parents. Such parents have no inherited parenting skills at all, and go on to be parents themselves. There must be an intervention, which will have to be more radical than merely consultation and attendance at a centre from time to time. Therefore, it may be necessary for there to be a residential course. As that is the case, I recognise the caveats put into the Bill as to the circumstance under which it may be held.
Unlike the noble Baroness, I thought that the provisions for payment of the courses were set out in Clause 21(4), which states:
"The appropriate person may by regulations make provisions as to how the costs associated with the requirements of parenting orders under section 20 … are to be borne".
The Minister will no doubt put us right about that and tell us, I hope, whether that includes the consequential costs on the family concerned. If a mother and child are taken out of a family in which there is a single-parent child and three other children, costs will be entailed in the care of the other children. They may be taken into care by the local authority, although that would be the worst solution. They may be cared for by a carer who has to be paid for by the local authority, or there may be other arrangements. Costs will arise, in any case, and I trust that they are recognised.
I remind noble Lords that we are debating Clause 18 and parenting orders, which means that the attendance on the part of the people involved may not be voluntary. It is laid on them by the courts. The next clause relates to parenting contracts, with which there can be an element of voluntariness. By a side wind, will

1813
the Minister tell us whether any provision for costs will be made in those cases, where the outcomes are likely to be somewhat better because those attending the courses are doing so of their own free will, or at least under inducement rather than compulsion?
The answers to those two questions may make me less friendly to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp; otherwise, I find it rather attractive.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. It is clear that the purpose of the amendments is to ensure that residential placements, if made, are made appropriately. Before going into the detail, I should say that the noble Lord is right in his reference to Clause 21(4). That provision is already made. However, I shall go back and deal with some of the earlier issues and come to that matter in its proper place.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would remove the power of the courts to require a parent to attend a residential course as part of a parenting order. From what the noble Baroness said, I take it that she is not suggesting that this may not be an appropriate tool; she wants to know how it will work. I shall approach my response on that basis.
The clauses allow a residential course to be included only when a court is satisfied, on the balance of probability, that it is likely to be more effective than a non-residential course and that any interference with family life is proportionate. The usual rule about "he who usurps must prove" will apply, so an evidential burden will be placed on the authority that seeks a parenting order to satisfy the court of each and every one of those elements that I have mentioned. The residential approach would enable parents to be taken to a structured setting so that more sustained counselling and guidance work can be carried out. That will be appropriate for troubled families, for whom a non-residential approach will be insufficient.
The noble Baroness will know that many of the families who regrettably find themselves in this category are likely to have been on the cusp of being considered for local authority intervention. We have put together a structure including parenting contracts and multi-agency work. That work should have been undertaken before the parenting order stage is reached. The agencies should have a clear picture of the issues surrounding a child and his or her family regarding failure to meet educational or other milestones and/or appropriate school attendance. The noble Baroness will know that it does not inure to the advantage of a child not to attend school consistently. There may also be behavioural issues to be considered. If I may speak colloquially, we are talking about children and families at the sharp end of the spectrum—the children who are rightly the concern of the noble Baroness and the Sharp list.
The difficulty, of course, is in defining with precision the kind of course which will best suit the needs of each individual child. The noble Baroness was right to
1814
mention the difference in methodology adopted in some residential settings as opposed to others. The noble Baroness and the House will know that often that difference is dictated by the needs of the family and the child. Sometimes behavioural therapy is the better course; sometimes psychological and other therapy is the better course. Regrettably, one size does not fit all. For that reason we shall pilot the different forms of therapeutic intervention so that we can better assess the models which are most likely to be beneficial.
As I say, courses will be tailored to meet specific circumstances. Intensive residential work with families can be highly effective in tackling persistent unacceptable behaviour. As I have mentioned on other occasions, children could attend the residential course on a voluntary basis thus enabling work to take place involving the whole family. Where children do not attend, proper arrangements for their care will be absolutely crucial.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said in relation to taking children into care even if temporarily. I respectfully agree with him that that is likely to be the least attractive model although I do not rule out the possibility of it happening in the odd case if all the parties deem it the most appropriate. The noble Lord will know that, in taking into account the proportionality of that step, the court would have to assess whether it was a reasonable step, whether there were other family members who could help and what other assistance was offered to the family. It is impossible to say with certainty what those steps would be in each individual case because, by the nature of the problems which many of these families face, it is unlikely that the identical situation would occur more than once; it just does not happen that way.
It is right therefore that programmes delivered as a result of parenting orders should have the flexibility to consist of or include residential work with parents where that would be both more effective and proportionate to any interference with family life.
We are consulting with providers of residential parenting. The funding provided by the anti-social behaviour action plan will be £1.5 million to bolster the parenting programmes this year. The youth offending teams have funding for parenting support and they will be tasked to find residential places. Local education authorities will be responsible for education related orders although a school will be able to pay if it requests a parenting order.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of the capacity to deliver. The capacity and quality will be promoted through various means. I have said already that residential courses will be piloted on a voluntary basis and the specification can be developed in that way. But the courses will be delivered by a range of providers subject to all relevant standards and statutory requirements. Youth offending teams and local education authorities will pay for attendance at residential courses. The provision of parenting programmes nationally was boosted by the announcement made by my right honourable friend

1815
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July 2002 of a £25 million Parenting Fund which will provide a robust network of parenting support to be delivered by the voluntary sector.
Under the Children Act 1989, family centre attendance is required, not by statute but with the lever of care proceedings. It is not dissimilar. In the case that we are dealing with it is more about the behaviour of the child being seen as the trigger as opposed to the disintegration of the family itself. That is why the assessment is made by the youth offending team and not by the social services.
Draft guidance on the education parenting orders has now been issued. Page 24, paragraph 150, of the relevant document covers the assessment for education-related parenting orders. I invite the attention of noble Lords to that. I am confident that they will find it of use.
The noble Baroness asked about the issues arising out of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the right to respect for private and family life, and Articles 3 and 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as regards the child's best interest and separation from the parents as well as the test of the child's best interests under the Children Act. As the noble Baroness rightly said, I wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on these matters and a copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. I would be happy to recite the body of what I said there.
Criminal and anti-social behaviour and poor attendance and behaviour at school can prevent children from realising their potential and lead to very adverse outcomes for them. A residential course within a parenting order would only be required in order to support parents so that they are better able to influence their child and prevent such behaviour. The residential requirement serves the main purpose of the parenting order itself, which is to prevent a repetition of the kind of behaviour which led to the making of the order.
There are two additional conditions in the Bill which also have to be met before a residential requirement is imposed. Given all these safeguards such a requirement will be compliant with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Children Act and the European Convention on Human Rights as enacted by the Human Rights Act.
Turning to Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child, a child cannot be separated from his or her parents against their will unless the separation is necessary for the best interests of that child. As I have already said, children may accompany their parents to a residential course voluntarily. We expect children in nearly all cases to be invited to attend.
The kind of circumstances where a child might not be invited to attend would be where the parents need respite to benefit from the course. In such a case appropriate childcare arrangements, as we discussed earlier in this debate, would be made. We hope that the course would help the parents by improving parenting
1816
skills and thus benefit all of their children. The short separation would be in the child's best interests and thus compatible with Article 9.
By making residential placement available to the court, if it deems it appropriate, we are seeking to give the court a full opportunity to intervene in a way that may make a material difference and advantage the child and the family so that there is an enhanced chance of the family staying together.
Noble Lords will know that research indicates that it is better for a child to remain within his natural family if he can safely so remain than to be removed and placed with a substitute family. If we get this right, we will give these children, who are so desperately in need of our care and attention, a better chance.
I invite the noble Baroness not to press the amendment. I have every confidence that she and a number of those who have expressed their concerns have the best interests of children at heart and that they would not like to see the court disabled from doing that which will be most advantageous to them.
6 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Companion permits me a short, elucidatory question before she sits down and this is it. Is she aware that I share her view that the job is to sustain families particularly at the edge of economic extinction? My question about payment was not directed to who will pay the local authorities but to who will pay a father who has to give up his paid work for however long in order to look after the other three children when the mother has gone to the compulsory course.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern. I believe, as does the noble Lord, that the parenting role is for both parents. We would expect that, in considering whether such a move would inure to the children's advantage, there would be thought as to whether the parents should go together and whether the children should go with them. If it is not thought necessary for the mother to be with the father on the parenting course, we would expect there to be proper arrangements.
The kind of issues which the noble Lord properly raises are those which we would expect the court to make inquiry about and those who seek the orders to be able to satisfy. If the court is not so satisfied, it will be open to the justice exercising the discretion to say, "I am not satisfied that a residential setting in these circumstances is the preferred way", and to suggest another way. These are the precise practical issues which need to be addressed in order for the court to come to its determination.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving so full a reply to all the queries that I raised. It is helpful to get the essence of the letter that she wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on to the record. I thank her for repeating it and for the patience of your Lordships in listening to it.

1817
We will study what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Parenting contracts in cases of exclusion from school or truancy]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 18, line 7. at end insert "and will work in conjunction with the appropriate agencies and authorities to ensure that such support is given"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 37 relates to the voluntary parenting contracts and goes back to the discussions that we had in Committee on the need for LEAs and governing bodies to work in conjunction with social service and health authorities— the multi-agency approach that we have talked about in terms of tackling family problems at the root.
In Committee, the Minister said:
"We of course want to encourage an approach to supporting parents that draws on input from the full range of relevant agencies … We will encourage local education authorities and schools, through guidance, to investigate whether other agencies are already working with the pupil and family and, if so, to work with other agencies to ensure that the terms of the parenting contract are complementary. That is also a key component of the Children at Risk Green Paper".—[Official Report, 11/9/03; col. 527.]
The draft guidance that has been issued, which seems only to refer to parenting contracts initiated by youth offending teams, does indeed refer to multi-agency working, but it is mainly about youth offending teams working in conjunction with other agencies. It puts the onus on the youth offending team to identify the other agencies working with the child. That can be found at paragraphs 2.20 and 2.21. It concludes with the rather weak sentence:
"Local protocols will need to be agreed about co-operating and supplying resources in such cases".
Paragraph 2.22 then states:
"Local co-ordination in the delivery of parenting programmes may also help target effort and resources where it can be most effective".
Indeed, but we return to the old conundrum: is it enough to set that out in guidance, particularly when the guidance is as generalised and as weak as this? Given the failures of joined-up working, exposed time and again in cases such as that of Victoria Climbié is there not virtue in having that injunction on the face of the Bill?
Amendment No. 37 is framed in general terms to meet the criticism of our more specific amendments raised by the Minister in Committee. It does no more than provide a gentle prod in the direction in which guidance will take the authorities, but being on the face of the Bill makes it that much stronger.
Amendment No. 45, to which I wish to speak, relates to a different issue. It concerns the question which my noble friend Lady Walmsley raised in Committee in relation to Part 4 of the Bill—namely, the question of how far action should be taken when there is merely the view that a young person is likely to
1818
engage in criminal conduct or anti-social behaviour. Admittedly, here we are talking about parenting contracts and not the dispersal of groups. However, the same issue arises: whose judgment is it that such behaviour is likely to occur?
Given that the consequences for parents may be quite substantial, including enforced attendance at residential courses, which we have just discussed, can the Minister justify the presumption entailed? I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, perhaps I should speak now to my amendment—Amendment No. 38—which is in this group. Incidentally, I wish to add warm support for Amendment No. 37. I shall try to be brief. I said that I would not try to de-couple the amendment and I have not done so. However, I am afraid that I shall have to spend a little time on it.
I shall not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee on 11th September at cols. 532 to 534. Then, I moved and spoke to similar amendments, which sought to give school governors and LEA officers a legal duty to pause for thought before issuing parenting contracts and orders to parents of children with special educational needs. The amendments sought to ask them to consider whether more appropriate action could be taken instead of imposing possibly irrelevant legal requirements on parents.
The Minister gave a full and most welcome reply at cols. 534 to 536, saying that the Government were absolutely committed to ensuring that the provision in Part 3 did not adversely affect children with SENs and that they would make that crystal clear in guidance. I withdrew gratefully and hoped that the guidance would be issued before Report. I am delighted that the draft guidance, which has already been mentioned, is already out for consultation.
I very much welcome the references to children with disabilities and special educational needs. The guidance goes a long way to meeting the concerns expressed by myself and other noble Lords— particularly the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Elton. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has stayed to debate the spin-off advantages available to other children in the class.
There is an excellent part on disability and special educational needs at the beginning of the draft guidance but no mention of them later. I feel very strongly that they need to be mentioned again under the section headed "Considerations to be taken into account before issuing contracts" and before issuing orders for their return.
The Special Educational Consortium fully supports that and is concerned about the checks on special educational needs and disability. I know that IPSEA, of which I should declare I am a patron, will respond to the consultation document in the hope of persuading the department to enlarge on the considerations that will be required before contracts are examined. It may wish to call for a review of the school's current arrangements in order to meet the child's special educational needs. It will wish to review

1819
whether the necessary arrangements are in place and whether they are adequate or need to be amended or reassessed before issuing a contract. I hope that the Minister will agree to that kind of detail being included in the final version of the guidance. Other organisations will respond individually and 1 know that the SEC will do so collectively.
That deals with parenting contracts. I now turn to parenting orders which are applied for by LEAs. They are issued by magistrates' courts with a penalty for parents who fail to fulfil the terms. I believe that IPSEA is right to say that we need a stronger measure than guidance; hence Amendment No. 38. The amendment would call for regulations to require a review of the current arrangements to meet the child's special educational needs before an application for an order to a magistrates' court is made. Consideration should be made of whether the provision in place should be amended and whether there should be fresh assessment of the child's needs. At present those with a disability or with SEN receive no mention in the regulations. That is a very important point. It is in line with the concerns of the SEC and has its support.
Are we asking for a sledgehammer—although quite a small sledgehammer—to crack a nut? I think not. I have two quick points in support of the amendment: I mentioned one in Committee and the other is new. First, a growing number of voluntary organisations active in this area have experience of children with special educational needs being excluded because the schools cannot meet their needs: IPSEA, the National Autistic Society, the Down's Syndrome Association, the British Dyslexia Association and the ADHD National Alliance in particular all report that. They are active, grass roots organisations.
My new point is that the latest statistics on exclusions from school issued earlier this month by the DfES specifies for the first time the number of children without statements as well as those with statements. The numbers are somewhat startling. The total number of children excluded from school remains the same. The figures used to be for children with statements and the rest of the children and now they are for children with special educational needs with or without statements. In 2000-01, 9,000 children were excluded—a Figure that stays constant—and 808 children with statements were excluded. In 2001-02, there were still about 9,000 excluded children, but almost 6,000 children—instead of 808—had special educational needs, which means that 60 per cent of excluded children probably had a special educational need of some kind.
IPSEA says that we do not have the figures, but there is a good reason to suspect that a large proportion of the 6,000 will have been excluded because the schools were not meeting their needs. In such situations there is little point in pursuing parenting contracts or orders without first having ensured that the individual child's needs are being met.
I hope that the Minister will agree that the figures are serious. I hope that she will look kindly on the amendment. I repeat that I am grateful for the
1820
guidance as far as it goes, and I hope that the Government will take note of the comments. 1 also hope that serious consideration will be given to this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am tempted to my feet only by the appeal from the noble Baroness. I am unsure what she wanted to elicit from me, but I believe it was an endorsement of the fact that exclusion of a child from school is sometimes imperative for the benefit of the other children in the class. In such cases the needs of the excluded child have to be set against those of the children in the class. The noble Baroness spoke to this point in relation to Clause 19 about contracts. The contract is a parenting contract in cases of exclusion from school or truancy. I am a little pessimistic about this because presumably, if the school is a good one, there will already have been a home school contract for a difficult child which, of course, is unenforceable. In this clause, subsection (8) states:
"A parenting contract does not create any obligations in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort".
In fact, unless the noble Baroness tells the House otherwise, it is almost unenforceable and the parent will recognise that from previous experience. I wish this well. I believe that what the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches has asked for should automatically be forthcoming. If it can be put on the face of the Bill, so much the better.
Lord Addington: My Lords, on Amendment No. 38, I, too, would feel slightly more comfortable if on the face of the Bill there was some recognition that specialist help, care and so on will be required for certain people with special educational needs. The correlation is proven between the people in the group and those who will be subject to the order. To have the provision on the face of the Bill would be better than having it in the regulations. The draft guidance, which I have read, mentions—as the noble Baroness said— disability and special educational needs. However, unless we can get the two tied in more closely, we will make a few more mistakes. It is to be hoped that we can better establish that issue after the guidance returns from consultation.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I commend both noble Baronesses on speaking to their amendments with such elegance. In particular, I commend the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. I believe that guidance is the most appropriate way forward. I thank the noble Baroness for her generous comments about the consultation document, which we have produced. I just emphasise that, as she has rightly said, this is a consultation document. We will anxiously sift through all the comments that we have received and will receive on the guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is correct to say that we should get this issue absolutely right. We will take all comments on board.
No one would dispute that there must be safeguards in place for children with special educational needs, but there are already safeguards in place. There is the

1821
Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, the Education Act 1996—which places schools and local education authorities under a duty to identify, assess and make suitable provision to meet a child's special educational needs—and the department's guidance on exclusions which emphasise the importance of addressing a child's special educational needs.
Perhaps I may say a few words on the issue. We have discovered that children who show evidence of special educational needs sometimes have those needs contributed to by the quality and nature of the care and parenting they receive. If one can help deal with the parenting, one often can help materially the way in which the child can take advantage of the opportunities available to it.
Lord Addington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she make sure that a definition is made between those who have a special educational need resulting from a disability—either hidden or otherwise—and those who have a social problem? Confusing the two leads to a great deal of misdiagnosis and wasted time and money.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that often there is confusion between those two. Children suffering most acutely from social needs can be misdiagnosed as having some other need. I understand that. That is why I very gently suggested that parenting can also have an influence on these issues.
I was very pleased to note the comments made by the noble Baroness about the guidance. On the position in the Bill, the draft guidance, which we have recently published—and to which the local education authority must have regard—makes clear the position of children with special educational needs. It fully restates the duties which schools and local education authorities are under, including their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act; and it requires schools and local education authorities to take into consideration any special educational needs and to satisfy themselves that they have done all that they can to meet them before applying any of the measures in the Bill.
The home/school agreements, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, apply to all children. It is the usual format: schools will have an arrangement about the behaviour which the parent and the child are expected to maintain while at that school. The contracts to which we refer are different, because they are specific, tailored contracts to deal with particular difficulties that may have been evidenced by the child having been in some way non-compliant—by either its behaviour or its non-attendance. It is those different, finely honed contracts that we think will be targeted to change behaviour. There are of course two sets of draft guidance: one on youth offending teams and one on education-related parenting measures. Copies of both are in the Library.
I turn to parenting contracts. The parenting contract is a two-sided agreement and it is clear that the local education authority or governing body's side
1822
of the contract is to provide support for the parents. In some cases, that may be something that the school can provide without external assistance; or it may require a multi-agency approach.
I therefore firmly support the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in her aim behind Amendment No. 37— namely, to encourage local education authorities and governing bodies to involve a range of relevant agencies to provide support to parents. The Government are committed to ensuring better and more effective working between different agencies and will be advancing that, following on from the recent publication of the Green Paper, Every Child Matters.
However, that aim requires a more flexible approach, which, I therefore submit, is better suited to guidance. We are currently consulting on draft guidance and the concern to ensure that a joined-up approach to support those parents is reflected— indeed, strongly propounded—throughout the document.
Thus, before the meeting between the education authority or governing body and the parents to draw up the contract, consideration must be given to whether other agencies should attend or suggest terms for the contract. Even before the decision is taken to enter into a parenting contract, the local education authority or governing body must consult with any other agency involved with the pupil or its family. Clause 25 allows youth offending teams to enter into parenting contracts with parents whose children are "likely to engage" in criminal conduct and/or anti-social behaviour, with the purpose of steering the child or young person away from such behaviour.
Amendment No. 45 would prevent youth offending teams from entering into parenting contracts at that crucial stage when the child or young person has perhaps not yet come formally to the attention of the police for anti-social behaviour. If an agency becomes concerned about a child or young person, it might refer him or her to a youth inclusion support panel, which will carry out an assessment. That assessment would consider the risk factors and protective factors. Where that indicates a high risk of offending, the youth inclusion support panel may ask the child and parents for consent to be referred to a youth offending team so that they can access appropriate support.
The youth offending team could then work with the child and, if appropriate, the parents, to steer the child or young person away from criminal conduct and anti-social behaviour. That could involve a parenting contract. That could provide invaluable help for families at an early stage, before a child or young person's misconduct becomes entrenched and leads to more serious problems.
Evidence suggests that intervention at that early stage can be especially effective. I stress that referral and intervention would be voluntary. The amendment would deprive families of the support that they want, need and deserve. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press it.

1823
I speak briefly to government Amendment No. 48, which is grouped. It specifies that the term "guardian" in Clauses 25 and 29 has the same meaning as in Section 107 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Parenting orders for criminal conduct or antisocial behaviour under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 already use that meaning.
We always intended that that should apply to parenting contracts and the parenting orders, and that change is needed to make this clear. It allows youth offending teams to provide support in a wide variety of family circumstances—such as where the court regards step-parents as having the care of the child or young person. I know that that has been of concern to several noble Lords—in particular, to the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Northbourne. I hope that that will give them some pleasure and satisfaction.
I commend the government amendment and invite the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his useful intervention about separating special educational needs from a genuine disability or whatever. I point out that all the provisions to which the noble Baroness referred are now in place. The organisations are saying that all these children are excluded now. I will think about regulations before the next stage if the noble Baroness is willing to talk in the interim. I think that the regulations do not mention SEN invisibility; it is mentioned only in the guidance. Will the Government undertake at least to have it mentioned in the regulations?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her detailed reply to the various amendments to which I spoke. I am sorry that she has not seen fit to take up my modest Amendment No. 37, because it makes a difference whether the provision is in the Bill or in regulations. It is good sometimes to prod the authorities and we are trying to give a modest little prod. The Minister talked about flexibility in the regulations. I can think of nothing more flexible than the amendment I tabled. I am sorry; I rather hoped it might find faith with the Minister.
I did not table Amendment No. 38 but I would like to make one comment. There is a worry that we have made a distinction between genuine needs and behavioural problems in special education needs. Problems such as dyslexia might be called middle-class diseases, because informed parents make a fuss and get things done, but sometimes that does not happen. The advantage of having a clause in the Bill such as that proposed by Amendment No. 38 is that it makes the authorities consider such matters when they do not have parents prodding them hard to do so.
I take the Minister's point about Amendment No. 45. I recognise that early intervention can be advantageous. There are sometimes difficulties. Your Lordships will recognise that we are unhappy about
1824
the presumption of guilt that to some extent applies on such occasions. However, I will not press the issue now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Parenting orders in case of exclusion from school]
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Clause 23 [Penalty notices for parents in case of truancy]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 20, line 38, leave out "or a head teacher"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 44. All the amendments relate to fixed penalty notices for truancy, but the group raises two separate issues. Amendments Nos. 40, 42 and 43 relate to whether head teachers or other members of staff at schools should be given powers to issue fixed penalty notices, or whether that responsibility should be left with the local education authority and/or the police force.
We argued the issue in Committee and the Minister's response was—as I suspect it shall be again today—that the power is entirely voluntary and that no head teacher is compelled to act as an agent for the authority in issuing fixed penalty notices. The Minister claimed that since schools had closest contact with such pupils, they were in a good position to know when a fixed penalty notice might be most appropriate and that these powers should be added to the toolkit of measures available to teachers at such times. She went further, adding that the measure had been welcomed by some head teachers.
I am not certain which head teachers the Minister spoke to. We are raising this issue again because of the unhappiness both of many of the bodies representing head teachers and teachers and also of the Local Government Association. I myself have spoken to the heads of the Secondary Heads Association and to the National Association of Head Teachers and I can find no support for the intrusion of these provisions in the Bill. Voluntary or no, they claim that if the provision is there, they may come under pressure to use it. There is very real disquiet at the effects that such use may have.
First, those bodies are worried about the effect that the power to issue fixed penalty notices might have on the relationship between schools and parents. As has been stressed in relation to parenting contracts, the more relationships are voluntary and co-operative, the greater the ownership of the outcome and the more effective any counselling or classes are likely to be. Once the school breaks that co-operative, voluntary boundary, trust is broken and the same outcome cannot be guaranteed.
Secondly, where heads are specifically given responsibilities for policing truancy in this way, there is a real risk of putting themselves and other members

1825
of staff at risk of a violent response. I am not suggesting that it is more than the exceptional parent who may respond to a fixed penalty notice with violence but, sadly, the extent to which teachers have experienced rough and violent behaviour from parents, even after just criticism of a child's behaviour, has been on the increase. Both the Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Head Teachers are very worried about the implications for their members of being given these powers and would much prefer them not to appear in the Bill. They also point out that their members are already overburdened with bureaucracy imposed by the Government and that this further responsibility is one that they can do without.
The Local Government Association has similar concerns. It remains unconvinced that fining parents is an appropriate or helpful response to the problems of truancy or bad behaviour. They point out that, given that when a parent is in breach of a parenting order or has failed to pay a fixed penalty they may be sent to prison, the measures may also lead to an increasing number of parents in the looked-after system, which I think all of us would agree is not a satisfactory outcome.
The LGA further argues that the Government are claiming that a framework for fixed penalty notices and for parenting orders can be developed by local education authorities and their schools forums. The LGA is concerned that that would not prevent an overuse of the new measures by some schools and therefore differential treatment of parents and children. The Government's arguments that fixed penalty notices are an alternative to prosecution equally fail to reassure that schools themselves should be involved in fining parents.
To sum up the arguments about head teachers, our case is that schools should not be put in a position of fining parents. It is ludicrous to suggest that head teachers, with all their other responsibilities, should be expected to police the truancy laws and impose fixed penalty fines on parents. The heads do not want the task. They have not got the time. It plays havoc with carefully nurtured home/school relations and it puts them and other members of staff at risk should any parent respond with violence. It is, indeed, one of the Government's barmier ideas.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 41 and 44. Amendment No. 41 is aimed to set out a proper limit in which the Secretary of State can exercise his discretion on the level of fine. The limit of any possible fine should be determined by legislation in line with provisions for penalty notices for criminal offences under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Fixed penalty notices are designed to deal with minor behaviour, and the stated penalty should reflect that. In contrast, the court fine level is based on the most serious behaviour that warrants prosecution, and the court, unlike the fixed penalty notice, is able to tailor the amount of the fine to the financial status of the individual.
We are concerned about the proposed two-tier level of finance announced in the House of Lords on 17th September. The presumption of innocence must be
1826
maintained and we do not consider it appropriate for financial inducements to be offered for admitting the offence. Allowing a 50 per cent reduction in the fine based on the admission of an offence is an unfair inducement, especially when the family are economically poor.
Amendment No. 44 would provide a minimum content for any fixed penalty notice and ensure that that content is specified in the Bill. There is no reason why the standard contents of a fixed penalty form cannot be stated in legislation rather than being laid out in regulations. Moving the offence from the formal criminal justice system into an administrative system should not deny the individual basic information and access to rights. The amendment is based on provisions already existing for fixed penalty notices for disorder offences under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. An individual should be provided with basic information relating to the criminal offence that they are accused of. In addition, individuals should be provided with the basic practical information required to understand the notice and their right to challenge it. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in some amazement that it should be necessary. Anyone who has observed the development of relationships between a traffic warden and motorists who have overstayed their leave at a parking meter will know that the introduction of the power to fine immediately develops a considerable feeling of hostility to the person levelling it. The Minister is reported to have said that this is something that head teachers do not have to undertake, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, has said, collecting fines and deciding who should have to pay them is an onerous and expensive business which any local authority in its right senses will wish to devolve to the head teachers. They have considerable power over head teachers, and that power will be exerted to pressurise them.
I notice that the noble Baroness sitting next to the Minister is shaking her head. No doubt she will relieve my anxiety, but at the moment I find it difficult to imagine what sort of head teacher under what sort of circumstances would voluntarily acquire this power.
One of the more difficult relationships for a head teacher or any other teacher is when the parent takes the side of the child against the school—when a child is in error in some way and is being disciplined and a parent comes in. I had a case when a parent came in with his coat off because he thought that his child had been wronged. He threatened to have a boxing match over the matter. If this is a cause in which the patents themselves are involved and the penalty will fall on them as a result of the conduct of the child, an alliance will be formed between the two and the teacher will lose the most valuable of all allies—the parents—in trying to change the behaviour of the child. This provision should not be in the Bill and it will be used inadvisedly if it remains there.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said by the noble

1827
Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, I am slightly comforted by a letter that I received today from the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland. It says that,
"consultation with the school will be a crucial part of the process".
The process in this case means the process before a fixed penalty is imposed.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, if we are going to have different actions in different schools, how will Ofsted measure whether a school is using all the powers available? How will we know from one school to another whether the powers have had any impact? We will have an uneven playing field.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I listened with great care to everything that the noble Baroness said. It did not differ one jot from what we explored in Committee. All the powerful arguments that the noble Baroness made today she made on the previous occasion. She knows, therefore, all the arguments that I will employ to refute hers.
None of the arguments bears repetition because the noble Baroness has had the advantage of hearing them already. I should, I suppose, say succinctly that our point is that all of the powers will be exercised on a voluntary basis. It is not compulsory. Secondly, I refute the suggestion that head teachers will be forced to do it and that pressure will be put on them. "Pressure from whom?", I ask myself. Head teachers will be able to make decisions about whether the power has utility for them in the exercise of their duties to the parents and children whom they are entrusted to serve.
Paragraph 65 of the guidance says that LEAs must not seek to delegate responsibility to schools or police. Paragraph 68 makes it clear that the school governing body must agree, before the provisions apply. There is clarity about whether the school can or will have the opportunity to say "no", if it so wishes. The noble Baroness said that the provisions were barmy. That view is not shared by many of the head teachers to whom my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland has had the privilege to speak. Many of those head teachers would like the opportunity to make decisions for themselves.
Some head teachers are in the privileged position of having a student body and parents who will never give them cause to exercise the powers. Other head teachers are not in such a luxurious position. Local codes of conduct will reflect local circumstances, and schools can issue fixed penalty notices only within the parameters of the code. To deal with the noble Baroness's point, I must say that Ofsted will be aware of that when assessing a school's performance. The parameters are clear.
We have a choice. Do we think—as the Government think—that teachers can and should be entrusted with the ability, to be exercised if they choose, or do we think that they should not be so entrusted, perhaps because they do not have the ability or discretion to do
1828
so? We think that we can trust our teachers and that they will only exercise the power judiciously. It is right to allow them to do so.
I will not repeat everything that I said in Committee. I will take it as read into the record.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sorry to make a habit of it, but the Companion permits a short elucidatory question. The Minister said that the guidance said that local authorities may not delegate the power to collect. In new Section 444B(l)(f), we read that the regulations may make provision as to,
"the persons who may be authorised by a local education authority to give penalty notices".
What is the difference?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, they cannot delegate their responsibilities as local education authorities to teachers, schools or police. The idea, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was that somehow local authorities would simply foist their responsibility for discharging the duty onto others. What I was trying to make clear is that they cannot do so. The guidance makes it clear that they cannot do so. Unless and until the governing body of the school accepts, with the head teacher, and agrees that that should be done, it would be impossible for a local education authority to do so.
The important point is that if the school, the governing body and the local education authority agree that this is an appropriate thing to be entrusted to the school, they will do it. If they do not, they will not. There will be local education authorities, which, knowing their schools and knowing their head teachers, may prefer to keep the determining power to themselves, with the agreement of their schools and governing bodies.
However, there will be other local authorities where the schools, through the head teacher, the governing body and the LEA agree that this will inure to the advantage of their school and their children, and choose to invest that power in this way. These provisions would deny those schools that have a hunger for the opportunity to have this power available to them—only as a back-stop, only there in the background, only probably to be used in extremis. None the less, it would be a useful backstop. Many schools would wish to have that privilege. These amendments would deprive them of that opportunity. We do not think that that is right.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I am sorry she felt that I put forward the same old arguments as I did on a previous occasion; I thought that I had made one or two new points for her. I raised them because there is real concern among teachers. It is not a matter of trust; it is not a matter of not being trusted. It is a matter of what are the appropriate responsibilities to put on head teachers on this occasion. Many head teachers do

1829
not think that this is an appropriate responsibility to be put on their shoulders. They do not want that responsibility.
I accept therefore that it will be a matter of whether there is agreement. As the Minister indicated, it will be an agreement between the schools, the governing body and the local education authority. Quite rightly, it will be a provision in the Bill that is honoured in the breach rather than being used. Extremely few head teachers will want to take up and use the responsibility. That may well be the case.
It is unfortunate. We have seen a similar situation in other legislation that has gone through, such as curfew orders and so forth, which have not been used widely. In terms of legislation, it clogs up the time of the House and it brings the law into disrepute if we pass laws that are honoured only in the breach. However, the Minister wants to see it on the face of the Bill, but I am not convinced by the arguments produced. I shall think about the matter further. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 44 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Parenting contracts in respect of criminal conduct and anti-social behaviour]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Parenting orders in respect of criminal conduct and anti-social behaviour]:
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Interpretation and consequential amendment]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 25, line 35. at end insert—
""guardian" has the same meaning as in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence]:
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 26, line 12, leave out "presence or"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49,1 shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 54. Amendments Nos. 49 and 51 are linked in that they both seek to remove from the Bill the liability to be dispersed for something other than actual bad behaviour; that is, simply being somewhere, in the case of Amendment No. 49, or someone thinking that a person might do something, in the case of Amendment No. 51.
The Minister has made it clear that the Bill does not apply just to young people. I accept that absolutely. However, young people think that it is aimed at them. Indeed, they fear that it does and they are very angry.
Last night I attended a lobby of young people in Portcullis House. Their main message was that young people are not all criminals and up to no good and they
1830
become angry when they appear to be so labelled. They are concerned that, simply because they have nowhere else to go and hang out with their friends, and nothing else constructive to do in many areas, it will be assumed that they are planning to misbehave when they gather together in public places. They understand, as one very impressive young woman called Lucy put it, that they are seen as an alien species by some of our generation. They would prefer to be understood, but they accept that often they are misunderstood.
They prefer the approach outlined by the Minister in Committee, where she described how the local authority in Harrow has handled this issue—by talking to young people and solving their problems. 1 could give the noble Baroness many other examples of how local authorities have dealt with this kind of problem, by getting to the root of it and finding solutions, but I shall not weary noble Lords, they will be pleased to hear, with such a litany. We have all come across examples of best practice in this area. If local authorities can find solutions without recourse to the draconian powers set out in this Bill, why do we need them?
Where there has been actual bad behaviour, I believe that the Government and the police have several remedies at their disposal; they just need to use them. It cannot be right to disperse people from an area where there has been anti-social behaviour even when there is no link between them and the problem behaviour itself. The nuisance may have been committed in the past by an entirely different group of people. Of course authorities need the power to deal with groups that terrorise neighbourhoods, but I believe that they already have such powers, and should use them. This Bill would allow the police to disperse groups of people from an area simply for being there, or if others think that they might cause a problem. That cannot be right in a free society.
I turn to the safety of young people. The House will be well aware that many young people are the victims of crime, albeit that some are the perpetrators. These law-abiding young people, some of whom spoke to me last night, are concerned that when they gather together in groups, where they feel comfortable and safe, they will be in danger of being labelled as troublemakers and be moved on. Not only does this make them feel angry and alienated, it undermines any confidence those young people might have that the justice system is also there to help and protect them, rather than simply to demonise them.
We must not criminalise the normal behaviour of young people. The dispersal power is a shallow and ineffective idea. It will simply move the problem somewhere else, without getting to the root of the cause of the gathering and finding a constructive solution. It is like giving an Aspirin to someone who complains of a headache rather than arranging a scan to find out whether they have a brain tumour, then operating to remove it. I expected better of this Government, who say that they are on the side of young people and respect their rights. I do not believe that these measures are consistent with the rights of

1831
young people under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which we are signatories, and they certainly do not meet the spirit of that convention.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 52 and 54, which concern informing social services if a child is taken home by a police officer within the designated hours. The Green Paper, Every Child Matters, rightly talks about multi-agency working and common databases to assist in this type of work. Those who are concerned about children support absolutely that approach and have great hopes of the Government's consultation exercise on these matters. The Minister has said much recently about the benefits of multi-agency working during the course of this and other Bills.
While we are waiting for the measures which we hope will emerge from Every Child Matters, it would not be a bad thing, while we are passing this legislation, to insert into it an obligation for the police at least to inform the social services, not only if they have grounds for believing that the child is likely to suffer harm if removed to his or her home, which is what is sought by Amendment No. 54, but every time a child is taken home in the middle of the night, which is what is sought in Amendment No. 52. We must have joined-up action in these cases.
If any child below the age of 16 is roaming the streets unsupervised at two o'clock in the morning, he could be a child at risk. His or her education will suffer and there would have to be profound doubts about the level of control being exercised by the parents. Those parents may need some help and support in bringing up that child. We believe that social services are the most appropriate first port of call for that help and support. In such a case, it is hoped that social services professionals would inform the child's school. It would also be helpful for teachers to know why the child is falling asleep in the classroom the next morning.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will look kindly on these two amendments since they are clearly in line with the ethos set out in the Green Paper. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am concerned about some of the amendments in the grouping. There has been a change in society in that, certainly in the north of England, many young girls, particularly, are drinking a tremendous amount and roaming the streets. They must be at risk of being enticed into prostitution. Not long ago, Barnardo's produced a very good video of children who were in social care in Leeds but were working as prostitutes in Halifax and being kept in appalling conditions. There is a risk element and we need to consider carefully these amendments.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. He greatly regrets that he cannot be here to speak to Amendments Nos. 50 and 53, which are tabled in his name.
1832
Both amendments seek to give effect to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by inserting important safeguards into the Bill. Clause 30 contains provisions for the dispersal of groups of two or more people where it is reasonably believed that anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem, and that such groups have harassed, intimidated, alarmed or distressed members of the public in the locality. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed concern that it might be difficult to ensure that the powers under Clause 30 would be used only when they were proportionate to a pressing social need.
In order to address this concern and to provide a tighter test and an additional safeguard to the use of these powers, we propose that the provisions in the amendment should be inserted into the Bill. Under the amendment, in order to be able to give an authorisation which would allow for the exercise of the new powers under Clause 30(4), the relevant officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that such authorisation and exercise of powers is appropriate and necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime.
Amendment No. 53 relates to the removal of young people under 16 to their place of residence. We have some concerns about this power and my noble friend feels that it is very important that this provision should be clearly linked to Clause 30 and to Amendment No. 50. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights observed, the provision effectively turns the authorisation into an extension of child curfew schemes. It also expressed concerns that the measures are not a proportionate response to a pressing social need.
It is not completely clear from the face of the Bill that Clause 30(1) conditions need to be met before Clause 30(6) can be applied, hence the need for the link. This is unacceptable. In order to address the ambiguity and to provide an additional safeguard to the use of these new powers, the provision in the amendment should be inserted after Clause 30(6). This will ensure that all of the Clause 30(1) conditions, including the new condition proposed as Clause 30(1)(c), are met before the power to remove is triggered. I hope that I have made myself clear to the Minister.
7 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, there can be some confusion between the need to remove young people from the streets when they are in danger or causing difficulties that might lead to an offence and young people who are simply congregating, when people fear that they might cause offence. To address the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was concerned about, young prostitutes and young women in difficulties certainly need help. If they are ordinary kids who are just grouping together on the streets, they need help, but not help as regards being dispersed.
I want to make a comment in support of Amendment No. 54. I am sure that the Minister will say that the amendment is unnecessary because the

1833
matter is covered in the Children and Young Persons Act 1989, with regard to the co-operation needed between police and social services. However, I support the amendment, because it would remind constables of their welfare responsibilities when operating under the provisions.
We know from what happened in the Climbié situation that the police forgot to take a holistic view because the person in front of them was a child. I have great respect for the police and have worked with them through the years, but it would help to have it in the Bill to remind them, through their training, that they have to intervene and work with social services if they find themselves in charge of a child who is on the street.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I want to take the Minister back to the discussions that we had on the Licensing Bill, and the question of the large number of people who congregate outside premises where clubs are operating—young people between the ages of 16 and 30, whose ages are extremely difficult to determine. If a police officer faces a situation in which such a group of people is likely to intimidate—or is intimidating and harassing—members of the public, how does a police officer single out those who are of the age to which the clause applies?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I should reiterate the basis on which the provisions will apply. As currently drafted, a senior officer may grant an authorisation in areas where people have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed, as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups and where anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem. Those are the criteria set out, which need to be satisfied before the powers under this clause can operate.
Amendment No. 49 would remove the possibility of the police using powers based on the presence of groups causing intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress. The Government believe that it is not only the behaviour of groups that makes people feel threatened in their communities. The presence of the group, and the fear of what it might do, prevents people from using the open spaces and facilities within communities. The provisions are not limited to children. Groups can be dispersed, regardless of age. Only the curfew powers relate specifically to juveniles.
Amendment No. 50, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, moved elegantly on his behalf by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, adds an additional condition,
"that it is appropriate and necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime".
We would say that the amendment is unnecessary. The condition adds nothing to the conditions already on the face of the Bill. Clause 30(1)(b) provides,
"that anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality".
That is the premise upon which the measure works and we believe that the position is thereby covered.
1834
Amendment No. 51 would prevent the constable from using the power if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of groups will result in members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed. It is essential that the constable or community support officer has powers to prevent members of the public being affected in this way and to prevent intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress occurring in the first place.
We say respectfully that Amendment No. 52 is also unnecessary as Clause 32(4) already has the effect that is proposed in the amendment. The social services department of the local authority will be notified if a constable or community support officer decides to exercise his powers under Clause 30(6) of the Bill. I believe that the noble Baroness will see that the power which she seeks is there already.
Amendment No. 54 is also unnecessary as under the general child protection provisions in the Children Act 1989 we would expect constables to alert local authority social services departments of any child they believe is at risk of significant harm. We shall certainly ensure—I hope that I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth—that this point is covered in the code of practice issued under Clause 34. I hope that gives the noble Baroness some comfort.
Amendment No. 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, seeks to clarify that before a police officer or community support officer exercises his power to take a child home, the conditions required for an authorisation apply. Clause 30(2) ensures that the power to take a child home can be exercised only when an authorisation is in place. While I recognise the point that the noble Lord, through the noble Baroness, is making, I hope I can reassure him and her that the amendment is unnecessary. The noble Lord has a few concerns and may welcome a discussion on them. I should be very happy to have that discussion with the noble Lord. If, due to our somewhat tight timetable, I am not able to conduct that discussion myself, I am sure we can arrange for him to have a proper consultation with the relevant officials dealing with the matter. I hope that following my comments and the offer of a discussion, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear reply. She considers the amendments unnecessary as their aims are covered in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Lester will read what has been said in Hansard. I speak for him but I am sure that he will welcome the noble Baroness's kind offer of a consultation.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and other Members of your Lordships' House for their support for these amendments. I believe the Minister suggested that Amendment No. 51 would remove all of subsection (3). However, it seeks to remove only the words,
"or is likely to result".

1835
That does not affect the rest of that subsection at all. I shall study carefully the Minister's comments on Amendments Nos. 52 and 54 to see whether we consider that we need to return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill. However, in considering Amendment No. 49, whoever grants the order and whatever has taken place before, does not alter the fact that these measures criminalise people for something they have not done, for being somewhere or for being thought likely to do something. Despite all the authorisation in Clause 31 and all the other caveats in this part of the Bill, we believe that there is a fundamental principle here. Because of that I want to test the opinion of the House on the amendment.
7.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 64.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.[Teller]

Morgan, L.

Avebury. L.

Newby, L.

Barker, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Rennard, L.

Darcy de Knayth. B.

Roper, L.

Elton, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Gresford. L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Tope, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Walmsley, B. [Teller]

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Weatherill, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton. L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Ahmed, L.

Chancellor)

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Andrews, B

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gale.B.

Bach, L

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Berkeley L

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bhatia, L.

Harrison, L.

Billingham, B.

Hayman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Blackstone, B.

Brett, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hylton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe. L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chandos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Davies of Oldham. L.[Teller]

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Parekh, L.

Desai, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elder, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sainsbury of Turville. L.

1836

Sawyer, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Warner, L.

Sewel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Simon, V.

Whitaker, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Whitty, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Wilkins, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.21 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 54 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Authorisations: supplemental]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 27, leave out line 22 and insert "An authorisation may not be given without the consent of the local authority or each"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we listened carefully to the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Linklater, about the importance of the work of local authorities in tackling anti-social behaviour in their areas, particularly through local crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which we have done a great deal to develop over the past five or six years.
Government Amendment No. 55 ensures that the agreement of the local authority is given before those powers can be used. We have responded to points raised in Committee on that issue. Local authorities and the police already work closely together in local crime and disorder reduction partnerships, implementing local strategies for dealing with anti-social behaviour. We expect agreement on authorising the powers to be an important part of that process.
I turn to Amendment No. 56, which is grouped with Amendment No. 55. In this, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. seeks to ensure that the local community is consulted before an authorisation is granted. We agree that the local community should be included in tackling anti-social behaviour in its area. However, we would not want to extend the authorisation process, implicit in the amendment, by building in an obligation to consult the local community.
However, we shall ensure that the code of practice to be issued under Clause 34 of the Bill gives advice on consultation with the local community. Indeed, we would expect crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which include, as I have made plain before, the police, councils and other bodies, to engage with local communities to determine whether there are areas in their locality where the use of the powers would be beneficial.
We agree it is essential that local communities know that those powers are being used in their area. That is why Clause 31(3) ensures that publicity is given to an authorisation. We believe that that communication is extremely important. Therefore, I trust that the noble Baronesses will not feel obliged to press their amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 56. The purpose of the amendment,

1837
as the Minister has just said, is to ensure that all members of the local community, including children, young people and their families, are involved in the decision to instigate the power to disperse groups in local areas.
We have been briefed on this issue by Barnardo's, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, the Children's Society, Family Service Units, NACRO, the National Association for Youth Justice, the National Children's Bureau, the NCH, the NCVCCO, the NSPCC, the National Youth Agency and YMCS England, to whom we are very grateful. All of those organisations are opposed to the introduction of these new powers because of the detrimental impact that they will have, particularly on young people and their communities. They and we on these Benches do not condone crime, nor do we underestimate the impact that seriously disruptive behaviour can have on people's lives. However, we believe that the proposals on dispersal will not be effective and will simply increase local tensions between those in positions of authority and young people and their families, without effectively tackling the root causes of anti-social behaviour.
The reputable organisations that I have just mentioned urge the Government to reconsider their proposals, and consult with all members of the community including children and young people about the most effective ways of reducing anti-social behaviour while offering the children and families concerned the help that they need. Given the far-reaching nature of these proposals and their impact on children and young people, we are particularly concerned that there is no requirement in the new powers to consult the local community. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 56.
Young people themselves are also very concerned. A recent NOP poll found that of the 10 to 16 year-olds questioned, seven out of 10 agree that police should not be given powers to move them on if they have not done anything wrong; four out of five say that curfews are not fair because not all young people cause problems; three out of five believe curfews will stop them doing things they enjoy; four out of five say that police are very important in helping children lead safe and secure lives; and four out of five of those questioned say that children sometimes hang out on the streets because there is nowhere else for them to go.
In view of those strongly held views of young people, the absence of a requirement on the face of the Bill to consult with the community is a significant and alarming change to the current situation in respect of curfew schemes under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Act sets out that an application to the Secretary of State for a local child curfew scheme must describe how the local authority proposes to consult the local community to be affected. That can be found in Section 14(l)(b).
One of the difficulties with the original proposals in Part 4 of this Bill is that they removed the partnership approach between the police and the local authority, which is such a key tenet of the Crime and Disorder
1838
Act 1998. We share the concerns of the Local Government Association and others about this and very much welcome the introduction of the Government's Amendment No. 55, which means that authorisation will be given only with the agreement of the local authority. That would facilitate consultation with the local community as set out in my Amendment No. 56.
So we either need this amendment so as to be explicit about that consultation or, at the very least, we seek the Minister's clear assurance that the code of practice will refer explicitly to the need to consult children and young people. That would be in accordance with the Children and Young People's Unit guidance, Learning to Listen. Without this amendment or the Minister's assurance about the guidance, the proposals in the Bill effectively remove power from the local community, a strange contradiction to the ethos of the White Paper statement that,
"to tackle anti-social behaviour we must ensure that the community sets clear standards of behaviour",
and,
"Local people must be encouraged to win back their communities and encouraged by local and central Government to do so".
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
"We agree that the local community should be involved in tackling anti-social behaviour … we would not necessarily want to extend the authorisation process by building in an obligation to consult the local community".—[Official Report, 17/9/03; col. 1002.]
He repeated that this evening. The Minister further stated that he felt that the best way to address this matter was through the code of practice as set out in Clause 34. It is our view that these powers are so far reaching and have raised so much concern about the need to ensure that the imposition of the powers is suitable for the particular area and community concerned, through consultation, that it is of critical importance that they should be reflected on the face of the legislation. I hope that the Minister will agree with that.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, when addressing the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness I thought I made it plain that we would seek, by virtue of Clause 34—the code of practice—to ensure that we have community consultation. I can give a commitment to consult all sections of the community; that will be in the code of practice; and, of course that will include young people. That makes a great deal of sense.
The Government have done a great deal through the crime reduction partnerships to ensure that there is careful consultation on the construction of crime and anti-social behaviour patterns of disorder. Because we view local authorities as very important partners, and because local authorities obviously have deep and intrusive roots into local communities, we see their role as being extraordinarily important.

1839
It is perhaps worth reminding the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that these powers are not just restricted to children. She seemed to think that they are aimed just at young people. That is not the case. I thought I had made that point clear at an earlier stage in the Bill. I think that there has been some misunderstanding—I am sure not deliberate—in some quarters about our intent regarding this legislation.
So, we have listened to the points made at an earlier stage in the Bill. We think that it is more important to put the provision into a code of practice. There will be extensive opportunities for consultation; and that consultation will extend to younger members of the community.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he clarify that the consultation will take place prior to the authorisation being issued? Will the provision require notice to be given in the locality so that other users of the open space concerned will know what is being planned? I think, for example, of a small open space or a park used by members of the local community who may wish to know that this authorisation is contemplated. My own local park in Lambeth is used by a wide variety of people. An authorisation contemplated in respect of the whole park might have serious implications for other users and they would want to be consulted about it before the authorisation was issued.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would expect there to be consultation generally about the use of these powers. I think the words I used initially were that we would expect that the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which as I explained include the police and councils, would engage with the local community to determine whether there are areas in their locality where the use of these powers would be beneficial. Of course there will be consultation in the local communities. There may not necessarily be specific consultation in advance of an authorisation being granted, but there will be extensive consultation about the way and the localities in which these authorisations will take place.
1840
On the question of publicity, Clause 31(3) gives publicity to the authorisation, but after it is issued. I think that there is a benefit to there being extensive publicity. Clearly, it would depend on the strategy being adopted in the area about whether there may be some publicity prior to the event. Certainly, it is our hope that there will be extensive publicity given to the effect of the powers because we want people to understand the import of what is being done and we want communities to understand why these actions are being taken. We want to discourage the form of anti-social behaviour that these activities embody. Therefore, it makes perfect good sense to ensure that there is extensive publicity and that that extensive publicity relates to the behaviour we are trying to prevent.
Baroness Walmsley: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may briefly comment on his response on Amendment No. 56, which I shall not move. He was not in his place when I moved Amendment No. 49, but if he reads Hansard I hope that he will be reassured that there is no misunderstanding: I have accepted the many reassurances made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that the Bill does not just refer to young people.
However, we are reassured and thank the Minister for his explicit assurance that communities, including young people, will be consulted. We hope that that will be done in a timely way. We shall obviously carefully consider the details of the guidance when it is issued, but his reassurances from the Dispatch Box are welcome and I thank him for them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before eight o'clock.

  Civil Registration: Consultation Document
  Civil Registration: Consultation Document
  Criminal Offences: Specified Proceedings
  Criminal Offences: Specified Proceedings
  Treasury Solicitor's Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Treasury Solicitor's Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Racial Discrimination: EC Legislation
  Racial Discrimination: EC Legislation
  Suez Medal
  Suez Medal
  EU Public Sector Procurement Directive
  EU Public Sector Procurement Directive
  European Parliament: Conciliation Committee
  European Parliament: Conciliation Committee
  Ex-directory Telephone Numbers
  Ex-directory Telephone Numbers
  Radio Equipment and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (Amendment) Regulations 2003
  Radio Equipment and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (Amendment) Regulations 2003
  EU Trade Negotiations
  EU Trade Negotiations
  World Trade Organisation
  World Trade Organisation
  Exports
  Exports
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Photodynamic Therapy
  Photodynamic Therapy
  Long-Stay Hospitals
  Long-Stay Hospitals
  Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
  Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
  Medical Devices Agency and Medicines Control Agency
  Medical Devices Agency and Medicines Control Agency
  Drinking Water: Fluoride
  Drinking Water: Fluoride
  Sport: Drugs Policy
  Sport: Drugs Policy