Sitting of 29 October 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Peace Process
    Dr. Nick Palmer: If he will make a statement on the peace process. [134143]
    Judy Mallaber: If he will make a statement on progress with the peace process. [134145]
    Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, let me say that it is unfair to Members who are here for Northern Ireland questions for so many conversations to be taking place. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber if they wish to make conversation.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): There were significant developments in the peace process last week, and further progress over the weekend. However, it did not prove possible to resolve outstanding differences—despite the excellent efforts of General de Chastelain and his colleagues—over decommissioning in a manner that would create public confidence on all sides. But we sincerely hope that after the elections conditions will be created that will permit a working Executive to be formed and all aspects of the joint declaration to be taken forward.
    Dr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that after the elections the regrettably interrupted negotiations to complete the peace settlement need to be resumed as soon as possible, and that the people of both Britain and Northern Ireland will expect all sides to make every effort to reach a conclusion so that we can see peace in our islands?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Obviously, after the elections we need to address the issues that were left unfinished over the past weeks. However, I want to make it clear to the House, as I did in last week's statement, that a lot of progress has been made. There has been engagement between parties that has not occurred before, and there was improvement as regards decommissioning. However, my hon. Friend is right that we now have elections before us. I urge every voter in Northern Ireland to exercise his or her franchise and democratic right in these particularly important elections so that, at the end of that process, they have an
    286
    Assembly which is representative of all the people of Northern Ireland and which, as a consequence of the election, can produce an Executive to govern Northern Ireland in place of government by direct rule.
    Judy Mallaber: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever our views on the events of recent days, there has been considerable progress as a result of the peace process? Many lives have been saved; there has been increased investment as a result of the improved security situation; and life is quite normal in many parts of Northern Ireland, as I witnessed on a recent visit. Will my right hon. Friend continue to impress on all parties their responsibility to continue with that progress up to and after the elections?
    Mr. Murphy: Indeed I will. My hon. Friend is quite right—if one looks at peace processes throughout the world and compares them with what has occurred in Northern Ireland, one can see that there have been improvements in the lives of ordinary people, the number of jobs, and the number of deaths as a result of terrorist crime that are not occurring. Moreover, Northern Ireland is now the fastest-growing region in the United Kingdom and tourism is improving. All those factors point to a more stable society resulting from the Good Friday agreement. Although we have had our difficulties in the past weeks, we are still moving forward all the time, and the election process is part of that.
    Mr. David Trimble: Does the Secretary of State agree that if the sequence that it was necessary for me to put on hold last Tuesday is to be resumed at any point in future and carried through, it is essential that in the next few weeks of the election campaign republicans abide very clearly by the commitments to peaceful means that they made at that stage? It is also highly desirable that republicans engage with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to repair the mistakes on transparency and agree the necessary timetable for the completion of decommissioning.
    Mr. Murphy: I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that progress was made as regards the statement by the president of Sinn Fein and that it was an improvement on what we saw in the spring. I think he would also agree that the IRA's engagement with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning was an important and significant development. I think he would also agree about the nature of the decommissioning event this time, which General de Chastelain referred to as being considerably greater than the two previous events, and would welcome the decommissioning of weapons which, if used, would have resulted in death and destruction on a huge scale. I know that he is concerned about transparency and, indeed, public confidence, but I hope that those issues will be addressed in the coming weeks and that we move forward.
    Mr. Gregory Campbell: As the Secretary of State has given the House assurances on previous occasions, can he confirm that he has confidence in the process that began in 1998? Can he

    287
    give the House an assurance that he will give equal support to, and has equal confidence in, the process that will evolve after the elections on 26 November, so that it can reach a better conclusion than the old process?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is to be a review of the agreement after the election. Indeed, that is part of the agreement itself—paragraph 8 ensures that the review must take place. In the course of that review, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will, of course, be able to put forward the various points that they consider important. Obviously, we have to await the result of the elections on 26 November. However, I will say to the hon. Gentleman that I still believe, and it is the Government's firm view, that the Good Friday agreement is the best way forward—indeed, the only way forward—in Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend take the view that despite the confusion that appeared to emanate from Northern Ireland earlier in the week, the act of decommissioning that has taken place is much greater than anything that has gone before?
    Mr. Murphy: As I made clear to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I believe that it was a greater act of decommissioning than we have seen before. I also believe that the engagement on the issues of the day between political parties in Northern Ireland over the past few months is of such significance that everybody in Northern Ireland must draw hope from it; and that on 27 November, when we return to politics in Northern Ireland, we will return to devolution so that the people of Northern Ireland can be governed by people from Northern Ireland in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the Secretary of State think that politicians who lie, and are therefore distrusted, are well placed to conclude negotiations?
    Mr. Murphy: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the issue that was addressed by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), earlier this week. The most important thing that those of us who are involved in Northern Ireland must now do is look towards the future to ensure that the elections held in Northern Ireland produce a democratic Assembly and that we have peace in Northern Ireland.
    I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be returning to his position on the Front Bench next time we meet for Question Time—we shall have to wait and see. I know that he is committed to the Good Friday agreement, but I am sometimes troubled that
    288
    Conservative Members, instead of trying to help the peace process, are more concerned with scoring cheap party political points.
    Mr. Davies rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has another question. I firmly tell him that he must use moderate language.
    Hon. Members: Order!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall chair the proceedings in this House.
    Mr. Davies: I always try to use moderate language, Mr. Speaker, and try not to apply unparliamentary terms to named Members of the House of Commons.
    Last week, the Prime Minister told the House:
    "I believe, on the basis of what we know, that people would be satisfied if they knew the full details."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 634.]
    Next day, General de Chastelain said: "I gave them"—the Prime Ministers—
    "no more details than I have told you."
    Who is right?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that, in relation to General de Chastelain, the issue of confidentiality cannot be breached publicly. He is also aware that both the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister met General de Chastelain in Hillsborough castle—for something approaching an hour, I believe—to discuss the issues regarding decommissioning. He is also aware that the written public statement by General de Chastelain was very short. It is obvious, however, that someone who spends that amount of time dealing with an issue may form an opinion about what has happened that is very different from the bare statement that appears afterwards.
    Mr. Iain Luke: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will, like all hon. Members, welcome the successful conclusion in respect of the elections in November. With the restart of the peace process, will he reaffirm the Government's view that it will be successfully concluded, first, by a statement by the IRA saying that it is giving up warlike activities for ever and irretrievably and, secondly, by complete adherence to a transparent and progressed schedule on decommissioning?
    Mr. Murphy: I addressed some of those matters earlier and I share some of the views that my hon. Friend expressed. They are an important part of some of the issues before the people in Northern Ireland in the next five weeks. However, it is also important to emphasise that they will want to vote on the way in which they believe their hospitals will be managed, their schools run, their transport system tackled and so on. The elections are also about producing devolution in Northern Ireland so that we can have the Assembly and the Executive back.

    Assembly Elections
    Bob Spink (Castle Point): If he will make a statement on the political negotiations relating to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. [134144]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), there have been significant developments in the peace process. We announced last week that elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly will be held on Wednesday 26 November.
    Bob Spink: But central to the negotiations and elections must be genuine decommissioning, truth, honesty and lack of deception. Will the Secretary of State therefore cut the spin and tell the House who was telling the truth—the Prime Minister or General de Chastelain?
    Mr. Murphy: I dealt with those issues earlier and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree tackled them earlier this week. However, I repeat that the issues before the people of Northern Ireland are the elections and the future afterwards. I only wish the Conservative party understood that. The problem is that it does not. In the months and years that have gone by, the lack of a bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland has not helped but hindered the peace process.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the major problems with the election is that the electorate know that they are not the final arbiters? They know full well that whatever they decide on 26 November and whatever the political parties decide subsequently, both outcomes have to receive the imprimatur of the Ulster Unionist council and the IRA army council. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the two Governments will take steps to ensure that we are not in hock for ever to those two groups and that we will not have our futures decided by the men in balaclavas and the men in bowler hats?
    Mr. Murphy: There is no answer to that really, is there? I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about inclusivity in the discussions and the peace process, and I know that the Social Democratic and Labour party in particular, but other parties too, have been disappointed in the past few weeks. I am sure that he agrees that we must continue to tackle the issues that were central to the parties' discussions in those weeks and ensure that there is trust and confidence between the parties. I believe that the review of the agreement after the elections will provide the basis for inclusivity and the involvement of all parties. Of course, we await the outcome of the elections, but I want to re-emphasise the importance of the SDLP to the process, especially with regard to policing in Northern Ireland.
    Lembit Öpik: At one point in the negotiations, the Prime Minister said that if we all knew what he knew, we would all sign up to the process. Subsequently, Downing street itself demoted the Prime Minister's knowledge to an informed guess. The crucial
    290
    question is whether the Prime Minister had insider knowledge. If so, where did he get it? Will the Secretary of State assure us that in future all the pro-agreement parties such as the SDLP and the Alliance party will not be excluded from the negotiations? I firmly believe that their inclusion would have avoided the difficulties that we observed last week.
    Mr. Murphy: I do not know what would have happened; no one does. However, we have to try and try again in Northern Ireland. If we fail on one occasion, we must pick up the pieces and start all over again. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about what constitutes the central question, which is ensuring that the elections are held and that we move to period of stability in Northern Ireland in which we can resolve the difficulties and have an Executive up and running.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: If it is a question of trust, is it not a question of trust in the judgment of General de Chastelain? Is it not a fact that one party refuses to accept the judgment of the independent arms decommissioning commissioner and that as long as it continues to do that, we shall never have the solution that we want and will always be in hock to the official Unionists?
    Mr. Murphy: I think that everybody in the House believes that the integrity of General de Chastelain is unquestioned, and that what he reported at the press conference and in his own report to me and to the Justice Minister in Ireland were significant improvements in what has occurred. Clearly, they were not sufficient to produce the trust and confidence that was required between the parties. I hope that that trust and confidence will be restored when we return after the elections.
    Mr. John Taylor: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the review provided for in the Belfast agreement will take place on the due date, namely 2 December?
    Mr. Murphy: I cannot confirm the precise date, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the review will be held before the year is out. It has to start before then. It may well be on 2 December, but we do not know what is going to happen on 26 November in terms of the outcome of the elections. The hon. Gentleman and I will agree, however, that the review must start after the elections and before the year is finished.

    Traffic Surveillance
    Patrick Mercer: What plans he has to increase security surveillance of traffic through the Province's (a) ports and (b) airports. [134146]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Security at ports and airports throughout Northern Ireland is kept under continual review involving a multi-agency approach. I cannot disclose

    291
    specific details in relation to security changes, as to do so could compromise the effectiveness of measures put in place.
    Patrick Mercer: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the lessening of tension and violence in Northern Ireland, but will the Minister assure me that, as terrorists continue to target ports and airports, surveillance will increase—whatever political signal that sends—and that the Government will not allow their guard to drop?
    Jane Kennedy: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Government are serious about protecting our borders and doing all that we can to prevent terrorist attacks from whatever source.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Minister meet the representative body of the Northern Ireland airport police, so that it can explain to her the undertakings given in the House by Sir Patrick Mayhew and in a published letter to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) at the time of the privatisation of the international airport, bearing in mind that it is the intention of the privatised management to cut the number of police officers there by 15? Will the Minister ensure that those officers have their day in court with her, so that they can explain their deep concerns?
    Jane Kennedy: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the determination with which he has pursued the case being made by the police officers to whom he refers. I can assure him that I would be happy to meet a delegation, if he wishes to bring that forward.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the Minister satisfied that security surveillance at ports and airports in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland is adequate to ensure that there is no back-door illegal entry from the Irish Republic to the United Kingdom? Has she any plans to formalise the arrangements in respect of the common travel area between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic?
    Jane Kennedy: I am satisfied that the enhancements that are being made at Belfast city airport are adequate and appropriate to the task. The hon. Gentleman's point about cross-border vigilance and co-operation is one that I will look at. I am satisfied that the co-operation that already exists between Customs, immigration officers and the police forces in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is excellent. That co-operation is continuing, and we keep it under constant review.

    Decommissioning
    Mr. John Robertson: What progress has been made by the Independent Monitoring Commission towards verifying decommissioning by paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. [134147]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): While the verification of the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons is a matter for the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, the Independent Monitoring Commission, currently existing in shadow form, will in due course monitor paramilitary activity, normalisation and allegations of political breach. It will do so with a view to maintaining the trust and confidence necessary for the conduct of stable and inclusive devolved government in Northern Ireland.
    John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the setbacks in decommissioning, the work that has been done in Northern Ireland should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does she also agree that there is still more to be done?
    Jane Kennedy: I am happy to agree with both my hon. Friend's points. Clearly, the outcome of last Tuesday's discussions was disappointing, in that the considerable progress that has been made on decommissioning was not enough to restore the full confidence and trust necessary to go forward in a positive atmosphere into an election to bring about the restoration of an Executive Government.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the Minister accept that it would be helpful if we knew how much of the weapons and explosives had been destroyed and how much remained? Is that not essential to determine the parties' good faith? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is far too noisy in the Chamber.
    Jane Kennedy: I largely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We have not yet achieved the confidence necessary to secure a political advance. For that, we need agreement on the transparency to be attached to acts of decommissioning in terms of the arms dealt with and how long it will take to complete the process.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that it is significant that there has been no major arms discovery in Northern Ireland during the period in which the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning has been acting? Is there any relationship between the absence of such a discovery and the continuation of the commission? Is it not surprising that General de Chastelain seems to have been held captive until the announcement was made about the election? Was the ploy to get the elections without the proper sequence agreed by the parties?
    Jane Kennedy: The House should reflect that last week's statements by the leader of Sinn Fein and by the IRA were major steps forward and confirmed their commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The act of decommissioning that was overseen by the I ICD was also welcome. Unfortunately, as both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have now made clear, it did not achieve the level of public

    293
    confidence that is necessary to go forward to an election with the confidence that an Executive would be achieved as a result of the election.

    Prison Officers
    Lady Hermon: How many attacks there have been on (a) serving and (b) former prison officers in Northern Ireland in each of the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [134148]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): There have been 53 attacks on serving prison officers and five attacks on former officers in the past 12 months.
    Attacks on prison officers are attacks on men and women doing an important and difficult job on behalf of the whole community. Those prison officers deserve and require the wholehearted backing of the community and their representatives.
    Lady Hermon: As so many attacks have been in my constituency, will the Minister come with me to explain to the families precisely how she intends to lift the morale of prison officers, who feel so terribly demoralised at present?
    Jane Kennedy: I often meet the families and representatives of prison officers and am conscious of, and take seriously, the safety and security of prison officers and their homes. Putting the lives of women and children at risk to try to influence the way in which prison officers do their jobs should be condemned by all right-thinking people. I would be happy to meet prison officers and their families if the hon. Lady brought a delegation.

    Organised Crime
    Mr. Russell Brown: What recent assessment he has made of the level of co-operation between the British and Irish Governments in tackling organised crime in Northern Ireland. [134149]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Co-operation with the Irish Government is excellent and we are working together to develop a cross-border threat assessment and a joint strategy to tackle organised crime.
    Mr. Brown: I commend my hon. Friend for all her efforts and her determination to tackle crime, with support from both sides of the border. A necessary adjunct to cross-border co-operation is the work of the Organised Crime Task Force, which is unique in the UK. Will she congratulate everyone from all organisations on both sides of the border who are working so hard in extremely difficult circumstances?
    Jane Kennedy: I am happy to congratulate all the agencies involved in the work of the Organised Crime Task Force. It is a matter of great pride and pleasure for me to be associated with them. There is now an enhanced understanding of cross-border organised crime, on which to build effective joint action against the
    294
    criminals who use the border to their advantage. Significant developments are taking place in the fight against organised crime, which I am happy to commend to the House.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Siôn Simon: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29th October.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before listing my engagements, I would like to speak on the subject of Iraq. I hope that the whole House would join me in condemning the brutal and wicked terrorist attacks on the hotel Al Rashid on Sunday, on the Red Cross and Iraqi police stations on Monday, and the further attacks that took place yesterday. Those attacks were the work of evil people who do not wish to see a stable and prosperous Iraq, and we shall continue to do everything that we can to thwart them and reconstruct the country.
    This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Simon: Could the Prime Minister tell me how to explain to my constituents in Erdington that they can get better cancer treatment if they move to London?
    The Prime Minister: The issue of how to make sure that the drugs passed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines are rolled out across the whole country is one of the matters that we are looking into now. It is only as a result of those guidelines that we have been able to increase the number of people who have access to life-saving cancer drugs. As my hon. Friend will know, the three-year progress report on the NHS cancer plan showed that cancer deaths are down by something like 10 per cent. over the past few years. We have seen the largest fall in lung cancer in Europe among men, the largest decline in breast cancer among women, and there are 30 per cent. more cancer consultants. All that is the result of the extra investment going into our NHS.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I join the Prime Minister in his condemnation of the attacks in Iraq and express our commiserations to the families of the people who have suffered directly as a result.
    According to the Home Office, which country has the biggest crime problem in the western world?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if he is talking about our crime rate, according to the British crime survey, crime rates are

    295
    down 25 per cent. over the past few years. That contrasts very much with the doubling of crime under the Conservatives when they were in office.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Figures released by the Home Office last Friday show that people are more likely to suffer crime in Britain than in any other country in Europe or north America. So will the Prime Minister tell us which country has the highest level of violent crime in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: Again, as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, yes—violent crime has risen in this country in the past few years and it has been rising in Britain for 20 years. However, as a result of the street crime initiative, street robbery is now down and overall crime is down, not up, in this country.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Again, the Home Office tells us that there are more violent crimes in Britain than in any other country in Europe. That includes Germany, which has a much larger population than Britain. The Prime Minister said here that he would be tough on crime, but gun crime is up, violent crime is up and overall crime is up. Is it not a reality that, under Labour, Britain is now the crime capital of the western world?
    The Prime Minister: No, that is not correct. As I said, under the Conservatives, crime doubled; car crime doubled; burglary more than doubled; violent crime went up 73 per cent. It is true that we still have a lot more progress to make, even though crime is, according to the British crime survey, down 25 per cent. That is no consolation to victims of crime. However, a crime Bill is going through Parliament now—the Criminal Justice Bill, which will give us tougher sentences for murder, longer sentences for dangerous sex offenders, longer sentences for violent offences, five-year minimum sentences for gun offences, and which will change the criminal justice system so that those people who are guilty are convicted in the courts. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, having told us that he cares about violent crime, he is opposing those measures in this Parliament?
    Mr. John Hume: Would the Prime Minister agree that, for the first time in history, the people of Ireland as a whole, both north and south, have declared how they wish to live together by endorsing overwhelmingly, in referendums, the Good Friday agreement? Does he agree, therefore, that it is the duty of all true democrats to implement the will of the people, by implementing all aspects of the Good Friday agreement? Will he confirm that his Government are totally committed to implementing the agreement in full, and that they will not depart from it in any way?
    The Prime Minister: We are indeed committed to implementing the agreement in full. The part that my hon. Friend played in bring the agreement about is a real tribute to him, and to his dedication to people in Northern Ireland. I want to make it absolutely clear that it is vitally important that we continue with implementing the agreement in all its aspects, as it is that agreement—and that agreement alone—that offers the best chance of a prosperous, good, stable and secure
    296
    future for people in Northern Ireland. There is no other agreement on offer apart from the one that we negotiated with painstaking difficulty, as my hon. Friend knows, over a number of days. I hope very much that, as a result of what happens over the next few weeks, we are able to take that agreement forward and implement it in full. This summer has been the most peaceful in 30 years, and it is important that we carry on working to bring about a peace that is lasting and durable.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Under this Government, council tax has risen by 70 per cent. since 1997. How can the Prime Minister justify the unfairness of that, especially in respect of pensioners?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the difficulties that pensioners and others will have with council tax rises, but the job of central Government is to fund local government adequately. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, under the previous Government, in the last three years before we took office, there was a real-terms cut of about 7 per cent. in the amount of money that central Government gave to local Government. We have now raised that amount by about 25 per cent. in real terms. In the end, council taxes are set by local authorities, but the Government's job is to make sure that we give a proper amount of support to local government, and we are doing that.
    Mr. Kennedy: Given that so many people, not least pensioners, are being clobbered by the high percentage increases, and that the level of support from central Government is not there when and where it is needed, would not it be far better to scrap the unfair system that is the council tax and replace it with a tax related to people's ability to pay?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that there is a proper debate to be had about the future of local government finance, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Liberal Democrat proposal to substitute a local income tax for the council tax would mean that people's income taxes went up by something like 6p in the pound. That is a huge burden. As I have said on many occasions, the right hon. Gentleman simply cannot afford all his pledges on behalf of the Liberal Democrats out of raising the top rate of tax, or by means of a local income tax or anything else.
    I do not know whether the House wants any more details, but I said last week that the Liberal Democrats had 70 commitments. The cost of those commitments would run to literally billions of pounds. It would take too long to go into detail, as we would run over the time available for Prime Minister's questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Aw!"] They include things like £400 million for village halls. We all support village halls, but £400 million? Other commitments are £750 million for small businesses, and an extra £2 billion for road traffic accidents. A further 25 commitments were made at the Liberal Democrat party conference. My favourite was commitment 65, which stated:
    "Funded training for teachers and specialists on sex education, providing them information and material to aid honest, non-judgmental and thought-provoking lessons."

    297
    Let me suggest that commitment 71 should be funded training for Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesmen to aid honest, non-judgmental and thought-provoking lessons on financial discipline.
    Hon. Members: More!
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of the renewed interest in crime figures, especially on the Tory Benches, will my right hon. Friend consider whether back-stabbing should become a criminal offence?
    The Prime Minister: I admit that in the past few years the incidence of that has increased, but I regret to say that on the evidence available there is not much that we shall be able to do about it.
    Simon Hughes: On a day when there is some interest in votes of confidence, will the Prime Minister make Government policy clear on a matter that may turn out to be far more important to Britain's prosperity than matters being dealt with in Committee Room 14? Will the Government deny this week's reports that Crossrail faces a Government axe; and will the Prime Minister give his personal vote of confidence to Crossrail so that the private sector can invest knowing that it will go ahead?
    The Prime Minister: No. We remain convinced that Crossrail is an important project for London, that it is well worth supporting and that it could have real benefits for Londoners and, indeed, the whole country, but it is important that we as a Government sit down and work out how it can be funded. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the amount runs into many billions of pounds. Nevertheless, we are confident that if we sit down and look at the project in the right way, we can make progress with it.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Derian House, a children's hospice whose tenth birthday took place on Monday? I hope that he will send his good wishes. Will he also use his good offices to ensure that there is better funding for hospices throughout the country, direct from the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to send my congratulations to the hospice in my hon. Friend's constituency. Obviously we give a certain amount of funding to hospices, but we are well aware that they wish that to be more, and we think constantly about how we can support them through the NHS and in other ways. I will certainly take my hon. Friend's comments into account.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: "If there are further steps towards European integration"—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to shout.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: "If there are further steps towards European integration, the people should have their say
    298
    at a general election or in a referendum." That is what the Prime Minister said in 1996. When did he change his mind?
    The Prime Minister: I have not. If there is a single currency recommendation from the Government, people will have a referendum. I do not believe, however, that the constitution now being discussed in Europe merits a referendum.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister must be the only person in Europe who thinks that the European constitution has no constitutional implications for Britain. Does he agree with the French Prime Minister, who said recently that any true European would want a referendum?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not. I do not believe it is necessary to have a referendum unless there is a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship between the member state and the European Union. I remember that three years ago we were told that the Nice treaty merited a referendum, because it would destroy parliamentary government in this country. We have had the Nice treaty in force for several years, and it has not done so. I do not believe that this treaty, which does not alter the fundamental nature of the relationship between the member state and the European Union, merits a referendum.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Let me remind the Prime Minister—because he has a very short memory—what the constitution actually provides for. It provides for an elected president, a European foreign minister, control over asylum policy, a charter of fundamental rights, and a European army—all of which the Prime Minister says is only a tidying-up exercise. That is why the German Foreign Minister has said:
    "This is the most important treaty since the formation of the Common Market".
    Why is the Prime Minister the only leader in Europe who will not tell the truth to his own country?
    The Prime Minister: Actually, the majority of countries in Europe are not having a referendum on the treaty. I do not suggest in any way that it is not important, but it does not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship.
    We know what game the Conservatives are up to. Just a few days ago—not a few years ago; a few days ago—the shadow Attorney-General published his pamphlet about Conservative policy on Europe. He says that he wants Britain to retire to a trade association agreement with the rest of the European Union—that being what he calls sphere 1 European countries, which are not full members of the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman nods. That means withdrawal from the European Union.
    In so far as one can work out what the policy of the Conservative Front Bench is, that is now the policy of the Conservative Front Bench. People can forget the business about a referendum. This is not about a

    299
    referendum, for the Conservative party; it is about the Conservatives' desire to take Britain out of Europe, which would be a disaster for this country.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: The Prime Minister has seen that crime is the issue of the day and has referred to the Lords and the Criminal Justice Bill. Can he explain to the House why the Conservatives, who have always been tough on crime, are now in alliance with the Liberals to shred the Bill, to the detriment—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Prime Minister.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Last Tuesday in Hillsborough, the Prime Minister felt frustrated because he and the Taoiseach were privy to details about decommissioning. The right hon. Gentleman qualified that a little on Wednesday at Question Time when he said that they had certain information, but not the full information. However, he assured us all that if people knew what he knew they would be satisfied.
    Can the Prime Minister tell us today whether he is satisfied, when we know that there is fresh procurement of weapons? Has the IRA given dates for further decommissioning? Has it given a final date, or are we still getting IRA flannel?
    The Prime Minister: No, we still have to make sure that decommissioning is completed in full and that it happens within a reasonable and proper timetable; for example, the Government have set out a two-year process for normalisation in Northern Ireland. However, just as it would be wrong to say that we have everything that we need—because we do not—it would be equally wrong to say that we are still in the same position as several years ago. We are not. The truth is that Northern Ireland has moved forward considerably, because people, not least Unionists, have had the courage to take difficult decisions to negotiate with people they used to regard as enemies so as to try to bring about a better future for people in Northern Ireland.
    The best thing for people such as the hon. Gentleman to do, if they really have the interests of the people of Northern Ireland at heart, is to try to help those who are working to make sure that the agreement we reached five and a half years ago is implemented in full.
    Mr. David Clelland: Would the Prime Minister accept that appointments commissions have a tendency to appoint people like themselves—as witness the appointment of the noble Baroness Howe, who became once, twice, three times a Lady? Would he further agree that a more representative and democratic second Chamber could be produced, without direct elections, by widening the responsibility for appointments to include the devolved Assemblies, local government and major voluntary and professional organisations?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend's question indicates, there is a range of views. I have made clear my own position, but I do not doubt that the debate will continue over the coming months. In the end, there will be a free vote for the House to determine the outcome.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Could the Prime Minister take this opportunity to clear up any embarrassment that may inadvertently have been caused to General de Chastelain, and confirm to the House that the general did not intimate to him the extent of any decommissioning that had taken place?
    The Prime Minister: I stand entirely by what I said last week at the Dispatch Box. General de Chastelain has done an excellent job in extremely difficult circumstances; but as both I and the Irish Prime Minister have said, certain information was given to us by General de Chastelain and I had very much hoped that it would have been possible to provide the full information to everybody.
    Shona McIsaac: While I welcome what my right hon. Friend said earlier about the reduction in deaths from cancer in this country, does he share my concern that not all women with breast cancer are receiving the drugs to which they are entitled, according to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence? Can he tell me what he intends to do to get rid of those disparities?
    The Prime Minister: We are looking at what we can do to reduce those disparities. This is a good example of where there has been significant progress but there are still things to do. Since April 2001, an additional 200, 000 women have been invited for screening for breast cancer, as a result of the expansion of the breast-screening service to 65 to 70-year-olds. As I said a moment or two ago, there has been an increase of about 30 per cent. in the number of consultants. The staff at the Royal Marsden to whom I spoke yesterday were in no doubt that there had been a significant improvement in cancer care over the past few years; but under our new guidelines, we have to make sure that there is no postcode lottery and that care is given in the same way to people throughout the country. That is what we are trying to do. A tremendous amount of progress has been made, but there is still more to do.
    Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): Last week I asked the Prime Minister to meet the parents of Private Cheryl James, who died at Deepcut barracks, and he suggested that the Defence Ministers meet them first; I felt that was reasonable. However, is he aware that the legal and political advisers of the parents are to be excluded from that meeting? What could the Defence Minister possibly want to say to the parents that he dare not share with those advisers, who will find out the information anyway? I would ask the Prime Minister to honour the wish of the parents and allow those advisers to attend the meeting with the Defence Minister.
    The Prime Minister: There are reasons and worries, which was why that information was given to the hon. Gentleman, but I do understand the point that he is making. If he leaves the matter with me, I will speak to

    301
    the Minister of State about it. I understand his desire to attend the meeting so I will see what I can do about it, but the difficulty has been caused, apparently, by the fact that there are legal issues arising out of whatever may be said at any meeting. So if he will leave it with me, I will do my best for him.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: Two elderly constituents of mine recently gave up a rented home that they loved and had lived in for many years. solely because of the antisocial behaviour of their neighbours. Does my right hon. Friend agree that social landlords need to be given stronger powers to tackle antisocial tenants, and that having been given those powers, they should use them?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is one very important part of the measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which is why I hope that it gets the full support of the House. There are issues to do with antisocial behaviour orders, with social landlords and with the licensing of landlords, and the Bill contains really comprehensive measures to deal with those. The legislation will not come into effect until January or February next year, but I think it will make a real difference.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: South West Water customers pay the highest water and sewerage charges in the country, but national benefit and pension rates do not recognise that. Is that fair?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the independent water regulator has started a review of water prices for 2005 to 2010 and obviously it will need to balance carefully consumer protection and security of supply against price. I am sure that the regulator will listen to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, but he will have in the end, of course, to set a charge for the whole of the country.
    Paddy Tipping: Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to reflect on his visit to Nottinghamshire last week, when he met both the police and victims of crime? Police numbers in Nottinghamshire are at record levels but performance is relatively weak. The solution of the Police Authority is a massive injection of extra funds. But does the Prime Minister agree with me that sustained funding can come about only if best practice is adopted, if there is a commitment to value for money and if there is a reform—a revision—of existing policies?
    The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend is right. It is worth paying tribute, as I know he would, to the efforts that Nottinghamshire police have made recently, because their latest figures show robbery down 9 per cent. and overall crime down almost 3 per cent., compared with the previous quarter. The funding levels have gone up. I know there are still issues to do with funding in respect of Nottinghamshire and I heard those concerns when I was there last week, but I also think my hon. Friend is right in saying that there is best practice, and if we can get some of that best practice moved across
    302
    all authorities, including Nottinghamshire, it is the combination of the extra investment, the extra officers and the reform that will do the trick.
    When I was talking to the Nottinghamshire gun crime unit, in Nottingham, its members also laid stress on the need for changes to the law. That is why I come back to the point that this Criminal Justice Bill will be very important indeed in giving the police the powers that they want, and it really should be supported.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In June, a constituent of mine, Lance-Corporal Tom Keys, was unfortunately one of the six military policemen killed in Al Majar Al Kabir. Since that time, strenuous efforts have been made by his parents and by me to receive some basic answers to some basic questions, and the only consistent answer from the Ministry of Defence is that we may never know what happened. With great respect, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence last week, asking for an urgent meeting, so that the parents can be persuaded, or at least convinced, that something serious is going on in terms of the inquiry. Will the Prime Minister please intervene personally to ensure that that meeting does take place urgently?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. Once again, I offer them my condolences for the loss that they have suffered. The Ministry of Defence and the Army out there are trying to do everything they can to find out exactly what happened. If they say that they may never know exactly what happened, that may simply be the truth, and people may have to know that because of what happened. I know that they are making every attempt to lay the minds of the families to rest. I am sure that he will get further information from the Secretary of State when he sees him.
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright: Many companies in Great Yarmouth often mention the problems that they have with skills shortages and trying to recruit skilled craftsmen for their industries. They also recognise that there has been a substantial investment in universities and in encouraging students to go there. However, many students do not have the desire or indeed the academic ability to go on to university education but would like to go into skills training. What is my right hon. Friend doing to try to redress the skills shortage and to encourage those students whom I represent who want to go into apprenticeships but are being denied access to a trade?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a valuable point. We are spending almost 1 billion a year on work-based training for young people. That is important because, as he rightly says, some young people will want to go into an apprenticeship rather than university. We now have more than 230,000 young people undertaking modern apprenticeships in England. That is the highest number ever and of those, 67,000 are in manufacturing and engineering. It is important to realise that we have the possibility of providing high-quality education and

    303
    skills for all our young people through a combination of widening access to universities and getting more people into modern apprenticeships.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Can the Prime Minister confirm that a No. 10 spokesman recently proposed that local councils should be forced to hold a referendum before increasing council tax by more than double the rate of inflation? Does he recall that two weeks ago he agreed that the Treasury Red Book forecast a 7.4 per cent. increase in council tax for next year? So, why does he go round the country raising people's hopes when he knows that he cannot deliver?
    The Prime Minister: I have not come across those comments by a No. 10 spokesman. On council tax, as I said in answer to an earlier question, central Government are providing large real-terms increases to local government. What cannot possibly help the council tax payer is the policy of the Conservatives, which is massive cuts in public spending. Those cuts would necessarily impact—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is what their leader said. [Interruption.] I am just quoting what their leader said, which is that there would be a 20 per cent. cut across the board. How will that help council tax payers?
    Mr. John Grogan: While I accept the fact that my right hon. Friend has no reverse gear, might it not be possible—if only for a moment—to find a neutral gear on the subject of student top-up fees and to re-examine alternative systems of student finance that would allow students from hard-working families, perhaps just above the threshold of any bursary scheme, to make their university choices on the basis of which course best suits them rather than on cost?
    The Prime Minister: The trouble is that if we stay in neutral, universities desperately need more money and we need to widen access to universities—I know that my hon. Friend wants more and more people to go to university and the only way we can achieve that is to get more funding to the universities. The Government are going to put in more, but we think it fair to get rid of the up-front fees—to say that no one pays those, but that instead they will pay something on graduation. For
    304
    example, that would mean a graduate earning £18,000 paying back about £5 a week in fees. I do not think that unfair. What is more, we are getting rid of fees—at the moment the bottom 40 per cent. of the population do not pay fees. We are looking into how we give help to lower-income families. The one thing that we cannot do is to end up with the status quo being maintained and cutting the number of students at university, as the Conservatives want.
    Mr. Michael Mates: When the Prime Minister took the decision in the spring to postpone the elections in Northern Ireland, many people thought that that was a right and brave thing to do. He has now called an election when the stumbling block of arms decommissioning, which meant that the setting up of an Executive was unlikely, is still there. Has he not now got the worst of both worlds?
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe so because it would be impossible, frankly, to postpone elections in Northern Ireland indefinitely. It is important that people renew their democratic mandate, but we have made a lot of progress since March. We were not able to make all the progress that we wished for, but we now have a clear undertaking from the IRA to the cessation of all paramilitary activity.
    We have actually now got an independent Monitoring Commission that is able to look at any paramilitary activity that is undertaken and, if it is undertaken, declare it as a breach of the promises that have been given, whether by the IRA or by any other group. We have also got a situation where, frankly, we have the best chance of a proper working relationship that we have had for years between the various people in Northern Ireland.
    Now there is always a judgment to be made about this, but in the five and a half years since the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement—the truth is that we have come an enormous way in Northern Ireland, and the most sensible thing is for people to recognise that such processes are always difficult, that the movement is always incremental and that it is often absolutely painstaking, but it is worth it because if we look at Northern Ireland today. in terms of the living standards and the quality of life for most people there, it is frankly unrecognisable from 10 years ago.

School Funding
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the funding of schools in the years 2004–05 and 2005–06. I am placing the details in the Library. On 17 July this year, I set out to the House the principles that I would follow to restore confidence in the school funding system, deliver stability in school budgets and give certainty for head teachers and governors. I promised a further update in the autumn.
Responsibility for school funding is shared between the Government, local education authorities and the governing bodies and head teachers. We all want to ensure that schools can plan and manage their resources effectively to achieve the highest possible standards. I want today to express my appreciation of the commitment of all the education partners to those ambitions and for the very constructive way in which representatives of schools and local government have worked with us. I am confident that that will continue.
As I said in July, I intend to support schools in three ways: a minimum increase in every school's budget; additional resources to help every LEA to support schools with additional pressures; and targeted transitional support to help all schools to achieve balanced budgets. I promised to introduce for 2004–05 and 2005–06 a minimum per pupil funding guarantee for every school, taking account of the average cost pressures facing schools in those years. I intend to achieve that by increasing both LEA core funding and the funding received from Department for Education and Skills grants.
My officials have examined the relevant cost pressures, including increases in teachers' pay, where we have assumed an inflation-led settlement. Those pressures naturally vary between schools. However, following extensive consultation with our education partners, my best estimate for next year is that the combined effect of those factors on the average school will be about 3.4 per cent.
Each school receives funding through LEAs in two main ways: funding directly related to pupil numbers and funding related to fixed costs. We have concluded—again, after careful consideration with our education partners—that pupil-led elements should rise by 4 per cent. per pupil and fixed elements also by 4 per cent. in cash, so a school whose pupil numbers stay the same between 2003–04 and 2004–05 will be guaranteed a 4 per cent. per pupil increase in its overall budget next year.
A school whose pupil numbers decline will receive a funding increase of more than 4 per cent. per pupil to help cover fixed costs. However, because of declining pupil numbers, the number of primary schools with reduced cash budgets—and, therefore, possibly staff numbers—will be significant, as there are around 50, 000 fewer primary pupils this year, with a similar reduction next year. Secondary schools with falling rolls will be in the same position.
Schools whose pupil numbers are increasing will be guaranteed at least a 4 per cent. increase for all their existing pupils. Those schools will be guaranteed a rise of at least 4 per cent. in their cash budgets and an overall per pupil increase of at least 3.4 per cent.
306
I said in July that we would consider carefully the position of very small schools. Those will receive an increase of at least 4 per cent. if their pupil numbers do not change. However, our general approach may not be appropriate for very small schools with much higher than average fixed costs. Therefore, funding for schools with 75 pupils or fewer will be determined according to their LEA's own school funding formula. For special schools, whose funding is normally based on places rather than pupil numbers, the guarantee will be a minimum 4 per cent. increase in funding per place. LEA funding for specified costs, such as rates, will continue to be funded at cost and will be apart from the guarantee.
The 4 per cent. level at which I have set the minimum schools guarantee already takes some account of cost variation around the 3.4 per cent. average. I stress, however, that that guarantee represents only the minimum increase that a school might receive next year. Across the country, many schools will receive per pupil increases of more than 4 per cent., since the overall increase in education formula spending will be more than 5.5 per cent. per pupil. The final budgets will be determined by LEAs, in conjunction with school forums, after the local government finance settlement has been announced, but today's announcement should—subject to pupil numbers—give schools an early indication of the minimum increase in their budgets. For 2005–06—the year after—my expectation is that the minimum schools guarantee will again be at least 4 per cent. for a school with unchanged pupil numbers. I will keep that under review and will announce the final figure in due course.
Other elements of schools funding will also be increased on the same basis. Thus the Learning and Skills Council will increase all its funding rates for school sixth forms by 4 per cent. in 2004–05, and it will also increase current school sixth forms' allocations for the period April to July 2004 by 4 per cent. Similar arrangements will apply in 2005–06.
The changes to the standards fund caused significant problems for some schools this year, so in July I undertook to reverse the cuts that had previously been announced for the next two years. That additional spending is reflected in the standards fund allocations that are being issued to local authorities today. In 2004–05 schools will generally receive a cash increase of 4 per cent. on this year's standards fund allocations. There will be some limited exceptions: those include grants where the amount of funding is directly related to actual costs; specialist schools, where I increased the funding rate in September this year and will make a further increase to £129 per pupil in 2005; and grants, where funding is being especially targeted for policy reasons. For example, we are uprating the ethnic minority achievement grant by 4 per cent., but are also taking the first steps towards a fairer distribution under which no school will receive less EMAG in cash terms in 2004–05 than they are receiving this year.
Moreover, next year, schools will receive either a 4 per cent. increase in their per pupil school standards grant, or the value of their announced SSG band for 2004–05, whichever is higher. Both standards fund and school standards grant will be uprated again—in line with the minimum schools guarantee—in 2005–06. I am also adding resources to revenue support grant to reflect in

307
LEA baselines the budget support grants paid to some authorities in 2003–04.
The total additional funding to maintain and uprate the standards fund and school standards grant, and to mainstream the budget support grants, will be £435 million in 2004–05 and £520 million in 2005–06. I am placing full details in the Library.
I can also confirm that threshold pay costs will be fully funded next year. As at present, schools will be able to draw down well over £500 million from my Department on a demand-led basis. In addition, the £205 million that we have allocated this year for performance-related pay will be uprated at least in line with the headline pay settlement for next year. If proper arrangements for point 3 of the upper pay scale can be settled, further resources will be allocated in September 2004.
The schools guarantee must of course be backed by adequate resources for local education authorities. Next year I will therefore set the minimum increase in the schools formula spending share at 5 per cent. per pupil by contrast with the 4 per cent. guarantee for schools. Again, that is a minimum—most increases will be higher. The provisional SFSS increase for each authority will be confirmed at the time of the local government finance settlement, but we expect the ceiling increase to be at least 6.5 per cent. per pupil.
As I said in July, every authority will receive sufficient grant in each of the next two years to cover its formula increase in education spending. Given that commitment, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will be writing to authorities to set out the Government's clear expectation that every LEA passports in full its SFSS increase to a matching increase in its schools budget, unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances. I have statutory powers to require LEAs to set a minimum schools budget and I will be ready to use those powers if necessary.
I also expect local education authorities' spending on their central education budgets to rise no faster than spending on schools. I am confident that most LEAs will concentrate on increasing schools' delegated budgets over the next two years, but the draft regulations that I have issued reflect my determination to achieve this. Under my proposals, LEAs will be able to seek an exemption in exceptional local circumstances, but the generality is clear. I will confirm the minimum increase in SFSS for 2005–06 next autumn, but if the minimum schools guarantee were 4 per cent., I would expect the minimum increase in SFSS to be around 5 per cent. again.
My proposals have been drawn up to support schools, but that support will not be at the expense of other services. In line with the commitment that I made in July, the Government will provide additional resources for other services, including children's social services, to support spending in those services. The full details will be announced as part of next month's local government finance settlement.
My statement in July emphasised my commitment to sustaining school work force reforms. That commitment stands, and I see it as important. Much progress can be made by schools managing their total
308
resources—people and money—more strategically and
working in different ways. Over the next two years, the increase in resources for schools, through schools formula spending share and Department for Education and Skills grants, and including the additional resources that I am confirming today, will provide headroom over the average cost pressures that schools face to help schools to make the most of the national agreement.
Primary responsibility for maintaining sound financial management rests with schools themselves and their LEAs. I acknowledge that LEAs need more flexibility to help schools to balance budgets over the next two years, so I am amending the regulations to enable LEAs to target their resources at schools with particular problems, whatever their source. It is the responsibility of LEAs to use that flexibility. I expect them to do so, and am confident that my expectation will be fully shared by the communities that they serve.
However, I do recognise that there are a limited number of cases where balancing budgets is beyond the capacity of individual schools and LEAs in the short term. That is most likely in the LEAs that have received the lowest increases in education formula spending and DFES grant between 2002–03 and 2004–05. For those LEAs, I therefore propose to make a targeted transitional grant available over the next two years, and I am issuing indicative figures today. These assume that grant will be available to take the increase in funding for all authorities over the two-year period from 2002–03 to 2004–05 up to a minimum of 12 per cent. per pupil—well ahead of our best estimate of unavoidable pressures for those years. I estimate that that will cost around £120 million and benefit around a third of LEAs. The final allocations will be confirmed at the time of the local government finance settlement.
However, that additional resource will be provided only when I am convinced that the LEA has made every effort to support its schools from within its own resources by passporting its SFSS increase in full, directing its resources to delegated schools budgets as far as possible and intending to target schools in greatest difficulty. It will be a condition of grant that each LEA prepares, with the schools concerned, a costed and credible plan to bring its schools' budgets into balance by 2006–07. In 2005–06, I propose to make further grant available to the same authorities at around half the level of that provided in 2004–05. Again, I will confirm detailed figures next autumn.
LEAs with increases between 2002–03 and 2004–05 greater than 12 per cent. per pupil should be able to resolve local difficulties within their own resources. However, I recognise that there are individual schools that spent above their income this year and may therefore face difficulties in getting their budgets back into balance. So where an LEA can put forward a compelling argument that additional transitional funds are needed in the short term, above and beyond those already available to the LEA, to avoid real damage to children's education, I am prepared to consider bringing forward DFES grant payments. So the LEA will have funds available in 2004–05 for that purpose, with the expectation of a consequential reduction to what they receive in future years. I will confirm the maximum amount that I might be prepared to make available to each LEA in that way following the local government finance settlement, but I expect the calculation to be

309
based on a maximum grant of £300, 000 per authority, or 0.2 per cent. of the authority's total education resources in 2004–05 if that is higher. Such grant would be subject to conditions similar to those for the targeted transitional grant.
I am confident that the measures I have outlined today will help to create stability for schools. We will do all we can to help LEAs work with their schools where necessary to get budgets back into balance over the next two years. That is because, for any school, an annual excess of spending over income is not sustainable. I acknowledge that getting back into balance may mean difficult decisions. Where school spending varies significantly from the average—where 80 per cent. is spent on staff costs and 20 per cent. on non-staff costs—or from their income, they need to act to get back into balance.
It is therefore vital that schools are well able to plan and manage their resources effectively. More and better support for schools is needed in achieving that, so I am announcing that my Department has commissioned KPMG to work with the National College for School Leadership and the head teacher associations to design and develop a varied menu of support and guidance to help schools' budget management. That support will be available from the turn of the year and it will prioritise schools in those LEAs that are in receipt of the targeted transitional grant.
The proposals I have announced today are designed to help restore confidence in the school funding system and increase stability in school budgets. I am very grateful for the help and advice we have received from our education partners. I have set out the framework for the school funding system over the next two years. It is now for LEAs to address the needs of every school and for heads and governors to ensure that the resources they receive are used effectively. We all share responsibility for school funding and we must continue to work together to get it right. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. Damian Green: As always, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for his exquisite sense of timing in making it today. When he looks back at his 12 months in the job, I am sure he will agree that coming to the House to try to rectify the school funding crisis caused by his Government should not be a necessary duty for him. Let me explain what his non-transparent statement meant.
The Secretary of State's predecessor presented the Government's plans for education spending as a triumph, but instead of that, heads, teachers and parents across the country have spent months trying to cope with the effect of huge deficits, teacher redundancies and crumbling school buildings. Many schools have been forced to dip into their financial reserves or capital budgets to ensure that they make ends meet. Schools across the country have deficit budgets and LEAs are suffering huge shortfalls. Hertfordshire estimates a £15 million shortfall, Surrey has spent £12 million of its reserves and my authority of Kent has an estimated £22 million shortfall. I need not remind the right hon. Gentleman that in Norfolk the shortfall is £14 million.
The effects of the crisis have been most acute in the classrooms. Only two weeks ago, a report commissioned by the National Union of Teachers found that a quarter
310
of primary schools and a third of secondary schools cut staff this year because of financial shortages. Furthermore, the funding problems make a mockery of the Government's claim that class sizes have got smaller. In practice, classes are having to double up to save money that is usually spent on supply teachers. Planning, preparation and marking time are being reduced as a result.
So today we have the Secretary of State's rescue package. He has made much of the extra money going to the worst-hit local authorities. That will be welcome, as will the fact that some of the relevant information for schools and local authorities is coming out earlier than in previous years. But as ever we need to dig beneath the surface of the statement to find the new victims of the Government's failures in this area.
Some of the money that the Secretary of State is giving away is reported to come from the budget for teachers who have earned it through the performance-related pay system. Can he confirm that? He skated round it in his statement. What is the point of performance-related pay if teachers perform but do not then get the pay? Can he explain to teachers and the House how that is fair? Since he is penalising precisely those teachers who have worked hardest, can he imagine how much damage he is doing to morale in staff rooms today?
On the general issue of teachers' pay, the right hon. Gentleman announced an annual rise of about 2.5 per cent., and he told the House today that that means an increase of about 3.4 per cent. for school budgets. Is he aware that that calculation is regarded with great suspicion by many people in our education system? They feel that schools will face cost pressures much higher than 3.4 per cent. In particular, can the right hon. Gentleman give schools a guarantee that they will face no more increases in employers' national insurance contributions? What effect does he think that that will have on the teachers' work load agreement, by which he rightly sets much store?
The Secretary of State has today announced a per pupil increase of 4 per cent., but the House needs to unpick that figure and what lies behind it. I assume that it is an increase for every pupil in every school, regardless of that school's financial position. If so, is he not in danger of failing to compensate the worst-hit schools enough because he is spending the same amount in every school? He will be aware that the effects of the previous blunders have not been felt in a uniform way across the country, and indeed his £120 million fund is designed to address that. Can he give the House a guarantee that the extra grants and loans that he has announced will mean that every school will be able to return to the staffing levels that it had before this year's crisis? If he cannot, this announcement is just another piece of spin.
On the wider implications, can the Secretary of State be more explicit about how far he wants to go in removing LEAs' ability to use local discretion on funding? I suspect that he deeply regrets his Government's abolition of grant-maintained status for schools, but if he is planning to bring it back for all schools by the back door, perhaps he could share that momentous change with the House.

311
More particularly, if the right hon. Gentleman is removing some financial discretion from LEAs, can he tell us what will be the impact on special educational needs provision? He spoke briefly about that, but it was not at all clear what the ultimate effect would be. Earlier this year he accused some local authorities of spending too much on SEN provision—one of the most extraordinary statements that I have ever heard from an Education Secretary. Has he now decided that he wants to be in direct control of all SEN funding as well?
The statement promises a minimum funding increase, but of course one of the key things that will matter to local authorities is where all the extra money is coming from. How much will come through the SFSS? The Government announced earlier that they were cutting central Government funding through the standards fund to give more freedom to local authorities; they are now reversing that process. But at the same time, they are trying to claim that the extra money that will, after today, come through central Government is new money. It is not; it is reshuffled money, so some of the real money will have to come, as ever under this Government, from the council tax payer.
Can the Secretary of State tell the House the full implications of today's announcement for council tax levels and other services? If councils are told, as they have been, that they have to spend as much on education as the Government demand and that they will be capped if they put up their council tax too much, they will have to slash other services.
The Government have spent months trying to dig themselves out of the hole that they created last year. This statement shows that the means that they are using are unfair to hard-working and successful teachers and threatening to council tax payers, and they do not even guarantee that the worst-hit schools will be enabled to recover quickly. The effects of that will be felt early next year when schools come to set their budgets. That is when today's statement will really be judged. Schools know from this year's experience that a generous-sounding Government statement can turn into a reality of cuts and redundancies. I hope that we do not see a repeat of this year's funding crisis in schools, but I fear that we will.
Mr. Clarke: I was interested to note that the word "children" never found its way into that response.
The hon. Gentleman refers to my exquisite sense of timing. I was grateful that the Conservative party decided to have its leadership election today, but I assume that it is only to hide the good news in my statement.
I counsel the hon. Gentleman to be careful in quoting Conservative-controlled authorities such as Hertfordshire. Surrey, Kent and Essex, which are scaremongering in their schools with totally false figures. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to the Conservative leader of Kent and other Conservative council leaders: "Look at this statement, analyse it and understand what it means for every LEA and school, and then make a judgment. Don't try to scaremonger without having the facts in front of you."
312
I know that the hon. Gentleman was speaking from an NUT brief, but it is not true that performance-related pay has been raided for this money. We gave our evidence to the pay review body, and we will see what it has to say. It is not true that the 3.4 per cent. figure is regarded with suspicion by other people in the education world. In fact, it was derived specifically from a series of discussions with, among others, local government and the head teacher associations precisely because I desired some consensus on what would be an appropriate figure.
It is not the case that more increases in national insurance are in the pipeline. It is not the case that we are failing to compensate schools in the worst position; in fact, we are giving local authorities the flexibility to do that. None the less, I was interested that the hon. Gentleman appeared to be saying—no doubt he will correct me if I have got this wrong—that he is against a per pupil guarantee for every pupil in every school. The implication of what he said is not to have such a guarantee.
It is the case that pupil numbers will be the principal determinant in school funding, so where rolls are falling, there will be consequences. I have made that clear, and it is the case throughout the system. It is not the case that we are removing LEA flexibility; in fact I am publishing regulations that will increase their flexibility to deal with the greatest issues.
I acknowledge that important issues arise from special educational needs, and we have discussed those with local government. It is not the case that we are increasing the standards fund with money taken from the SFSS. The reverse is true: we have gone right through our budgets to increase that fund and the SFSS is left untouched by that approach.
Finally, it is not the case that council tax will have to go up to achieve these increases. My statement and the statement that will be made by the Deputy Prime Minister in due course do not require council tax increases in order to maintain essential services.
It is important that even the Opposition, in their current parlous state, have a discussion about these proposals on a factual, honest basis, rather than reading out a litany of allegations that are either wrong or simply taken from the NUT's brief.
Mr. Patrick Hall: Is my right hon. Friend confident that there will be sufficient additional support for those schools that have agreed deficit budgets this year and may not have the capacity to recover in the next financial year? Is he also confident that as a result of his statement the many schools that have avoided a deficit budget this year by dipping into their reserves and making cuts in training and maintenance, for example, will be able not only to recover in the next financial year but to resume the considerable progress that has been made since 1997?
Mr. Clarke: I am confident that the arrangements that I have made today on the transitional fund and other issues will permit LEAs working with schools in the position described by my hon. Friend to deal with that situation and restore their budgets to the proper basis.

313
The combination of grant for some authorities and loans for others means that I can assure my hon. Friend that we can sort out those problems.
Dr. John Pugh: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his lucid and informative statement. It did not altogether help but much of it is very welcome.
Liberal Democrat Members feel that although this is, superficially, good news, we have been here before. Last year, the Government genuinely put money on the table—more money than ever before—but the Secretary
of State has acknowledged that there were severe problems arising from increased school costs and the distributive effect of the new local authority formula and its effects on the school formula in turn. That was described as a failure of modelling. There was a marked difference between the Government's intentions, which were good, and the real-world effects, which were bad. This year, it is very much a case of déjà vu for Liberal Democrats. The Government's intentions are good, but it remains to be seen whether the long-term effects are good. We will know only when the details are available and the budgets start to be constructed in 2004. The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the announcement may be another road to the financial chaos that we had last year. I seek reassurances, clarification—by gosh, we need clarification—and evidence that the modelling skills of the Department for Education and Skills are slightly better than they were last year.
I have a highly specific question about how much new money—not top-sliced or recycled—has been announced today. How much money from the vaults of the Treasury that was not there in April will be available to give LEAs and schools as a direct result of the announcement? On the 4 per cent. uplift promised for every child and school and the mandatory increase in the SFSS, how much will be cash in hand for the LEAs, how much will be cash in hand for the LEAs to give to schools, and how much has to be found from the council tax payer? The way in which that is divided up really does make a difference.
On the modelling, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that last year there were losers and some winners? This year, according to him, everyone gets a prize, but inequities will be perpetuated. Schools with severe problems that fell back on their capital last year do not get differential treatment. LEA flexibility is not noticeably assisted. He has made £120 million available as a grant—am not sure whether it has to be repaid to LEAs—but where have those resources come from? Is that new money from the Treasury, and what strings are attached to it?
Finally, has the new modelling taken proper account not only of the forthcoming teachers' pay settlement but of the progress of the workload agreement and the September uplift in pay spines? The right hon. Gentleman was supposed to have taken account of that, and told the House on 17 July that
"the commitment that I give is to make that announcement when we know the teachers' pay settlement following the proper review".—[Official Report, 17 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 460.]
314
That is not what is happening today, and I wonder which aspect of the commitment he does not understand. Either he is psychic, as well as being a good modeller, or the pay review is his poodle, or we cannot trust ministerial statements.
Mr. Clarke: The statement addresses many of the issues that arose last year. One of the three key issues that arose then was the distribution of resources between local authorities. Today's announcement establishes floors to deal with that situation directly and explicitly. A second cause of the problems was the reduction in the standards fund. I have reversed the cuts in that fund to put the money back, which was not the case in the current year. A third issue was the way in which local education authorities decided to allocate money to individual schools and their central funds. I have put a cap on central funds and I require a per pupil minimum guarantee for schools.
In those three specific cases, I have made changes to try to deal with the situation that arose this year. I acknowledge that the subject is complicated for all of us, and it is difficult for colleagues who have only just seen the statement to make a detailed analysis. However, I do not accept the charge, because it is not true, that we have not sought to address the issues that arose this year. In fact, we have set out specifically to do so. In addition, we have sought to address a point made to me by many teachers and people in local government: that one of the core problems this year was the short time scale for addressing the issues and changes that were taking place, which affected their ability to plan school budgets effectively. I am establishing today a time framework for the solution of those problems that will allow schools and local authorities to plan, which is a positive development.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that the implications of the announcement remain to be seen. That is a fair point, and it is fair, too, for local authorities and schools to ask what the statement means for them and how they should analyse it. My political request, which he may or may not be prepared to go along with, is that he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues do exactly what he said—look and analyse before drawing conclusions. My criticism of the Conservatives is that they have jumped the gun. The Liberal Democrats have not behaved like that to the same extent, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to look directly at the situation.
The extra money will go into the standards fund and the transitional fund, as we have said, and comes from DFES budgets. There is substantial LEA flexibility. The difference between the 4 per cent. minimum per pupil for schools and the 5 per cent. minimum rising to 6.5 per cent. for LEAs represents a significant resource, and the regulations that we are publishing will give LEAs more capacity to use it to target particular problems. May I tell the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in local government that it is important that LEAs take on that responsibility, analyse the problems in the LEA and use the flexibilities that I have outlined and the extra resources that they can draw down in certain circumstances to address them? That is the LEAs' responsibility, and it is one that they should welcome, as it is the right way to move forward. We have made assumptions about the final position of the pay review

315
body, but I do not have any inside information. Like everybody else, I await its announcement later this year to see what its proposals will be.
Mr. George Stevenson: In spite of the Opposition's negative carping, may I warmly welcome the positive way in which my right hon. Friend addressed fundamental issues in his statement?
I have three brief questions for my right hon. Friend. First, can he assure me that needs and deprivation will figure prominently in the consideration of affected areas? Secondly, on pupil numbers, will authorities such as my own in Stoke-on-Trent that are addressing that issue through the closure and amalgamation of schools be given every encouragement and direct assistance to create modern, 21st-century facilities? Thirdly, on LEA flexibility, is it not about time that we considered rolling some of the standards fund into LEAs, which, after all, are required to match funding?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's general support, and can give him the assurances that he seeks. Needs and deprivation will continue to be a major consideration in funding for all the reasons that he gave. We will work with authorities that have to deal with falling rolls to try to assist them. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is keen in his capital programme to focus on getting brand new schools to deal with those problems, and I am sure that he will pay particular attention to Stoke's needs.
Mr. Edward Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman will know that Leicestershire LEA is at the bottom of the funding table. Consequently, schools in my constituency are among the worst funded in the country. What are the implications of the statement, both for our relative position in the funding league and the absolute funding from Whitehall to schools in Harborough?
Mr. Clarke: I met an all-party delegation of colleagues from Leicestershire to discuss those precise matters, and I have tried to respond to their concerns in today's statement on transitional funding. Leicestershire is one of the third or so of authorities that will benefit from the settlement.
Claire Ward: My right hon. Friend will be aware that schools and parents in Hertfordshire have been led to believe by the Tory-controlled county council that they face significant budget cuts next year. Can he give them an assurance that that will not be the case? Can he assure my constituents that the funding plans that he outlined today will ensure that they have continued improvement in education in Watford?
Mr. Clarke: I think that I can give that assurance. I am disappointed by the material that Hertfordshire county council has put out. On its website there is a range of information, but it is full of "ifs", "coulds", "shoulds" and "risks". None of it is based on genuine information and assessment. I urge my hon. Friend and her colleagues in Hertfordshire—I do not mean her political colleagues but colleagues throughout
316
Hertfordshire—to give my statement a fair assessment, as I think that I can give the assurance that she is seeking.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: A little earlier this year, the Secretary of State kindly met me, the education chairman of Cheshire county council, Councillor David Rowlands, and the schools manager, Joan Feenan, to discuss the Macclesfield learning zone, which is warmly and strongly supported by all its partners and stakeholders, including the county council, the borough council, the learning and skills council, local schools and the local college. As that project is critically important to my constituency, will he tell me how his very informative and encouraging statement will affect it?
Mr. Clarke: I enjoyed my meeting with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The assurance that I have given today means that his county council and local education authority can discuss their future plans in a much more structured way, and therefore look at the Macclesfield project with a sense of confidence about future funding. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Linda Gilroy: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend's announcement covers the next two years. That will help schools to plan ahead. Last year, Plymouth schools were among those facing the most significant difficulties in making ends meet. I therefore welcome the targeted transitional help in the hope that it might be available to some of them. Can he assure parents, students and teachers in Plymouth that he will, as he helpfully did last year, listen to our representations on the continuing challenges that lie ahead?
Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Her campaigning on behalf of Plymouth, like that of hon. Friends in other parts of the country, was one of the most effective factors in convincing me and my colleagues that we needed to address the transition issues as we have. Plymouth will be one of the authorities that benefit from that. I hope that that deals with her concerns, but I am of course always happy to listen to future representations.
Mr. David Tredinnick: I acknowledge that the Secretary of State met Leicestershire Members this year, but did not that meeting have to take place only because his Department so completely miscalculated the needs of the county? Is it not the case that 4 per cent. will not be enough for schools such as Barwell Church of England junior school and others in Hinckley in my constituency? Can he confirm that the targeted transitional grant applies to Leicestershire and that the most disadvantaged schools in my constituency will get the special relief to which he alluded?
Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that Leicestershire, like Plymouth, is one of the authorities that will receive the targeted transitional grant. The 3.4 per cent. figure for school costs increases is an average, so there is variety around it. I have set the minimum per pupil guarantee at 4 per cent., which is significantly above that. I have

317
also—this is most significant—given local education authorities the ability to deal with cases where there may be even greater variation from the 3.4 per cent. average as a result, for example, of the school's staffing structure. I do not know the details of the school that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That will be a matter for the LEA within the framework that I have set; I hope that it will be able to take it up in the proper way.
Clive Efford: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and particularly its early nature, because that offers the opportunity for further consultation. The statement is inevitably complex because we were confronted with a complex situation earlier this year, so schools will take a cautious approach to it. Crucial to its success will be the reassurance that their problems and those of LEAs will be listened to in order to tackle the financial difficulties that they have faced this year. That is particularly true in areas such as London, where a considerable amount of the available resources had to go into employment budgets because of the difficulties caused by the cost of living, including housing. Those issues facing London need to be considered further as part of the complex problem that we face.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. Like many in London, he will have welcomed the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister about housing for teachers in London: that will help to move the situation forward. Let me be clear. Within the framework that I have set, it is the responsibility of the LEA to talk to schools in its area about the best way of dealing with their financial situation. My aim is that those discussions should be constructive. Meanwhile, we are happy to continue to consider the issues that he raised.
Mr. James Clappison: Behind the byzantine complexity of the Secretary of State's announcement, is not there one straightforward fact—that the Government's new local government funding formula has created serious funding difficulties for authorities such as Hertfordshire, which next year faces a shortfall of £25 million, or the equivalent of 600 teaching posts? Can he do better than to dismiss that as scaremongering, given that earlier this month the Labour group of Hertfordshire county councillors joined in that scaremongering by taking part in an all-party delegation to complain to the Minister who knows all about this? Can the Secretary of State say to what extent his announcement will make good that shortfall?
Mr. Clarke: I urge the hon. Gentleman to ask his political colleagues in Hertfordshire to look at the statement and to analyse what it means before rushing to judgment. The Hertfordshire website says that schools might face a gap of as much as £25 million—a completely invented figure, by the way—that a £15 million gap could mean a funding shortfall, and that if schools have to make further cuts they risk a whole set of different consequences. That is a scaremongering approach that has been deliberately taken by the Conservative leadership of Hertfordshire county council. I urge them, as I would urge others, to analyse the statement and to come to a mature and considered
318
view about what it really means for the hon. Gentleman's local education authority and schools in his constituency.
Ms Karen Buck: Westminster city council, which is Conservative-controlled, found £21 million extra this year for a street cleaning contract and call centre, while failing to passport money to schools in the education settlement, which resulted in cuts and redundancies in schools. I welcome the minimum guarantee and the additions to the standards fund, but can my right hon. Friend assure me not only that he will ensure that that money is delivered to Westminster schools, but that—in recognition of the cost pressures in my boroughs and elsewhere in London—non-statutory, vulnerable and vital services such as early years and the youth service are protected when he negotiates with his colleagues in other Departments?
Mr. Clarke: I am delighted that my hon. Friend asks that question. I simply repeat for Westminster, in terms, what I said to the House. The Deputy Prime Minister and I will write to authorities, including Westminster, to set out the Government's clear expectation that every LEA passports in full its SFSS increase into a matching increase in the schools budget. That is a message for Westminster as much as—in fact more than—it is for many other local authorities, whose job it is to ensure that they do that. In addition, as I announced, we are protecting from central Government resources the amount of money allocated to children's social services, and rightly so. The spotlight will be on local education authorities such as Westminster to ensure that they deliver for children in their borough as they are obliged to.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Does the Secretary of State understand that he is simply trying to clear up a mess that he and his Government created by switching money from southern councils and imposing extra employer contributions? Does he accept that his 4 per cent. per pupil guarantee will be meaningless unless it means that no Kent school will be in budget deficit next year?
Mr. Clarke: I cannot accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. The 4 per cent. per pupil guarantee is not meaningless—it has great meaning for schools in Kent, as in every other part of the country. It is fully funded. The extra resources for LEAs—in this case, Kent—can and should be targeted on dealing with situations where budget deficits have arisen. Kent will take that decision. All the conversations that I have had with the leadership—dare I say it, the Conservative
leadership—of Kent county council suggests that they will take those responsibilities seriously, and so they should. That is what shared funding means.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Last year, Northumberland's education authority had some trouble: I am keeping my fingers crossed that my right hon. Friend's statement will put all that right. On funding for free school meals, he may be aware that some of my hon. Friends and I tabled an early-day motion pointing out that people receiving working

319
families tax credit do not qualify for free school meals, even though they are below the £13, 000 threshold. That is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Mr. Clarke: I have seen the early-day motion that my hon. Friend and others tabled. I am considering its terms carefully to ascertain how we can deal with his points. More generally, I hope that Northumberland can work with schools in the county to tackle the issues effectively.
Mr. David Laws: I thank the Secretary of State for taking the time to see a cross-party delegation from Somerset a couple of months ago to discuss the subject that the statement covers. Although I accept his earlier comments that we must consider the detail before leaping to judgment, he will recall that Somerset local education authority said that it needed an increase of 6 per cent. not 4 per cent. next year to deal with cost pressures and accumulated deficit. Will his statement therefore disappoint the LEA or does it contain something that I am missing?
Mr. Clarke: My lengthy experience of the hard wheel of politics shows that statements usually disappoint local authorities and I confidently expect representations about disappointment. However, Somerset will receive targeted transitional grant, which will help with some issues. I am also acutely aware of some of the sharp party political antagonisms in Somerset about the approach to such matters. The LEA will want to work closely with schools to deal with them.
Ms Oona King: I thank my right hon. Friend for a comprehensive statement. There is no doubt that the average school whose budget was affected by the 3.4 per cent. figure will be vastly assisted by the measures announced. Indeed, all schools will be helped, but some were hit harder than others. Those in Tower Hamlets have average cost increases of 12 per cent., despite the LEA passporting more than 100 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that any schools that continue to face serious budget pressures after the measures have been implemented will receive further help with funding so that we can continue to drive up standards, which have seen Tower Hamlets register the greatest educational achievement in the country?
Mr. Clarke: I join in with my hon. Friend's tribute to the tremendous achievements of the local authority in Tower Hamlets. We met a delegation to discuss the very points that she raised. As I said in the statement, resources—in the form of grant or loan—are available to address matters in schools in Tower Hamlets, but on condition that the local authority works with schools to deal with the financial issues in the appropriate way. I know that Tower Hamlets authority will work constructively on that agenda, but the qualification is important. The extra resources are available on the basis of the LEA working properly with schools to improve financial management and deal with problems.
Richard Ottaway: Given the shambles in education funding in Croydon this year, the
320
Secretary of State will be interested to know that I managed to obtain a copy of an internal document from Labour-controlled Croydon council. It estimates that underfunding this year is £7.5 million and that an extra £8.5 million is needed next year after wiping out the reserves this year to pay the deficit. Will he confirm that his encouraging but complex statement means that Croydon will have the extra £16 million that it needs to make up the shortfall this year?
Mr. Clarke: I want to make two comments in response to that. First, the statement is complex and I hope that all political and other colleagues in Croydon will examine the precise implications for Croydon before reaching a judgment about the way in which to proceed. Of course, I acknowledge that there were difficult problems in Croydon this year; the hon. Gentleman raised them specifically. I hope that the announcement will enable them to be tackled effectively.
Secondly, I shall not simply take a figure that has been generated from an internal working document in a local authority and say, "Aha, all is as it should be." We should have a discussion and dialogue and I hope that that will take place—although I cannot guarantee it, given the hon. Gentleman's role—in a non-partisan way and in a spirit of doing our best for schools in Croydon.
Judy Mallaber: Although I do not want cuts in other local authorities or schools, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the overall impact of the measures will not perpetuate the unfairness whereby pupils in authorities such as Hertfordshire and Hampshire get so much more money spent on them than pupils in equivalent schools in authorities such as Derbyshire? Will he continue to try to redress that balance?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes an important, powerful and true point. I am glad to be able to say that the variation between a floor for LEAs of 5 per cent. and a ceiling of at least 6.5 per cent. shows that progress to try to deal with some of her points continues, at least in education.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does the Secretary of State accept that the acid test is the accuracy and validity of his estimate of cost pressures on schools? He must recall that Philip Hodgson, chair of Cambridgeshire schools forum, wrote to him on 17 July and set out in detail the anticipated cost pressures. He said that the unavoidable pressures would mean an increase of 10 per cent. in the schools budget elements of Cambridgeshire's education formula spending. How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile 3.4 per cent with the 10 per cent. pressures on the LEA? Even if Cambridgeshire is on the ceiling of 6.5 per cent.—I hope that it is—there will be a further funding gap in the coming year to add to this year's gap.
Mr. Clarke: To be frank, there are a series of issues about Cambridgeshire's relationship with its schools that need to be examined in promoting good management. Staff salaries in some schools in Cambridgeshire take more than 90 per cent. of a school's budget. That is not the best position and the LEA needs to examine it.

321
Let us consider the assessment in the letter in July to which the hon. Gentleman refers. What assumptions does it make about teachers' pay and so on? I do not believe that my correspondent was in a position to know the detail at that point. As I said earlier, I hope that people will consider what we have said carefully, assess what it means for their authority and schools, and form their judgment.
The figure of 3.4 per cent. was reached after substantial discussion, including with local government representatives and head teacher associations, to try to get a shared view of appropriate average inflation. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is an average and there is therefore variation.
Jonathan Shaw: I thank the Minister for School Standards for meeting a delegation from my constituency to discuss the schools budget earlier this year. I agree that Kent county council has discussed schools funding in an unhelpful way, scaremongering among head teachers. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should enter into dialogue and discussion sensibly and maturely. Will he confirm that Kent and the Medway towns are among the authorities that receive additional support?
Mr. Clarke: After being advised by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, I can confirm that Kent and Medway are on the list of authorities that will receive targeted transitional support. More important, I want to echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) about the nature of the discussion now. It must be weighed, considered and based on the facts. I hope that Kent county council will behave in that way. I shall attempt to do that, too.
Gregory Barker: East Sussex has fared badly under the settlement in recent years. What hope does the statement hold for solving the chronic overcrowding in classrooms in my constituency? For example, at key stage two in Battle and Langton primary school, we have classes of 37 and 36 in temporary huts. In Seddlescombe primary school, there are three classes with a total of 86 children who share two small classrooms and an activity area. At King Offa school in Bexhill, an excellent new headmaster is struggling with an historic deficit and faces the loss of his entire information technology suite because the leases are up for renewal. Apart from simply incremental increases in pupil funding, what measures does the statement contain to tackle chronic overcrowding?
Mr. Clarke: First, I do not believe that incremental increases should be sneered at. Many schools have been exercised by not receiving a regular incremental increase. Establishing a per pupil guarantee for the first time is important. Secondly, I confirm that East Sussex will benefit from the transitional grant. Thirdly, the position of the specific schools, with which I am not familiar, is a matter for the LEA to consider directly and decide how to tackle. There are hard decisions involved, but I, as Secretary of State for Education and Skills, am not going to decide precisely how the funding arrangements should affect the particular schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is for East Sussex,
322
with the headroom that it has, to decide how to target its resources to deal with the ills that the hon. Gentleman has described.
Mr. Andy Reed: I welcome the statement and, in particular, its early nature, which will give schools in my constituency and elsewhere time to get to grips with the complexity of what has been announced today. I have also been reassured by the discussion on the transitional elements, but as my right hon. Friend knows, Leicestershire is the worst-funded local education authority in the country and it has had specific problems this year related to the funding formula and to difficulties that exist elsewhere in the country. Will he assure me that the transitional relief will make a substantial difference to many of the schools—not just individual schools in my constituency—that have enormous deficits from this year? That would not involve little 4 per cent. or 6 per cent. increases, because those schools have seen enormous changes. We would then get back to the position that we were in before 2002–03, because we have seen an enormous £630 per pupil increase since 1997. We want to get back to having those increases, rather than cuts.
Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks. As I said earlier, Leicestershire is one of the authorities that receive a transitional grant. However, I say to the LEA through my hon. Friend, rather than to him, that it is important to appreciate that Leicestershire has to manage its budgets well. It must work carefully with its schools, address the problem of deficit budgets and face up to these issues. Any local education authority can choose either to be a formula calculating machine through which money goes to its schools, or to be the leader of the education system in its area. I understand that most LEAS want to be leaders of their system, and what I have announced today will enable them to do that. They will, however, have to seize that responsibility and not regard themselves simply as a transmission belt either for complaints from schools to me, or for money going into schools. They will have to exercise leadership in transforming the education system in their locality.
Mr. Michael Jack: I have just completed an exercise in writing to all the schools in my constituency, and all those that have replied have said that this year their budgets are too low to meet their cost pressures, and that they anticipate that being the case next year as well. The Secretary of State will therefore realise that a 4 per cent. increase at school level in budgets that are already deemed too low will not generate sufficient cash to get those schools out of their difficulties. However, in deference to his request that we consider carefully what he has said today, may I ask him whether he would willing to commit himself to coming back to the House early in the new year to debate these matters, once the schools have had the opportunity to work out exactly what his statement means for them?
Mr. Clarke: I am very happy to continue to debate this matter in a variety of forms. We have already had a variety of debates on the subject in the House and I am sure that we shall continue to do so. I do not know what

323
letters the right hon. Gentleman has been writing recently, but it is important that those that he writes to his schools should give a flavour of the actual situation. He used the word "anticipate", and I understand why people anticipate that bad things are going to happen when many people tell them that that is going to be the case. I urge him, however, to acknowledge the reality that anticipation needs to be based on facts and proper assessments. I repeat what I said earlier in that regard. I hope that he, as a former Treasury Minister, will acknowledge that it is important for his party to come clean about what it is going to do about school funding. A 20 per cent. cut in education funding, which is his party's policy, would not help schools in his constituency.

Points of Order
1.34 pm
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice that Staffordshire did not get a look-in in that debate, although the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) was rising—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps Staffordshire will do well next time.
Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The first item of business this afternoon is a programme motion on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, but there is no provision for debate. Is there any way of making the House aware that this matter has to be brought before the House because the Government were defeated yesterday in the Bill's Standing Committee?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made mention of it, so it is now on the record.

Orders of the Day

  European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the Order of 21st October 2003 (European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill (Programme)) shall be amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) for the words "Thursday 30th October" of the words "Tuesday 4th November". [Joan Ryan.]
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 144.

  Division No. 343]

  [1:35 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clelland, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coaker, Vernon

  Allan, Richard

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Colman, Tony

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Connarty, Michael

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cooper, Yvette

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Austin, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cousins, Jim

  Baird, Vera

  Cranston, Ross

  Baker, Norman

  Cruddas, Jon

  Barrett, John

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Battle, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cummings, John

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Berry, Roger

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Best, Harold

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Blair, rh Tony

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Borrow, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  David, Wayne

  Breed, Colin

  Davidson, Ian

  Brennan, Kevin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bryant, Chris

  Denham, rh John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Burden, Richard

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Doran, Frank

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Doughty, Sue

  Cairns, David

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Efford, Clive

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Casale, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Etherington, Bill

  Challen, Colin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Chaytor, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Chidgey, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Clapham, Michael

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Follett, Barbara

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Foulkes, rh George

  326

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Lepper, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Goggins, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Grogan, John

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Hain, rh Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hancock, Mike

  McDonnell, John

  Hanson, David

  MacDougall, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McIsaac, Shona

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McKechin, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McNamara, Kevin

  McNulty, Tony

  Healey, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heath, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWilliam, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heppell, John

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Heyes, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Martlew, Eric

  Holmes, Paul

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Miliband, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Moran, Margaret

  Morley, Elliot

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mudie, George

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Hutton, rh John

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Illsley, Eric

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Olner, Bill

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Organ, Diana

  Jamieson, David

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jenkins, Brian

  Perham, Linda

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Plaskitt, James

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pound, Stephen

  Keetch, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prescott, rh John

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kidney, David

  Pugh, Dr. John

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Purchase, Ken

  Purnell, James

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lamb, Norman

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  327

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

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Rendel, David

  Teather, Sarah

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Salter, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Truswell, Paul

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Watts, David

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

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  White, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Spellar, rh John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Squire, Rachel

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Worthington, Tony

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Straw, rh Jack

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

  Gillian Merron and

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Jim Fitzpatrick

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brady, Graham

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burns, Simon

  Bacon, Richard

  Burnside, David

  Barker, Gregory

  Burt, Alistair

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Cameron, David

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bercow, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Blunt Crispin

  Clappison, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Conway, Derek

  328

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mercer, Patrick

  Curry, rh David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Norman, Archie

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Page, Richard

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Paice, James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Fallon, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Flight, Howard

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Hook, Adrian

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Randall, John

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Redwood, rh John

  Francois, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Garnier, Edward

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Goodman, Paul

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Ruffley, David

  Grayling, Chris

  Salmond, Alex

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grieve, Dominic

  Selous, Andrew

  Gummer, rh John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heald, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Spring, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Steen, Anthony

  Hermon, Lady

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Syms, Robert

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Howard rh, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Jack rh Michael

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Tredinnick, David

  Trimble, rh David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Viggers, Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Walter, Robert

  Lansley, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Weir, Michael

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Wilkinson, John

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Wilshire, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Wishart, Pete

  Maclean, rh David

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Young, rh Sir George

  Malins, Humfrey

  Maples, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mates, Michael

  Angela Watkinson and

  Maude, rh Francis

  Mr. George Osborne

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Dangerous Drugs
  [Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2001–02, on The Government's Drugs Policy: Is it Working?, HC 318-I, and the Government response thereto, Cm 5573, together with the Home Office Departmental Report 2003, Cm 5908, and the Sixth Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on The Illegal Drugs Trade and Drug Culture in Northern Ireland: Interim Report on Cannabis, HC 353, and the Government response thereto, Sixth Special Report from the Committee, HC 935.]
  1.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I beg to move,
  That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th September, be approved.
  The order will reclassify cannabis as a class C drug on 29 January 2004. The use of illegal drugs and class A drugs in particular is one of the greatest scourges of our times. Drug misuse impacts on the well-being of individuals and families, as well as striking at the very fabric of our communities. Most hon. Members see too many cases in their constituencies where drugs have destroyed lives and fed the cycle of crime, violence and decay. Having been in this job for some months now, I can say that drugs and the crime connected to them are most prevalent in some of the poorest and most disadvantaged communities in the country.
  When some 250, 000 people are hooked on heroin or crack, a group responsible for 60 per cent. of acquisitive crime; where many street robberies are driven by the urge for money for the next fix; where the presence of one addict can create a neighbourhood crime spree that leaves dozens of victims and consumes many hours of police time, this Labour Government are absolutely right to focus on the most dangerous drugs, to intervene most vigorously in the most damaged communities, to seek to break the link between addiction and the crime that feeds it and to reduce the harm that drugs cause by addressing the chaotic lifestyle of those users who are harming themselves and others.
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Is the Minister aware, in respect of what she presents as statistics, that she is using surveys relating to 16 to 19year-olds, when it is 14-year-olds who are most at risk? In taking cannabis, those young people are 60 per cent. more likely to damage their brain. Have the Government taken that into account in making these proposals to the House?
  Caroline Flint: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are considering and have considered all the relevant evidence. More importantly, we have taken into account the work of the statutory advisory committee, which provides the scientific evidence on which to base our decisions. I tell my hon. Friend that I am acutely aware of the conditions that lead young people to start using drugs, to misuse alcohol and cigarettes, and to end up with teenage pregnancies or a life of crime. The Government are taking steps to deal with those problems, whether it be through sure start;
  330
  getting money through to the poorest income families; or trying to raise the opportunities and aspirations of those who feel that the education system does not offer them enough. Those are all part and parcel of trying to give our children and young people the skills and confidence to assert themselves and not end up abusing themselves through drugs and, unfortunately, becoming involved in crime.
  Educating young people about the dangers of drugs, preventing drug misuse, combating the dealers and treating addicts are the key elements of the Government's drugs strategy. Our programmes of intervention bring those arrested into treatment so that we can begin to break the cycle of committing crime to fuel a drug habit.
  Mr. Martin Salter: Does the Minister recognise that there are three essential components to any credible drugs policy: enforcement, education and treatment? If our education policy is not credible and we tell young people—whether they are 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18—that all drugs are the same and that there is no difference between cannabis and heroin or between cannabis and the evil of crack cocaine, we are doing young people of this country a grave disservice.
  Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. We have long had a system of classification for class A, B and C drugs and our proposals are about having a more informed view today, in the 21st century, of the comparative harms that various drugs can do. On that basis, we can have a better dialogue with those who may be tempted to take drugs and protect them from the worst abuses.
  Mr. David Marshall: The order applies to the whole of the UK, but is the Minister aware of the great concern about it in many parts of Scotland? Has she consulted Ministers in the Scottish Parliament and, if so, what was their response? Can she understand why some Labour Members cannot support the order here today?
  Caroline Flint: I totally understand the passionate views on all sides of the debate. It is a complex issue and a complex area. I assure my hon. Friend that in talking to my predecessor, consultation was held with Ministers in Scotland and there was support for the reclassification. Discussions were also held about Northern Ireland. I appreciate that passionate views are held on both sides of the House—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Caroline Flint: I hope that if I am allowed to continue my speech, I can elaborate more fully on why this strategy is the right way forward.
  Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister has called for an informed debate. In that spirit, does she agree and accept that the cannabis that is freely available today is between 10 and 15 times stronger than that available 20 or 30 years ago? Is it not therefore perverse to be downgrading its classification in legislation?
  Caroline Flint: I am afraid to tell the hon. Gentleman that the scientific evidence does not fit his analysis. The evidence of our forensic science unit is that the cannabis that it has sampled is not stronger than it was some years ago. Many of the statements made about the strength of cannabis do not fit the facts in respect of the largest supplies of cannabis that come into this country.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Caroline Flint: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick).
  David WinnickAlthough I would rather people did not take cannabis, it is a fact that many do so without going on to hard drugs. Is not it also a fact that the last survey undertaken showed that more than 120, 000 deaths in a single year were caused by smoking, in addition to the deaths caused through alcohol abuse? Should not the people who are condemning what the Minister is suggesting also take that into account?
  Caroline Flint: People take all sorts of substances either in moderation or in excess, which can create different levels of harm. We are trying to debate the different levels of harm produced by controlled drugs. As I was telling the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the Forensic Science Service suggests that new growing techniques in the late 1980s and 1990s have led to some new products coming on to the market with average tetrahydrocannabinol levels two or three times greater than for other cannabis products. However, in general, the THC content—the particular content that affects the strength of cannabis—varies widely, but much of it does not differ significantly from the cannabis used years ago.
  David Burnside: Does the Minister have any sympathy with a constituent, a father of young children, who rang me last night and implored me to vote against this measure? What a bad example the House is going to set to parents who are trying to protect young children who are constantly targeted at the school gate in both primary and secondary schools. Does the Minister sympathise with that example?
  Caroline Flint: I have sympathy with all parents who want to protect their children from the harms that exist in our society—whether it be drugs or other pressures and dangers that they face along the way to adulthood. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that we need to have an honest discussion with our children. We have to make them better informed. Children and young people talk to each other and can see for themselves the different effects of drugs, so if we do not conduct an honest discussion, they will not listen.
  332
  I reaffirm to the House what I said in parliamentary questions earlier this week, which is that the measure is not about legalisation, but about having a mature discussion on the relative harms of drugs.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Caroline Flint: If I may continue with my speech, I hope to elaborate on how the guidance of the Association of Chief Police Officers will provide greater clarity on how to police this matter.
  John Robertson: Does the Minister not accept that the message going out to young people is that cannabis is no longer as dangerous as it was before?
  Caroline Flint: I can tell my hon. Friend that the whole point of having three categories of classification is to assess scientifically the relative harms of different sorts of drugs. That was why we examined the various effects of cannabis in comparison with stimulants and then with class A drugs. I believe that that represents a credible way forward.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given that the annual report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction found that 42 per cent. of 15 to 34-year-olds experiment with cannabis at least once, and that it must be desirable to break the link between the soft drug user and the hard drug pusher, will the Minister undertake at least to reconsider the arguments for legalisation, taxation and regulated sale as advocated eloquently two years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)?
  Caroline Flint: I am afraid that I would not concede that point. We have already considered the matter. I am aware that some hon. Members want full legalisation, while some want to maintain the status quo and not reclassify at all. Our evidence suggests that legalisation—the order is not, as the hon. Gentleman's question makes clear, about legalisation—would lead to an increase in the consumption of cannabis. I should reiterate that cannabis taking does cause some harm. though not as much as other drugs.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Caroline Flint: I want to make some progress with my speech, which might well answer some of the questions. I have already taken several interventions. I shall make some progress and see whether I can give way again later. I want to get to the end of my speech and I am aware that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
  As I said, young people are our highest priority. Direct expenditure on tackling drugs has risen to more than £1 billion this financial year and will rise to nearly £1.5 billion from April 2005—an increase of 44 per cent. Much of that money will go towards prevention, education and working with young people to dissuade them from taking drugs, as well as with those for whom drugs has already become a problem. We have launched the FRANK campaign, using carefully researched

  333
  advertising designed to affect attitudes to illegal drugs. The message is that drugs are not cool and can ruin lives. Education policies are now in force in 96 per cent. of all secondary schools, and drug action teams have developed young people's substance misuse plans. The right strategy must use what works. We must be honest and credible and rely on science, not prejudice.
  Mr. James Wray: I used to run a rehabilitation centre. All those who attended it started on cannabis. Will the Minister explain whether a child who gives a cigarette to a friend will be committing a crime?
  Caroline Flint: With respect to my hon. Friend, there are many reasons why people start to take drugs, or get involved with them. Many start by smoking tobacco, or misusing alcohol. I have met a number of drug users over the past four months who not only use class A drugs, but are also alcoholics. A number of different issues are involved. The evidence is not conclusive that cannabis is a gateway to class A drugs. In fact, the evidence is that the vast majority of cannabis users never move on to class A drugs.
  Pete Wishart: The Minister will have seen the recent EU report that suggests that 35 per cent. of 15 and 16-year-olds have taken cannabis. If we are to address the problem, we need drugs laws in this country that are credible to young people and which they can understand and respect. Young people are routinely breaking the law, and that leads to a lack of respect for law and authority. Should not we address that as a matter of priority?
  Caroline Flint: I am grateful for that intervention, and I endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  I have spoken about the underlying themes necessary for securing the right strategy. Those themes led my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to announce to the Home Affairs Select Committee in October 2001 that he was asking the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to consider the classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The fact is that cannabis use has increased steadily over the past 30 years, in spite of its being a class B drug. The treatment of all drugs as equally harmful and dangerous has lacked credibility with young people and devalued the educational message about its harmful effects, as hon. Members have noted. Individual police forces have developed disparate policies on the policing of cannabis possession, based on their own view of the relative seriousness of the offence. That has led to inconsistency and a lack of proper political accountability.
  David Cairns: My point follows on from the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). This order applies throughout the UK, but policing has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Is it the Minister's understanding that the effect of the order will be to allow the police to free up more time to target drugs such as heroin? In my constituency, heroin is far more damaging, pernicious and destructive to communities than cannabis.
  Caroline Flint: Absolutely. These are the pressures and challenges that face us as we get to grips with the
  334
  most vicious outcomes of taking class A drugs, in respect of both individuals and communities, because of the crime that is thereby created.
  Our drugs laws and educational messages to young people must reflect the scientific assessment of the advisory council if they are to be credible, convincing and, ultimately, effective. The reclassification of cannabis will help the Government to convey a more effective and credible message, to young people in particular, about the dangers of misusing drugs.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on the fact that drug dealers obviously have targets? When the Government take the decision to reclassify, will not those dealers find it easier to persuade young people to use cannabis?
  Caroline Flint: The message must be clear—cannabis is illegal. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members laugh at what is a very serious point. After reclassification, cannabis will remain illegal, and possession will remain an arrestable offence. The Criminal Justice Bill raises the penalties for dealing and trafficking to 14 years. That is a pretty strong message to those who would encourage young people to take drugs.
  Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention. A few minutes ago. she referred to consultations with relevant authorities in Northern Ireland. I am sure that she is aware that the trade in, and exploitation of cannabis, by paramilitary organisations—and especially by loyalist paramilitaries—funds their lavish lifestyles and their military activities, for want of a better term. Will the Minister say what consultations she had with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and what their outcome was? I am sure that it was not in favour of the reclassification of cannabis.
  Caroline Flint: I understand that the Organised Crime Task Force in Northern Ireland is paying a lot of attention to the issue of drug trafficking. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, the Criminal Justice Bill increases the penalty for dealing and trafficking to 14 years. That runs alongside reclassification, and sends a strong message to the paramilitary organisations, gangsters and others about how seriously we take trafficking and dealing in these drugs. However, I repeat that we need to send a credible message to young people—in Northern Ireland, just as much as in England, Scotland or Wales.
  We want to get across to young people the simple message that cannabis remains illegal and that it is harmful. That is not helped by some hon. Members, who are attempting to distort the debate and to dilute that very strong message. Alongside schools, drug action teams and other bodies, we want to make sure that we make information available to young people, and that we get it to them. That involves using the media, and going to places where young people meet. We need them to listen to the credible message that we want to put across. We do not accept that a high level of cannabis use is inevitable. We want to make an impact on that usage through advertising and education, but we

  335
  need an honest debate as well. We want to begin to turn young people away from becoming regular cannabis users.
  Ann Winterton: Does the Minister accept that the result of this honest debate, which is fairly sophisticated, will fly over the heads of young children? Recent polls taken among older children in junior schools show that those pupils believe unequivocally that the Government are not just reclassifying cannabis, but making it legal. Sophisticated arguments do not wash when it comes to getting drug prevention measures across.
  Caroline Flint: The hon. Lady and others contribute to that confusion. The more such people say that reclassification is legalisation, the more the message is distorted.
  Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister reconsider her words? I did not say that reclassification was legalisation. I was asking her a question and making a point about what young children believed, according to recent polls.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a matter for debate, and the Minister will have heard what the hon. Lady said.
  Caroline Flint: I am delighted that the hon. Lady's remark should be on the record, and I shall make sure that I use it extensively.
  My point is that young people form their views about our drug laws according to the messages that they receive from people in positions of responsibility. Unfortunately, the view has been expressed continually—I have read it myself, and heard hon. Members repeat it—that reclassification is somehow about legalisation. We must work hard to deal with that, but young people know about drugs and they know people in their communities who take drugs. They may have rather more information than we might consider appropriate, but they are informed by their peer groups. We cannot attempt to influence young people if we do not have a credible message.
  Angela Watkinson: The Minister has been generous about giving way, but does she accept that downgrading cannabis from class B to class C will lead to an increase in use? Does she agree that, because of its gateway properties, the use of cannabis will in due course lead to the greater use of hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin?
  Caroline Flint: I do not think that the evidence for that stacks up. We should view the position as it currently is, and drug use has increased. That applies to class A and class B drugs. We have not had a strategy that has worked, and in particular we have had no strategy to which young people are prepared to listen. That is what we are trying to deal with.
  As I said earlier, I believe and the Government believe not just that we need better information and education, but that reclassification will provide an opportunity to
  336
  introduce a consistent and properly thought out regime for the policing of cannabis in line with its status as a class C drug. As I also said, we have introduced proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill to retain the power of arrest for the possession of cannabis; but following extensive debate during the Bill's passage through this House and another place, the Government have agreed to table an amendment providing for the power of arrest not to apply to other class C drugs such as tranquillisers and anabolic steroids.
  Over the past 18 months, the Association of Chief Police Officers has worked hard to compile guidance for forces on the policing of cannabis. It published the guidance on 12 September. I pay tribute to the constructive way in which it approached its task, and to the end result, which is very clear and straightforward.
  Under the guidance, which applies to all persons aged 18 and over, there will be a presumption against arresting a person who is found in possession of cannabis. A police officer may, however, arrest when a person is smoking in public view, when a person is locally known to have been repeatedly dealt with for possession of cannabis, when there is a locally identified policing problem or when the person in possession is in the vicinity of a school or other premises used by young people. It is important for people to read that guidance, and to see how clear and straightforward it is.
  Mr. Mark Oaten: Can the Minister justify the treatment of class C drugs in a different way when it comes to arrest?
  Caroline Flint: We considered the way in which the other class C drugs are used and provided. Having listened to the debates here and in the other place, we felt that the issue was not clear-cut enough for those drugs to be included in the same category as cannabis.
  The ACPO guidance provides for people under 18 to be dealt with under the statutory warning scheme set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In most cases a formal reprimand will result for a first instance of cannabis possession. It will be administered at the police station. That is very important. We want to engage young people who are using illegal drugs such as cannabis, in order to establish whether there is any misuse problem.
  Over the past few months, I have been pleased to observe how, through arrest referral, the police on the front line are working with their drug action teams and referral workers to tackle issues related to arrest and charge. Expertise shared with the police and others will make it possible to establish whether a young person has an underlying problem that needs to be investigated, and whether that person needs to be referred for appropriate help.
  The proposed policing regime must not be misinterpreted as toleration of unrestricted public use of cannabis without consequences. It is not, as one Member suggested, a "baby step" towards legalisation. The overall regime for policing cannabis possession will ensure that action is properly taken by the police against someone who is causing a problem or who needs help, while avoiding the needless charging of large numbers of young people. It makes sense for parents as well as law enforcement.

  337
  The regime will also enable the police to redeploy their resources for the tackling of more serious offences, including dealing in the class A drugs—heroin and crack cocaine—that do the most harm. Last year's Lambeth experiment provided good evidence that when police resources are deployed to key priority areas, results can be achieved. During that pilot, the number of arrests for class A dealing offences increased by some 10 percent.
  Kate Hoey: I thought the Minister might get round to the Lambeth experiment at some point. In fact, were not more people attracted to hard drugs because of a feeling that there was no policing in relation to drugs generally? People who were not normally likely to be in contact with hard-drug criminals were put in contact with them because of their easy access to cannabis.
  Caroline Flint: Many issues arose during the Lambeth experiment. As I hope my hon. Friend recognises, it led to a lot of joined-up discussion among a number of people and agencies—MPs, local authorities, the drug action teams, police and others—about how to tackle drug misuse in communities. The ACPO guidance has given us a clearer understanding of how cannabis use in particular can be better policed and dealt with.
  Dealing in any illegal drug remains a serious crime. I have already mentioned an increase in the maximum penalty for dealing in a class C drug from five to 14 years' imprisonment. The penalty for dealing in cannabis will remain at its current level following reclassification.
  There are many different views in the House on the correct response to the cannabis issue. Some Members advocate complete legalisation, arguing that it would cut the link between young users and criminal dealers. As I said earlier, the Government believe that that would inevitably lead to a massive increase in the use of cannabis and in health problems. Others believe that cannabis should remain a class B drug, arguing that it is a gateway to class A drugs, that it is smoked in higher concentrations than it was 20 or so years ago, and that it may be linked to mental illness and lung cancer. There has been a huge debate on those issues.
  The issue of whether cannabis is a gateway to class A drugs has been debated for many years. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs looked at that and concluded that no causal link had been established, since many other factors act as gateways. I said a bit about that earlier in my speech. As for the suggestion that cannabis smoked today is up to 20 times as strong as that smoked 20 years ago. I have already pointed out that that does not match the evidence that the Forensic Science Service has analysed from cannabis seizures.
  Research on a possible link between cannabis use and the development of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, was published in the British Medical Journal as recently as last November. The advisory council considered the issue in depth, but concluded that no clear causal links had been demonstrated. On the other hand, the council believed that cannabis use could unquestionably worsen existing schizophrenia. It will
  338
  continue to monitor any research developments, but it is important to distinguish between worsening and causing mental illness.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Caroline Flint: I want to continue my speech, as I am conscious of the time that I have already taken up. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is on your side."] In that case, I may change my mind.
  As for the possible link between cannabis use and the development of lung diseases, clearly the smoking of any substance is dangerous and a real health risk. However, those who seek to draw inferences from the number of premature deaths caused by tobacco smoking need to be very cautious. While the smoking of cannabis is undoubtedly harmful, it should be borne in mind that in general cannabis users smoke fewer cigarettes per day than tobacco smokers and that most give up in their thirties, thus limiting the long-term exposure that we know to be the critical factor in cigarette-induced lung cancer.
  Paul Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Caroline Flint: No, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
  Mr. Prentice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  I am interested in the therapeutic use of cannabis. It was available to doctors—in the medicine chest—before 1973. Many people out there take it because conventional medicines do not relieve their pain. What advice will the police be given when they find someone taking therapeutic cannabis?
  Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agrees that we need to work on that. We are currently awaiting the outcome of scientific research into whether cannabis can be used medicinally to alleviate pain. We shall have to deal with the issues as they arise, certainly in the context of policing.
  No approach to the drugs problem is simple or problem-free, but I hope that the strategy I have outlined will provide the best possible opportunity to introduce credibility to our drugs education, sharpen our messages about cannabis and give priority to law enforcement and treatment directed at class A drugs. The strategy has widespread support, not just from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Home Affairs Committee but from the police and all major organisations that work with drug misusers.
  I commend the changes proposed in the order, and hope that the House will support it.
  2.19 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: The motion is, in practice, only part of the jigsaw that the Government have constructed. The purpose of the jigsaw is clear: to get to the point at which there is crypto-legalisation of cannabis, in the sense that most young people will be only marginally deterred from taking it. They may be arrested, and they will be warned—and the warning will

  339
  be that if they are subsequently arrested they will be warned. At the same time, the Government intend to strengthen the prohibition on the sale of cannabis, or rather to retain its present strength. The Minister made it clear that that is the admitted effect of the policies that she announced today.
  I recognise the force of the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). We may hear the same thing from the Liberal Democrat Benches in a moment. It is perfectly plausible to argue that there could be a significant beneficial impact by doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to a moment ago, namely, taking cannabis outside the field of drug dealing by hard drug dealers, legitimising it properly and allowing people to buy it under regulated conditions. I do not favour that policy, but I understand the rationale for it. It is also possible to argue that we should try to prevent young people from taking cannabis by doing what is done in Sweden—trying to take more effective measures to deter young people from taking it.
  The policy that the Minister announced today is neither of those two things. It will have a clear effect, which relates to the questions about the gateway. I am not making an argument about whether cannabis as a substance, in any of its forms, is in principle a gateway drug. I accept the Minister's point; my experience, too, is that people with addictive personalities, who are on heroin, crack or cocaine, have typically moved through a cocktail that began with tobacco and alcohol and went on through cannabis, amphetamines and many other things. I am not making the argument that cannabis as a substance is more of a gateway than any of those other drugs but, and this is the critical flaw in the Minister's logic, there can be no doubt at all that if the only legal way to obtain cannabis in England is through buying it from a person who is, ipso facto, a very serious criminal—the Minister is ensuring that anybody selling the substance is exposed to a maximum sentence of 14 years, making the crime equivalent in its severity to some of the worst crimes currently committed—the Minister is putting young people in touch with very serious criminals—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] She is. If the Minister makes it the case that young people believe that she is crypto-legalising the substance and that they cannot obtain it except from a serious criminal, she is taking steps that irresponsibly ensure that a larger rather than a smaller number of young people will be in touch with serious criminals.
  John Mann: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: I will in a moment, but not until I have finished the logic.
  The purpose of those serious criminals will be to drag those vulnerable young people upwards from cannabis to the hard drugs in which the money can be made—[Interruption.] Yes, it will. The hon. Lady for some part of Lambeth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Vauxhall."] Forgive me. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—I am her constituent so I should know—was right to point out that the evidence of the Lambeth experiment was
  340
  that serious criminals moved into the area in an effort to drug people up from cannabis into hard drugs. There is no escape from that reality.
  John Mann: Is not the right hon. Gentleman living in the past? There has been an increase in hydroponically grown cannabis. Estimates made in Australia by Hemp Embassy, major proponents of the legalisation of cannabis, are that 80 per cent. of cannabis is hydroponically grown, and that the vast majority of that is grown by people in their homes for their own supply. Health is the issue for the vast majority of people, rather than the buying of cannabis from so-called drug dealers.
  Mr. Letwin: I fear that the person living in an unreal world is the hon. Gentleman. I know that he shares my passion about hard drugs, and if he were to go to our inner cities—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) says that he does not know what I mean. I mean that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) shares my passion to do something to get off hard drugs the many young people whose lives, and the lives of those around them, are being destroyed by them. We share that ambition, but the hon. Gentleman is living in a fool's paradise if he believes that it is not the case that large numbers of very serious criminals—made very serious criminals by the Government's legislation—want to sell cannabis to people in order to lead them into the hard drug world. That is a fact which cannot be denied.
  The House's purpose should be not to deny that fact, but to argue about whether the Government's policy makes sense, and it certainly cannot make sense to let young people be led in that direction. I do not know by how much the legislation will do that, and nor does the Minister. We do not know how far the guidelines and their effects on police behaviour will lead young people to take more rather than less of that substance, but we know that that must be the direction and that much of the cannabis will be sold by serious criminals who are engaged in hard drug dealing. The tendency, therefore, will be for more rather than fewer young people to be led into hard drugs.
  John Mann rose—
  Mr. Letwin: I will take the hon. Gentleman's intervention, although there is still another step in my logic.
  John Mann: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should go to the inner cities. I have not done that, but I have visited my own community. I have spoken to 16year-olds in all the schools in my constituency and I have talked to at least half of the current heroin users. They outline a straightforward position: five years ago, and before, people bought cannabis and heroin from the same dealer, but now they do not. People do not buy cannabis from heroin dealers or pushers but from different people. Indeed, on health issues, a great deal of cannabis is not even being sold—it is being given away. Many young people are producing it at home and giving it to their friends.
  Mr. Letwin: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is not describing the only pattern of activity. The

  341
  fact remains that hard drug dealers are still in the business of selling cannabis. Even if his suggestion were right, he would have to explain how it could be rational that the young people he has just described would be subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years for that activity. The Government are turning those young people into very serious criminals. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape that fact. The Government's policy is a dreadful muddle.
  Why have the Government introduced this policy? Do they deny the logic that I have described? Before the debate, I thought that might be possible, but the Minister has told us that legalisation would increase use. How, then, can she suppose that crypto-legalisation will not, to some degree, also increase use? Before the debate, I thought that the Minister would take the view that, under the proposals, people would not feel that they were routinely breaking the law. However, she has told us that young people are routinely breaking the law at present and that she intends cannabis to remain an illegal substance. She is saying that she is legislating in such a way that when young people buy, possess or take cannabis they will know that they are acting illegally. She knows that she is turning the people who sell the drug to them into serious criminals. She does not deny a single step of my logic, so what is the point of the policy? Why do not the Government introduce either proper legalisation of, or a proper clampdown on, cannabis? Why this muddled middle?
  I do not specialise in saying such things about my political opponents, but in this case I think that the Home Secretary—who has chosen not to attend the debate for reasons that only he can tell—is seeking
  spurious, short-term popularity.
  The polling evidence shows that the Home Secretary is on to a winner and that this policy is popular. Considerable numbers of our fellow citizens believe that selling the stuff should be highly illegal and almost equal numbers believe that not too much should be done about people who are buying the stuff. The Home Secretary is in line with current public opinion, and I think it is for that reason—I can find no other explanation—that he has chosen to adopt this tactic. That is not a responsible way to conduct the government of this country. We should not have, in a country like ours, a Government who adopt a policy about a matter like this on the basis of seeking spurious short-term popularity. We should consider the fate of our young people.
  Brian Iddon: We have had this debate for countless decades. There have been endless reports. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Runciman committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs all made this recommendation? How many more committees must we have before we make a rational decision based on scientific evidence?
  Mr. Letwin: I do not think that a thousand committees will ever diminish the fact that when this order—I realise that the Government will use their majority to get it through—and the accompanying legislation have gone through the two Houses of Parliament, young people will be enticed to buy more, or more often, a substance from dangerous criminals, and
  342
  they will then be led into hard drug use. That is not a rational policy and no number of committees will persuade me that it is.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman has not read the report.
  Mr. Letwin: Of course I have read the report.
  Mr. Oaten: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a critique of the system and outlined all the problems, but he has not once said what the Conservative party would do to tackle the issue.
  Mr. Letwin: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and the House if that is not clear. I have made my position clear. I believe that there are two rational possibilities, one of which—
  Ian Lucas: Which is the right hon. Gentleman's?
  Mr. Letwin: I will say which in 15 seconds, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself.
  There are two rational positions—one is total legalisation and the other is a Swedish-style effort to prevent use. I prefer the latter. If I need to spell it out, that means that I believe that Sweden is right—that it has a better policy than the Netherlands—but I accept that either of those positions can be argued for rationally, and the Government's proposals are the sole middle ground which cannot be argued for rationally. Indeed, the Minister put up no rational defence of it; she was all over the place. I continue to believe that the Home Secretary does not want to make the argument because he does not have an argument. What he is seeking is short-term popularity, and that is a very bad thing.
  David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: I was about to end my speech, but I will of course give way to the Chairman of the Committee.
  David Winnick: I am grateful. If it is only the Home Secretary and his team who are in favour of these proposals, why is it that when the matter came before the Home Affairs Committee and the Committee divided on the motion:
  "We do not, therefore, support the Home Secretary's proposal to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug",
  only one Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who has just put her hand up, voted for it? The other Conservative Members did not. If there is no logic in what the Home Secretary is doing, why is it that not all the Conservative Members on the Committee voted with the hon. Lady for that motion?
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman will obviously have to ask them, not me. I am very clear in my mind—and I think that over time the British public will be very clear—that this is not a sustainable system. There are hon. Members in the House who see this as a stepping

  343
  stone on the way to full legalisation. I can understand their logic, although I think that the number of young people who will suffer on the way is intolerable. However, the Minister does not even make that argument. She has not even made the argument that this is the greatest political courage the Government can currently summon up on their way to full legalisation. I think that she has not made that argument because the Home Secretary does not believe in it—I think that he believes that this is a resting point, and a popular resting point. That is irresponsible.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time for the debate is limited and many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  2.34 pm
  John Mann: If I were to be persuaded by one of the arguments—I am sad to see that, entirely inappropriately on an issue such as this, there are three-line Whips all round the place—the Government's argument is not the one that would persuade me.
  I remind myself that in any vote in this place it is important to look at the text and the substance of the vote rather than the arguments posed, and at the heart of this debate is the question, why cannabis? Why is there this obsession with cannabis? I surmise that probably it is because it is the only illegal drug that a majority of Members have sampled in the past and therefore feel most competent to speak about. However, cannabis is not the only drug used by Members—tobacco is used far more widely, and I confidently predict that the main drug that will have been misused by Members is alcohol.
  The Swedish policy on drugs for young people is straightforward. It does not distinguish in any way between behaviour in respect of alcohol or of cannabis, because the health risks are increasingly evident, and are great, from both. Where the Government have failed, with a good opportunity—
  Mr. Julian Brazierrose—
  John Mann: I wish to develop my argument, but then I will give way.
  The Government have failed to take the opportunity to reclassify all class B drugs, not just cannabis. There is no logic that says that amphetamines and methamphetamines should be class B rather than class A. They are the main drugs in respect of criminal behaviour and hard drugs in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, and they are spreading across America. Therefore, they should be in class A.
  That codeine is a class B drug is also nonsensical. The main problem with opiates in New Zealand comes from over-the-counter codeine-based prescription drugs that people then bake and turn into morphine. The Government and their advisory council have got themselves into a bit of mess, and a presentational mess,
  344
  by picking out cannabis as opposed to all the class B drugs, and instead of reclassifying and removing class B drugs.
  We should have three classifications of drugs. The first should be hard drugs—drugs that in themselves will seriously damage health and may kill, and the taking of which leads to criminal behaviour. For example, the taking of amphetamines and crack cocaine leads to a range of criminal behaviours, including violent crime. With heroin, because of the nature of the addiction, the result is acquisitive crime. That should be the first classification—hard drugs that lead to both ill health and crime.
  The second classification should be illegal drugs such as anabolic steroids. In the headlines tomorrow and in the playgrounds of Britain, the talk will be not about cannabis, but about another class C drug: anabolic steroids, and the decision made or not made by the Football Association today on the use of, or the avoidance by top sportsmen of testing for, anabolic steroids. We call those drugs class C at the moment. They should be, and can be, called soft drugs—the taking of which does not lead to criminal behaviour, but will cause a serious health problem. Cannabis is one—the new and hydroponic forms of cannabis, skunk in particular, even more so. Anabolic steroids, and things like codeine, should similarly be class C drugs.
  The final classification of drugs should be tobacco and, in particular, alcohol. Tobacco kills millions, and alcohol—which, in terms of drug misuse, causes greater policing problems and probably greater criminal activity than any other single drug—is, of course, misused more by Members and by the general public than any other drug.
  Those should be the three classifications, and the Government should get out of the muddle of having classes A, B and C by removing class B.
  Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his case. He has accidentally misled the House about the position in Sweden, where they take a tough line on alcohol abuse, as he said, and on binge drinking. They also regard all cannabis taking as illegal, while the moderate and sensible consumption of alcohol is legal. The Swedish model seems very successful to Conservative Members.
  John Mann: For young people, the Swedish model is the same as that in this country—the taking of alcohol by young people is illegal. As regards health, in Sweden they have in-patient detox. Conservative policy on rehabilitation is based on the Swedish model. Regardless of whether it is cannabis, alcohol or any other drug, if people are taking drugs irresponsibly and have health problems they are automatically sectioned. They are put into detox centres compulsorily and treatment follows.
  That is a good model and we could develop it here. It will be difficult to sell to the British people the idea that young people who are falling over in the streets because of excess alcohol consumption should be treated on an in-patient basis for five days in a secure detox centre. We are a stage away from taking the general public with us.

  345
  An improved classification of drugs that identifies alcohol as a major problem along with other drugs is fundamental.
  Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we should be expanding the classification of bands of drugs? Does he share my concern that when ecstasy is a class A drug along with heroin and cocaine, that exaggerates the danger of taking ecstasy while diminishing the danger of heroin and cocaine? We must have a classification system that is credible to young people. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that in his equation.
  John Mann: We need to have a system that is credible to young people, but an expanded litany of classifications will confuse them. I have talked to young people in my constituency—it is not just 40 or 50 per cent of them using cannabis; in most of the schools in my constituency recreational use of cannabis is 100 per cent. among 16-year-olds. It is the main drug of recreational use, even more than alcohol. The reason is the price. At the moment, it is much cheaper than alcohol and much more easily available. That has some serious health consequences, and it is the health issues that we need to address.
  Will we treat young people as fools? There are 600 heroin addicts in my constituency. I have mothers whose sons have died from overdoses and constituents whose brothers have hung themselves because of heroin. I am not soft on drugs. We try to suggest to young people that these drugs are all the same and that they should say no to drugs. Say no to which drugs? We do not mean alcohol, because that is legal at 18. The problem is that drugs will create health problems, and some drugs will create far more than that. That is why in my constituency there are 600 heroin addicts whose lives have been ruined—although increasing numbers are in treatment, I am pleased to say. There were 12 deaths from overdoses last year, there are mothers who fear the deaths of their sons, and there are individuals who fear for their own health and lives and who do not see such a separation or difference in the drugs market.
  We need to separate the drugs market in people's eyes. That is not a weakening of drugs policy. I appeal to my colleagues who are thinking of voting against that model to look at the detail and think of the precision—rather than a weakening of drugs policy, it is a clarification and a strengthening. If we can move on from our obsession with cannabis, we can deal with the fact that treatment for those addicted to class A drugs remains wholly inadequate compared with the rest of the world, and we are only slowly getting people into effective treatment.
  I will not take up the time of the House. I will write to hon. Members to expand on my views and my experience of how what we are doing in Bassetlaw with a GP-led treatment procedure is beginning to work. That is the model that should be used in the rest of the country. That should be the mainstay of drugs debate in this House.
  2.44 pm
  Mr. Mark Oaten: I will try to be brief as a number of hon. Members wish to speak. It is a pity that we have only an hour and a half to debate such a
  346
  fundamental issue, because we could have expanded many of the arguments during a longer debate. That said, I welcome today's opportunity because the Liberal Democrats have argued for many years that we should at least have a grown-up debate on drugs in this Chamber. I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to move away from focus groups to an evidence-based approach, having heeded the work of the Home Affairs Committee, the advisory groups, and the Runciman committee. Our view is that although there are issues about the way the Government plan to operate the process, we will support them this afternoon because what is on offer is a step in the right direction.
  The Liberal Democrat party has been a lone voice for far too long arguing that drugs policy should be reconsidered and, over the years, we have received horrendous press headlines when we have talked about the subject. At last the Government now seem prepared to face up to some of these hard issues, as do many Conservative Members, in particular the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who has very progressive views. It is members of the public, not politicians, who also need to face up to those issues. Five or 10 years ago, they may not have been prepared to consider decriminalisation or legalisation but now they are very engaged with the problem indeed. I am talking about parents in particular. They do not want to be hard on drugs; they want the right policy in place to tackle what they see as a growing problem.
  The extent of that problem has been acknowledged by the report of the European drugs monitoring centre, to which reference has already been made, which shows that this country has the biggest problem in Europe, but that we also have some of the toughest laws. Clearly, our policy is not working. That is why I say to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that it is important that we engage in this debate. The status quo is clearly not satisfying the public demand that we should tackle the issue and that approach is causing major difficulties on the streets.
  The Minister's remarks are important because she stressed that the proposed change does not represent a softening-up on drugs. That is important for two reasons. First, we have to send a strong message that if we reclassify, the gain to be had is that we will get much tougher on the harder drugs and the dealers. That strong message must come through. It must be coupled with strong education aimed at our youngsters about the harm caused by harder drugs. Secondly, we should not allow this to be seen as a green light for taking cannabis. It is important that we get that message across, too. The Liberal Democrats support that approach.
  Mr. Letwin: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said about an evidence-based approach and the growing problem—that is common ground—will he agree that there is something wrong with his policy if cannabis and hard drugs use is increasing rather than diminishing two or three years after the proposals have been enacted?
  Mr. Oaten: Absolutely. I have no problem with that. We have learned from the approach that has been taken in Lambeth and that has informed this debate. Similarly, we will want to learn from this experiment. I think that there could be a number of outcomes. As has been said, moving towards some form of legalisation

  347
  may be the way forward. The evidence may well suggest that we have all got it wrong and we need to think again. One option that is not acceptable is a do-nothing approach. However, I certainly support the idea that we should reconsider the matter in two years' time.
  On a cautionary note, which contradicts the approach that the Liberal Democrat party has taken, there is a slight danger of our taking a middle-class approach—that of The Guardian or The Independent reader. On some estates and in some areas the arguments that are being propounded do not make any sense.
  Three years ago, I spent 24 hours in a drug rehabilitation centre—not for personal reasons, but because I was interested. I went in my jeans and T-shirt and I slept the night. No one knew who I was—one of the advantages of being a Liberal Democrat is that one can go under cover. None of the 17 folk I chatted to, who had serious drugs problems, favoured the legalisation of cannabis or relaxing the law on cannabis. I had gone in there with my cosy and comfortable upbringing, thinking that that was the solution. I left with some serious doubts and I have struggled with them. However, I have looked at the evidence and I have listened to some of the arguments that have been put forward. I have come to the conclusion that this reclassification is a step in the right direction.
  I want to consider some of the arguments. Let us deal first with the critical argument about whether the proposal will result in a redirection of resources to dealing with hard drugs. The Minister could have told us more about that, and I would have welcomed hearing more about how the Government want to redirect police time. We did not hear enough about that. At the moment, 40, 000 individuals are apprehended, which involves a lot of police time. If there is a fall in the number of those apprehended, where will the resources then be spent?
  In Lambeth, for example, there was a 44 per cent. increase in arrests for cocaine—good news—and a 10 per cent increase in tracking trafficking, good news. If that can be replicated across the country, the policy change will have been a good move. About 85 per cent. of residents in Lambeth supported such a change— [Interruption]—the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) should let me develop this point—but there were some difficulties. Certain individuals came into the area, and there was some increased drug use. It seems to me, as a layman, that that happened probably because it was a pilot site and that there would not be a flood of such individuals going to a certain area if the proposal were rolled out nationally.
  Research done by Rowntree shows that it believes that the police time spent on dealing with cannabis costs about £50 million, which represents about 500 full-time police officers. I should like to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to shift those resources to get tough on harder drugs.
  Let us briefly deal with whether such a change will act as green light and increase the number of individuals using cannabis. At the moment, about half of 16-yearolds have tried cannabis at some time, so we already have a bad situation. If that figure was perhaps 10 or 15 per cent., there would be some interest in arguing that
  348
  the change would send a green light and there would be a flood of yet more individuals taking cannabis. However, we seem to have a problem already, and it is unlikely that the change will increase usage. In fact, lots of the evidence from other countries shows that reclassification does not significantly increase the number people who suddenly decide that they will take cannabis.
  Let us touch on the health issue—and we all know the arguments that have been made. It is not my place to consider in depth the scientifically based evidence, but I am happy to buy it, and I am pleased that the Minister acknowledged some of mental health concerns. However, we need more research on that issue.
  Caroline Flint: I understand that there will be no winding-up speeches, so I will take a note and get in touch with the hon. Gentleman, but it is our absolute desire that such work will concentrate on class A drugs. That is why we are tackling the criminal justice interventions programme and identifying those people who commit crime who have a class A drugs problem, so that we can break that cycle. We will monitor what happens after reclassification and work with police forces and the crime reduction and disorder partnerships to ensure that we get some results on which we can report.
  Mr. Oaten: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention because that evidence is crucial if we are to persuade the public that this is the right shift.
  I have most difficulty with the gateway argument. I entirely understand the concerns that hon. Members have raised about access to dealers. I too struggle with that issue. Again, the evidence suggests, however, that about 50 per cent. of cannabis used is home grown, so the exposure to dealers is becoming limited. We need to consider two key arguments to tackle the gateway to drugs.
  First, we can reduce the move to the next, harder drug by using this opportunity to have a serious, mature and grown-up debate with youngsters about the harm done by those drugs, so that youngsters then fear them. We can have that debate because if we are prepared to be honest and upfront about the dangers associated with cannabis, youngsters are more likely to believe us when we talk about some of the harder drugs. Again, evidence from the Netherlands suggests that that gateway to harder drugs has just not materialised.
  Dr. Iddon: I refer the hon. Gentleman to an excellent research document, produced by DrugScope, entitled, "Cannabis and the Gateway Hypothesis", and I shall read this paragraph from that document:
  "Gateway theory is often misunderstood. It is not about cannabis leading to harder drugs, it is about common profiles, environment, experience and access."
  Mr. Oaten: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I met representatives of DrugScope on Monday, and they made that very point to me.
  Having supported the thrust of the Government's proposals, I want to probe them a little more—I accept that the Minister may not be able to respond formally, but I would appreciate a response in writing—about

  349
  why they have decided to link reclassification with changes to the power of arrest and sentences. At no point did the Select Committee on Home Affairs suggest that the proposals should be linked with new powers of arrest or increased sentences. In fact, that was not mentioned in the Government's drug strategy and, as far as I am aware, the Government have consulted no one about that, other than the police. That is an error because there are knock-on consequences.
  Liberal Democrat Members are concerned that those changes will send a very confused, mixed message and that that will lead to the police taking all sorts of different approaches. Frankly, if there is a gain as police time is shifted to dealing with harder drugs, I am concerned that we will lose some of that gain by maintaining such powers of arrest and, indeed, increasing them. I do not understand why the existing powers, under which people who are found unlawfully in possession of a class C drug can be warned, cautioned or issued with a summons to appear in court to face charges of unlawful possession, are inadequate. The police can confiscate the substance. On conviction, those individuals face a maximum penalty of two years in prison for possession, or five years in prison for supply. Surely the existing power to handle class C drugs use is sufficient. Why have the Government chosen to increase those powers?.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he not recognise that what happened in the Lambeth experiment was that the Metropolitan police discovered young people who were openly smoking joints in the faces of the police officers and saying, "We are breaking the law, and you can't do anything about it. Ho, ho"? That is why the police asked for the power of arrest. Does that not demonstrate the kind of problem with which we are dealing in making something quasi-illegal or quasi-legal?
  Mr. Oaten: I do not think that we differ on this issue. It seems absolutely clear that, under existing class C powers, if people are smoking cannabis and walk into a post office and blow smoke into a policeman's face, the police could do as I just said: warn, caution, issue and, ultimately, take the case to court. So those powers are in place already, and I do not understand why the Government want to increase them in this way.
  The Minister said in her opening remarks that there will be an amendment to change the power of arrest, so that there will be no power of arrest for some drugs currently in class C, but there will be a power of arrest for cannabis, which is now going into class C. I do not understand the logic of having different forms of arrest for the same class. Surely the point of having such a class is to say that certain drugs are similar, but the Government suddenly want to attach a different form of arrest to one of those drugs. The Government need to make up their mind: is cannabis now B2, or are they moving those other drugs into a class D? There is no logic at all in having a different form of arrest in the same classification.
  Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention just as he is about to conclude his speech. Since the Liberal Democrats often represent their sister party—the Alliance party in Northern
  350
  Ireland—will he clarify, for my own purposes, whether the views that he has expressed today in support of the legislation to reclassify cannabis are also shared by that sister party in relation to Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Oaten: The honest answer is that I have not got a clue and I have not spoken to the Alliance party.
  In conclusion, we will support the Government on this issue, but we would welcome their thinking again about some of the confusing messages on arrest that they are sending out because this positive step forward has been slightly spoilt by those messages which will make progress difficult in the future. If it turns out that some of the new powers cause confusion, I hope that the Government will think again about those issues, perhaps as part of a wider review of how the changes are operating in two years.
  2.58 pm
  Kate Hoey: I shall be very brief because I should like some of my colleagues from Scotland to be called to speak.
  It is quite disgraceful to put through something as important as this measure in one and a half hours. I do not blame the three Front-Bench spokesmen—the Minister gave way—but it is wrong to allow only half an hour for Back-Bench speeches. I am disappointed that the Home Secretary is not here. A very important issue is being debated, and it would have been nice if he had been here today.
  I have heard so much rubbish talked today about the Lambeth experiment that it would take me a very long time to deal with it all. I will not refer to that experiment other than to say that it was not a success. It was one of those schemes that was doomed to success from the beginning because the Home Office had decided that it would be successful whatever the outcome. As for the statistics, you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, what we can all say about statistics.
  We keep hearing about the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the implication is that it is made up of most eminent and respectable people—I do not disagree—and the font of all wisdom. It is important to point out, however, that it is part of the Home Office, it is not a scientific advisory panel, and many of its members have no scientific qualifications. It has about 32 members, of whom a substantial number—about 13—are committed to liberalisation of the drugs policy. It has no members from any organisations that have publicly said that they are not in favour of liberalisation. I therefore treat with a little bit of caution the assumption that everything that it says is right. [Interruption.] It has been suggested to me that I treat that assumption with a big bit of caution.
  Reclassification is sending out a mixed message. It sends out a signal to our young people—whatever the Minister says, and whatever she wishes—that taking cannabis is not harmful and that it is legal. We have seen already, since the Home Secretary's statement in the House, that increasing numbers of young people are taking cannabis, and when confronted by teachers, parents or police, they simply say, "But it's legal." The message that that gives to young people—especially to those whose parents are keen to urge their children not to be involved with drugs that can be harmful—is to

  351
  challenge their parents on the grounds that the House of Commons and the Government say that it is okay. We are sending out a very wrong message, which is also being sent out to the hard criminals and the real drug dealers. Whatever we say about people growing cannabis in their homes not having any dealings with such people, many people in my constituency would not even have the capacity to grow it in their own homes, so the only way that they will get it is through the criminal drug dealer.
  Mr. David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this order will result in a much greater use of cannabis, which will consequently impose much greater strains on the national health service, and will also lead to people combining cannabis with alcohol and a significant increase in the number of road traffic accidents Statistics and information are available that indicate that that is already happening.
  Kate Hoey: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not have time to discuss the health risks, but anyone who has listened to those who treat youngsters at the sharp end in the health service cannot fail to see that this order sends out a message that will lead, perhaps not immediately but in the long term, to more people taking cannabis and to a huge strain on our national health service. The fact that it is being reclassified, which effectively means that people think that it is legal, means that the peer pressure among young people will be much stronger. At the moment, at least young people can say, "This is not legal, " if drugs are pushed at them—at least they have that kind of excuse if they do not want to take the drug but are not feeling particularly confident. Again, this order sends out the wrong message on that.
  I have mentioned the link with the criminal element, which I saw in my constituency. What I want to ask the Minister is: why are we doing this now What is the point of it We need to look properly at the issue of classification. I agree strongly with some of the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)—we need to examine this issue carefully and on the basis of proper argument. We should not go ahead with introducing this measure glibly. I genuinely cannot understand why we are going down this line. Reclassification will move us further down the route of considering drug abuse as normal, and I am not prepared to support that today.
  3.4 pm
  Mr. Michael Mates: The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, has been conducting a report into the illegal drugs trade and drug culture in Northern Ireland. We published an interim report, because we knew that this order was coming before the House, to try to help the House in its deliberations. I want to make one or two brief points.
  First, drug use in Northern Ireland is different from in the rest of the United Kingdom. Cannabis is by far the most widely used illegal drug, and while street prices for most drugs are higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain, cannabis prices are comparable, which suggests that there is a reasonably regular supply to meet the level of demand. As other Members have mentioned,
  352
  considerable confusion exists about the current status of cannabis, and since the Government's announcement to reclassify, individuals have begun to smoke cannabis openly on the streets and in the clubs and pubs.
  The Committee did not look at the health risks, but we expressed concern, as has been expressed by others, about the message that the Government are sending, both to drug traffickers and to international enforcement agencies, about the importance now being accorded to cannabis as an illegal substance. It is widely recognised that Northern Ireland has a serious problem with the growth of serious and organised crime, which has arisen as a legacy of the conflict. The criminal gangs, many of whom are linked to the paramilitary organisations, will exploit any opportunity for illegal profit. Demand for illegal drugs, particularly among the young, and particularly in relation to cannabis and ecstasy, has been growing over the last decade, and if criminals identify an increase in demand they will seek to meet it. The additional profits that they make will go to fund other criminal enterprises, such as fostering a market for heroin and cocaine, which at the moment barely exists in Northern Ireland, or possibly to fund further terrorist activity.
  While we welcome the fact that cannabis remains a priority for the enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland, the traders and the traffickers must still be caught before they can be punished. In making those points, the Committee in no way seeks to undermine what the Government are trying to do in focusing on class A drugs. What we are saying is that Northern Ireland is slightly different, and does not yet have a major class A drug problem, and we want to keep it that way. Northern Ireland does have a problem with serious criminality, however, and those criminals will exploit any opportunity that is given to them, such as the confusion that arises over the status of cannabis, for their profit and to the detriment of society there.
  I ask the Minister to reflect on those concerns. We would be grateful for a further assurance that action is being taken to ensure that the message that cannabis is still illegal, and for good reasons, remains clear, and that the greater significance of the cannabis trade within Northern Ireland is recognised by the enforcement authorities throughout the UK and abroad. There is much more that I could say, but time is short and I know that others want to contribute.
  Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything that you could do at this late stage to extend this debate? It is unsatisfactory that we have had only one and a half hours to debate this important UK-wide issue. The debate on the Mersey Tunnels Bill is coming up next, which could continue until any hour. Surely it is within our scope and within the responsibility of the House to debate this issue properly.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am afraid that that is not a matter that is in the power of the Chair. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern.
  3.8 pm
  Mr. Chris Bryant: I concur wholly with what has just been said by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). To have only one and a half

  353
  hours, and only half an hour for Back-Bench speeches, on an issue that affects every constituency in the land, and which is being debated by every young person in the land, seems to me to be folly.
  If we were devising a drug and alcohol strategy for the United Kingdom from scratch, knowing what we know today about the health effects of alcohol and tobacco compared with those of cannabis, I am almost certain that we would not be starting from where we are. As we know, alcohol and tobacco are far more addictive and injurious to people's health. Every year, 120, 000 people are killed because they smoke tobacco, and half of all people who continue to smoke for most of their lives die of the habit and lose 16 years of their life. The medical legacy of alcohol is every bit as pernicious: hepatitis, cirrhosis, gastritis, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, pancreatitis, hypertension, cardiomyopathy, mouth, oesophagal and liver cancer, foetal alcohol syndrome, blackouts, fits and neuropathy are all part of the problem—as I am sure that many Members know—to say little of the social damage in terms of domestic violence, marital breakdown, absenteeism and aggression.
  By contrast, cannabis is a saint, not a sinner. However, that does not mean that cannabis is harm free, because real health concerns exist. The tar yield from marihuana is precisely the same as that from tobacco, so smoking cannabis can pose a long-term health hazard. Indeed, a report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians published only a few years ago said:
  "the smoke from a cannabis joint contains most of the same constituents as tobacco smoke, including the carcinogens. It is not surprising, therefore, that regular cannabis smokers develop chronic bronchitis and squamous metaplasia of the respiratory tract and it is likely that in time, it will become apparent that they are at increased risk of cancer"—
  compared with the risks from tobacco.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) said, there is a further problem owing to the effect of intoxication, especially for people who drive. It is difficult to assess the precise problem, although a recent assessment showed that 10 per cent. of a sample of 284 drivers who had been killed by fatal accidents had cannabis in their blood stream. Of that proportion, 80 per cent. had not used alcohol, so it is quite probable, although not certain, that their intoxication was solely the result of cannabis use. Unfortunately, there is no roadside test to measure cannabis intoxication, which is why Professor Gold's "Comprehensive Handbook of Alcohol and Drug Addiction" says:
  "The role of marihuana in road traffic accidents and other types of accident is vastly underestimated."
  I think that that is pretty much the accepted view. A report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee accepted that cannabis could worsen the course of schizophrenia, although there is little real evidence that it may precipitate the disease.
  The honest truth is that the medical evidence thus far is entirely uncertain. We cannot know the full human pathology of cannabis, which is why the Government's reports for the Department of Health are vital and we look forward to reading what they say.
  There is some evidence that cannabinoids can be therapeutic, as has been mentioned, and Dr. Philip Robson's Department of Health report in 1998 made
  354
  that pretty clear. The Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that between I and 4 per cent. of the UK's 85, 000 multiple sclerosis patients are illegally using cannabis. Trials to date have been small and the results uncertain.
  Dr. Iddon: This point has not been mentioned in the debate, but has my hon. Friend noticed that the order will reclassify tetrahydrocannabinol from class A—believe it or not—to class C THC will be the principal constituent of the new medicines that will come out of the cannabis era.
  Mr. Bryant: I was about to talk about precisely that, and hope that I can pronounce the word as well as my hon. Friend.
  There is more evidence suggesting that cannabis and cannabinoids, most notably THC or delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol, can relieve pain and be used as an anti-emetic, which is why they can be especially useful for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Most controlled studies offer secure proof that marihuana and THC are effective appetite stimulants, which is important for people with cancer as well as those with AIDS. Indeed, cannabis appears to have no immunosuppressant effect on people with HIV, although the largest study, which involved 5, 000 people, took place in 1989 and the pathology of HIV/AIDS is now known rather better.
  Anecdotal evidence from several of my constituents supports the use of cannabis in the treatment of epilepsy, although it is ironic that cannabis was shown to have convulsant and anticonvulsant effects on animals, which were the subjects of the only substantial trials. It is suggested that cannabinoids can lower pressure in the eye, which would be useful when treating glaucoma. I represent the constituency with the highest level of glaucoma and blindness in Wales, so that is obviously a matter of interest. However, it seems that one would have to smoke 10 cannabis cigarettes a day to achieve the constant level of intraocular pressure that would be beneficial.
  As other hon. Members have suggested, there are those who believe that cannabis is a gateway to other drugs. They believe that taking cannabis of itself leads ineluctably, medically and physically, to the taking of harder drugs such as cocaine, crack cocaine and heroin. Simply put, that is not logical. The link is not direct or causal, but there is a link. As Drugscope told the Home Affairs Committee:
  "Cannabis use puts individuals in social situations and supply transactions where they are more likely to experience people using, accepting and supplying more harmful drugs than others in the population."
  In other words, people buy cannabis from dealers and dealers also sell heroin—that is certainly true in the Rhondda.
  John Robertson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Bryant: I will not because I am conscious that I have little time.
  Some people suggest that the answer is to license cannabis and sell it at Boots. However, when similar policies have been tried or police have tacitly allowed coffee shops to exist in other countries, major dealers

  355
  have hung around outside the shops because they know that the most likely new clients are existing cannabis users.
  Moreover, there is a more direct link between cannabis and other drugs. Professor C. H. Aston's report for the Department of Health on the clinical and pharmacological aspects of cannabis in 1998 said:
  "with chronic use, especially of high doses, tolerance develops to some of the effects of cannabis (including the euphoric effect) and can lead to physical and physiological dependence, withdrawal effects on cessation of use and possible escalation to other more potent drugs of abuse."
  All that leads me to three central points. First, the Minister is right that we should proceed on the basis of sound medical advice as much as possible, rather than on simple prejudice or anecdote, but that means that we still need further hard empirical medical evidence and the Department of Health should work further on that. Secondly, it is only logical that a drug that produces significant medical problems, but ones that are minor compared with the effects of cocaine and heroin, should be treated differently in the law, which is why the order might be right. Thirdly, however, we should not encourage the use of cannabis. Cannabis is not okay and although it does not kill, it does matter.
  3.17 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I reiterate that it is a scandal that we have so little time to debate the order. I have barely 90 seconds in which to speak, so I shall reassert a point that I have made before. Unless and until we are prepared to move from reclassification to providing legal outlets, we will not break the link between the suppliers of hard drugs and the suppliers of soft drugs. We will continue to drive soft-drug users into the hands of hard-drug pushers, and we will not achieve the advantage of breaking the link, restoring respect for the law and enabling a health warning to be put on a legally available product and displayed in outlets in which the product is available.
  The Government have got the worst of all possible worlds. They will simultaneously encourage more people to use the drug because people will know that there is no effective punishment for its use, but it will remain illegal and thus be available only through illegal gangs—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can confirm to the House that the ruling that I gave a moment ago was in accordance with the Standing Orders.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 160.

  Division No. 344]

  [3:18 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Allan, Richard

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Allen, Graham

  Austin, John

  356

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dismore, Andrew

  Baird, Vera

  Doran, Frank

  Baker, Norman

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Banks, Tony

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Barrett, John

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Battle, John

  Efford, Clive

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Bell, Stuart

  Etherington, Bill

  Berry, Roger

  Farrelly, Paul

  Best, Harold

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, rh David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Burden, Richard

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Burnett, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burnham, Andy

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Burstow, Paul

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Cairns, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Challen, Colin

  Grogan, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chidgey, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Harvey, Nick

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Clelland, David

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heath, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coleman, Iain

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Heyes, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Holmes, Paul

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cotter, Brian

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hutton, rh John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  David, Wayne

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davis, rh Terry (B' ham Hodge H)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jamieson, David

  Denham, rh John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  357

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keetch, Paul

  Prescott, rh John

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Purnell, James

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Rendel, David

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Lamb, Norman

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rooney, Terry

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Lepper, David

  Salter, Martin

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sawford, Phil

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Love, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Short, rh Clare

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Singh, Marsha

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  McDonnell, John

  McFall, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McIsaac, Shona

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

  McKechin, Ann

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Soley, Clive

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spellar, rh John

  McNulty, Tony

  Squire, Rachel

  McWalter, Tony

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stevenson, George

  Mallaber, Judy

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stunell, Andrew

  Martlew, Eric

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Merron, Gillian

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Miliband, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Thurso, John

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Tipping, Paddy

  Moran, Margaret

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Morley, Elliot

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Mountford, Kali

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Truswell, Paul

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Olner, Bill

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Organ, Diana

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Ward, Claire

  Perham, Linda

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  358

  Watts, David

  Woolas, Phil

  White, Brian

  Worthington, Tony

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wishart, Pete

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gummer, rh John

  Amess, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Bacon, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Baldry, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  Barker, Gregory

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Howard, rh Micheal

  Bercow, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jack, rh Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Brady, Graham

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Brazier, Julian

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Breed, Colin

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burns, Simon

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burnside, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Burt, Alistair

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cash, William

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Lidington, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Clappison, James

  McGrady, Eddie

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Mates, Michael

  Curry, rh David

  Maude, rh Francis

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brain

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Mudie, George

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flight, Howard

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Flook, Adrian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, rh Eric

  Page, Richard

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Paice, James

  Francois, Mark

  Paterson, Owen

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Picking, Anne

  Garnier, Edward

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Redwood, rh John

  Goodman, Paul

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Grayling, Chris

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Greenway, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  359

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Trimble, rh David

  Ruffley, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Selous, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Walter, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sheridan, Jim

  Watkinson, Angela

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Whittingdale, John

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wiggin, Bill

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Steen, Anthony

  Swayne, Desmond

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. John Randall and

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Robert Syms

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on llth September, be approved.

  Mersey Tunnels Bill
  As amended, further considered.
  Mersey Tunnels Bill
    Schedule 1

      AMENDMENT OF THE 1980 ACT: LEVYING, REVISION AND APPLICATION OF TOLLS
      3.34 pm
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in schedule 1, leave out lines 35 to 37.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 16, in page 3, leave out lines 38 to 41 and insert—
      '(e) where necessary, to make compensatory payments and payments to provide appropriate noise insulation for residential properties at the entrance of the Kingsway tunnel.'.
      No. 3, in page 3, leave out lines 38 to 41.
      No. 4, in page 3, line 41, at end insert—
      `taking into account that monies spent on such policies should relate to the relative proportions of the origin of traffic using the tunnels.'.
      No. 5, in page 4, line 2, leave out 'paragraphs (d) and (e)' and insert 'paragraph (d)'.
      No. 6, in page 4, line 8, leave out '(a) to (c)' and insert `(a) and (c)'.
      No. 8, in page 4, line 11, at end insert
      `(c) unless paragraph (b) of that subsection has been wholly complied with to the extent that monies borrowed for the purposes of the construction and operation of the tunnels have been wholly repaid.'.
      No. 9, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'paragraphs (d) and (e)' and insert 'paragraph (d)'.
      No. 10, in page 4, line 16, after 'tunnels' insert—
      `interest groups, trade unions, the Liverpool and Wirral Chambers of Commerce, the North West TUC and local representatives of Merseyside and neighbouring local authorities'.
      No. 11, in page 4, line 24, leave out 'paragraphs (d) and (e)' and insert 'paragraph (d)'.
      No. 12, in page 4, line 33, leave out 'paragraphs (d) and (e)' and insert 'paragraph (d)'.
      No. 13, in page 4, line 33, at end insert
      '(d) it has sought confirmation by the Secretary of State for its plans, to which end it must submit copies of all such objections and representations and such information and particulars as the Secretary of State requires in approving the desires of the Authority as set out in paragraph 5(a)(i) and (ii).'.
      Mr. Chope: The essence of the amendment is to remove new section 91(3)(d) and (e) and therefore to remove the authorisation for the Merseyside passenger transport authority to make grants to
      "the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive in connection with the Executive's ferries services operating on the river Mersey"
      and to use tunnel income to make payments to
      "the Authority's general fund for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of policies relating to public transport in its local transport plan, or for other purposes."
      The Bill has been discussed extensively in the House, but the amendment encapsulates the main concern about it.

      361
      To remind hon. Members of the background, in August 2001, a consultation was conducted by Merseytravel that, although it has been criticised, produced some interesting responses. One question asked whether surplus toll income should be used to cross-subsidise and improve local public transport services, thus benefiting the wider Merseyside community. Of the 312 respondents, 23 per cent. were in favour, 208—or 67 per cent.—were against, and 10 per cent. were undecided. The proposals in the amendment are therefore in line with the wishes of respondents, the majority of whom do not believe that people who use the Mersey tunnels should have to pay extra charges to fund wider travel interests beyond the tunnels. It is a simple issue of cross-subsidy.
      Another question asked whether there should be a requirement to reduce tolls when the tunnel debt is paid off or whether that should be removed. The requirement is an inherent part of the tunnels' history, as it was believed that the time would come when the tunnels would be paid for, and those who used them would no longer have to pay for any costs other than running costs. In response to the question in the consultation, 71 per cent. said that the requirement should not be removed and only 17 per cent. said that it should. That is another clear expression of will by people who were consulted on that important issue. If the part of the schedule that we are debating had not been included in the Bill in the first place, its passage through the House would have been a lot smoother, as it goes to the heart of people's concerns.
      Mr. Frank Field: That view is widely shared not just in the House but on Merseyside as a whole. If the transport authority had not included the power to tax in the measure, it would have had its Bill many moons ago.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that confirmation, and I know that he is trying to bring sanity to the issue. When dealing with private legislation, the House works best when there is a spirit of compromise. I do not understand why, disappointingly, we have not seen any of that spirit from the Bill's promoter. One of the weapons available to hon. Members involves trying to delay Bills. There is no point trying to delay Bills just for the sake of it—the purpose is to try to provide extra time for consideration so that people can respond to arguments and concerns. It is sad that, despite the time that has been given to the Bill's promoter to reflect on the wisdom or otherwise of this part of the Bill, it has declined to meet concerns expressed not just in the House but by the wider electorate in Merseyside and the Wirral.
      I am not going to say much more about the matter, because most of the points have already been made and will be no better for repetition. That is not to suggest that I and other Conservative Members do not feel strongly about it. We record our surprise that throughout the Bill's passage the Government, instead of abiding by the conventions that private legislation should be dealt with as unwhipped business and that hon. Members should be able to decide such issues on their merits, used their majority to force the measures through. That is most regrettable, because it is
      362
      unnecessary, unhelpful and does not benefit the people of Merseyside. I hope that today we will have the chance, on a free vote, to determine the real will of the House so that it can take a view on the merits or otherwise of using toll income to cross-subsidise other transport projects.
      Mr. Ben Chapman: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 19, which are tabled in my name and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), and which deal with the various purposes for which the tolls may be applied. I contend that the Bill provides Merseytravel with too great a power when it comes to spending tunnel tolls and that the powers that it already possesses regarding the use of tunnel tolls are poorly applied.
      I shall deal first with amendment No. 19. The Bill provides Merseytravel with the power to use tunnel toll receipts for projects other than the tunnels—the principle of cross-subsidy to which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred. In one sense it already does that in relation to the Mersey ferries. The amendment, although essentially probing, would strike from the Bill the provision that allows revenue from tunnel tolls to be redirected to fund the ferries. That is not intended to harm or question the ferry service, which is famous across the globe as a loved and lauded part of Liverpool's image and heritage. I am sure that the ferries will be a key component of the capital of culture status that Liverpool has acquired.
      Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend may recall that a previous Member for Wirral, West, who is now in the other place—Lord Hunt—was involved in the Bill through which the forerunner of Merseytravel tried to abolish the subsidy of the ferries. It had to give up in the end, having failed to win the measure. When the Bill leaves this House today, it goes to the other Chamber, where presumably Lord Hunt will be waiting for it.
      Mr. Chapman: I was not aware of that, but I can see why he failed, given the emotional attachment of the people of Merseyside to the ferries.
      Everything has its place and its purpose, and Merseytravel's is to cater for the public transport needs of the people of Merseyside. It is not entirely clear where the ferries fit into that. Most people would acknowledge that they are not the most efficient form of commuter transport—indeed, they are primarily geared towards round trips and tourism. A quick glance at the website confirms that they are first and foremost a touristvehicle—and, of course, a successful one. The NorthWest tourist board tells us that they are the second most visited paid admission attraction in the north-west, and they were recently accredited by the north-west visitor attraction quality service.
      3.45 pm
      Merseytravel's function, however, is to
      "co-ordinate public transport through partnership initiatives, with the aim of delivering a fully integrated and environmentally friendly public transport network".

      363
      The Mersey tunnels, which are primarily for private vehicles and subsidise a commuter service, are an anomaly. Yet the anomaly pales when one considers that Merseytravel operates a tourist attraction with public funds as part of its stated aim of co-ordinating a public transport network. That is at least questionable.
      Only one third of ferry passengers are commuters and instead of making a profit, the ferries cost £2.1 million a year, of which £700,000 is made up from tunnel tolls. The nature of investment in the ferries shows that they are a tourist attraction. For example, there has been investment in Seacombe to incorporate an international astronomy and space centre. There is also to be an expanded leisure and corporate entertainment programme in a new terminal building at Pier Head.
      The logic of Merseyside passenger transport authority's avowed motives for the Bill is that tunnel users should pay more money now to prevent people in the outlying areas of Merseyside from having to support the tunnels, which, by and large, they do not use. I reject that logic because the Mersey tunnels are the principal commercial artery of our conurbation and they therefore have an impact on the whole of Merseyside and beyond, in Lancashire, Cheshire and north Wales. The tunnels do not simply serve the people who live immediately at either end. Even if the logic held true and tunnel users should pay more money now to prevent people in outlying areas from having to support the tunnels, why does the same not apply to tunnel users being called upon to subsidise the ferries
      The ferries are a long-standing and endearing symbol of Liverpool. Would not it be more fitting if they were funded from the precept At least in that way, everybody would pay equally rather than some people being unfairly taxed for the purpose. However, Merseytravel
      "works to promote the interests of Merseyside's travelling public while providing value for money for its local tax payers".
      In the case of the ferries, neither stipulation is fulfilled. Imposing on people who use the tunnels to subsidise the travel of the ever-diminishing number of commuters who use the ferries is hardly in the interests of the wider "travelling public". An operation that loses £2.1 million a year cannot be classed as "value for money".
      The charter that obliges Merseytravel to operate the ferries offers no get-out. It might say that it has no choice but to bear the loss with which the ferries are saddled. However, there should be other ways and the amendment is designed simply to pose some questions. For example, could the Mersey Partnership play a wider role; Could the North-West regional assembly or the regional development agency have such a role? Is there a role for the private sector
      Amendment No. 4 proposes greater proportionality of the cost and benefit burden for tunnel users. According to Merseytravel, 65 per cent. of tunnel users come from the Wirral area, 16 per cent. from Liverpool, 10 per cent. from Cheshire and north Wales, 7 per cent. from Sefton and 2 per cent. from Knowsley. Those who support the Bill have long argued that people who by and large do not use the tunnels should not have to fund them through their council tax, as happened in the late 1980s. I believe that that is a false contention. If the
      364
      argument were accepted, I hope that the Bill's proponents would see fit to ensure that those who pay the most in tunnel tolls reap the funding benefits from the receipts. Amendment No. 4 would therefore create such a quid pro quo.
      Merseytravel's spokesman at the Opposed Private Bill Committee suggested that the prospective Mersey tram scheme was an example of a project towards which MPTA might wish to direct toll revenues. It is a top priority for the authority. However, regardless of the tram project's merits, I do not agree with taxing and exploiting tunnel users to build that or any other project from which many of them will not directly benefit. They are ordinary people who work in hospitals and factories. They go to visit friends and relatives, and devote their energies and investment to Liverpool and the wider Merseyside sub-region, yet they are being taxed to pay for a facility from which they will not benefit.
      The Mersey has no viable road crossings within transferable distance, so to speak, and there is not adequate public transport to absorb the massive numbers of people who could be forced to abandon using their private vehicles to get to work if the tunnel tolls increase. Merseytravel has not shown how it would invest in providing viable alternatives for those displaced tunnel-users, the majority of whom, coincidentally, hail from the Wirral peninsula.
      There must surely be other sources of funding available. Manchester managed to get its tram system without taxing a particular portion of its populace; nor does it have the benefits, in funding terms, of being an objective 1 area. The Wirral gains little or nothing from the allocation of excess tunnel tolls, yet it will bear the bulk of the burden of cost. I can see no justification for that imposition, but I stress that it is the principles of the Bill, and the cost to the whole of Merseyside, that worries me most. This issue does not affect one side of the Mersey more than the other; it is a unitary problem.
      Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 propose to restrict spending on other projects until such time as the debt has been paid off. If tunnel tolls are regularly to be increased, at least let it be done in the name of financial propriety. The tolls have been a millstone round the neck of the people of Merseyside since the first half of the last century, and the long and short of it is that the tunnels cost £44 million to build, have collected £500 million from users, yet have debts of £100 million. If it were not for the way in which the tunnels have been managed, and for the money that has been siphoned off, they would now be debt-free and part of the normal road system.
      If Merseytravel's current private Bill becomes law, it will be the 13th private Act to deal with the tunnels. Those Acts have served various purposes, including authorising the construction of the tunnels. Many of them also contain sections that have had the effect of postponing the time at which the tolls could be reduced. Under this Bill, that perpetually distant promise would be erased altogether.
      Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman expand on the interrelationship between what he has just said and the fact that there is to be a public inquiry later this year into raising the tunnel tolls with effect from 1 April 2004
      Mr. Chapman: It is indeed curious that the Merseyside passenger transport authority is applying for an increase under the old regime at the same time as it is applying for automatic increases through the Bill. Merseytravel might have good cause to seek increases under the present system, for purposes for which it claims at the time, and in the past, it has always secured such increases, albeit after a public inquiry. I have no problem with tunnel toll increases that are justified and rationalised. I do have a problem with increases that are automatic and unjustified, except for the fact that the price of a loaf of bread has gone up. On that ground and others, I believe that this is a bad Bill.
      Whichever way we view it, the debt is a dreadful burden, and the traditional tactics of prevarication and procrastination must stop. Acknowledging the permanence of the debt's presence is not the answer. Each administration sought to pass the buck to the next, and delayed the fabled time of completion to another distant day. It is my hope that amendments Nos. 6 and 8 might focus minds better and that Merseytravel might even work to pay off the debt faster than is currently required. I suggest that a more formalised relationship between the raising of tolls and the repayment of debt is needed.
      Stephen Hesford: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the sponsor of the Bill has sat on the Liberal Democrat Bench and on our Bench, and has now disappeared from the Chamber? My hon. Friend's important points are not being listened to and, I assume, will not be answered.
      Mr. Chapman: I have been remiss; I had not noticed what my hon. Friend tells me. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who is absent from the Chamber, will read the record of the debate assiduously.
      Mr. Frank Field: It is not so much a question of reading it; we want answers today to take back to our constituents.
      Mr. Chapman: Indeed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby will reappear shortly to take part in the debate.
      There needs to be a more formal relationship between the raising of tolls and the repayment of debt. Following the repayment, should the consultation that the Bill obliges it to stage agree to MPTA using the tolls for other projects, it would then have a healthy pot to work from.
      Stephen Hesford: It may be that my hon. Friend knows something that we do not. Are the Bill's promoters conceding these points?
      Mr. Chapman: It may be that the quality of my argument obliged my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby to leave the Chamber in despair, but I have my doubts about that.
      One would think that if one did what I was proposing, it would be big enough to sate even Merseytravel's burgeoning appetite, and that some thought could be given to reducing tunnel tolls and acting in the best
      366
      interests of tunnel users. It might also mean that the five authorities received the lost money, which would be of benefit to council tax payers all over Merseyside. I will, of course, not hold my breath.
      Mr. Frank Field: I rise to speak to amendment No. 16, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford). I welcome back to our proceedings and to our Benches my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) who represents the promoter of the Bill. I am sure that she will bear down with her normal forcefulness upon the probing amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) so that we can perhaps understand the mind of the Bill's promoter better than we have hitherto.
      The amendment would ensure that the residents in the area surrounding the newer of the two tunnels in Merseyside—the residents of Wallasey—were able to claim to have the cost of insulating their homes met by tunnel users. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West and I tabled the amendment so there could be no misunderstanding locally over that issue.
      Some Labour Members may have a wider brief in terms of their disputes with Merseytravel, but mine is narrowly drawn. There are many aspects of Merseytravel's activities of which I approve, none more so than its efforts to provide a more adequate bus service for my constituents while running a system whereby they cannot control those people to whom they give licences. That is the equivalent of the NHS buying treatments from the private sector, but the private sector saying, "We will decide what operations we do on the patients you send us."
      We have the ludicrous state of affairs in which Merseytravel has to pay taxpayers' money to private suppliers of bus transportation but cannot dictate how that money is used in the best interests of our constituents.
      On all those fronts, I have no dispute with Merseytravel, but I do have a central dispute with the Bill, which I want to put on record. The Bill is a taxing measure, so I wish to underscore the points raised earlier by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) who, for once, did not make the most of the evidence that he put before the House.
      4 pm
      Usually, when voters are asked in surveys whether they would like someone else to pay tax increases so that they can benefit, most of them say, "Yippee, that is a rather good idea". That used to be the attitude of the Labour movement towards increases in income tax when most of our supporters did not pay it. We were rather in favour of increasing income tax in those days. When the tax threshold fell and practically all voters paid direct taxation, sadly, after a rather long spell, we had to learn the lesson that our voters, like everyone else, do not like tax increases. The consultation of people in Merseyside was amazing and it says something about the generosity of character of fellow voters on the other side of the river that, when they could have taxed Wirral residents to their own benefit, they thought that

      367
      it was not a good idea. That also tells us something about the measure before us.
      I may be corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby when she replies to the probing amendments, but I believe that we should have some list to demonstrate the way in which the Bill's promoter has tried to meet the reasonableness of many, if not all, of the amendments. As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, it is a custom of the House—though sometimes broken—that the promoters of private Bills try to engage with those who are worried about certain aspects and, where possible, do a trade-off with them. How does the Bill differ at this stage of its proceedings from when it was introduced? I suggest that the promoter of this Bill has not conceded a dot or comma to the alternative views put forward
      Stephen Hesford: Does my right hon. Friend recall from previous debates that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), whom I see in his place, sat on the Committee considering the Bill? Not only has the promoter failed to engage with those who have an interest in the issues, I recall that it did not engage very satisfactorily with the Committee. My right hon. Friend made a similar complaint on a previous occasion.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if hon. Members dealt with the particular group of amendments rather than previous history.
      Mr. Field: The message goes out that if we have another private Bill from this source, it would be suitable for some Members of Parliament to object so that they do not have to withdraw at a later stage. The House must be able to give proper consideration to a measure of this sort.
      I end where I began. I support much in the Bill, but it is a taxing measure. I am puzzled that the Government have allowed it to go forth without trying to have it amended. I am puzzled that the Government are prepared to use not only the payroll vote to whip the Bill through, but the Standing Orders of the House to allow us to debate it to any hour. Given the danger of a Labour Government being seen as a tax-raising body, the only reason that I can see why the Government are allowing the Bill to go ahead is that they do not understand what is in it. If they did, I suspect that they would have objected to the same provisions to which we object.
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Bill is whipped through by the Government—although they say that that is not what is happening—it will be the Government who will bear the blame for the cross-financing of services on Merseyside, and not the Merseyside passenger transport authority?
      Mr. Field: Some of us are doing our best to ensure that individual hon. Members are not to blame when our constituents are taxed in the manner proposed. If I represented Crosby—I have no wish to do so, as I love representing my constituency— I might have been tempted to introduce a Bill to tax people in Birkenhead
      368
      to the benefit of voters in Crosby. However, even if I did that, in some muddled moment, the Bill would still not be fair or sustainable.
      The Government will get this measure for Merseytravel today, but the Bill will then travel to another place. It has aroused such opposition from some local Members that the Government have had to invoke the new procedure that allows a Bill to be carried over to a new Session of Parliament. It is clear that this Bill will begin to break records, in that it will have to be carried over to a third Session of Parliament. We will not be able to stop the Bill today, but the Government and Merseytravel may run into a lot more trouble in the other place.
      I hope that that is the case. I shall be working with those forces in the other place to make sure that the Bill does not become law.
      Bob Spink: I rise to support amendments Nos. 19 and 16.
      Daily users of the Mersey tunnel now pay £500 a year more than most other motorists in Britain. The tunnel was meant to be free: that provision was in the original Bill. Most users want it to be free, and they expect the House to honour the original intention. That would be consistent and fair, and that is why I oppose this Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) explained amendment No. 19 extremely well, so I shall not repeat his arguments. However, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) raised a very important matter in relation to amendment No. 16. The amendment would remove the provision in schedule 1 allowing payment to be used for
      "the Authority's general fund for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of policies relating to public transport in its local transport plan, or for other purposes."
      That is an extremely wide provision. Normally, general taxation would be used for that purpose. That is what happens in all other areas of the country. The Bill represents a further tax measure imposed by the Government. We have had 60 tax rises since 1997, and this would make the total 61—or is it 63 now? I lose count. Moreover, the tax would be a stealth tax, according to any definition. The proposal would amount to an odious tax, and should be resisted—not least because the tax-raising power cannot be removed once granted. It does not have to be reaffirmed by the authority of this House, which is what normally happens with tax-raising powers.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman giving a commitment on behalf of the new leader of the Conservative party that tunnel tolls will be abolished under a Conservative Government?
      Bob Spink: I am delighted to be reminded that there is a vote on that matter this afternoon. I have not voted yet, and must not forget to do so. I am not authorised to give any such commitment.
      Amendment No. 16 may be one reason why this private Bill has suddenly become, in almost all respects, a Government Bill. The tax proposed is yet another Government tax, as the right hon. Member for

      369
      Birkenhead noted. The amendment would replace lines 38 to 41 in schedule 1 and insert a provision allowing the payments to be used to provide
      "appropriate noise insulation for residential properties at the entrance to the Kingsway tunnel."
      If there is one aspect of this whole sorry Bill on which we can all be united, it is the need to provide decent noise insulation for local residents. In Committee we began to get round to defining the area affected, its distance from the tunnel, who would benefit from the work and who would not. Unfortunately there was a stitch-up, and we could not consider those important matters in detail. I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, however, and hope that if the Bill is passed—although I do not want it to be—his amendment will be incorporated.
      I am sure that the Mersey Tunnels Users Association would also agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It says:
      "We believe that the Tunnels are making a profit and there is no need for any Toll increases."
      It states cogently:
      "Large numbers of people use the Mersey Tunnels to get to work, and lots of small businesses need to use it several times a day. The tolls are a barrier discouraging movement between the Wirral and the rest of Merseyside."
      That sums it up well.
      I hope that the House will support amendments Nos. 19 and 16.
      Mr. Miller: Amendment No. 3 was tabled by me and also by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). It is an unusual alliance: I think we have travelled together but once—on a train but not, as I recall, through a tunnel.
      The purpose of the amendment, and of related amendments, is to enable us to explore an issue that I raised in Committee. It relates to the many users who live outside the catchment area of the shareholders. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), a significant number of them come from my constituency, from Chester, from north Wales and from further afield.
      I understand the logic of the position adopted by the passenger transport authority in its survey—a survey that may be accurate in so far as it has canvassed the opinions of people in the catchment area. Where it falls down, however—I make this point to the Minister in
      particular—is in its failure to address obligations in respect of best-value legislation. It is clear from best-value legislation introduced by the Government in recent years that, when examining matters relating to public services, any public authority must consider the impact on all users of those services, and also consult users' representatives. In my opinion, if the passenger transport authority does not accept that obligation in future, within the framework of the Bill, it will be acting ultra vires in respect of the best-value legislation. That will provide an opportunity for the Mersey Tunnels Users Association, for instance, to seek judicial review of the tunnel operators' actions. That puts an obligation on my hon. Friend the Minister because if that were really possible, as plenty of lawyers suggest, the Government would have to point out to the transport authority that it must consult users further afield and must find a proper mechanism for doing so.
      370
      4.15 pm
      It is no surprise that, as the hon. Member for Christchurch said, the survey showed that only a small percentage of people in the authority area did not accept that there should be cross-subsidisation. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) will recall the questions that Speaker's counsel posed to Mr. Owen in the Committee. In one exchange, counsel asked Mr. Owen:
      "would you agree that it is fair to characterise the Bill which your clients are promoting as being innovative?"
      Mr. Owen replied that cross-subsidies were provided for in other legislation, but the Speaker's counsel returned to the point, which was never challenged, that such a provision was a first for a private Bill. That raises some interesting challenges, so the Government should be wary; they need to give the transport authority careful advice.
      The essence of the best-value legislation was debated fiercely in the House, but all Members are firmly committed to the law, so I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to keep those obligations in mind.
      Although the conclusions of the consultation process show that my views are a reflection of only a minority of current public opinion in the five authorities that comprise the shareholding group, I am certain that I express the views of the vast majority of tunnel users, who believe that their opinion should be taken into account when determining future tolls.
      Bob Spink: Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with the term "No taxation without representation"?
      Mr. Miller: I have read debates on that subject held both in the UK and in Washington DC. The people of Ellesmere Port and Neston, whom I represent, make a substantial contribution to the economic wealth of the region in which we are privileged to live. They have a right to be consulted about these matters. I do not accept that they should have a veto, but their views should be heard and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). who represents the promoter of the Bill, to take that point on board.
      Mr. Wareing: I want to refer especially to amendments Nos. 10 and 13, which deal with consultation. Before I do so, however, I want to express my agreement with those hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who have commented that it is regrettable that the Government have taken sides on the Bill and have only come clean to the House at almost the last moment. Had they made their opinion clear at the outset, perhaps we could have had meetings with Ministers and some real consultation with central Government— which, in the light of what has happened since, would have been highly desirable.
      I shall address many of my remarks to the Government. I am glad the Minister is present. I do not think that at this stage, while the Bill is in the House, we can change anything, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take some of these points back to Ministers in the other place, and that when the Bill comes before the

      371
      House of Lords there will be some consideration of Government amendments dealing with some of my arguments.
      There is a real need to reinforce the rights of toll users to be consulted. I know that Merseytravel will say, rightly, that it consults widely already. I concede that it does, but the problem is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead mentioned, it takes little heed of what is said. It may well listen, but it takes no real notice. It has already made up its mind, although I think that it came under pressure during consideration of the first Bill. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was an earlier Bill, which was removed and replaced by this one, no doubt because Merseytravel felt that the people of Merseyside were opposed to the privatisation of the Mersey tunnels.
      My wish is that the Merseyside passenger transport authority should be required to justify its plans for the debt-free but tolled Mersey tunnels to the Secretary of State, and to listen and act on the ideas and views of consumers' representatives. In the year 2000, Merseytravel began a five-year programme of consultations, through its local transport plan, but those consultations have largely been ignored, particularly in respect of the Mersey tunnel. It is wise to remember whose money finances those consultations.
      In the consultation programme, four core objectives were identified. The first was to ensure that transport supports sustainable economic development and regeneration. The second was to moderate the upward trend in car use and secure a shift to more sustainable forms of transport, such as walking, cycling, and the use of public transport. The third was to secure the most efficient and effective use of the existing transport network. The fourth was to enhance the quality of life for those living and working in Merseyside.
      On the first point, economic development, I do not think it is at all conceivable that economic growth can be encouraged by a year-by-year increase in the tax that toll payers have to meet. On the second point, we all want an improvement in public transport—there is no difference between us on that—but I do not believe that that should be achieved by methods that would, in effect, impose a tax on toll users and local businesses.
      I do not think that the third objective to secure the most efficient and effective use of the existing transport Network—can be met by the sort of cross-financing that has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead: paying for the ferries out of the funds raised from toll users in order to benefit other services. In any event, I do not believe that to be necessary. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), I have great affection for the Mersey ferries. "Ferry across the Mersey" means to me something even more important than the song, and I do hope that with the year 2007, when we shall celebrate the 800th anniversary of the city of
      372
      Liverpool, and the following year, when the city becomes European city of culture, that investment will come—but not by these means—into the Mersey ferries. That is one of the most attractive means of bringing tourists to Merseyside, and not just to Liverpool.
      The final point was about enhancing the quality of life for those living and working in Merseyside. Many workers who live in the Wirral and work in Liverpool use the Mersey tunnels to get to their work. Many Liverpool people and many of my constituents travel to work at the Vauxhall plant "over the water", as we say on Merseyside, in the Wirral. Many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South commute to Liverpool each day. How can their quality of life be improved by these year-by-year increases in taxation Incidentally, there is a possibility that they will exceed the increases in the retail prices index.
      The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned taxation without representation—he will know all about that because it was a Tory Government, under Lord North, who were told that when the colonies parted from the British empire. I often think that that was one of the greatest disasters in history in view of American foreign policy today, but that is another matter.
      In its 2001 consultation, Merseytravel asked, first:
      "Should the Mersey Tunnel toll levels be index-linked with inflation"
      The majority of people said no, which shows that consultations are merely something to be gone though, in the view of Merseytravel. Secondly, Merseytravel asked:
      "Should the requirement to reduce tolls when the Tunnel's debt is paid off be removed"
      Seventy one per cent. said no. Furthermore, Wirral borough council was among that number—at least one of the local authorities was firmly against that proposal.
      Although I accept that no Parliament can bind its successor, confidence in Parliament is undermined when a retrograde move such as that being proposed is made. The treatment of the promise made way back in the early 1930s—that once the debt was covered there would be free runs through the Mersey tunnels—is to be regretted. Incidentally, the tunnel is very much part of the Merseyside economy. It is often said that we are all affected by it. We have a nasal accent and people ask why that it is so—some say it is because of the draught from the Mersey tunnel. The point is that no consideration was given to the case against maintaining tolls, presumably from now until kingdom come, irrespective of whether the tunnel is profitable or makes a loss.
      Thirdly, in its consultation Merseytravel asked:
      "Should surplus toll income be used to cross-subsidise and improve local public transport services, benefiting the wider Merseyside community?"
      Sixty seven per cent.—a majority again—said no.
      What is the point of spending public money on consultations if they are never acted upon or are never considered with any serious intent? If the MPTA is to have increased powers and freedoms to spend and charge, it must be made far more accountable. It can be argued, of course, that there is accountability because the MPTA is made up of councillors from all the boroughs on Merseyside. It is a very indirect form of

      373
      accountability, however. It is very difficult—also, it is rather unusual—for constituents to raise MPTA matters with councillors because only a few members of each of the councils are MPTA members. That is a rather indirect way to keep in contact with the people of Merseyside. The MPTA must be accountable not only to the local people of Merseyside, but ultimately to the Secretary of State.
      4.30 pm
      There was once an all-party river crossing group—perhaps the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) remembers it—and Eric Heffer, a Labour Member, was one of its leading lights. Many hon. Members believe that the day should come when no tolls are charged. I am opposed to road tolling. Indeed, it is an 18th century concept that goes back to the turnpike trusts, all of which were abolished by 1895, but here we are today debating tolls on a major traffic route that is important not only to Merseyside, but nationally. That is absurd.
      We should take our cue from what happens with other natural monopolies. In a 1998 Green Paper entitled "A Fair Deal for Consumers", the Government recommended—and, indeed, later established—a general duties diktat on the regulators, which was enshrined in the Utilities Act 2000. The regulators were to put the interests of consumers first—all consumers: industrial, business and domestic. None of that applies statutorily to the MPTA.
      When the Utilities Act 2000 was passed on to the statute book, it dealt with the activities of the gas and electricity industries. The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority was set up, and it can impose financial penalties on utility companies that are in breach of their statutory requirements. Nothing like that exists for the Mersey tunnels. The Secretary of State appointed three members of that authority. The Minister should consider what was done then and what could be done now to ensure real accountability and consultation by the MPTA.
      Under the Utilities Act 2000, the Competition Commission was given powers to act if it found that the gas and electricity authorities were not remedying adverse effects on consumers. Nothing like that exists for the Mersey tunnels.
      Mr. George Howarth: I am anxious not to extend this debate and my hon. Friend's speech any longer than is absolutely necessary, but does he accept—he admitted as much earlier—that by no stretch of the imagination are the tunnels a monopoly?
      Mr. Wareing: I certainly reject the idea that the tunnels are not a monopoly; of course they are a monopoly. In fact, they are probably one of the most perfect examples of a monopoly that can be found in the British economy. Indeed, there are signs of competition in the gas and electricity industries, particularly since privatisation, so there can be competition between such companies. There is no competition with the MPTA. If my hon. Friend thinks that there is, perhaps he swims regularly across the River Mersey. There is no other way in which heavy traffic can cross the River Mersey at that
      374
      point. Heavy traffic cannot cross unless its goes all the way round to Runcorn and Widnes to deliver goods or collect materials.
      Mr. Howarth: I hesitate to intervene again, and I promise to behave myself for the remainder of the debate, but to put the matter straight, as my hon. Friend rightly said some moments ago, there are ferries and, as he has now conceded, the Widnes to Runcorn bridge, which my constituents use far more regularly than the tunnels, as well as the rail system that runs under the river. I cannot see how, by any stretch of the imagination, that can constitute any kind of monopoly.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) responds, I should direct him back to the scope of these amendments. We are not discussing the Bill as a whole. There may be an opportunity to do that on Third Reading, and it would be a pity if the hon. Gentleman stole his own thunder at this stage. I urge him to look at the terms of the amendments in concluding his remarks.
      Mr. Wareing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      My argument, of course, is that there should be bodies to represent the consumers of Merseyside. In one of the amendments I refer to a number of organisations, such as trade unions and the Liverpool and Wirral chambers of commerce, which should be consulted. What I am suggesting is that some form of consumers council, such as that set up under the Utilities Act 2000 for other utility services, could be a model for consultation on the Mersey tunnels. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) says—I am glad that he is going to behave now, which he usually does, but one never knows with him— we are considering a monopoly rather than an oligopoly, which exists in certain other utility services.
      I do not expect that we will come to a conclusion on this matter tonight. When the Bill goes to the other place, however, the Government should consider seriously—I cannot understand how such a rational idea could be opposed— including the question of consultation and a consumers body in a new Government amendment. It seems to me that there is no reason why both sides of our argument about the Bill should not come together on that. I hope that the Minister's reply will at least come close to what I have been recommending in all good faith.
      Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I have listened carefully to the arguments presented by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members this afternoon, and I cannot agree with them about the consultation. I have worked with the promoter of the Bill for a number of years, and I am satisfied that it executes the requirements of its work with regard to consultation with a diligence for which I have a great regard. I therefore ask my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
      Mr. Ben Chapman: I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could elucidate that point by giving a couple of examples of how the Merseyside passenger transport authority has responded positively to points made in consultation.
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I can understand my hon. Friend's desire to extend this debate for as long as possible, but I believe that all the points that have been raised with respect to consultation have already been covered.
      Mr. Miller: Is my hon. Friend saying on behalf of the promoter of this Bill that people resident in Cheshire, outside the catchment zone of the five district councils that are shareholders, have no rights in consultation? Is she satisfied that that does not breach the statutory duty in respect of best value legislation
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I believe that the door to Merseytravel has always been open and that it is always responsive to reasoned arguments about improvements and the service available.
      Mr. Chope: I am afraid that the contribution made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has left rather a nasty taste in the mouth. Does she really think that when summing up a serious debate in which many hon. Members from both sides of the House have participated, all she need do is assert that all the points relating to consultation have been covered, so that is the end of the argument? She does a disservice to the House because we have put pertinent points cogently and coherently—but not extensively—to the promoter of the Bill. In so far as she speaks for the promoter, we assumed that she absented herself from the Chamber for some of debate to take instructions from it so that she could give us responses.
      Stephen Hesford: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the surprising reticence of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) mirrors exactly the instructions that she has probably been given by Merseytravel?Merseytravel does not want to say anything or engage in debate.
      Mr. Chope: I do not know what instructions the hon. Lady received, but I am aware that she has strong views of her own. If she had received instructions with which she disagreed, I am sure that she would have spoken out. She has fearlessly spoken out on several issues in the House—I agree with that. That is why her reticence when responding to points from the debate is so bizarre.
      Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend think that that is even more extraordinary given that the withdrawal of the opposing petitions in Committee meant that there was no light shone on the matter? There was no clarification, investigation or probing, so it was extraordinary of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) to make no comment on the well reasoned amendments.
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes the same point as me.
      I doubt very much whether the other place will allow the promoters of the Bill to get away with such an arrogant approach. The conventions that used to apply in this House still apply in the other place, so Members of the other place who respond to a debate actually deal with points that have been raised. Some Ministers and hon. Members in this House have not complied with
      376
      that convention for some time. If Members of the other place make points that are not answered, they expect to be able to debate them at greater length on another occasion.
      Mr. Frank Field: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the point is not only that the conventions that used to apply here will apply when the Bill reaches the other place? The Government find it more difficult to get legislation through the other place than this House.
      Mr. Chope: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point.
      The hon. Member for Crosby is not the only person who has refused to participate at length in the debate. The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), has not said anything. That might be because the Liberal Democrats have a different policy on congestion charging in different parts of the country. London Liberal Democrats say that they are in favour of it, but we are not sure of the Liberal Democrat position on Merseyside. We know that the Liberal Democrats are against tolls for the Skye bridge, but perhaps that it because the leader of the party represents the constituency in which the bridge is situated.
      Mr. George Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which he is trying to trivialise the debate only goes to prove the pointlessness of trying to engage him in debate?
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman will have to judge whether he thinks that I am trivialising the debate. I am trying to be serious, and I have expressed my concern that we have not heard the view of the Liberal Democrats, although that is not unusual.
      It is appalling that the Government have not joined in the debate. Why has the Minister not spoken? The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a good contribution in which he laid down a number of challenges to the Government. Why is the Minister not earning his keep by responding?
      4.45 pm
      The explanatory memorandum says that the Bill will
      "assist the Authority in implementing this Government's policies on integrated public transport facilities."
      Many of us think that that is a total misreading of the situation. Does the Minister believe that the Bill will assist the authority in implementing the Government's policies on integrated transport? Does it have the overt support of the Government, or are they neutral on it? The Government Whips have been determined to force the measure through. In such circumstances, it is even more despicable that the Minister is not prepared to stand up at the Dispatch Box and allow himself to be exposed to questions from his right hon. and hon. Friends who want to know where the Government stand.
      I do not usually get angry in the House, but the past few minutes of the debate have made me extremely cross. The suspicions of people in Merseyside, and on the Wirral peninsula in particular, who think that they are victims of a ghastly conspiracy to do them down and

      377
      to tax them heavily for their use of an essential route to work are well founded. The behaviour of the promoter and the Minister bears that out.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby made excellent pertinent points. I hope that he will table parliamentary questions to his ministerial colleague to get some answers. Alternatively, perhaps he will complain to his Whips that it is not conventional for a Minister not to respond to points raised by a Labour Member. No one can say that we are short of time. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) spoke extensively in earlier debates and there was no chance for others to join in before the motion for closure was moved. Ironically, the Government were able to hide behind the closure and not explain themselves. That is not possible today because the debate has only been going on for just over an hour. The Minister has every opportunity to explain for the first time the Government's opinion of the Bill and the amendments, but he has manifestly declined so to do. That is typical of the Government's arrogance. If they and the sponsor are not prepared to listen to their own Members, all we can do is hope that they will be forced to change their attitude in another place.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) for contributing to the debate. He brings a special expertise because of his experience of serving on the Committee that discussed the Bill before it was withdrawn. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) asked some important questions that have not been answered. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was right to say that I did not make the most of the strong arguments that should be deployed on how the Bill is a taxing measure, which it is: it is a stealth tax—a stealth congestion charge. It is clear that there is no intention to pay off the debt on the tunnels by using the proceeds of the tolls. The purpose is to try to raise extra charges to deter people from using the tunnels and to transfer money from tunnel users to other parts of Merseyside for various public sector projects. A number of hon. Members have referred to the fact, which is inherent to the debate, that the people of Merseyside will not get good value for money out of the tunnels.
      Dr. John Pugh rose—
      Hon. Members: Ah.
      Dr. Pugh: Well, in the interests of consistency I am required to draw something to the hon. Gentleman's attention. He said that the Bill's object is to deter people from using the tunnels, but the promoter hopes to have lots of money to spend on other causes. How can the Bill achieve both?
      Mr. Chope: If that is the sum of the hon. Gentleman's contribution, I am sorry that he did not make a speech. That is exactly what is set out in the explanatory memorandum, and a number of us think that it contains inherent inconsistencies, including the one to which I just referred.
      The Bill's promoter has provided no clarity about the objectives. It says that, on the one hand, it wants to have the power to increase tunnel charges by the rate of inflation
      378
      as a matter of convenience, and it wants to be able to pay off the debt. On the other, it says that the Bill will be extremely useful in assisting the authority in implementing the Government's policies on integrated public transport facilities. But it does not say how it will pay off the enormous overhanging debt that we know to be associated with the tunnels, and surely the first objective should be to use the tolls to meet the costs of the tunnels, rather than to cross-subsidise other public transport activity.
      This is a stealth tax, and it is part of the Government's congestion charging programme. The toll will be increased well beyond what is reasonable, and the tunnel users will not be able to avoid it. The cavalier way in which the Bill's promoter and sponsors have failed to respond to the debate is significant, and I hope that it will result in the sponsors losing the vote that I hope we will have on the amendment that I have tabled.
      Mr. Frank Field: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Government Whips are in place for a coming Division, so the Government's fingerprints are all over the Bill, a tax-raising measure?
      Mr. Chope: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and he does the House a service in pointing that out. There will be people on the Wirral, in his constituency of Birkenhead and elsewhere in Merseyside who find it quite enlightening to see how the Government operate.
      The Government are unwilling to come forward and openly justify the Bill, but they are determined to push it through the House against the wishes of many people on Merseyside, including those who were consulted about the measure and who overwhelmingly voted against it. I hope that the amendment will be carried. If it is not carried here, I hope that it will be carried in the other place.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 209

      Division No. 345]

      [4:53 pm]

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bacon, Richard

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Bercow, John

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fabricant, Michael

      Berry, Roger

      Fallon, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Flight, Howard

      Forth, rh Eric

      Brady, Graham

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Brazier, Julian

      Garnier, Edward

      Burns, Simon

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burt, Alistair

      Goodman, Paul

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gray James (N wilts)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Greenway, John

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Chope, Christopher

      Heald, Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howard, rh Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Iddon, Dr. Brain

      Conway, Derek

      IIIsley, Eric

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Curry, rh David

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Lansley, Andrew

      Ruffley, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Selous, Andrew

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Lidington, David

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      McDonnell, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Spring, Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Malins, Humfrey

      Syms, Robert

      Maples, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mercer, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Miller, Andrew

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Whittingdale, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wiggin, Bill

      Norman, Archie

      Willetts, David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Wilshire, David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Young, rh Sir George

      Paterson, Owen

      Pickles, Eric

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pickthall, Colin

      Mr. John Randall and

      Redwood, rh John

      Angela Watkinson

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Allan, Richard

      David, Wayne

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Davidson, Ian

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Baker, Norman

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Borrow, David

      Efford, Clive

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Breed, Colin

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Flint, Caroline

      Bryant, Chris

      Follett, Barbara

      Burnham, Andy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Cairns, David

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caplin, Ivor

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Casale, Roger

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Chidgey, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Green, Mathew (Ludlow)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hamilton, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Colman, Tony

      Hancock, Mike

      Cook, Rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hanson, David

      Cotter, Brain

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Cruddas, Jon

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Healey, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Heath, David

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Perham, Linda

      Hendrick, Mark

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Heppell, John

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Hermon, Lady

      Pound, Stephen

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Hodge, Margaret

      Prescott, rh John

      Holmes, Paul

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Purnell, James

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Rendel, David

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Rooney, Terry

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Hutton, rh John

      Salter, Martin

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Sanders, Adrian

      Jamieson, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jenkins, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Spellar, rh John

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Kidney, David

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Straw, rh Jack

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Lamb, Norman

      Stunell, Andrew

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      MacDougall, John

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      McFall, John

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      McNulty, Tony

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Ward, Claire

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Watts, David

      Merron, Gillian

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Moran, Margaret

      Willis, Phil

      Mountford, Kali

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Woolas, Phil

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Olner, Bill

      Öpik, Lembit

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Organ, Diana

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Vernon Coaker

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Stephen Hesford: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 6, line 27, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 42 on page 7.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this we may take amendment No. 34, in page 7, line 45, leave out
      'or Section 92 (Further revision of tolls)'.
      Stephen Hesford: Amendment No. 34 is consequential on amendment No. 33. Amendment No. 33 would remove existing section 92 of the County of Merseyside Act 1980, which the Bill re-enacts.
      We are trying to deal with overkill. The amendments would make the Bill honest. The measure is currently dishonest because it is a con perpetrated on the people of Merseyside, especially the people of the Wirral—my constituents, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and, in a wider sense, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).
      However, we are considering a wider Merseyside issue. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was right to remind us of the consultation exercise. It made me recall the Mersey tunnels' current financial position. I am not talking about fantasy finance; I shall read out Merseytravel's comments on the Mersey tunnels' finances in the consultation document, which has already been mentioned. Paragraph 2.3 states:
      "The Tunnels are currently breaking even financially, i.e. the toll income is sufficient to meet annual operating costs of about £12 million, debt (capital financing) charges of £13 million, and refurbishment (safety and renewal) costs of about £7 million. The debt charges stem from the use of borrowing to finance the cost of constructing the Wallasey Tunnel (£44 million), and subsequent operating losses incurred between 1968 and 1992 (£116 million). The current volume of debt outstanding is about £106 million, which is being repaid at the rate of about £4.5 million per annum together with interest charges of about £8.5 million."

      It is said that the Bill and the section that I am seeking to remove are before the House because those responsible for operating the Mersey tunnels need access to extra finance. The House has already debated at some length the reason for raising that extra money, not least in relation to the cross-subsidy for other purposes on the wider Merseyside transport front. Some of the extra money is said to be needed for refurbishment and safety work, but I am not entirely convinced by that argument. It is an easy argument to make, because it throws upon those who do not take it at face value the unpleasant suggestion that they are not interested in the safety of the tunnels. I reject that entirely. It would not be an honest or proper position for the promoter to take, and it may be that it does not do so.
      A group that has been formed in my constituency and elsewhere to look at the finances of the Mersey tunnels has carried out some research. I am grateful to the group—and in particular to Mr. McGoldrick—for furnishing me and my hon. Friends with certain information. On the question of safety, the group found that the Eurotest 2002 report rated the Wallasey tunnel the safest of those tested in Britain, and that the Birkenhead tunnel was the third safest. That could put to bed the idea that there needs to be access to extra funds, certainly for that purpose.
      Mr. George Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give the House some more information about the group that has provided him with that research? Specifically, will he tell us what its members' qualifications for making these assertions are?
      Stephen Hesford: I do not think that it would be helpful for me to go down that particular road, attractive though the question is. Those on whose behalf my hon. Friend speaks—if I may put it that way—know
      very well who these people are, and he knows very well that they know that. They have had substantial correspondence with the group.
      Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the principal qualification of the group's members for making these statements is that they are users of the tunnel and that, as such, they make representations to the passenger transport authority? Would it not be good if—in these circumstances, if in no others—the authority were, for once, to listen?
      Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. The principal qualification of the group's members is that they are users of the tunnels, and as users—and, indeed, as taxpayers—they have tried hard to seek basic information from Merseytravel so that they can understand the situation better and make a genuine and dispassionate observation of the finances of the operation. They found, however, that those responsible for keeping that information were not forthcoming; they said that it was like getting blood out of a stone. It is wrong of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) to ask what their qualifications are. They are simply users trying to understand the situation as best they can.
      Mr. George Howarth: I am mystified as to why this is such a big secret. My hon. Friend says that I know who these people are, and he knows who they are, but no one else is to be given this information. Would it not be sensible, if my hon. Friend is praying in aid a group that has provided information, that he should tell us who its members are? He knows that these minutes will be read in another place and that people will expect to be told exactly what the qualifications of those providing that information are.
      5.15 pm
      Stephen Hesford: The group calls itself the Mersey Tunnel Users Association, which answers my hon. Friend's question, a blind alley down which I am sure he did not take me purposely.
      Why do we need a twin-track approach? The operators of the Mersey tunnel can use the section 92 procedure to raise tolls, a matter that the House has discussed previously. Curiously, while asking for a further toll-raising measure, the operators are also seeking to use the old procedure. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, there will be a public inquiry on that soon.
      Current practice can deal with increasing tolls, but the Bill's promoter seeks to retain the section 92 power—I am seeking to remove it—while having the new, more flexible power that can raise money more easily. I ask a simple question that the promoter has so far not even bothered to address; why does it need both?

      383
      If the promoter is sure that the new system will provide flexibility—with a 10p toll rise every three years—without a public inquiry, fine. I am against it having the new power, but why does it need the existing power as well? If the Bill becomes law and the promoter can raise the funds that it thinks it can—bearing in mind that the tunnel, as I said, is breaking even—why does it need the fallback position? It adds insult to injury for it to have both.
      In an ideal world, I would want the Bill to go away, and that we left in place the current system, which is being used successfully to increase tolls at the moment. I suspect that my wish will not be granted, and the House must deal with the point about section 92.
      It is not as though the Secretary of State—his assistance must be sought—after having a public inquiry to raise money has ever disappointed anyone. When people went to the Secretary of State under the old system seeking the money to secure the finances of the tunnels, their request was always acceded to. It was never refused. Indeed, the point needs to be reiterated, so I do so. The tunnel tolls have never been denied under what I call the old, or the current, system. Clearly, it works well, because if it did not, the tolls would not be in financial equilibrium. Under existing legislation, the terms are broadly for the tunnel to break even—to pay its way, so that eventually the running costs, the debt and other costs are paid off and the tunnels become free.
      Of course, there is another element of my objection to the re-enactment of section 92, which would provide for the current system and the new system. I look forward to a response, which we did not have in the previous debate—[Interruption.] I hear a sotto voce indication that there might be a response this time, and I am pleased about that. I look forward to it, if it comes. It seems objectionable because I have not had an answer to the basic question, "Why both?" Is it because the Bill's promoter has a suspicion that the new system that it wants will somehow not be effective? Does it think that something will go wrong with it? If so, I would be interested to know what that might be.
      I am sure that the House would also want to know if it is passing a measure whose promoter believes that there is an inherent probability of something going wrong or an element of mismanagement. I do not mean purposeful mismanagement, but a problem inherent in the system. The system might throw up a set of circumstances that requires the promoter to use a fallback position to raise extra cash.
      In opting for the new fast-track procedure, as I call it, to raise money more easily, the promoter has criticised the current system as old-fashioned, cumbersome, dated and responsive to an era that has now gone. I believe that those criticisms still exist, so is it not strange that the promoter wants to keep such an archaic system? Why does it envisage that, at some as yet unspecified time and in some unspecified circumstances—the promoter says that its fears are genuine, so they must
      be—the despised old-fashioned system will be used?
      The promoter calls the current system into question, but it remains on the statute book, even though for one
      384
      purpose it hates it. It wants the House to believe that it is useless and works against the people of Merseyside and the Mersey tunnels in general, but it wants it to stay on the statute book to use as a fallback position, with all the problems that it acknowledges that it has. Those problems include requirements to publicise the matter in the newspapers, to go to the Secretary of State and to hold a public inquiry. That causes delays and means that the promoter does not get the money when it needs it.
      I have said that I do not understand why there are two parallel systems for raising money. The current, criticised system is the fallback position, and it takes a long time. What is the rationale for retaining it?
      I and my constituents could understand the Bill better if it contained one simple proposition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has dealt with elements of the Bill, such as insulation, so I shall not discuss them. My constituents might be more sympathetic if the Bill stated that we need a new system because the current one gets gummed up and does not work, and is an old-fashioned and expensive waste of time. That is a simple proposition that we could all understand, but that is not what we are faced with.
      Why do we need to keep section 92? That is my simple question. I do not understand why the Bill contains that provision.
      I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), is listening with care to my speech. We have not heard from either the promoter or the Government about this matter. From the point of view of business management, the Government want the Bill to go through today, as this is the third or fourth time that it has been discussed on the Floor of the House. The Bill is like a bad penny that keeps coming back. The Government want it to get through, and they will use the heavy hand of whipping to ensure that that happens. The fact that the debate is not time limited means that the business will almost certainly go through in the manner that they envisage.
      I oppose the Bill and so do not find the Government's approach attractive, but there is more to it than that. I do not believe that the Government have not read the Bill and do not know what it is about. In fact, I know that that is not the case, as a delegation of which I was a member met the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), and talked about it face to face. The Government know what the Bill is about.
      I have addressed my propositions to the Bill's promoter and to the House in general. I hope that the House has some sympathy with what I have said, but I now address my comments to the Government.
      What is the Government's logic in this matter? The rules laid down in the original Act are currently being used by the Bill's promoter to raise the tunnel charges. In one way or another, those rules have been used successfully for about 70 years. What are the Government sanguine about, given that the Bill wants not just the new fast-track procedure but the retention of the current procedure as a back-up? If they are, in fact, not sanguine about the use of two parallel tax-raising measures, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us now.

      385
      5.30 pm
      My hon. Friend the Minister remains steadfastly seated. It would be easy enough for him to reply to me in a few words. We are not happy about a twin-track procedure for raising money at the expense of my constituents, and we are not persuaded that there is any reason for it. As my hon. Friend is not tempted by my invitation, I must assume—as my constituents must—that the Government are indeed sanguine about the forcing of the two tax-raising measures on them in circumstances that no one has yet explained. The purpose is not to refurbish the tunnels or to get the authority out of debt, because it is not in debt. It is not even to secure a more sensible way of raising tolls— a fast-track approach. If that were the case, the old procedure would not be needed.
      What can my hon. Friend and the promoter point to that will go wrong? In what circumstances will the old system be used? Can someone please tell us what the fallback position is?
      As I hope the House appreciates, I am doing my best for my constituents. I have asked the promoter and the Government for answers, but for the moment there is a stony silence. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East will serve as official spokesman for the promoter, but he indicated, sotto voce, that he wished to speak. I shall sit down now, but I look forward to elucidation from someone—if not for my benefit, at least as a courtesy to the House.
      Mr. George Howarth: I shall try to be brief.
      Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), I was reminded of a line from a song on The Beatles' "Abbey Road". I quote from memory, but I think it ran, "You never give me your pillow, you only issue your invitations". My hon. Friend seems to have issued invitations to everyone rather liberally in the last few moments.
      I think that my hon. Friend rather over-egged the pudding. He spoke at some length about the promoter, Merseytravel. I should emphasise that I represent my constituents, and do not directly represent the promoters.
      Stephen Hesford: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Howarth: I have not begun to develop my argument yet.
      My hon. Friend says, in effect, that the promoters of the Bill want to take a belt-and-braces approach; as well as the new powers that they seek, they want to reserve the power to continue to use the old system. That is the core of his argument, which I have managed to put in two minutes but which took him 30 minutes.
      The simple answer to my hon. Friend's question is that, for all intents and purposes, in all normal circumstances, the promoters intend to use the new system. They want the straightforward power to be able to increase the tunnel tolls in line with inflation, measured by the retail prices index. Whether the increase will be 10p every three years or some other figure will obviously depend on the rate of inflation. However, the promoters want a further option in case
      386
      something unforeseen happens. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has any experience in public finance, but in every public finance system that I have dealt with—whether in local government or national Government—provision is always made for unforeseen circumstances. I cannot predict what they might be, but any civil engineering project could go wrong. The circumstances might not be within the control of those responsible for managing the project; for example, there could be an act of terrorism or some engineering fault that was not originally evident. There must be some way of dealing with such eventualities.
      The promoters have sensibly taken the view that the old arrangement, as my hon. Friend describes it, would be the fair way to deal with such circumstances. There would be a public inquiry. The authority would have to go back to central Government and justify why they wanted to exceed what they had asked for under the initial powers.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): indicated assent.
      Mr. Howarth: I do not want to put words into the Government's mouth, but my hon. Friend is nodding in agreement. I may have saved him from the need to make a speech.
      The arrangements that I have described always apply in any public finance system. Unless my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West seeks only to make mischief, I do not know why he could not have figured that out for himself.
      Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) has half-answered the question that I was about to put to the sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). I, too, spotted the Minister nodding earlier, so that was helpful.
      When I added my name to the amendment, it was to enable me to probe the circumstances in which the promoters would make such an application. What are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might be minded to accede to them?
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Miller: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall finish asking my questions and then I shall welcome her answers.
      I have made a particular examination of the reports prepared by the German automobile association—ADAC—on the safety aspects. One can see that there could be exceptional expenditure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East described. He made a fair point. He also threw up other possibilities, though God forbid that there should be terrorism. I noticed, on a website, that the
      "chairman of tunnel operators Merseytravel, says tolls will have to rise to meet the cost of the revamp"
      that stems from the ADAC report, although as always in these matters, different figures are floating around.
      That led me—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has been considering this, as she is an

      387
      engineer by background—to look at some of the engineering issues that have cropped up in previous tunnel incidents. Some awful tragedies have taken place around the world. Thank goodness—and I say, well done—Merseytravel has avoided some of the awful incidents that we have seen.
      I looked at the ADAC report, at some work done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology examining damage to concrete walls in the event of fires, and at an extraordinarily detailed report entitled, "The Prevention and Control of Highway Tunnel Fires" published in the United States about three years ago, which went through very detailed evidence surrounding a range of fire situations, and created models of potential fire situations that thus far had not occurred in real life. It is a scary report.
      The single question that I should like answered is, am I right that the promoters envisage clause 92 being applied only in circumstances relating to safety? If there are any other circumstances, I want to know; it is a fair question to ask. If it is safety only, I am for keeping clause 92 as it stands. If it is broader and the promoters want to leave it fairly vague, that is not good enough.
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to make this intervention. He, like me, will have heard announcements—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady intervening on the hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. Miller: I have finished.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, the hon. Lady is actually making a speech.
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Given that I am on my feet, perhaps I can address the comment that has just been made. I believe that the exceptional circumstances are unforeseen but would be more than likely to include safety matters.
      My hon. Friends will have heard today that the EU intends to formulate a directive on all manufactured chemical products and to determine their impact on members of the public. I was working in the chemical industry when the EU had its first go at that in the mid-1980s. Catastrophic shock waves travelled through the chemical industry as people began to consider the consequences of the general products that had already been produced for the public who were purchasing them. At the time, products that had been on the market for 20 years were exempted from that consideration. It is now proposed to bring all products into the EU directive, so all companies providing products must be able to provide technical appraisals and toxicity appraisals to indicate the impact of those products on the population. I do not know the likely consequences, but I can well imagine that some products that have been used in the construction of the tunnels and other structures might well have an impact on the population that we currently do not assess.
      Mr. Miller: I am grateful; that is helpful.
      388
      In what circumstances might the clause be used other than to deal with emergency major engineering works that stem from things like the safety case? If there are no other circumstances, that is fine and the provision ought to remain in the Bill. If there are other circumstances, beyond safety, the House is entitled to know of them.
      5.45 pm
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I cannot foresee any other circumstances in which those powers would need to be used. However, I have worked for 20 years in an industry where unforeseen incidents do unfortunately happen. One still has to have provisions and arrangements that accommodate those exceptional circumstances. If one does not have them in place, one is criticised by the public for failing to do so.
      Mr. Miller: I agree entirely that there needs to be a contingency arrangement. It is particularly important in the context of safety—the safety of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend when travelling through the tunnel and that of the people who work in it. That is a mission critical. Is she saying that those contingency arrangements would extend to the inability of the passenger transport authority to balance its books on some other service?
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me an opportunity to clarify the situation. If there were exceptional circumstances, regardless of how they were arrived at, the matter would be referred to a public inquiry. At that point, I believe that the merits of the arguments put forward to substantiate an increase would be roundly discussed. We cannot prejudge what those unforeseen circumstances might be, but in the case of managerial neglect, huge criticisms would be made of the sponsor and justifiably so. I suspect that they would be told to look for alternative means to balance budgets.
      Stephen Hesford: This has been a curious little debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) was expansive—if he gets his way, it will also be expensive for my constituents. He said that if one knows something about public finances, one always needs a fall-back position. I do not believe that that is an accurate statement of general public finance, but it appeared to be his point.
      I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). It is my constituents who are more likely to have to pay for those contingencies. Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear in the general debate. When trying to understand what might be the nature of the unforeseen circumstances, there is no substitute for considering what has happened. One of the tunnels has been in existence for 70 years and the other since 1968. None of those unforeseen safety problems has arisen. Perhaps, I did not make it sufficiently clear that, according to my information, one of the tunnels is registered as the safest and the other as the third safest in the country.
      I am profoundly not persuaded by the safety argument. It is suggested that some such situation may

      389
      arise. Do the promoters not have something called insurance? Are they not insured for such things? Is not insurance designed to insure against unforeseen things? That is a rhetorical question, because the insurance industry exists for that purpose.
      Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend has a way with words: to describe my speech, which was four minutes long, as expansive, having spoken for 28 minutes himself, seems an odd use of the English language. For the sake of the record, given the argument that he is now using, can he tell me the last time he was able to insure against a terrorist disaster?
      Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but he knows, as I do, that those parts of the country that suffer from terrorist activity receive Government funding—for example, when Manchester was rebuilt—so I am afraid that he makes a very bad point.
      Mr. Howarth rose—
      Stephen Hesford: No. My hon. Friend has had his chance. He makes a seriously bad point because the idea that some terrorist atrocity would be paid for by such a procedure is nonsense.
      Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend argued, until I intervened, that insurance could cover all contingencies. When it was pointed out that it cannot, he changed his argument. He cannot have it both ways.
      Stephen Hesford: Terrorism will not be paid for by such a procedure. When I made that point, my hon. Friend nodded because it is an obvious point. Let us not overplay this. Let us not be stupid about the idea that there is a prospect of terrorism in the Mersey tunnels; there is not. Let us not go too far down that road.
      Mr. Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Stephen Hesford: No.
      I described this as a curious little debate because of the frequent references to the unforeseen nature of the circumstances. I have dealt with the idea that people can insure against risk. I have dealt with the idea of terrorism. When my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) was asked whether there were any other circumstances, the answer was no. There are no other circumstances in which she could envisage the procedure being used. Therefore, in my submission—whether the House agrees with me I know not—I have heard nothing to persuade me that clause 92 needs to stay in the Bill.
      Given the way the debate has been organized—that
      has been aired already—I do not intend to press amendments Nos. 33 and 34 to the vote tonight. Those arguments will go to another place, as has been indicated. I am sure that those in the other place will read with interest the report of this curious little debate, and I hope that their lordships will have some sympathy with my argument about clause 92. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 2

    Schedule 2

      FURTHER AMENDMENT OF THE 1980 ACT
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 9, line 24, leave out 'in the vicinity of' and insert 'adjacent to.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 21, in page 9, line 34, leave out
      'Except when to do so would be inconsistent with the provisions of this section or otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances.'.
      Mr. Chope: These are, by nature, probing amendments, and I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) realises that the essence of a probing amendment is that an hon. Member asks questions in the hope that some answers will be forthcoming.
      Bob Spink: Fat chance.
      Mr. Chope: As my hon. Friend says, on the basis of experience so far today, there is a fat chance of that. I hope that there is a better chance than that, because almost everyone involved with the Bill is agreed that its best part is the proposal to provide insulation. The explanatory memorandum says that the fourth purpose is
      "to allow the Authority to undertake and finance noise insulation work to properties adjacent to the Kingsway Tunnel's approach roads."
      I therefore cannot understand why the Bill uses not the words "adjacent to", but the expression "in the vicinity of". I wonder whether the hon. Lady, as the Bill's sponsor, could explain—it does not have to be at great length—why the definition in the explanatory memorandum seems to be narrower than the Bill; or perhaps it is not narrower. I tabled amendment No. 20 to ensure consistency between the explanatory memorandum and the Bill.
      I hope that the hon. Lady can also respond to amendment No. 21, which I also tabled. It deals with the exceptions where noise insulation works and grants cannot be carried out. My amendment would remove the qualification from the beginning of proposed new section 109A(4) of schedule 2, which says:
      "Except when to do so would be inconsistent with the provisions of this section".
      I should have thought that that was obvious and need not be stated in the Bill.
      I am conscious of the fact that the hon. Lady is now taking instructions on that. The amendments were tabled probably the best part of four or five months ago, so I am surprised that, even after that time, Merseytravel's resources could not be used to communicate with me directly or to speculate on why I had tabled them. At least the hon. Lady is now taking instructions, for which I am grateful.
      Why does proposed subsection (4) include the expression
      "when to do so would be inconsistent with the provisions of this section"?

      391
      It goes on to say:
      "or otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances".
      Using such words gives a subjective veto the people who provide those grants, so could the hon. Lady give us one or two examples of where such work might be
      "otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances".
      If she cannot explain that, perhaps she will accept amendment No. 21, which would remove that part of schedule 2.
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I shall respond to the two probing amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). With regard to the words used, he is right to note that there is a difference between the words "vicinity" and "adjacent", but, of course, vicinity can mean adjacent. In drafting the Bill, every care has been taken to ensure that the people, communities and properties that need to be afforded noise insulation receive that insulation, and they will do so because they are in the vicinity of or in proximity to the noise source.
      Bob Spink: In Committee, hon. Members asked for maps that would identify the houses that might benefit from the insulation work. Although some maps were available, it was not clear which houses would be included and which would not and how the phrase "vicinity of" would be defined. It could be defined in a number of ways. Has any map been produced? Have those houses been identified?
      6 pm
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that extensive legislation exists with regard to noise, the emission of noise and tolerable levels of noise. I have utter confidence that Merseytravel will seek to ensure that those properties that are substantially disturbed by noise receive the protection for which my hon. Friends have argued.
      The second probing amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) introduces the words:
      "Except when to do so would be inconsistent… or…inappropriate in the circumstances".
      We can all envisage circumstances in which it might not be possible to introduce noise insulation. For obvious reasons, the space might not be available—noise insulation is not just a matter of a few millimetres of board adhered to property. Appropriate noise insulation to a good standard today will invariably mean a structure that needs a base on which to stand and extensive panels, and I am not sure—I do not know every property to which the provision may offer Protection—whether all those properties would be able to accommodate that, or, importantly, whether the solution offered to address the problem will be wanted. I have had noise insulation installed in my constituency and the response from various constituents to what was offered varied enormously. There were those who were
      392
      prepared to accept significant structures that did the job of preventing noise and others who said, "Thank you, but I prefer to leave things as they are."
      Mr. Chope: Surely the point that the hon. Lady has just made is dealt with in proposed new subsection (3).
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Yes, it has been addressed in proposed new subsection (3), but I am trying to illustrate that the Bill seeks to accommodate factors that cannot be foreseen at the time, and that is right and proper. Frequently, circumstances arise that could not have been predicted, but the provision would accommodate such an event.
      Mr. Chope: Well, the hon. Lady has not explained why the wording in the explanatory memorandum refers to properties "adjacent to" the Kingsway tunnel, whereas the wording in schedule 2 refers to properties
      "in the vicinity of the approaches to the Kingsway Tunnel."
      She has not explained the conflict between those two. If we were talking about
      "the vicinity of the approaches",
      why was that not included in the explanatory memorandum? I hear what she says, however. No doubt some intolerant Labour Members will think that this discussion is rather pedantic, but the essence of scrutiny is to ask such questions when there are inconsistencies between what is said in the explanatory memorandum and what is contained in the wording of the Bill.
      The hon. Lady has not dealt with the point about not including in legislation what is obvious—clearly, if there is already an inconsistency with the provisions of the section, grants cannot be made. The important point relates to exceptions to the circumstances in which the authorities shall determine the eligibility for noise insulation work. That is an issue of eligibility. Is she saying that the essence of eligibility is that it is dependent on whether insulation work can be fitted into the particular dwelling? I find that hard to comprehend. She then said that the nature and extent of the work should be determined by the authority, which would normally take into the account the points that she has made. Under proposed new subsection (4), however, the authority should not look at the nature and extent of such works if it was otherwise inappropriate to do so. The wording does not therefore seem to deal with the situation that she describes.
      I am therefore a little suspicious. It seems to me that such a catch-all phrase could result in people who think that they will benefit from noise insulation works finding out in due course that they will not benefit, and that the authority will rely on the small print in the schedule. As the noise insulation work seems to be the most sensible part of the Bill—it may be changed in the other place—it is regrettable that the wording seems to suggest that there may be scope for monkey business on the part of its promoter.
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention to execute any monkey business, to use his words. I am convinced that Merseytravel will welcome the opportunity to address what is a long-standing issue for many residents in and around the tunnels. I also know, as someone who has

      393
      been involved in installations of all sorts, in many different circumstances, that occasionally there are circumstances that preclude one from doing what one wants. For example, I might ask what opportunity exists to do something for properties that are in the immediate vicinity of the Mersey tunnels, are on a precipice and exist right on the edge of an area. I do not know exactly what the circumstances are, but the geographical or geological nature of the area might preclude conventional noise insulation being used. I am sure that, in those circumstances, the Bill's promoter would look creatively at other solutions to addressing that problem. There may he trees that have preservation—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will have to content herself with one example.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for such a full explanation in her intervention. All that I can say is that it might be appropriate—rather than inappropriate—to consider this issue in more detail in the other place. It seems oddߞthis is not a criticism of the hon. Lady, as she does not get paid anything extra for doing this—that the Bill's promoter, who is paid large sums of money, has not been able to supply fuller instructions to her for dealing with these amendments, notice of which was given months ago.
      Mr. McNulty: I simply want to say that perhaps the hon. Gentleman's first amendment should be pursued in another place. It would worry me more if a narrower definition were in the Bill rather than in the explanatory memorandum. I take his point, however, that there should be consistency between the two. That should he explored. My only other small point on the second amendment is that, if we turn to the next page of the Bill, it needs to be seen in the context of empowering the authority to carry out such works under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975. The inconsistencies with this section and the words "inappropriate in the circumstances" all relate back to the noise regulations, and not to whether the authority should do the work or otherwise.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for getting to his feet and participating in the debate, and for recognising, certainly in relation to the first amendment, that there may be a point worth considering further in future. We are making progress, albeit right at the end of the Report stage. In the light of the Minister's words, it might be in the spirit of the occasion if I were to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.9 pm
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      It is with much relief that I speak on Third Reading. I am reminded that it took God only seven days to create the Earth, and my constant inadequacy is borne out by the fact that it has taken many hundreds of days to get the Bill through the House thus far.
      I am immensely grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in the Bill's progress, and especially the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who
      394
      chaired the Committee on Unopposed Bills. I am also grateful for the work of the promoter and the support that it has given to me.
      The essence of the Bill will bring a problem that has existed for a long time to a head, because obtaining rate increases for the tunnels on Merseyside has been a slow and expensive process. I hope that the Bill will receive support in the other place because it will save the promoter a lot of time and money. The promoter intends to continue to manage the tunnels effectively and efficiently.
      I suppose that I must acknowledge the fact that the Bill has been divisive in our region and that some hon. Members have supported it fully while others have not. However, I hope that we have reached an understanding and that we can respect each other's views. I thank the House for its indulgence.
      6.11 pm
      Dr. Pugh: Of course, this debate is the major political event of the day, and I shall be the first person to say that there is now light at the end of the tunnel. The passage of the Bill has been an absolute marathon. Hours have been spent on it and at times the process has been like pulling teeth, although I think that pulling teeth is a great deal quicker. The Bill's opponents have given us an impression of how arduous and lengthy the process to get a toll increase under the correct procedure must be, if robust opposition exists. Everything that can be said about the Mersey Tunnels Bill has been said in the House of Commons, although I suspect that it is likely to he repeated in the House of Lords.
      In essence, the Bill puts in place a rational method of fixing tolls. It is linked to a forward-looking transport and environmental policy, and it promises no penal costs. When I went through the tunnel the other day, I was surprised that it cost only £1.20—it was an excellent ride, I have to say. If one compares that charge with the tax on my petrol, it does not form a significant element of my transport budget.
      Stephen Hesford: With respect to the hon. Gentleman and on behalf of my constituents, I resent his sentiments. He does not use the tunnels every day, but my constituents do. The tolls represent significant costs for them, but he speaks in favour of heaping more costs on them.
      Dr. Pugh: I said that if one compares the cost of the tolls with the taxation that the hon. Gentleman's Government impose on his constituents' petrol, it represents a small element of their travel costs, which is a slightly different point.
      Mr. Ben Chapman: The cost might be a small factor in that respect but it is a large factor when one considers Merseyside's economy. To the best of my knowledge, our conurbation is the only one with a major toll route. Although the toll is only £1.20 for a car, the toll for a lorry is in the order of £8. That represents a serious taxation on our economy and creates a disincentive for people to invest in the area. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is wrong to try to trivialise that?
      Dr. Pugh: I am not trivialising any cost on industry, but I do not think that other hon. Members or I have

      395
      heard people saying that they will not invest in the area because there is a toll on the Mersey tunnels. The tolls have existed for years. Labour Members who oppose the Bill do not wish to wipe the tolls away but argue for an arcane system of fixing them.
      Mr. Chapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Pugh: I shall continue, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
      The Bill incorporates safeguards against high penal tolls. Furthermore—this is the key point for many Merseyside Members who support the Bill—it will abolish for ever the prospect of council tax payers having to subsidise the tunnels, which they have done and could otherwise easily do again.
      Three arguments of substance have been made throughout the Bill's passage. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) argues that it represents a betrayal of some kind because it has been agreed from time immemorial that the tunnels will eventually be free to use. However, we cannot be bound by the decisions of our ancestors, and no one expects us to. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) argues that the Bill will lead to damage to the local economy appearing on the horizon because of the prospect of unreasonably high charges. However, to be fair, many people—individual travellers, if not those driving lorries—have alternatives to the tunnels because they could use the excellent Trio system or ferries. In any case, the Bill rules out the prospect of high toll increases because if the suggested increase were above the retail prices index—an increase in line with the RPI is not unreasonable—the matter would go to the Government and the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Minister would say that no Secretary of State would impose charges on Merseyside that would be penal and damaging to its economy.
      The third argument that has been put capably by several hon. Members is that the Bill will create a system of cross-subsidy. I accept that, but I do not think that any hon. Member who supports that argument would extend its principle throughout the economy. They do not argue that all money raised from road tax or fuel duty by the Government should be put directly into roads. Their position is not consistent, so the argument is entirely ad hoc.
      Mr. Frank Field: We have been trying to make the point that if there is unfairness in the tax system as well as fairness, that operates universally throughout the economy. We are insistent that it is unfair for some people in Merseyside to be taxed at a higher rate than others because of where they live. We object to the selective nature of the tax.
      Dr. Pugh: I accept that that is a refinement of the argument and a perfectly defensible response to what I said. However, few hon. Members would argue that cross-subsidy should not apply at any time because it must be appropriate in some circumstances.
      396
      There is no Liberal Democrat line on the Bill. I am speaking for myself and Liberal Democrats will agree with me only if they think that what I say is correct. The three substantial arguments that have been made have been debated at almost interminable length.
      Stephen Hesford: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no Liberal Democrat line on the Bill but, with respect, there is. Like him, I have sat through all our debates. I have watched the way in which his senior colleagues have come out of the woodwork to go through the Lobby to vote at his behest. There is a Liberal Democrat line on the Bill.
      Dr. Pugh: That was entirely due to my persuasive talents rather than any whipping. There are no good arguments against the Bill, so we should support it.
      6.18 pm
      Mr. Frank Field: I hope that many parts of the Bill will be supported in the other place. There is one aspect, however, to which I object most strongly, and all my contributions have centred on that single point. It is outrageous that Merseytravel should try to get a Bill through this House, which will tax my constituents and those of other hon. Members in the Wirral and those areas around the tunnel entrance in Liverpool, so that it can finance travel arrangements for people in the wider region of Merseyside. It is unfair and should not be part of the Bill. I hope that it is removed in the other place.
      Government support and whipping power made it inevitable that the Bill will succeed in this place. I hope that the promoters realise, however, that it will not get through the other place if they continue to display the same arrogance. They have been wholly unprepared to meet the main objections. If the Bill goes through unamended in the other place, it will be a tax on the residents of Wirral and the inner areas of Liverpool. If that part is struck out, we will all be able to welcome the remainder passing on to the statute book.
      6.19 pm
      Bob Spink: Except for the noise reduction measures, the Bill is thoroughly bad. It betrays the public and dishonours the House. It denies its original intention, which was clearly set out in the Bill and cannot be cast aside, as the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) attempted to do. It creates a toll and motoring tax precedent that is unhelpful. There is no doubt that it is a tax-raising measure. That is why the Government adopted it. It is essentially a Government, not a private, Bill.
      Indeed, this is a tax-raising measure of the worst kind—a stealth tax. There are four aspects to that. First, it is an indiscriminate tax on jobs in the area. Secondly, it is a regressive tax. Thirdly, there is no representation of the majority of the people who are being taxed and, as such, we should follow the time-honoured principle that there should be no taxation. Fourthly, there is no means of renewing the tax by bringing it back to the House for further consideration. Once given, the tax will exist for ever, unlike taxes imposed by the Chancellor who must renew his taxation policy every year by going through us, the people's representatives. The tax created by the Bill will not be controlled in that way and will not be scrutinised in future.

      397
      It is a peculiar tax. Although it is to be gathered from a specific activity, it will be applied generally to displace the general taxation that should be used to develop transport policy in the area. It will hit motorists who are already paying £500 a year to use the tunnel daily just so that they can travel within the area in which they live, work and commute. That will damage the local economy.
      As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) eloquently said, this so-called private Bill has been taken through the House with great arrogance. A shady and deplorable methodology was used, starting with the withdrawal of the petition without notice, which denied us proper scrutiny. We did not have the ability to shine a light on which houses would, and which houses would not, benefit from the noise reduction. Not many houses are involved in the scheme, which covers only a small area. The promoters could easily have provided a map showing which houses were covered by it. That would have enabled people outside the scheme who would not benefit to get their representatives to explain to the House why they should be inside it. That proper debate, however, was denied when the petition was withdrawn.
      Debate was prevented, so we could not probe the Bill's contents and improve it. The way in which the Government have adopted it is deplorable. They have ridden roughshod over the House's fine traditions. I hope that the Lords will severely amend it or throw it out.
      6.23 pm
      Mr. Ben Chapman: As colleagues have said, the Bill will now move forward to another place because it has Government support. We were aware that the Government had abandoned their traditional stance of neutrality some time ago, but we have moved from covert, whispered whipping of the payroll vote to overt organisation of tonight's proceedings in order to get the Bill through the House.
      The private Bill and the mechanisms behind it are, as some have said, by nature intended for a private or nongovernmental organisation to obtain its ends for its general benefit. It is not Government business, and that fact places the onus increasingly on this Chamber to subject it to the utmost scrutiny to ensure that the general public are best served by its passage.
      As a private Bill is not drafted by a Department, as would be the case with a Government Bill, and it does not draw on the skills of parliamentary draftsmen, a number of checks and balances, whether implicit or explicit, need to be inbuilt into any scrutiny process. Where those do not exist or, as in this case, are removed, the public, our constituents, are not being properly served by those whom they elect to represent their interests. The power of delay and repeated scrutiny is an example of such a check, but when we are faced with the juggernaut that is the combination of Merseytravel and Government support, it is difficult to see how we can resist.
      The Merseyside passenger transport authority has the resources and the ability to canvass far and wide, pulling strings and exploiting contacts to attain its ends. It has exploited its contacts and, in some circumstances I am afraid, it has resorted to bullying, not least of the Mersey Tunnel Users Association, and legal or quasi-legal
      398
      action. That is a doubtful use of public funds, but for the Government also to conspire to disempower an elected Member from representing his or her constituents in this manner is entirely deplorable.
      The Bill has not received anything like the degree of scrutiny to which it should be subject, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made that point very eloquently. He also raised the issue of the abortive Opposed Private Bill Committee. I will not restate his points, but the fact is that the rug was unceremoniously pulled out from under the Committee's feet. Grave concerns about the Bill remained after what was in effect, or at least had the appearance of, backroom intrigue. That is a damning indictment of the process on which our constituents rely to be served in the best possible manner. To all intents and purposes, they have been disfranchised, such is the extent to which the opposition to the Bill has been hamstrung, not least this evening.
      What is done is done, however, but while disregarding the manner in which the Bill will depart this House, I cannot let it leave for another place without commenting on its terms. This is a deplorable Bill. It will provide the PTA with, in effect, an arbitrary power to raise tolls regardless of circumstances, except for the retail prices index. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said that that will be an effective control, but apart from the fact that there is very little relationship between the needs of the tunnel and the RPI, I must point out that the RPI need not always be at its current level. We could see the poor old tunnel user being charged a massive amount simply on the basis of the RPI.
      The PTA will be able to impose increases without any need to justify its reasons for so doing and, as hon. Members have said, that is a privilege that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer would very much like. I am sure, too, that such a power would be far safer in his hands. In my view, Merseytravel is largely unaccountable; it is not directly elected and it is often profligate.
      I might feel slightly more comfortable about this enterprise if the Bill contained an efficiency mechanism, but it does not. It strikes me that when council tax rises, for example, are under scrutiny because they are so high, we should focus our attention on increases to which authorities such as this one have contributed and their claims on the council tax payer.
      There is little or nothing to hold the Mersey PTA or other PTAs to account; there is no real requirement for them to justify their actions, and there is no direct method by which the general public can remove them from power. Although the PTA does not quite match up to the generally accepted idea of a quango, as its members are elected councillors, its position in the system of government opens it to many of the criticisms often lodged at quangos. PTAs are not effectively responsible to the electorate; their functions sit uneasily with the district council in their area, and they have a number of inherent flaws.
      In this instance, the PTA says that it needs the money that will be raised by the Bill, despite the fact that its own projected figures indicate quite the opposite. There is no need for the money at all. It reeks of insincerity to claim that the extra money that will be generated is needed to

      399
      secure the safety of the tunnels for future generations. If there were specific safety projects that Merseytravel thought necessary, it could apply for toll increases by following the public inquiry route. It certainly does not need the belt-and-braces mechanism that we have heard about.
      The real intention of the MPTA in introducing the measure is betrayed by its determination to hold on to the toll increases and the mechanism by which they are executed, even after the standing debt on the tunnels is paid off. It is determined to rake the shallow depths of the tunnel user's pockets, not to make better provision for the tunnels but to finance projects, some of which are speculative. That breaks the promise, as has been said, of countless years' standing to the people of Merseyside that toll levels would one day be based purely on the amount required for the tunnels to be self-sufficient.
      I have no objection whatsoever to Merseytravel getting its tramway system, but I object to the tunnel user paying for it. Tram systems have a propensity for going wrong, so I object to the fact that all the people of Merseyside may have to face the consequences. The MPTA's attempts to bolster its argument by speculating that toll rises are necessary to deter commuters from using the tunnels, while arguing in the Opposed Private Bill Committee that it needs to raise tolls in case there is a drop in tunnel patronage, is an example of both sides of the same coin being deployed at the same time. Tunnel usage is largely inelastic and, despite many toll increases, has stayed steady. People have no alternative—the tunnels, as has been said, are their only travel option. Much as one would welcome a further Mersey crossing, it would have little effect on tunnel usage.
      Environmental reasons for increasing the tolls have been cited. It is said that the drop in traffic that would supposedly result from regular toll increases would have a positive effect on the environment, as fuel emissions would decrease. That would be true if there were a significant drop, but as matters stand it is a worthless argument. If Merseytravel had serious concerns about the environment it would have considered taking a proactive stance by, for example, offering a schedule of charges under which a not insubstantial discount is offered to vehicles that run on environmentally friendly fuel. However, no such proposals have been made. That is only one option—I am sure that there are many others.
      The measure would have a highly deleterious, if not immediately visible, effect on the Merseyside economy, and would seriously inhibit investment. Of course, I welcome the soundproofing proposals for areas at the Wallasey end of the tunnel, and have never objected to the provisions dealing with that in the Bill. However, I greatly regret the fact that that necessary work has been delayed as a result of Merseytravel's determination to push through the more egregious parts of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Southport said that we were coming to the end of a marathon. It has been a marathon examination but, even so, the Bill has not received the scrutiny that it deserves. It is a bad Bill which is unfair, unwarranted and unwanted. It will have repercussions for the doctrine of taxation without representation and its economic repercussions will
      400
      spread far beyond Merseyside. The tunnels are not a cash cow to be milked for the benefit of pet projects. If increases are to be introduced, we need a drive for efficiency rather than profitability. We need proper consultation, and it must be taken into account and listened to. Increases require justification, and users, instead of experiencing hindrance, as they appear to have done with the MPTA, should have an input in the process. There must be some right of recourse to examination and scrutiny.
      Large sums of money have already been spent in getting the Bill to this stage, but it is still more about raising money and featherbedding than about need. I can only hope that the occupants of another place will see it for what it is; in so doing, they will certainly have my support and encouragement.
      6.35 pm
      Mr. George Howarth: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her good temper and patience in bringing the matter this far. She has had to put up with quite a bit, and has done so stoically. I also congratulate the promoter of the Bill on sticking with it, dealing with the many problems that have arisen and being patient with those of us who supported that promoter and asked a great deal from it in terms of information.
      To a Merseyside Member of Parliament, it has been an unpleasant experience to have to disagree with colleagues. I specifically highlight my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I am in agreement with them on almost every other occasion, and respect them highly.
      It has to be said, though, that the arguments presented against the Bill at this late stage are either fatuous or specious. Let me give a couple of illustrations. Early on in the proceedings, we were treated to the unedifying spectacle of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) invoking the cry of the American revolutionaries, "No taxation without representation!" I shall forgo the obvious temptation to ask why the Member from Castle Point in Essex is criticising a measure that specifically affects voters and users of the tunnel on Merseyside, because he is entitled so to do.
      Bob Spink: I was asked to chair the private Bill proceedings, so I was witness to the disgraceful conduct of the petition being withdrawn.
      Mr. Howarth: I am well aware of the role that the hon. Gentleman played. My point is that he invoked the cry, "No taxation without representation", while representing a seat in Essex, yet it is my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in the Wirral who are affected by the Bill. It was a fatuous argument in any event, because, if he remembers his history aright, that was the cry of locals saying that the centre cannot decide what they have to pay. The hon. Gentleman has got his argument upside down. We are arguing that this matter should be determined locally, not by central Government, as is the case at the moment.
      Then we come to the specious. As I say, I have great respect for my hon. Friends, but they keep saying that this is a tax. I do not intend, nor would it be appropriate,

      401
      for me to go into lengthy discussions about the definition of a tax, but any reasonable definition that I have ever heard does not cover a tunnel toll. My hon. Friends are describing what is effectively a commercial transaction on which many people completely depend. That is a far cry from a tax. The kernel of my argument is this: we are trying to achieve a system whereby the finances of the tunnel are determined locally by the proper authorities through a limited power that enables them to increase tolls only by the retail prices index—in other words, by the rate of inflation. My hon. Friends repeatedly fail to mention what happens when costs increase and the tunnel is not breaking even—I accept that it is now—or not making a small profit. In those circumstances, my constituents, few of whom use the tunnel, have to pay the difference as council tax payers. It has happened in the past and it could happen in future.
      The position is even worse. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West also have to pick up the bill. Moreover, the majority of their constituents, who do not use the tunnel regularly, will have to pay the bill in the circumstances that I described. I do not understand why that was not grasped earlier in our proceedings.
      Mr. Joe Benton: My hon. Friend's comments are accurate—the preparations for next year's council tax prove his point. Perhaps he would like to comment on that.
      Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend knows, I greatly value his friendship and wisdom. His wisdom shines through yet again.
      The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) represents everything that we know about the modern Conservative party. Although he has occasionally criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby for inaccuracy—she has been accurate at all times—he generally takes up everyone's cry. If an hon. Member cries, "This is taxation", the hon. Gentleman takes it up. If another hon. Member says, "No taxation without representation", he does not think about or analyse the statement, he simply takes up the cry. Although I have much respect for some of the arguments that have been presented during the Bill's passage, the hon. Gentleman is pathetic.
      6.42 pm
      Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) has said most of what I wanted to say so I shall be brief. I have a great regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). We are old friends from many years back—we negotiated matters on both sides of the river that affected airports; we considered the Labour party's manifesto for the 1987 election and more successful manifestos in recent years. However, we fall out on the subject of our debate because of his point about the funding arrangements that prevail.
      My constituents regularly use a sub-regional transport infrastructure, which is a mish-mash, owned and managed by different agencies. The missing link is
      402
      an overall regional strategy to manage transport and make the case, about which my hon. Friend and I agree, for a further Mersey crossing. That needs to be incorporated in a strategic review of the area's transport needs.
      I shall reiterate briefly my constituents' principal complaints. Whether my hon. Friend likes it or not, they have to use the tunnel, as he admitted. They have little choice about that. They contribute significantly to the wealth of the region, and therefore have a right to be consulted. That right is currently being denied them, and 1 urge the promoter of the Bill to consider that as it goes on its way through to the other place.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South put forward some interesting arguments on the environmental issues. In relation to the London congestion charge, I drive a Vauxhall Vectra, which was made in my constituency, and it runs on liquefied petroleum gas. It is therefore exempt from the charge. There are powerful arguments for introducing similar measures in relation to electric or LPG-powered vehicles in other urban centres, particularly where levies are currently involved. Many similar issues also need to be examined.
      Regarding the debate on section 92, I half got the hint from my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), but when the Bill is down at the other end of the Corridor, I hope that their lordships will look carefully at the use of that section and seek to amend the Bill to incorporate conditions on the section's application. It is too loosely drawn at present.
      I echo the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South. I too am very disappointed that the Bill has got this far, and I hope that it will be substantially amended at the other end of the Corridor, so that we end up with a rational structure that will benefit all the people of the region in which we live, and not just those who are governed on one side of an artificial boundary or the other.
      6.47 pm
      Stephen Hesford: My closing remarks are designed for the other place. I want to put it on the record that there was an earlier attempt to introduce a Bill. That Bill failed to come before the House and was then abandoned. I would like their lordships to consider, in the context of the second Bill, that the first Bill tried to privatise the management. The reason for doing that was to bring an element of efficiency to the running of the tunnels. I am pleased that that was abandoned, but we then had the second Bill.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) that this is a bad Bill. It is badly thought out, and a fig leaf in terms of the possibility of bad management in the future. No efficiency mechanism has been built into the Bill in relation to toll-raising powers, and my constituents find that very worrying. I should like to adopt a few of the words that my hon. Friend used, which are central to the argument. The Bill is undoubtedly designed to be a cash cow, in all circumstances and for all time. Again, my constituents will suffer as a result of that. My hon. Friend also mentioned feather-bedding, and I agree with the point that he made about that. I ask the other place to think about that issue. There should be no feather-bedding.

      403
      The question of efficiency should be addressed, but the Bill does not address the issue of efficient tunnels run for their users by an efficient management.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned clause 92, about which I want to say a few words to the other place. The retention of the section in the Bill as a fallback position is wholly unnecessary. In the previous 70 years, there was only one form of fundraising—outlined in clause92—and there was no fallback position. The tunnels never needed one for any purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) could not think of one example of where the fallback position would be used. There was a curious debate about terrorism, which, frankly, was nonsense. Clause 92 is in the Bill because of feather-bedding.
      There has not been an honest debate in the House, although that is not for want of trying on our part. One consistent feature has been the unwillingness of the Bill's promoter to deal with the points put to it at every stage of the Bill. The only item dealt with during the 20 hours or so of debate in this place was not dealt with by the promoter, but by my hon. Friend the UnderSecretary—the question of insulation. That is lamentable when one thinks of the number of hours that we have spent on this issue inside and outside the House. It is not a good advertisement for what the House can do.
      We could not stop the Bill and, reluctantly, we bow to the inevitable. It is a bad Bill, and I still oppose it. It is unnecessary; Merseytravel could exist under the current procedures if it was run properly. I ask the other place to consider the elements that we have brought forward.
      6.52 pm
      Mr. Chope: The Bill is provocative and contentious, and it has been quite a spectacle for Conservative Members to watch one Labour Member fighting another on this issue. The promoter has missed a great opportunity to try to reach a compromise. Clearly it believes in bully-boy tactics, and it is no surprise to Opposition Members that it has found allies on the Government Benches.
      On the positive side, the debates have illustrated the importance of strong constituency representation. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Members for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on having fearlessly, persistently and at some considerable length deployed the arguments that needed to be deployed on behalf of their constituents. I should like to think that if those seats were represented by Conservative Members, they would have been equally diligent in defending the interests of their constituents. This is a good illustration of why proportional representation and list systems do not work, and deprive constituents of the opportunity of having people speaking out on their behalf in this House.
      The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), said that his party had no line on the Bill, but the hon. Member for Wirral, West put us right, saying that the Liberal Democrats had
      404
      consistently voted with the Government on the Bill and against the interests of those living on the Wirral peninsula. The hon. Member for Southport would have been right to say that the Liberal Democrats had not yet found a line to explain the inconsistency between their approach to the Bill and their approach to doing away with tolls on the Skye bridge, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the party. Perhaps in due course we will have a line on that.
      The Bill was conceived and started on the fallacious argument that it was needed to prevent Merseysiders having to pay a levy for a tunnel that they do not use. It has been demonstrated in the debate that that is mere scaremongering. The Bill does, however, contain powers to raise stealth taxes on tunnel users to subsidise other transport activity in Merseyside. I am afraid that it is classic double-speak, typical of the present Government.
      Conservative Members believe in a fair deal for everyone. The Bill is not fair: it is strongly opposed by local Members of Parliament and local people, and it runs contrary to the results of a consultation process. Conservatives will continue to work with others in the other place to ensure that the Bill is substantially improved.
      6.55 pm
      Mr. McNulty: I have a few brief points. I have been happily involved in the periphery of the Bill—first as Government Whip and now in my current position—and I wish to clarify a few small points.
      The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said that the Bill was a precedent, but I do not see how it is a precedent in any regard. If it is about the ability to set in train regular retail prices index increases, it is certainly not unprecedented: Dartford and the Severn crossing are organised in the same way. If it is about the ability to use any surplus tolls for public transport works, it is not unprecedented because of Dartford again and the Forth system.
      It may be a measure of the length of time of the different stages that three Transport Ministers have come and gone—I am the third of the thre—while the
      Bill has struggled through Parliament. The notion of implementing RPI increases has been put on a more solid footing—it has a double lock on RPI plus increases—which is all to the good. It amounts almost to an adjustment to the existing system rather than the introduction of a new system and a fallback system. I believe that it will work well for those living in the area.
      A smaller point—though a major one in terms of substance and the impact on people—is the noise insulation works. It is, on the whole, a good part of the Bill, on which many people seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. It is certainly not the Government's job to define expressly in the Bill the houses on which there may be an impact at this particular time. We are talking about a Bill that is longer in duration. I shall double-check the answer, but I think that I was right in what I said earlier about the noise insulation regulations in response to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I explained why there were qualifications in the early part of the process.
      People knock the private Bill process—andGovernment Bills more generally—and talk about arrogance, pulling strings or exploiting contracts, but I

      405
      do not agree with that. The points about honesty or dishonesty were not well made by any hon. Member. From my involvement in the Bill—tangentially or otherwise—I can say that there has been a good deal of honesty on all sides and a good deal of scrutiny ad debate and many well made points.
      As I have said before, the Government's position on Third Reading is entirely neutral. The Bill does not counter any element of Government policy, hence our neutrality.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed

  Parthenon Sculptures
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn— [Margaret Moran.]
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: This debate is entitled "The Return of Cultural Artefacts Held in National Collections", and in many ways the Government have a good record in this matter, given what has happened in connection with the return of works of art looted by the Nazis, or the return of ethnographic and anthropological remains. However, there is a glaring exception to the generous approach adopted by the Government—the Parthenon sculptures. I make no excuse for the fact that my speech will focus on them.
  I should like to express my thanks to the staff in the Library, who have given me a lot of assistance in preparing for this debate.
  The Parthenon sculptures, sometimes known as the Elgin marbles, are part of Greece's national identity. I have travelled in Greece over many years. Anyone with any knowledge of Greece, when asked to conjure up a mental image of the country or of Athens, will think of the Parthenon. That image of Greece's national identity is known world wide.
  I am pleased that the new approach of the PASOK Government has got away from some of the old and sterile arguments over the Parthenon sculptures. The argument is not now about how Lord Elgin obtained the marbles, although the method was obviously dubious, neither is it about how they came to be in the possession of the British Museum. The issue is not now the sculptures' ownership, but their location so far from their original home. The Greek Government have waived all claims in relation to other cultural objects held in national collections here, but from their point of view, the Parthenon sculptures are not negotiable and should return to their home in Athens.
  The archaeological case is very strong. Reunification of the sculptures in their original topographic, historical and cultural context would mean that they could be understood much more easily by the general public and by scholars. It must be borne in mind that not all the sculptures involved are in the British Museum. The frieze originally consisted of 111 panels, of which about 97 survive; 56 are in the British Museum, 40 remain in situ on the Parthenon or in the Acropolis museum, one is in the Louvre, and there are fragments in one or two other museums around Europe. Of the original metopes, 39 remain in situ or in the Acropolis museum, and only 15 are in the British Museum.
  Some of the sculptures are broken, with heads in one museum and torsos in another. Some fragments are in Athens, and others in London. A good example is the torso of Poseidon: the front the six pack, as it were—is in Athens, but the rear—the shoulders and back—is in London. The sculpture has literally been split in two, with the front separated from the back, top to bottom. To view the sculptures as a whole, or to see the separate parts of the same item, it is necessary to travel the 1, 500 miles between London and Athens, as 98 per cent. of the remaining sculptures are split between those two museums.

  407
  The Parthenon cannot come to London, so the sculptures must be reunited near the Parthenon, in Athens. It is for that purpose that the Greek Government are building the new Acropolis museum. They have made it clear that reunification will happen as a result of a voluntary effort on the part of Britain. It would not entail ceding any legal title of ownership, or any rights in connection with the sculptures.
  The new museum is being built on the same alignment as the Parthenon, a little lower on the Acropolis. It will contain a shell of the same dimensions as the Parthenon, which will allow the sculptures to be displayed looking outwards. At present, in the Duveen galleries, the sculptures look inwards. The sculptures would be presented in their proper relationship to the Parthenon, and the views from the galleries would look out towards the Parthenon, allowing people to make that spatial connection.
  The sculptures would be viewed in the proper light, which can never be recreated inside the British Museum. I visited the Acropolis curator, Professor Pandermelis, and he showed me how the Parthenon was lit originally. Direct light was not used: instead, Mediterranean sunlight bounced off the polished marble pavements, lighting up the sculptures from below. We could never hope to recreate that effect in London.
  The new museum does not even have to be called the Athens museum, or the new Acropolis museum. The Greek Government have made it clear that they would be prepared to let the museum be known as the British Museum in Athens. Evangelos Venizelos, the Greek Culture Minister, said on 11 August that the Greek Government were looking at "either a long-term loan" or something that might take
  "the form of an annexe of the British Museum in the New Acropolis Museum."
  The sculptures would not be going back to the slightly scruffy city that people over the years might have perceived Athens to be. Athens is being transformed. I am a regular visitor, and I am astounded at the progress that is being made in cleaning the city up and in making the monuments there more accessible.
  New vistas of the Parthenon itself have been opened up from central Athens. All the advertising hoardings have been taken down in Syntagma square, revealing a view of the Parthenon in the heart of Athens that had been hidden for many years. The archaeological sites have been pedestrianised to link all the different sites and enable people to move around them more freely. That includes, as a centrepiece, the new Acropolis museum, currently under construction.
  The Acropolis itself has been undergoing major restoration. The Parthenon has, in large part, been taken down and put together again to remedy some of the mistakes made in previous restoration efforts. It has been possible to restore it with many more slabs than was possible before. The Erecthion has been restored, and is now a wonderful building in its own right.
  The rebuilding of the Parthenon has been carried out in an incredibly sensitive way, involving complicated computer modelling. For example, it has been possible to match the stains in stones to make them fit together.
  408
  The rebuilding has involved not just the frieze but parts of the Parthenon's physical structure: for example, one of the drums from one of the columns has been restored and is in the British Museum. Even if all the other arguments fell, it could surely be argued that that at least should be returned.
  Over the years, we have heard many arguments against the return of the artefacts. We have heard, for instance, the "floodgates" argument. Greece has already said that it will waive all other claims. The fact is that the Parthenon sculptures are a unique special case: they are part of Greece's national identity. With the assistance of the Library, I have examined claims from Egypt, China and many other parts of the world. They do not have that essential quality of national identity. As I said earlier, we are already considering the return of human remains, most of which were taken during the imperial years of the 19th century.
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the power of his argument. Does he agree that the Parthenon and the other Acropolis sculptures are not just symbolic of Greek national identity but have an enormous symbolic significance for the whole of western civilisation?
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I know that he has been campaigning on this for many years, and feels very strongly about it.
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has set up a working group to consider the return of anthropological and ethnographic items, so no precedent is being set in that regard. The spoliation panel for the return of Nazi-looted items, for which I campaigned, has worked very effectively. Compensation has been arranged in respect of one work of art held in the Tate. I believe that there are six outstanding claims, including claims relating to four prints held by the British Museum in its print collection.
  The only difference involved is in the time that has elapsed since the objects were appropriated—200 years or so in the case of the Parthenon sculptures, 100 years in the case of some of the ethnographic items and 50 or 60 years in the case of the second world war items. Such arguments could be dealt with by legal means. Some say that primary legislation would be needed, but that is not the case. The British Museum Act 1963 prohibits disposal of items in the collection except under sections 5 and 9, which clearly do not apply in this instance, or under section 6 of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992, which allows exchange or transfer to a number of listed institutions. The list could be extended by statutory instrument under the negative procedure, and could include the Acropolis museum in Athens.
  Alternatively, the British Museum Act 1963 allows the keeping of objects in authorised repositories identified in section 10 and schedule 3. That list is also amendable through the negative statutory instrument procedure, and could include, for example, the British Museum annexe in Athens, as the Act does not require the trustees to be the owners of the repository or that the repository should be in the United Kingdom. The position could be made clear and watertight by primary legislation—by, for example, specifying sculptures referred to in section 5(1) of the 1963 Act. That,

  409
  however, would be a belt-and-braces approach, and unnecessary in my view. There are plenty of easy ways in which the same end could be legally achieved.
  There are wider cultural benefits too. In particular, there is the offer from the Greeks of return exhibitions. In his evidence to the Select Committee, George Papandreou said that he would not leave the galleries empty. On 11 August Evangelos Venizelos, the Greek Culture Minister, said:
  "Our proposal includes the offer of a series of important temporary exhibitions of Greek antiquities in the British Museum as well as other regional museums in the United Kingdom."
  I am sure that hon. Members remember the Tutankhamen exhibition in the summer of 1972. In six months, 1.6 million visitors queued for up to eight hours to visit the British Museum, paying 50p for the privilege, which would be about £4 nowadays. Applying inflation to that earlier entry fee could raise £6 million for the finances of the museum. That exhibition was the most popular in the history of the museum.
  What is on offer from Greece could easily rival or even surpass that exhibition, as anybody who has visited Greek archaeological collections would know. It would also comply with the policy objectives that my right hon. Friend the Minister outlined recently. Such exhibitions would popularise the British Museum and open it to people who would not normally visit it. We already know from television programmes such as those presented by Tony Robinson how popular archaeology is becoming with children, young people and adults alike. The whole country could benefit not only from exhibitions at the British Museum but also from touring exhibitions. However, without the return of the Parthenon sculptures there is no prospect of such exchange exhibitions.
  The money raised by such exhibitions could in large part be the answer to the BM's financial difficulties. There would be an income stream from special exhibitions and possibly, also, from exhibiting the Parthenon sculptures in Athens. In the museum's July 2003 accounts, it predicted staff reductions of 150 and cuts of £2 million by 2004–05. Gallery closures already occur constantly at the British Museum, including the gallery housing the Bassai sculptures from a temple, not dissimilar to the Parthenon, in the Peloponnese. All the sculptures are in good condition and much more accessible to the non-expert so it is a scandal that people cannot see them because of the museum's financial position. Exchange exhibitions could also support the BM's acquisitions fund.
  There would be wider political benefits from the return of the sculptures—for example, for our Olympic bid. If we returned the sculptures this year, we would be seen to be helping another Olympic city in its Olympic year, especially by the International Olympic Committee, which is based in Athens for the games. What a boost it would give to our Olympic bid if we entered into the Olympic spirit in that way.
  Britain's international reputation would be enhanced politically and culturally, throughout Europe, in UNESCO, which has raised the issue, and in the Commonwealth. The Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand have both written to support the case for return.
  Germany has returned archaeological remains from the Philippeon, a temple at Olympia, which brought a wonderful international response and, in turn, the loan
  410
  to Berlin of a magnificent touring sculpture exhibition. The catalogue itself was the same size as a telephone directory. At present, such an exhibition would never come to London.
  There is popular support for the proposal. About 90 per cent. of the respondents in a Channel 4 poll were in favour of the return of the sculptures. In a poll of MPs, 66 per cent. of all Members and 88 per cent. of Labour Members supported the return. So far, there are 50 names on early-day motion 17.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will reply that the matter is entirely for the British Museum trustees, although if she does I shall disagree. The refusal, so far, of the trustees to deal with the problem adversely affects their finances; it limits public access to their collections and the finance available to other institutions through the drain on national finances to support the British Museum and by depriving museums throughout the country of the income that they could generate through special exhibitions. The refusal affects our wider cultural life by preventing our citizens from seeing the popular and accessible exhibitions of artefacts that Greece would lend us. It has an impact on our Olympic bid, which could be enhanced by the generous gesture of the return. Furthermore, it has an impact on our international reputation, culturally and politically.
  Mr. O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend agree that repatriation of the sculptures and sharing responsibility for them would be in accordance with the Museums and Galleries Commission guidelines on restitution and repatriation, which have been widely supported by the Museums Association and many museums both in this country and abroad?
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I was about to discuss that point. I think that the British Museum trustees have had a dog-in-the-manger approach, which is depriving museums throughout the country of the benefits that would flow from the return of the Parthenon sculptures.
  Greece, under the enlightened approach of the PASOK Government, has made major concessions. It has made generous proposals, offering return exhibitions in return for the sculptures, mainly through the new museum in Athens, and it has made concessions relating to the claim for ownership. That is an offer that we cannot and should not refuse. Our Government should give a powerful steer to the British Museum trustees to stop this dog-in-the-manger approach and to allow return of the marbles to Athens for its Olympic year.
  7.15 pm
  The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing the debate and openly acknowledge his personal and professional interest in this matter. This is not the first time that he has raised the issue with Ministers—me and my predecessors—and no doubt it will not be the last. I also acknowledge the long-standing interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). I was pleased that he was able to intervene because it was right and proper, given the attention that he has paid to the issue in the past.

  411
  Rarely have I replied to an Adjournment debate in which the hon. Member who secured the debate had already guessed what I would say. At the point when I realised that that was the case, I almost gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon my 14 minutes, because he is right that I will say again that it is a matter for the British Museum. I want to expand on that and respond to some of the issues that he raised, but that essentially remains the United Kingdom Government's position.
  I can unite with my hon. Friends in saying that the fact that this is such a long-standing debate, and the fact that it draws such passions from both the United Kingdom and Greece, shows the importance of artefacts and of national heritage to us all, in Europe and beyond. In some ways that proves the point that I am constantly trying to make in my current role: that our past and our history and how we use that to interpret our present and plan for our future is an important part of being a human being and an important part of civilisation. It is because of the importance of the Parthenon sculptures to that part of our national and international life that they create such a strong impression and give rise to such strong feelings.
  I want to put it on the record that I entirely understand the case my hon. Friend makes. I entirely understand the passions of those in Greece who want the sculptures taken back to Greece, and who think that is a proper place for them to be shown, and I understand what that means to people who live there. However, I entirely understand the feelings of the trustees of the British Museum. At the British Museum, they are trying to show not just British history but world history, and they have 10, 000 artefacts there from all the continents of the planet. It is not a case of the Parthenon sculptures looking out of place among what are essentially British exhibits. It is a British Museum that gives a perspective on world development and world history for all visitors to the museum to see.
  Mr. O'Hara: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Estelle Morris: I will give way, but possibly only once unless my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon wants to intervene once as well.
  Both sides speak with passion and conviction. I acknowledge that both of them are sincere.
  Mr. O'Hara: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that to the British Museum collection the Parthenon sculptures are exemplars of high Greek culture—supreme examples, yes, but exemplars, whereas in Athens they are regarded as absolutely essential exhibits in the wider archaeological context that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) described? The Greeks are prepared to give numerous other exemplars, which would encyclopaedically fulfil the same purpose in the British Museum collection.
  Estelle Morris: In a way, my hon. Friend makes the case for me, but it is because they are so important, and such important exemplars, that the British Museum trustees think that the sculptures are such a fundamental part of their collection. There are artefacts, there are
  412
  individual items and there are collections, and when it comes to the point of collections and how things are presented as a collection, it is the trustees' decision to keep them together, and keep them in the British Museum. In terms of interpreting world history, the museum feels that all the artefacts that it has from all the continents are important to the collection. If they were not there, an important part of that collection would be missing.
  The director of the British Museum has said that he sees the aim of the museum to
  "hold for the benefit of humanity a collection representative of world cultures and ensure that the collection is housed in safety, conserved, curated, researched, exhibited and made available to the widest possible public".
  In that sense, it is a universal museum
  Mr. Dismore rose—
  Estelle Morris: I shall give way, but only once, otherwise I will not do justice to the many important matters that my hon. Friend raised.
  Mr. Dismore: This is a brief point, which I made in my speech. How can the Parthenon sculptures be looked at properly when half are in one place and half in the other? Surely that is the judgment of Solomon, which is against the interests of any true academic.
  Estelle Morris: As my hon. Friend pointed out in his speech, the sculptures are not complete. Some parts have been lost and those that remain are not all in the same place. The notion of bringing them together so that the sculpture looks as it did all those years ago is not an option.
  I understand my hon. Friend's argument. His judgment and, clearly, that in parts of Greece is that the sculpture holds greater cultural and historical significance there than in the British Museum. That is the case that is put forward. The British Museum case is that the sculpture is an important part of a world collection that has a clear message about world development. Therein lies the huge difference of opinion, which has been argued over for many years.
  The Government's view remains that this is a decision for the British Museum and the trustees. Our relationship with the museum, as with all our national museums and galleries, is one of arm's length. In other circumstances, hon. Members would be standing here welcoming that and saying that it is right—that we do not want Governments to run national museums and galleries, and that there should be an arm's-length relationship with them under which they can take decisions about the collections and the future free from political interference. In this case, hon. Members ask for political direction, but that would be counter to the relationship that this Government and our predecessor Governments have built up with museums.
  There is a general acknowledgement that, because of the deeds under which it was set up, the museum is not able to dispose of any of the artefacts to other countries or collections. That is because it rightly has an obligation to secure those artefacts and items for successive generations. I accept that museums in general can put exhibits on loan. I was at the British Museum

  413
  recently and I heard of items that had been on loan to other museums in the United Kingdom. I accept that, in legal terms, museums can loan items, but they cannot dispose of them.
  I cannot go into detail here, but I have had advice from lawyers in the Department. My hon. Friend quoted certain laws and although primary legislation might not be necessary, the House would certainly have to consider statutory instruments; but those laws cover only the United Kingdom. Lawyers tell us that under both the legislation on repositories and that to which he referred, the artefacts could not go beyond the UK. A statutory instrument could be used to extend the number of places in the UK that could act as repositories, but it would not be legally possible for such places to be outside the UK.
  The position is not as clear cut as my hon. Friend would have us believe. There is not an easy way for legislation to be put before the House to allow the sculptures to be loaned abroad.
  Mr. O'Hara: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Estelle Morris: No, I will come back to the matter if I find that I have time before 7.30 pm.
  Even if the law allowed the sculptures to be loaned abroad, that decision is one for the British Museum. With any loan, it must take certain things into account. This is not a reflection on the work that Greece would do or the way that it would handle any artefacts on loan, and it ought not to be interpreted in that way, but the British Museum and any other institution would have to consider where the artefacts were going, who would have access to them, whether they would be curated properly, whether they would be safe and whether they would be returned. That is the proper process through which museums and galleries would need to go. That is not a slight on the Greek authorities. They have lovely institutions, given their history, and their plans for the Acropolis will be greatly admired. However, it is a matter for the British Museum and its trustees. By law they cannot dispose of items, but they can loan them.
  The subject gets huge publicity in this country and in Greece. I understand its importance, but it sometimes hides the very good working relationship between the British Museum and its professional colleagues in Greece on other matters. Indeed, the British Museum is
  414
  lending items and artefacts to be shown at the cultural Olympiad as part of the Olympic games in Athens. There are channels of communication; people do speak to each other. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, the debate is different now from 10 years ago. It has moved on from ownership, with the Greek authorities accepting loans in return for other artefacts. As a Minister, I will not comment on the nature of that relationship because it is a matter for the museum. We can all note, however, that the debate is moving on and taking place beyond the Chamber, among professional colleagues.
  I suspect that this is not the last time the subject will be debated in the House. The nature of the debate is changing as the dialogue between our two countries changes. I am interested in that as a Minister and a citizen, and I am pleased that it takes place, but our position will remain as set out in statute. I do not want any Minister to be in the position of telling our museums and galleries what to do with their collections. They are precious and valuable. It is right that museums and galleries are guided by legislation and given direction by the Government of the day, but the arm's-length relationship is important.
  Mr. O'Hara: I refer my right hon. Friend to the Museums and Galleries Bill, which I presented in February 2002. It provides an instrument for tidying up the problem encountered by museum trustees.
  Estelle Morris: I shall pursue that as soon as the debate finishes and drop my hon. Friend a note because I have not perused his Bill. I suspect that if it did provide the solution, my officials would have told me about it. As I am not sure that I am giving a robust answer, I shall certainly look at it.
  I understand the passions on both sides of the argument, and I applaud people who argue their case, but it is not as easy and straightforward as my hon. Friends intimate. I suspect, however, that the debate will continue. It is not the same debate as we had 10 years ago. No doubt the future debate will be different from tonight's debate. The Government's position is as I laid it out. I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions and rest my case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Breast Cancer
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Vernon Coaker.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Marion Roe: I am sure that I am correct in saying that everyone in the Chamber will know someone, woman or man, who has been diagnosed with breast cancer, and will therefore know the challenges that they, their family and their friends face in dealing with the disease. That is why I appreciate the opportunity to have this debate during breast cancer awareness month 2003, on the 10th anniversary of one of the key health awareness campaigns in the United Kingdom. I am delighted to see that the Minister and many other hon. Members are wearing pink ribbons as a symbol of support for the campaign.
I pay tribute to the breast cancer and other cancer charities that have been working in partnership this month to raise awareness of the disease, which also work hard all year round. I shall mention some of them by name. Breakthrough Breast Cancer is a research and awareness charity, which established the Breakthrough Toby Robins Breast Cancer Research Centre. It is the first centre in the UK dedicated solely to breast cancer research. Breakthrough Breast Cancer also provides much-needed administrative support for the all-party group on breast cancer, of which I am one of the joint chairmen. We are extremely grateful to Breakthrough Breast Cancer for all its help.
The UK Breast Cancer Coalition successfully involves hundreds of patients with direct experience of breast cancer in its advocacy work. I congratulate it on the success of its Westminster Fly-in, which took place earlier this week. Breast Cancer Care is the leading provider of vital information and support for everyone affected by breast cancer. Breast Cancer Campaign is a charity specialising in funding independent breast cancer research, and also supports individual research projects.
I am delighted to announce to hon. Members the news of the impending merger between Breakthrough Breast Cancer and the UK Breast Cancer Coalition, which will create the country's largest charity dedicated to breast cancer research, campaigning and advocacy. It will be known as Breakthrough Breast Cancer.
We should not forget the other cancer charities that work tirelessly, carrying out research and providing support to people affected by breast cancer: charities such as Macmillan Cancer Relief, Cancer Research UK, Marie Curie Cancer Care, CancerBACUP and the Institute of Cancer Research. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the countless companies that go out of their way to support breast cancer awareness month, in particular Avon Cosmetics, which announced earlier this month that it had raised more than £10 million for cancer charities through the Avon breast cancer crusade.
76WH
I know that a number of hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall try to be brief. Perhaps it would be helpful if I began with a few facts about breast cancer. It is the most common form of cancer in the United Kingdom, with more than 40,000 women and about 300 men diagnosed with the disease every year. Over the course of her lifetime, a woman's risk of developing breast cancer is one in nine. Tragically, about 1,000 women lose their lives every month as a result of the disease, a sure sign that there is still much to do to improve treatment in the United Kingdom.
This debate gives us the opportunity to raise awareness of the improvements in breast cancer services that have taken place over the last few years, but also to highlight key concerns about breast cancer research, service delivery and patients' access to treatment. Let us focus first on one of the key targets, the two-week wait from the urgent referral of a suspected breast cancer patient to an appointment with a specialist. According to the statistics for the first quarter of 2003–04, the target has been effectively reached, with a 98 per cent. success rate for England. However, the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer estimates that approximately 10,000 women in England are diagnosed with breast cancer through the routine referral route.
In a recent report entitled "Left in the Dark", Breakthrough Breast Cancer highlighted the horrific reality that some of those women could have waited up to 17 weeks—a third of a year for—an appointment wit a specialist. The report states:
"Many women referred routinely are living in fear and literally putting their lives on hold while they endure long routine waits. They are left in the dark, anxious to know if they have breast cancer. This is unacceptable—women deserve better and they deserve a more mature higher quality debate on the subject."
Researchers found that 90 per cent. of women who were interviewed for the report said that they would want an appointment within two weeks of visiting their GP, regardless of whether their case was deemed urgent or non-urgent. Furthermore, we know that the wait between referral and diagnosis is an extremely distressing time. The views of those women, and of patients in general, must be taken on board if a patient-centred NHS is to become a reality.
I want to share with the Minister and other hon. Members further statistics on the process of breast cancer referrals, all of which paint a worrying reality for patients and health professionals alike. For instance, 42 per cent. of GPs felt that it was difficult to distinguish between urgent and routine referrals, 35 per cent. of them admit to not using any form of guideline on whether to refer, and 42 per cent. never receive feedback from consultants on the accuracy of their referral decisions.
I am sure that the Minister shares my concern about the findings of that report. Perhaps she will comment on the unacceptable wait faced by many of those women. I should also like to know how the Government plan to reduce those waiting times and improve the accuracy of the referral system by improving communication between GPs and consultants, and how health professionals can be encouraged to work towards continuous improvement.
I draw the Minister's attention to one of the key concerns of those involved in the health sector—that is, the implementation and monitoring of the National

77WH
Institute of Clinical Excellence guidance. About a year ago, NICE issued guidance on Herceptin, a drug known to extend and improve the quality of life of women with terminal breast cancer. If the drug were to be made available to all who could benefit from it, it would be an extremely important step in bringing an end to the so-called postcode lottery for treatment.
However, recent research by Roche, the makers of the drug, unveiled the fact that there are still serious inequities in access to Herceptin. In some parts of the country only one in 30 of the patients eligible for Herceptin receives it; I am sure that the Minister will agree that that statistic is shocking. Sadly, it is not just Herceptin—or, indeed, cancer drugs in general—that seems to be affected; there is a problem with NICE implementation across the board in health care, as has been demonstrated in recent reports by the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Breast Cancer Care, CancerBACUP and the UK Breast Cancer Coalition. The problem is to ensure that not only is NICE guidance implemented, but the implementation is effectively monitored.
The Minister acknowledged the problems with NICE implementation as recently as last week, at the all-party group on cancer's Britain Against Cancer conference. I ask her to outline today how the Government plan to ensure that primary care trusts have adequate support to implement guidance, and what methods they will use to monitor national implementation systematically.
Although we have come a long way in improving services and treatments for breast cancer patients, we must acknowledge that we have much further to go. I urge the Government to ensure that breast cancer, and cancer in general, remains a top priority. For the sake of the women and men directly affected by the disease every day, we cannot afford to be complacent.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Frank Cook): Order. Two hon. Members have written seeking to make contributions, and since my arrival a further two have indicated that they would like to catch my eye. I remind the Chamber that it is customary to begin the first of the three winding-up speeches at least 30 minutes before the conclusion of the debate. There is ample time today, provided that hon. Members take account of that time limit in making their contributions, in accepting interventions and in responding to them.
9.42 am
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on having secured it at this important time for breast cancer treatment.
Three years ago, the new Labour Government identified cancer as a top priority. I was especially pleased about that, because my local cancer specialists at Addenbrooke's hospital had recently summoned me, and neighbouring Members of Parliament, to a cancer summit. They were concerned about the fact that treatment in the UK was not as effective as that in the United States, that more people were dying after
78WH
diagnosis, and that equipment was extremely outdated. I am pleased that since that time we have made progress: the figures for the periods 1995 to 1997 and 2000 to 2002 show a 10.3 per cent. reduction in the death rate from cancer among people under 75. None the less, I would be the first to say that there is much more to be done.
National statistics indicate that more than 96 per cent. of women with breast cancer now receive their first treatment within one month of diagnosis. During the 1997 general election campaign, I spoke to two women who had recently discovered symptoms of breast cancer and were highly anxious. They had to wait 15 weeks for their first hospital appointment. That is totally unacceptable, as the hon. Lady said. The situation is now much improved.
I realise that I am extremely fortunate that Addenbrooke's is my local hospital. I am even more fortunate that it has the Cambridge breast unit, which Cherie Blair, the Prime Minister's wife, opened in 2001. That allowed the hospital to bring together in one centre all the breast cancer treatments that were provided in different parts of the hospital. The centre is staffed by a group of professionals from different disciplines, whose primary goal is to ensure that high-quality care is given to all women with benign and malignant breast cancer and breast disease. Work at the centre is led Dr. Purushotham and his team, and I pay tribute to their pioneering work.
Each year, some 3,000 new patients are referred to the unit. The Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire breast-screening service also refers patients to the unit, which is constantly flagged up as a model for the development of other tumour treatment sites in Addenbrooke's. Other cancer specialists are learning from the work done by the breast unit and in the West Anglia cancer network—a highly effective network developed in the past few years through which local hospitals may share good practice. It has made quite a lot of progress: it has consistently delivered against all Department of Health targets, despite the pressures of an enormous work load. It has succeeded because of the high level of commitment shown by all its members.
The target wait for a patient whose GP has referred her to the unit is now two weeks, and 100 per cent. of patients see a specialist at the unit within that period. That represents a huge improvement since 1997, when the patients with whom I spoke had had to wait much longer. A woman experiences great anxiety when she finds a lump in her breast. That results in pressure on GPs to refer patients even though they may not believe that it is breast cancer, and leads to a heavy demand on the service. Providing a better service therefore creates greater demand, so it is not always sustainable and may break down.
In response, the unit has issued GPs with detailed guidelines on the referral process, which is available on its website and in hard copy on each GP's desk. The guidelines contain detailed patient information sheets, which GPs may hand out to patients to reassure the worried well and to provide information for patients referred to the unit. There are regular GP education meetings, and frequent discussions with members of the GP liaison committee.
There have, however, been problems, one of which is the reduction in junior doctors' hours, which has led to a reduction in the time available to the specialist

79WH
registrar and the senior house officer to contribute to the unit's service delivery. Addenbrooke's has considered the unit's service delivery as the model for its own service delivery, which has led to two significant developments that could be copied elsewhere.
First, Dr. Liz Cox, a GP specialist, underwent rigorous and updated training in the breast clinic with a view to functioning as an independent practitioner in the new patient clinic. She now runs a new patient clinic and follow-up clinic with the clinical nurse practitioner. The clinical nurse practitioner is also a new role, which has been developed following two years of intensive training supervised entirely by the consultant at Addenbrooke's. For the past two years Sister Dawn Chapman has been an independent nurse practitioner in both the follow-up and the new patient clinics. That is a unique role in the United Kingdom and is attracting considerable interest from other units.
It is rewarding that the Cambridge breast unit is regarded nationally as an excellent place to train. The unit has been rewarded with an appointment from the Department of Health of an oncoplastic surgeon, following a competitive bid for 10 such new posts that have been created in England over the last 18 months.
It is good too that the hospital recognises the importance of breast cancer. High priority is given to patients with breast cancer and a concerted effort by all hospital staff has ensured no cancellations of operations on the day. I cannot imagine what it must feel like to go into hospital thinking that one is going to have an operation for breast cancer only to find that the operation has been cancelled, so I am sure that the elimination of that problem at Addenbrooke's has been a huge relief to many.
Addenbrooke's is also reducing the length of in-patient stay for patients treated for breast cancer, from seven days to a mean of three days. The hospital has done that by training district nurses in the area to manage the drains that drain the fluid after the operation. Patients are therefore discharged within 48 hours post-surgery with their wound drains in situ. That is the result of efforts made by Sister Dawn Chapman, which resulted in her receiving the nursing standards award for surgical nurse of the year 2001.
The Cambridge breast unit is evaluating a new surgical technique in the context of a randomised control trial called sentinel node biopsy. Patients undergoing the procedure are discharged within 24 hours after surgery, and the process leads to far less trauma and surgery than normal breast cancer surgery does. It is predicted that the technique will revolutionise the management of early breast cancer, and it is also envisaged that within three years it will be possible for more than 50 per cent. of all women with breast cancer—approximately 150 patients a year—to be treated in the day surgery unit. I hope that that shows that every constituent of mine is fortunate to live in the catchment area of Addenbrooke's hospital.
I should like to talk about genetics and hereditary breast cancer. Since the publication of the White Paper on genetics this year, which promised £50 million over the next three years to help to realise the benefits of genetics in health care, there has been a great deal of publicity about genetics and hereditary breast cancer.
80WH
The Breakthrough Breast Cancer genetics reference group is a national network of approximately 100 people who, as a consequence of their family histories, have a strong interest in breast cancer genetics and genetic services. Through the group's work, several areas of concern that need to be addressed if genetic services are to be designed round the needs of the patients have been highlighted to women.
To put the matter in context, it is important to remember that only 5 to 10 per cent. of the 40,000 women and 300 men who are diagnosed with breast cancer every year in the UK develop the disease as a result of a strong genetic risk. That roughly equates to between three and six people in each constituency developing breast cancer as a result of their genetic predisposition.
At present, there are very few ways of treating those who are known to carry genes linked to breast cancer. Therapies currently offered include prophylactic surgery to move the breasts and drug treatments that have unclear outcomes. Furthermore, approximately 20 per cent. of breast cancer cases occur in woman who are classed as having a moderately increased risk of developing the disease and are not eligible for genetic testing, as the genes involved in their breast cancers have not yet been identified. To aid early detection, access to screening and surveillance programmes is a priority for those women.
As most people here will be aware, the NHS breast-screening programme invites women between the ages of 50 and 64 for a mammogram every three years. By 2004 that programme will be extended to women aged up to 70. However, hereditary breast cancer is more likely to occur at a younger age. Will the Minister tell us what provision the Government are making to screen or to keep regular surveillance of women under 50 who have a moderately increased or high risk of developing hereditary breast cancer?
Dr. Ian Gibson: It has been enjoyable hearing about the work at Addenbrooke's, which is a paradigm for work that could go on across the country. It is wonderful that the debate has been secured.
My hon. Friend is really talking about prevention. I wonder if there are any other preventive measures that we might adopt. Although much research has been done, it is not quite enough. I wonder if anyone is as confused as I am about what the other causes of breast cancer might be. Do they include obesity or diet? How do we address such issues and give advice beyond genetics about how to prevent breast cancer from developing at any age?
Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend should consider joining the all-party group on breast cancer. He would then be able to attend some of our excellent presentations, such as the revealing one last week on the connection between hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer incidence in the UK. Knowing the risks about the increased incidence of breast cancer made many of us think quite hard about whether one should use HRT. That is an example of the excellent work that the all-party group does. I invite my hon. Friend to join.

81WH
Many women wait up to 18 months for referral to a family history clinic for genetic services. Even after referral, the women who take a genetic test for gene mutations face long delays; many wait more than a year for the results. Some women who were tested in the late 1990s are still waiting for their results. They have received little, if any, explanation of the delay. Despite evidence that mutations occur throughout the gene, it is accepted practice to examine only two thirds of either gene, which is thought to detect approximately 60 to 80 per cent. of mutations. That results in the possibility of mutations being missed or occurring in another gene. Therefore, women wait more than a year for a partial test result, after which some are still left in the dark about their risk of developing breast cancer.
There are also indications that the diagnostic testing of the BRCA genes patented by Myriad Genetics, Inc. has seriously hindered the availability and adequacy of genetic tests for breast cancer in the NHS. Will the Minister comment on the position regarding the Myriad patent on the BRCA genes and commit to ensuring that the NHS provides the best-quality genetic testing available to those at risk from hereditary breast cancer, in order to provide accurate, meaningful and prompt results?
9.58 am
Mr. Iain Luke: I, too, begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on securing the debate. I admire the way in which she introduced the topic, which is highly charged and highly significant to many. I know that she speaks from a deep-seated concern and has a personal awareness of the anguish and distress that that form of cancer can cause.
As the hon. Lady said, this is a highly significant time to hold the debate, as it is national breast cancer awareness month. I must say that if the debate had been held this time last year, I probably would not have attended—but now I am very aware of the impact that breast cancer has. For me, until last year, cancer was a taboo subject to some extent: an acknowledged scourge, but something that happened to others, a wolf that was best kept at the door. I would certainly have sympathised with the sentiments of care and concern that would have been expressed in such a debate—but at a distance. However, the chance discovery of a small lump in my wife's breast on 13 November last year changed all that. Life for us all—my wife, myself and our family—was turned upside down, and my wife was set on a course of treatment which is, I am thankful to say, coming to an end this Friday after almost 12 months.
The year has passed quickly, if painfully; it began with two sessions of surgery, interspersed with frequent meetings with consultants and Macmillan nurses, moving through eight sessions of chemotherapy, lasting six months, and culminating in six weeks of radiotherapy, involving daily visits to hospital. My wife has made a significant contribution to the drafting and phrasing of my speech today, and much of the pain that we have felt has gone into it.
82WH
The impact on family life of such intensive and debilitating treatment cannot be overstated, but the kindness and professionalism of the staff at our local hospital, Ninewells, with whom we have come into regular contact, have certainly made the past year's journey easier. The dedication of NHS cancer staff is something that we can be proud of, and my wife certainly appreciates it.
The first real impact of the breast cancer diagnosis on us as a couple was the strange feeling of being alone and in isolation—a feeling that within the hustle and bustle of a busy world we were set to one side. We found it difficult, initially, to talk to our immediate family and friends, as breast cancer was not a subject that people talked about. However, it is a subject that people should talk about, and that is why I am here today. Only by talking about cancer can we rid ourselves of the fear associated with it, and only by talking about breast cancer can we learn that it is no longer synonymous with an early death—far from it.
A year ago, my wife and I knew that breast cancer was not an uncommon phenomenon. We were well aware of the illness, given its media coverage, but it was from talking to friends, family, colleagues and acquaintances that we began to realise how many people we knew, both in Dundee and in London, were also coming to grips with that cancer, struggling, like us, through their treatments and the day-to-day reality of coping with whatever might hit them next. That revelation, coupled with our very frequent visits to Ninewells hospital, impressed upon us the enormity of the impact of breast cancer—the second most frequent cancer among women—on people's lives.
I appreciate the improvements that have been made in treatments, and the greatly improved survival rates that have resulted from those advances, so that nearly four out of five women survive for five years or more. There has been a 21 per cent. reduction in fatalities in the past 10 years. Encouraging as those survival rates are, I believe, and I am sure that everyone present would agree, that they need to be better. Breast cancer is still the second most common cause of cancer deaths for women in the UK, after lung cancer. There is no doubt that progress has been made and continues to be made, thanks to patient support for clinical trials—my wife was involved in a clinical trial at Ninewells hospital—research institutes, medical staff and drug companies, but the need to do more is constantly at the forefront of one's thinking.
It is encouraging that the current national screening programme will be extended to women of 70 by 2004. However, given that 8,000 pre-menopausal women are diagnosed each year, and that the earlier breast cancer is detected the better the chances of survival, should we not be looking into the possibility of extending the screening programme to younger women on a more regular basis?
Examination of the figures reveals the need for greater equality of access to fast-track treatment throughout the country. We have already heard about Addenbrooke's hospital. I live in Dundee, and my wife and others like her are lucky to live near Ninewells teaching hospital—part of an academic community linked to the Wellcome Trust institute, which is playing a major part in seeking the elusive comprehensive cure for cancer. Even in that centre of excellence, the lack

83WH
of money threatens the Government's target of 80 per cent. of patients being seen at a symptomatic clinic within two weeks of their being referred to one by their GP.
Waiting times for urgent referrals at Ninewells are as long as six weeks, because of the lack of resources to fund additional sessions at the breast clinic to tackle the backlog of patients, which has built up because radiologists have been absent through ill health. Obviously, the situation is exaggerated by the national shortage of radiologists. Last year, my wife was seen in six days after a referral from her GP.
A six-week wait for an urgent mammogram has knock-on effects, which can delay surgery. Any delay increases the risk to the patient and can result in a more extensive and drastic form of surgery being required. The provisional resources to allow prompt diagnoses are surely the best way to take cost-effective action.
As a male contributor to a debate on an illness that predominantly affects women, I must admit that there have been moments over the past year in which I have been found wanting in the face of the demands placed on me. However, I am determined to do all that I can to assist in making the best possible package of care available to those who need it, whatever their postcodes may be.
In the fight against breast cancer, we must do all that we can not only to encourage direct medical care to alleviate by medicine and drugs the physical impact of cancer on patients, but to promote projects such as Maggie's centres, which offer support in the form of drop-in centres for cancer sufferers, carers and anyone whose life has been touched by cancer. In such centres, people can find support and information to help them come to terms with the initial diagnosis and to make treatment choices in peaceful and tranquil surroundings.
A Maggie's centre designed by the world-renowned architect Frank Gehry has recently been built in Dundee, and that is a place where people can make such choices. It is situated on the brow of a hill within the grounds of Ninewells hospital. There is a beautiful vista up the Tay valley estuary as it winds its way westwards up the Carse of Gowrie to Perth. Bob Geldof and Frank Gehry jointly opened the centre last month. It offers quiet and restorative contemplation, and the chances of a spiritual uplift and renewal to combat the invasive nature of one of the worst medical conditions known to women, and men. People who do not know the area will find it hard to picture the scene, but it is the most tranquil setting for a medical building that I have ever seen.
Many more such centres are urgently needed, and I hope that they will be built in the years to come, to benefit all those who suffer from cancer. Outside that form of supportive retreat, we must give the treatment of and cure for that scourge our fullest attention. We must renew, reinvigorate and resource our efforts to reduce the number of women and their families who are sentenced to experience the agony, distress and suffering currently associated with the disease.
Perhaps I should have said this at the beginning of my speech, but I welcome the initiative taken by the hon. Member for Broxbourne in securing today's
84WH
debate, which allows us to focus on what can be done to reduce the suffering that future patients and their families endure from that type of cancer.
10.8 am
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I start by putting on record my genuine appreciation of the work of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer. It was the first all-party group that I joined in 1997, when I was elected to Parliament. The all-party group has three joint chairs, and I particularly want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who has dedicated a great deal of time and energy to the group over many years. I am sorry to say that she will be standing down shortly—but I am sure that she will stay with us and attend meetings, as always.
I shall also mention the enormous help provided by Breakthrough Breast Cancer, whose clarion call is:
"Our vision is a future free from the fear of breast cancer",
which we can all endorse. The group's aims are set out in its current bulletin, which highlights breast cancer awareness month. They are that it:
"Raises issues of concern with Government and other policy makers.
Provides a forum for MPs and Peers of all political parties to discuss breast cancer related issues.
Takes action on behalf of people with breast cancer".
The unsung heroes of this place, who are not often mentioned, are the ever-helpful research assistants in the Library. They now complete an appropriate Library debate pack for all 90-minute Adjournment debates. I called into the Oriel Room last night to collect the pack on breast cancer. All copies had gone, so the assistants made me a reprint—but I shall not rely too heavily on those notes, in case we all seem to be singing too much from the same hymn sheet.
I shall quote just some of the information provided by Cancer Research UK, but shall not go into enormous detail because I want to allow time for others to speak. It says:
"Over 39,500 women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year in the UK. It is now the most common cancer in the UK and by far the most common cancer amongst women. For women, the lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is now 1 in 9",
as the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), said. The document continues:
"Most of the women who get breast cancer are past their menopause, but over 8,000 are under 50 years old. About 300 men are also diagnosed with breast cancer every year.
Various factors are thought to increase the risk of breast cancer. These include:
A close relative with a history of breast cancer. About 10 per cent. of cases are thought to have a genetic basis.
Early start to menstruation (before the age of I1) and late menopause (after age 54).
Having a first child late.
Exposure to radiation (other than normal background radiation).
High fat intake in the diet.
Being overweight.
Moderate to heavy drinking of alcohol.
Oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) may very slightly increase the risk of breast cancer.

85WH
Those with a strong family history of breast cancer carry one of a number of faulty genes which increase the risk of breast cancer. At the moment it is possible to test for two of them, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Up to 85 women out of every 100 that carry a faulty breast cancer gene will have developed breast cancer by the time they are 55."
I asked my local Airedale primary care trust to give me some information on what is happening in my constituency. I should mention that Airedale general hospital does not compare that well with Addenbrooke's, but it is a very good local general hospital, and the biggest employer in my constituency. Lyn Wilkinson, director of community and nursing services, has provided me with one or two points. She says:
"Airedale has a fully accredited Breast Cancer service with the Richardson Clinic providing women with access to Specialist Breast Cancer nurses and surgeon Mr Nejin who specialises in Breast surgery including reconstruction breast surgery (a recent development).
Airedale has a prosthetic service and a lymphoedema service, led by a Macmillan funded lymphoedema nurse."
She also says that the oncology and haematology day unit enables women to have chemotherapy locally in Airedale general hospital. However, women must still travel to Leeds for radiotherapy. The outcomes for women are good, as is referred to in a survey provided by Dr. Foster.
I went to the opening of the comparatively new haematology and oncology unit, and was delighted by it. It is a cheerful large room, well furnished and comfortable. At a time when they are pretty depressed and unsure of their future, it must help women a great deal to be able to go into such a room for chemotherapy.
Because of certain events that are to take place this afternoon, our debate may not grab the headlines. To paraphrase: it is a good day to bury reasonably good news. That is a pity.
10.14 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) made a valuable contribution. I am always delighted when men stand up and move the case forward, and do so as movingly and as well as my hon. Friend did. He was also rather optimistic, which was good for us all. I echo the sentiments of my fellow officers of the all-party group on breast cancer in saying how delighted I am that we have this opportunity to highlight the importance of breast cancer awareness month.
I want to pay tribute to one or two people, including the joint chair, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who, way back in the mists of time, as Chair of the Select Committee on Health, oversaw the production of a useful report on breast cancer. We have seen a lot of progress since then. I also pay tribute to my other hard-working colleagues. I am going to stand down from the chair and hand over to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), because of pressure of work and because I am standing down at the next election. The group works really well. It is a cross-party group, but parties never come into it. We just consider the disease
86WH
and the foot soldiers—the women—and we see how we can progress matters and help deal with this dreadful disease.
I want to focus on some issues relating to screening. I congratulate the NHS breast screening programme on its 15th anniversary. The programme has been remarkably successful in detecting breast cancers in British women. More than 15 million mammograms have been taken, and more than 90,000 cancers detected. Will the Minister confirm the number of cancers detected through the programme in 2001–02, including the number of cancers smaller than 15 mm, which are usually impossible to detect by self-examination?
As I am sure the Minister knows, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer recently determined that there has been a 35 per cent. reduction in mortality from breast cancer among screened women aged 50 to 69, which may go some way towards explaining the dramatic 22 per cent. fall in breast cancer mortality rates in the UK over the past 10 years. That is good news for women, and I declare an interest here.
Bearing in mind the importance of the screening programme, we should be extremely concerned that not all women who are invited to take up the opportunity to be screened do so. That is a worry when one considers that 80 per cent. of breast cancers occur in post-menopausal women, and that early detection and diagnosis are vital in improving women's chances of surviving the disease.
The problem is of particular concern in London, where the minimum standard of 70 per cent. has not been met across the board. In the most extreme case—in central and east London—only 51 per cent. of women took up their invitation for screening. There is clearly a job to be done there. I am pleased to say that in my constituency, Halifax, we are way above the minimum standard, and we also have a beautiful facility with dedicated staff. I pay tribute to every one of them.
As joint chair of the all-party group on breast cancer over the years, I have put questions to various Ministers. Will the Minister comment on how the Government are encouraging women to take up their invitations? I know that there is an ongoing programme. Will she, in particular, investigate the low uptake in black spots such as east London? Perhaps the screening programme could be directed to conduct a survey into why that is happening. I accept that there are problems in certain inner-city areas, but the statistics are poor, and we should be finding out why those women are not attending. I have highlighted London today, but our main aim should always be to ensure that all women entitled to screening take up their invitations, because not doing so can have effects on their future health.
The programme also appears to be struggling with the numbers of women being screened, because of the increase. In 2001–02, the number of invitations sent out fell by more than 60,000 to 1.7 million, compared with 1.8 million during the previous year. We should consider and concentrate on that statistic. I know that it has been partly blamed on the pressure on the service due to staff shortages and recruitment problems, but getting the companies and charities that support us to publicise the issue through some sort of advertising campaign might help.

87WH
I am not criticising the service. It has been brilliant, and it has saved lives, but I would like to see an improvement in that brilliant service. I am not making a criticism of anyone working in it, or the Government—or the last Conservative Government, who introduced it. However, there are numerous examples involving the interval between screenings. The agreed three-year period is now being stretched to four years in London in other areas. Some organisers are adding several months on to the three-year recall interval. That is a worrying trend, because a delay means that some women will miss the chance of having breast cancer spotted at the earliest opportunity.
Breakthrough Breast Cancer has evidence that many women have to chase up the results of their mammograms, or have to wait for more than two months for any result to be received. That is a worrying time, and we could improve that situation. The pressure on the existing system will no doubt be further compounded by the increased capacity when the programme is extended to women aged up to 65 and 70 next year. I declare an interest: I am very pleased about that, because I am in that age group.
Will the Minister comment on those situations and outline what initiatives are currently in place or being planned to ensure that all women who should be screened are given the opportunity to attend? It is important that they receive adequate information promptly and get accurate results from the programme. That goes without saying.
Finally, I want to draw attention to the information provided for women attending screening appointments. The information women receive when invited to routine screening as part of the NHS screening programme is different from what women and men receive if they are referred with symptoms. I am concerned that people who are referred with symptoms are not getting enough information about their situation. The standards of information differ throughout the country. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to that problem. This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne on securing it.
10.23 am
Mrs. Patsy Calton: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on securing this important debate. It touches on all our lives, and none of us is in the happy position of knowing nobody with this particular disease. I would like to associate myself with the hon. Lady's remarks regarding the huge range of breast cancer charities that she mentioned. All of them have played an enormous part in the work that needs to be done on the issue.
I add my own personal thank you to the all-party group, which I joined on becoming a Member of Parliament in 2001. I was made aware of it by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who passed me the documents produced by the all-party group after its 1997 resurrection. I was aware of the work being done by several hon. Members to raise the profile of the issue and point out the importance of getting more than adequate treatment. That group, alongside the secretariat provided by Breakthrough Breast Cancer, has made a real difference. Its calls for better treatment and care have not fallen on deaf ears.
88WH
I also wish to mention the work of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) who made such a valuable contribution to the group, but, sadly, as is the way with these things, had to move on to other responsibilities—and also that of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who as my predecessor was very involved with the group, and of the hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Broxbourne.
The calls for better breast cancer treatment have shown that a multidisciplinary approach, which we have in various excellent centres—we have heard about the centre in Cambridge, and I can also point to the Christie hospital and the Nightingale centre in Greater Manchester—competes with the most advanced treatments in the world. It is a model for treatment of other cancers and for other illnesses. There has been progress, but there is a great deal more to do. Sadly, too often the multidisciplinary specialist approach is still not available, and women and men face a difficult journey on a system that is like the London underground, with parts out of action, parts delayed, and not enough signposting—I owe thanks to a speaker at last week's cancer conference for this analogy.
I pay tribute to the screening service, but there is a shortage of radiographers. The Nightingale centre in my area of Greater Manchester deals with that shortage by training others from related professions to do some of the work. I am sure that acknowledging the numbers problem and ensuring that people are retrained to perform parts of that valuable work are the right things to do.
As we have heard, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer, with around 40,000 cases diagnosed every year. In 2001 there were 13,000 deaths from breast cancer, and about 300 men every year are diagnosed with it as well.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) about the number of risk factors that are known because of the valuable work of Cancer Research UK and others. Early puberty and excessive weight gain are two not unconnected factors. Early pregnancy, more pregnancies and breast-feeding all lessen the risk. The point has been made that although we sometimes discourage women from early pregnancy, it seems that early pregnancy is what nature intended.
Between 5 and 10 per cent. of cases of breast cancer are connected with the BRCA1 and 2 genes, and it is appalling and offensive that Meridian has the patent for those genes and has therefore put an obstacle in the way of research across the world. I hope that the Minister will tell us of the progress that has been made in dealing with a company such as Meridian, which feels it has the right to make money out of people's genes.
Excessive alcohol, excessive post-menopausal weight gain, too little exercise and dietary factors all appear to be implicated in an increased risk of breast cancer. I am grateful to Cancer Research UK for its support of this debate. Its "million woman study" has found a clear link between HRT and increased rates of breast cancer, and it is investigating other factors such as diet, childbirth, breast-feeding, vitamin and mineral supplements, oral contraceptives and family history. I hope that it will soon be able to give a clear indication of the increased risks associated with each factor.

89WH
Our main aim must be to reduce the number of breast cancer cases. More research is needed into how to reduce risk factors, and as important is the need to provide information about risk to ensure that parents, young and older women, and men, can make informed choices about reducing their risk.
The Government have promised to match pound for pound the money raised by charities for research by 2003. Will the Minister confirm that commitment? What will be the total sum devoted to cancer research? We heard at the Europa Donna lecture last year that treatments can be more tailored to particular types of breast cancer, thereby in some cases avoiding the need for the entire bundle of available treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, hormonal treatment and radiotherapy. At the Europa Donna lecture this year, we heard that radical surgery is not always necessary and that outcomes can be as good with lumpectomy, which is becoming a more common practice. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said earlier, all lymph nodes do not have to be removed.
Women with breast cancer, and their families, need patient-centred care with speedy and co-ordinated diagnostic investigations—I emphasise the co-ordinated element—followed by clear signposts to treatment and complementary therapy options. I never got a wig, because I was never at the hospital on the right day. I suspect that such things still happen in some places.
The Nightingale centre, which I attended, and the Christie hospital in Manchester have launched an appeal for a purpose-built centre like the Cambridge centre. It will have all the facilities on site so that women and men are not passed around or made to find their own way along a difficult path at an emotionally charged time, when finding their own way is very hard for them, and for their families.
We all want to know how to reduce our risk, and our daughters' risk, of breast cancer. Some factors are outside our control, but some are not, such as those associated with the other major health problems of heart disease, stroke, other cancers and diabetes: lack of exercise, excessive weight gain, excessive alcohol intake, smoking and dietary factors. The Government have acknowledged those factors in their public health programme, but it is important that their role in cancers, particularly breast cancer, is also played up. Women want to believe not only that first-class treatment will be available to their daughters, but that research to confirm the avoidable risk factors will be financed.
10.32 am
Mr. John Baron: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on securing this important debate, and I take this opportunity to congratulate all hon. Members on their contributions. This highly emotionally charged subject deserves to be handled sensitively.
This is an important debate. One in nine women in the UK will develop breast cancer during her lifetime. The disease accounts for almost one in three of all cancer cases in women and, as we have heard, it is the most common cancer for women in the UK. Last year, some 40,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, and
90WH
unfortunately, some 12,990 died because of it. The UK survival rates for breast cancer are lower than those for the EU as a whole, and that must be corrected. There is no doubt that the Government are attempting to address the problem, but in the next 10 minutes I shall raise several questions about their well intentioned targets, and ask whether they are having the desired effect.
I begin with the two-week referral target, which my hon. Friend discussed. A two-week target was set—in April 1999, I believe—to ensure that all women with suspected breast cancer who were urgently referred by their GP should see a hospital consultant within a fortnight. The target has largely—98 per cent.—been achieved, which is creditable. However, research by the Thames Cancer Registry has found that although that target has been met and the proportion of women who are seen within that time has risen, waiting times for subsequent treatment have gone up, and overall waiting times have not changed at all.
The research found that the introduction of the target had meant that non-urgent referrals could easily wait for up to 12 weeks for an appointment; indeed, we have heard examples of 17-week waits. That is a major area of concern. Long delays can impact on treatment outcomes. As Dr. David Robinson, who was party to the research, put it:
"The problem with arbitrary targets is that they just seem to push patients from one queue to another."
He went on,
"Our study suggests that the Government's two week target has changed little for women undergoing Breast Cancer treatment."
Indeed, the study found that women who went to their doctors with symptoms of breast cancer generally waited longer for appointments than those diagnosed through screening, even though their cases might have been more urgent. Some 86 per cent. of women whose cancers were detected by the screening programme saw a consultant within two weeks, compared with 68 per cent. who went to their doctors with symptoms of cancer. That brings us back to the points raised by a number of speakers. As Dr. Robinson put it:
"The effects we have observed reflect the risks inherent in a policy of targeting one element of the patient pathway in isolation."
Will the Government now make a detailed assessment of the effects that the two-week target is having on non-urgent referrals? There is concern that many women who need to be urgently referred are waiting too long to see specialists, and their treatment is subsequently delayed.
Another target that I would like to bring to the Minister's attention is the one-month wait from diagnosis to treatment. It is generally recognised that many trusts—almost 97 per cent., according to the latest figures—hit that target. That is laudable. However, the cancer plan's target refers only to the wait from diagnosis to the start of the first treatment. Concerns have been raised, particularly by Breakthrough Breast Cancer, about the time that patients have to wait between diagnosis and all the stages of treatment. Many patients receive the first stage of the treatment—often surgery via a lumpectomy or mastectomy—relatively quickly, but they then face significant delays before further treatment, particularly radiotherapy.

91WH
Only last week the Royal College of Radiologists reported that the service is still short of the target set by the NHS cancer plan five years ago and, as the Minister will be well aware, the situation is getting worse. The president of the Royal College, Dr. Dan Ash, went as far as to say:
"There is no doubt that patients are dying unnecessarily."
According to the report, many patients have to wait longer for treatment. When responding to the survey, the Government dismissed it on the basis that the figures were out of date. Will the Government now provide up-to-date figures? Furthermore, will the Minister outline other ways in which the Government are tackling the unacceptable wait for radiotherapy treatment?
In a debate such as this, it is important to pay tribute to all the staff within the NHS who deal with cancer in general and breast cancer in particular, for carrying out their work, often under difficult conditions. I add my tributes to those that have already been made to the many charities that have been active in raising awareness of the issue. I wish the merger of Breakthrough Breast Cancer and the UK Breast Cancer Coalition well.
The centre of our focus must always be the patient—today that means the breast cancer patient in particular. We often talk about patient priorities and the level of service and treatment that patients require, without finding out from patients what they really want. For example, many women affected by breast cancer feel that they still do not receive the written information about the condition, or about available support services, that they rightly feel they deserve. The Department of Health's own survey of cancer patients in 2000 revealed that only 51 per cent. of breast cancer patients were given information at the time of diagnosis. I hope that the Government will address that issue; I believe that they are trying to.
A recent survey of 50 cancer experts conducted by Breast Cancer Care, called "Breast Cancer in the UK: What's the prognosis?"—evidence that cannot be lightly dismissed—found that 80 per cent. of patients did not think that the NHS met the information and support needs of patients satisfactorily. Furthermore, 92 per cent. felt that patients needed more time and support from health professionals to help them make decisions about treatment.
There was also a concern about public misconceptions concerning the age-related risk of breast cancer. We know that 80 per cent. of breast cancer cases occur in women who are over 50—that statistic has been referred to on several occasions. That figure was confirmed in a survey commissioned in July 2000 by Breast Cancer Care in association with Boots. It found that many older women were unaware that the risk of breast cancer increases with age.
What initiatives will the Department of Health instigate to review its breast cancer education strategy in order to ensure that the right messages are getting to the right people at the right time? What efforts will be made to improve awareness generally and to inform decision making? We all know of the cancer risks created by smoking, obesity and diet, but it is felt that the message is not being put across aggressively enough.
I would also like to use this opportunity to bring attention to a group that has campaigned for 12 years to seek justice for its members, who have suffered from the
92WH
effects of an overdose of radiation in the brachila plexus region. The group is called the Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure—RAGE for short. Its campaign started after the published case of Lady Audrey Ironside's failed court action against a consultant at the Royal Marsden hospital. During her case it was discovered that a large group of women had been injured accidentally at certain cancer centres between 1980 and 1985.
I ask the Minister to give the Government's position with regard to RAGE. In particular, will she urge the Secretary of State for Health to answer my letter dated 15 September 2003, which sets out the case for compensation for those affected by radiation exposure? It asks whether, as the Department of Health is set to make awards to those who have contracted the hepatitis C virus, it will now reconsider the case of the 250 or so women who are represented by RAGE.
I ask the Minister to address the following key issues that I have raised. The Government's two-week target is failing to bring down waiting times for breast cancer treatment, and may indeed in certain cases be leading to urgent cases being put on the non-urgent referral list. The one-month first treatment target may actually be causing significant delay in breast cancer patients receiving subsequent treatments, particularly radiotherapy. Most breast cancer patients believe that the NHS fails to meet their information and support needs. The Government have not responded to my request for a review of the RAGE campaign. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, in the hope that she will answer those specific questions.
10.44 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): It is with great pleasure that I rise to respond to this excellent debate. I congratulate, as others have done, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on giving us this opportunity. I think that we have all seen it as a fantastic chance to be able to talk about a subject very dear to our hearts and close to the concerns of many people across the country. It is always a pleasure to rise as a Minister, knowing that one is responding to a debate of quality and interest such as that demonstrated by hon. Members' contributions this morning.
I shall endeavour to respond to as many points as possible, but in the time left I may have difficulty in responding to all the many useful points that the numerous experts around me have raised. First, I shall mention the successes that we have had in working with breast cancer charities, whose contribution I welcome. The hon. Lady set out a long list of breast cancer charities, so I shall not risk rehearsing all of them, for fear of leaving one off the list. Their work with patients, their research work, their work on user involvement and the many campaigning and other activities in which they are involved form an excellent addition to the work of the national health service on breast cancer. They have a very important role in making women aware of breast cancer, and of symptoms, treatment and support. That is all to be warmly welcomed.
This debate gives us the chance to look at a wide range of issues. I shall say a few words on prevention, which a number of hon. Members touched on. We know that

93WH
obesity contributes to the risk of breast cancer, and it is important that that message become more widely understood. There is a particular relationship between fat intake, including saturated fat, and the development of breast cancer. Only yesterday, Cancer Research UK published research detailing an association between high meat consumption and breast cancer. Improving diet, as we are advocating in general, by increasing fruit and vegetable consumption is considered the second most effective strategy in reducing the risk of cancer, after giving up smoking. We are therefore leading the development of a comprehensive food and health action plan, which will bring together current initiatives on diet and nutrition and focus more strongly on achieving a healthier diet for people in England.
We are also trying to do more to increase women's awareness of breast cancer. That is very important because 90 per cent. of breast cancers will be found by women themselves. There is a five-point code in that regard: women knowing what is normal for them, knowing the look and feel of their breasts, knowing what changes to look for, reporting any changes without delay, and attending for breast screening if aged 50 or over.
On screening, I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on her contribution and her work with the all-party group on breast cancer in the past few years; hers was one of several contributions that mentioned screening. Of course, we cannot prevent all cancers, although it would be highly desirable to do so. Even if people took all the useful precautions that they could take, we would be a considerable way from achieving that. The fact that 8,500 cancers were detected through the breast cancer screening programme in 2001–02 speaks for itself. In many cases, screening finds cancers before they turn into detectable lumps. Many of those detected were small cancers that would not have been found by self-examination or by general practitioners. Early detection and treatment means that women have a far greater chance of survival than they would otherwise have.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax mentioned, we are in the process of extending the breast screening programme to women aged 65 to 70 by 2004. That has been rolled out in a number of areas, and an additional 200,000 women have already been invited for breast screening since we began the extension in April 2001. By the time that the extension is completed next year, 400,000 more women each year will be invited, when the scheme is fully implemented. In addition, we are upgrading current services by offering two-view mammography at all screening rounds by 2003, which will lead to an estimated 43 per cent. improvement in the detection of small cancers.
We are aware that some women who are invited for screening do not take up the offer, and the point about the difficulties in London was well made. We cannot force women to attend, however, and problems can arise when they change address. What we can do is to make women aware of the importance of attending. The cancer charities have a major role to play in making women aware of the benefits, limitations and risks of
94WH
screening, and in helping them to make informed choices. Hopefully, women will attend, but it is a matter for them.
I shall provide more information about our achievements through the screening programme, because it is important to realise how effective much of the work has been. In 2001–02, 1.3 million women in England were screened and more than 8,000 cancers were detected. Some 93.8 per cent. of women who had invasive breast cancer detected by screening are alive five years later, which is an impressive statistic. In cases of non-invasive cancer, 98.6 per cent. of women were alive five years later.
Early screening has reduced mastectomy rates, which have fallen by half since the introduction of screening. That is because women can often be treated with minor surgery, which conserves the breast, rather than with the radical surgery that results in mastectomy. The mortality rate fell by more than 21 per cent. between 1990 and 1998. One third of that fall is attributed to screening, which plays an important role in tackling breast cancer and its incidence.
On waiting times, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne said, the two-week wait has been a huge success. Some 98 per cent. of women wait two weeks from urgent referral to being seen at a clinic, which is welcome. In the last quarter of 1999, 28,000 women were seen within two weeks; in fact, the figure may be more recent, but my notes are not entirely clear. The two-week out-patient standard was introduced in 1999.
Patients must be confident that, if they have symptoms of what could be cancer, they can discuss them with their GP and be referred quickly and appropriately if necessary. A GP with a list of 2,000 patients, which is typical, can expect to see one new breast cancer patient per year, but they will also see a considerably larger number of women with benign breast problems.
The need for GPs to pick up and refer people appropriately has already been mentioned. Their task is to differentiate between patients whose symptoms may be cancer and the very much larger group of patients who have similar symptoms arising from other causes. We have developed cancer referral guidelines for primary health care teams to help them to identify those patients who are most likely to have cancer, and who require urgent specialist investigation. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently reviewing those guidelines.
As was mentioned, the referral guidelines recommend a local audit of referrals and feedback to GPs, and we are looking systematically at the review across the local audits. Indeed, we have primary care clinical leads appointed in more than 300 primary care trusts, which is almost all of the trusts in England. As I said, the referral guidelines are being reviewed.
Mr. Baron: I hear what the Minister says, but will she accept that an increasing body of evidence suggests that the Government's two-week target is failing to bring down waiting times for breast cancer treatment and may, in certain cases, lead to urgent cases being put on the non-urgent referral list?
Miss Johnson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating what may be a difficulty. We need to check,

95WH
and I shall be happy to investigate whether there is a difficulty. Unfortunately, much of the available information on cancer tends to lag behind what is currently happening. The vast majority of women are served nothing other than extremely well by the target, and by its having been met by 98 per cent.
Another target, which also serves women well, requires that when breast cancer has been diagnosed, women should receive prompt treatment. They should receive treatment within a month of diagnosis, and during the most recent quarter for which we have information, the one-month diagnosis to treatment target was achieved in almost 97 per cent. of cases. I undertake to see whether we can do anything more, outside of reviewing the guidelines, about the time that it takes for some women who are not urgently referred to be seen.
As several hon. Members said, in general death rates are showing a marked improvement. The 21 per cent. reduction in breast cancer, and the 10 per cent. overall drop in cancer death rates over the five years, from the mid-1990s average to the 2000–01 average, indicate that we are making substantial progress on breast cancer and on other cancers. That is an illustration of earlier treatment and diagnosis, better treatment and better follow-up across the piece.
As I am short of time, I will turn to the question of a postcode lottery for prescriptions, and, as was mentioned, for Herceptin in particular. We were concerned by the recent evidence, produced by Roche and Breakthrough Breast Cancer, on Herceptin. As a result of that information, we asked Mike Richards, the so-called cancer tsar and the national director for cancer, to investigate the causes of the apparent differences in the prescription of Herceptin around the country. He has been asked to report to the Secretary of State within three months, and we will consider his findings. I assure hon. Members that we do not believe that funding should be the cause of any such postcode prescribing, and we are committed to ensuring that the drugs are available to patients in line with NICE guidelines.
Government matching of voluntary funding has also been mentioned. The latest analysis, covering the year 2000–01, shows that the Government matched voluntary funding—the figure was, I think, about £180 million per annum—and we continue to do so.
Macmillan Cancer Relief and the Department of Health are working with service users and leading experts in cancer and genetics to develop a model approach for people at risk. Plans are currently being drawn up, in partnership with Macmillan Cancer Relief, to pilot the model from 2004 in some six sites throughout England. In addition, NICE is producing guidelines for women who are worried about familial breast cancer, and they are due to be published early next year. As announced in the genetics White Paper, some of the £50 million investment will he used to upgrade genetics laboratories.
I have not had time to do justice to the many points that have been raised. However, I have had breast cancer and I understand exactly what this means for women. So I can assure hon. Members, whose enthusiasm and interest I welcome, that we are very committed to achieving huge improvements.

Disabled Children
11 am
Mr. David Cameron: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important issue, and I am pleased that a Health Minister will respond.
In the early years, the national health service and social services are the vital support services for families with disabled children, especially for people with very severely disabled children—the group on which I want to focus. My interest in the subject was first aroused by a very brave woman, Tussie Myerson, who lives in a neighbouring village in my constituency. She has a severely disabled 12-year-old daughter, Emmy, who is quadriplegic and has intractable epilepsy, asthma, severe learning difficulties, and recurrent infections that often require hospitalisation.
Tussie has fought hard to get the support that she needs to care for her child and to try to maintain some sort of normal family life. While trying to help her, I suddenly found myself perhaps not in the same boat, but at least trying to navigate the same sea. My wife and I have a son, Ivan, who is now 18 months old. He has chronic epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and severe developmental delay. One never knows about the future, but he is unlikely ever to be able to walk or talk. He is a magical child, with a smile that can make me feel like the happiest father in the world, but anyone who has experienced the elation of having a child and then the agony of watching them suffer and finding out about their disability will say that there is also a huge amount of pain.
It is very dangerous for a politician to say that one must experience something in order to understand it. By and large, I do not believe that, but there is something about being thrown into a situation that is so totally unexpected and having to face all the difficulties of coping, all the worry about the suffering of one's child, all the hospital visits, the different treatments, the hopes raised and then dashed, and everything else one experiences that makes one think about the issue with great intensity. Many other parents of disabled children have come to my surgery, both before Ivan was born, and especially since then. I am still a beginner in getting to grips with the wider issues—there are many in this place who are more expert than I but—much of what I have heard and read of others' experience jumps off the page because it fits so closely with what I have found and how I have felt.
Let me be clear; I am saying neither that the way in which we handle disability in this country is a disaster, nor that the Government are getting it all wrong. The care that my family have received through the NHS has, by and large, been superb, and many others would say the same. The help provided by social services can be much more variable, but the staff are good people struggling to do their best and to help. However, much more needs to be done, which is why I requested this short debate today.
As the Minister will know, there is a growing number of severely disabled children in this country. According to Mencap, there are 210,000 children and adults with severe or profound learning disabilities in England, of whom nine in 10 children and six in 10 adults live at home with their family. Those last two figures should be

97WH
stencilled on the Minister's desk, because the vast majority of their care is provided not through the NHS or social services, but through families and carers. I am not talking about my own family: I can afford to get a great deal of help, and we get it. However, others cannot afford it, and they are, quite frankly, heroes and heroines who are doing an often impossible job. The disabled children about whom I am speaking are probably the most vulnerable people in our society. Many need support 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
There are two fundamental points to make in this debate. The first is that support for families, especially that provided by social services, needs to keep up to date with advances in medical practice. More disabled children are surviving birth and more are living longer—a fact that all Departments need to register. The ACE—aiding communication in education—centre in Oxford, which I visited recently, does amazing work in developing new equipment and technology to help the disabled, but it receives pretty much the same funding today that it did eight years ago. Most children's hospices get very little support from Government funds. Helen house—also in Oxford and visited recently by me—gets none, yet it has never been so busy. It is building a new home, Douglas house, for those with life-ending disabilities or conditions who survive into their teens and beyond. The number of such people has grown remarkably, and policy needs to reflect that fact.
The second starting point is that because families bear the brunt of the work, there is an essential unfairness in the system. Often those who do the most receive the least help. The family of a child with cerebral palsy came to my surgery: they were receiving only one hour of support a week, because they were a magnificent family coping as best they could. As the truly excellent Audit Commission report puts it,
"The services that disabled children, young people and their families are offered depend largely on where they live and on how hard parents are able to push."
That cannot be right. Some parents who cannot cope inevitably throw in the towel, and the state is then left with more children in care and a huge bill. The cost of looking after a severely disabled child in residential care is often more than £100,000 a year, yet a fraction of that money, if delivered in the right way, could help a family to cope at home.
What needs to be done? Here comes the shopping list, I am afraid. More priority needs to be given to helping families with disabled children. As the Audit Commission puts it:
"Services for disabled children are still Cinderella services. Their level of priority remains low, with other priorities experienced as more pressing."
That means money. I come back to my point about advances in medical science. Investment in the NHS over decades means that more of the children in question survive, and that they live longer—but has there been a corresponding increase in support? Of course not. If we are going to give those children life, we must also give them and their families decent lives.
I am not a fan of ring-fenced funding, because I believe in local democracy and local discretion. However, we have a problem. Not unnaturally, social
98WH
services departments are—rightly—most concerned about children at risk of abuse, but as a result disability services can become a Cinderella service within a Cinderella service. That is certainly not right. More planning and greater understanding of the numbers are essential in social services departments. If we do not know how many children we are trying to deal with, service provision will never match up.
I beg the Government to aim to achieve some simple goals. They have produced good documents, like the new Green Paper and the national service framework, which I am sure the Minister will mention, but a clear focus is needed on a few areas that would make a real difference. I suggest two. The first is ensuring that parents have clear rights and understand them. Trying to find the right services for a child is like trying to shop in the high street in a blizzard: people know that there are doors they are meant to open and places they are meant to go, but it is all desperately unclear. When events turn lives upside down, people need to know straight away what benefits and services are available and the level of service they should expect. Services should lock on to them like a laser-guided missile as soon as their child's needs and their own needs are assessed, yet six out of 10 families have never had a carer's assessment.
If the relevant rights were set out clearly, and were nationally available and well understood, the problem of the lack of ring-fenced funding would be much less serious. Instead of national rights, however, we have locally set eligibility criteria, and in recent years those criteria have often been tightened. It is hard to blame local social services departments for setting them, given that they are trying to provide services out of very tight budgets. In Oxfordshire, substantial cuts have recently been necessary because the standard spending assessment is so low. However, the lottery of provision that results is simply not good enough.
The second simple goal is respite. One thing agreed on by almost everyone I have spoken to who cares for a disabled child is that they desperately need a break. I think that Mencap's "Breaking Point" campaign is one of the most persuasive and well targeted campaigns that I have ever seen. Mencap has found that eight in 10 families caring for disabled relatives are at breaking point, yet six in 10 get no short break service at all, or one that is so minimal that it does not meet their needs, and three in 10 say that they had less in the way of breaks last year than the year before because of reductions in services. Different ways of delivering breaks suit different people. For some, respite consists of care in a residential centre; for others, it means a carer going to work in the home so that the parent or usual carer can get away for a bit. Whatever the method, breaks there must be.
Parents cannot but be struck by the difference between the amazing care within the NHS and the often rather sketchy care that they receive from social services once they are outside the NHS. One minute, their child is in hospital having magnetic resonance imaging scans, being cared for by nurses and visited by speech and language therapists and physiotherapists, and so on; the next minute, the family are back at home trying to cope, often alone. Better integration of health and social care is essential.

99WH
The teamwork model, with a consultant leading one's case and all the other specialties attached, must be the right way forward. That is what I have experienced at St. Mary's hospital in Paddington, and I praise it. Not all hospitals can deliver that model of care, however, and they should be able to. Easy access to hospital is essential. My family are on our 14th hospital admission in less than a year, and doctors and nurses have told me of many other similar cases, so our experience is not untypical. All too often, however, parents with children who frequently need to be admitted to hospital wait for hours in accident and emergency, sometimes in the middle of the night. Can the Minister say what more can be done to give more automatic access to wards to such people?
A further issue is waiting times for social services. Everyone talks about the same things: the wait for an assessment, the wait for a decision, the wait to see if funding can be put in place, and the wait for equipment that often no longer fits by the time it arrives. The Audit Commission's study contains a powerful quotation from a mother, who says:
"Once you get a service it's usually quite good, but the problem is getting it. The first problem is knowing about it. The second problem is persuading someone you need it. And the third problem is finding someone who can deliver it".
I have one or two further suggestions, the first of which is about waiting times. When a family are close to breaking point, it is an emergency, but there does not seem to be anything like an emergency service. Almost anyone—a nurse, a carer, someone to help—would be better than nothing for some of the parents who have come to my surgery in west Oxfordshire. They ask, "Can't the assessments, the form filling and all the bureaucracy be short-circuited just to throw in someone who could actually help for a few nights, or even a few hours?" It is difficult to answer them, so we need to consider the issue closely.
Secondly, although I pay tribute to the Government for trying to move ahead with the idea of individual payments—giving families the money and letting them decide how it is spent on the services that they need to cope at home—I understand that the idea has not taken off as fast as they hoped it would, possibly because of the bureaucracy involved. I wonder whether the Minister has considered the idea of personal trusts, which MacIntyre Care, among others, is proposing. The concept is quite straightforward. Disabled people have around them a network of relatives, carers and friends who can be trusted to act on their behalf. Creating a personal trust involving those people would ensure that much of the state bureaucracy would not be needed, because the trust would have to provide a full account of the money raised and the money spent. Setting up a trust would make it possible to access extra support from the community and other organisations. I commend what MacIntyre Care has said and can give the Minister details if he wants to consider the idea, as I hope he will.
I apologise that, with my passion for the subject, I have thrown off ideas like sparks from a lathe, but I plead with the Minister to have one guiding principle—to make the lives of families who are struggling to cope with severely disabled children easier. When I spoke to our carer this morning, she gave me another idea. She said, "Why do we wait until severely disabled children are two years old before giving their parents disabled
100WH
parking badges?" Most of those kids cannot have immunisations because of their illnesses and cannot go on public transport, but they have appointments all over the place for services that I am sure the Minister will tell us about. It may be a small thing and, as I have said, there is much to do, but the Minister is a sensitive soul and will want to start somewhere.
Before asking the Minister to reply to this debate, I ask him to recall the last time that we faced each other across this Chamber, when I asked about group B streptococcus infections. In answer to an intervention from me, he kindly said that he would entertain a delegation of parents who have lost children to such infections. He said that we could pick a suitable time to see him, and I hope that we shall be able to do that, either later this year or early in the new year, when he has more of the medical and other evidence that he said would be necessary to respond. I look forward to hearing what the Government intend to do to support families with disabled children.
11.14 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): It is a pleasure to answer a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). I congratulate him on raising such an important issue and on his continued interest in the health and care of children. He says that it is not necessary for anyone to have personal experience of something in order to speak authoritatively about it, and I entirely agree. However, it is important that we learn from those who have such experience, so I welcome the fact that he used his experiences as well as those of his constituents to illustrate his speech, and I look forward to further exchanges on the matter, both in the Chamber and in private.
I have not forgotten my commitment to meet parents and others involved in the group B streptococcus campaign. The timing mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—towards the end of this year or early next year—is what I had in mind. By then, we will have concluded or at least made progress in our review, and we will be able to have a more meaningful discussion than we could now. As soon as I have the information, I promise that a date will be entered in my diary.
For those interested in the machinery of government, if we had had this debate last year, my predecessor in this post, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who is now the Minister for Industry and the Regions, would have been answering as the Minister responsible for children's health and for children's social care. We now have a Minister for Children at the Department for Education and Skills, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) is responsible only for children's social care; I, a Minister at the Department of Health, have responsibility for children's health.
The hon. Member for Witney mentioned the need for joined-up services, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and I are trying to lead by example. We have joint meetings on the various issues that concern us both, and we make decisions and keep each other informed of progress on our respective responsibilities. On many issues, we work in tandem, so not only can I speak with confidence about children's

101WH
health issues, but I can answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend about social care matters. She will at some point be answering questions or debates on children's social care, and I have no doubt that she will be equally happy to answer questions on children's health.
I shall deal later with the Green Paper and the national service framework for children. The hon. Member for Witney mentioned the Audit Commission's report and Mencap's "Breaking Point" report, which raise serious issues. I wholeheartedly agreed with much of what he said—indeed, I heard nothing that had not already crossed my mind and is not already on my agenda. We may dispute our priorities over the coming year, because I cannot work on everything at once, but I assure him that our minds are working along similar lines.
The Audit Commission found a lottery of provision in health and social care support. I acknowledge that the quality of service depends on where one lives and how well the local council is working. That is not acceptable. I want high-quality services to be available everywhere. I promise the hon. Gentleman that, far from slipping down the Government's agenda, children's social care and children's health—not only for children at risk, as dealt with in the Green Paper, but for those with disabilities and all other children—are at the top of our agenda. I am sure that he listened to me when I had Adjournment debates on the subject as chairman of the all-party group on autism, before I was promoted to my present post. He will have found common cause with me on the need for joined-up services.
The example that I always gave was what I called the bag ladies. Hon. Members will immediately recognise the bag ladies from their surgeries. They are the mums—occasionally dads, but usually mums—who into our surgeries carrying bags full of letters that they have had to write to get all the services that they need for their disabled children. We need to arrive at a system in which, as the hon. Gentleman identified, there is an early assessment of a child's disabilities and we immediately plug in all the services that that child needs, so that mum does not have to become a bag lady to get the required level of service. A good example of progress is the national initiative for autism: screening and assessment, which became the national autism plan for children. It identifies a process of early intervention for disability, which the Government are considering. Of course, the national service framework is intended to consider such issues and the way in which we join up all those services.
Over the past couple of years, the Government's quality protects programme has been the key vehicle for driving upward the quality of services. Disabled children have been a priority in the programme. Over three years, £60 million for the children's services special grant has been earmarked for services for disabled children and their families. We have had some success. The national overview report for quality protects shows that more family support services, particularly home-based respite care and sitting services, are being provided. The majority of councils have started developing proposals in collaboration with partners from other agencies and sectors, such as the NHS and the voluntary sector, and there are numerous examples of improved provision around the country. We need to
102WH
build on that success and ensure that all disabled children have access to excellent services. That is why we have doubled the earmarked funding for disabled children from quality protects from £15 million to £30 million.
We are also increasing support through the carers grant. That is leading, in particular, to increases in the levels of provision of short-term breaks for carers, including parents of disabled children. Last year the total number of carers helped via children's services was 52,000. The carers grant is increasing annually, and by 2005–06 it will have nearly doubled to £185 million. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was equally interested in the "Breaking Point" report. I am determined to do even more to support carers and am looking for further opportunities for the Government to be able to help them in future.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned direct payments and the views of MacIntyre Care about setting up disabled people's trusts. I have not seen that work and I would welcome details of it. I will certainly consider the idea. My immediate instinct is that I am not sure that it will be necessary to go down that route because the legislation is absolutely clear, although it is often misinterpreted. It says that councils have a duty, not to offer, but to make a direct payment. Councils should presume that they are going to deliver care through a direct payment; they should not presume that they are going to provide care directly. Direct care should be provided only when people—whether they are the parents of a disabled child, or older adults—have turned down the opportunity of a direct payment.
The legislation is equally clear in relation to judging whether somebody can manage a direct payment. It states:
"with such assistance as may be available to him".
That assistance is family, friends, carers and the local council itself. I have met people with severe learning disabilities who are managing a direct payment perfectly in order to provide themselves with an independent life. They are plugged into a network of assistance that helps them to manage that payment. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will certainly consider the idea of a personal trust, but the legislation makes it possible for us to deal with that in other ways. If that is not working, we need to find out why.
I intend to exert major pressure to move forward on direct payments. This week, I received an email from an old friend whom I have not seen for 15 years. About 10 years ago, he had an accident that left him severely disabled and in a wheelchair. He emailed me to say that direct payments have transformed his life. That is the experience of disabled people and parents of disabled children all over the country who have had access to direct payments. We need to push ahead on that agenda.
The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of the benefits of fostering compared with residential care. I know that he is concerned that residential care is occasionally not an option and that fostering always seems to be preferred. When a family cannot cope with a disabled child any longer and needs some extra help, we usually prefer the fostering environment because it keeps the child in a family setting, and the sort of family support that we believe a child needs continues to be provided.

103WH
However, I accept that the option of residential care should sometimes be on the table and that it needs to be kept available.
On equipment and therapy services, we are taking specific action to improve services for disabled children. The Audit Commission said that many disabled children have had to wait long periods for equipment services. The NHS plan set out our commitment to modernise community equipment services and, backed by additional funding, we are working towards the development of integrated equipment services.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, therapy services are another key service for disabled children. In the NHS plan, we recognised that the shortage of human resources is the biggest constraint faced by the NHS today, and we set out our commitment to increase the work force. With the extra investment that we announced in the 2002 Budget, we will build on that target. By 2008, we expect the NHS to have had net increases of at least 30,000 allied health professionals and scientists over the September 2001 staff census. The plan also announced an increase in the number of training places for therapists and other health care professionals. It set a target of 4,450 extra training places for therapists and other key professional staff by 2004. I must add that recruitment will be our biggest challenge; I cannot turn on a tap and magically produce trained professionals. It takes time to attract people to that type of career, and to train and deploy them, but we have a strategy to bring them into the NHS as rapidly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", which I spoke of earlier. It is essential that we have a strategic framework to protect children and to ensure that they have all the services that they need. The Green Paper provides us with that framework. It specifically states that we will shift the balance of services towards early intervention,
104WH
particularly in the early years. It also states that we will improve support to parents and provide targeted services, specifically mentioning the families of disabled children. We have set out proposals to integrate education, health and social care through children's trusts, extended schools and children's centres. They will be particularly important for disabled children, who often need the support of all of those agencies. Whether the starting point is health, education or social services, we expect coherence in the planning, commissioning and delivery of services.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the national service framework for children, which will be published next year. It will set national standards for health, education and social services and will help to tackle the problem that he mentioned: the postcode lottery of provision. It will also ensure better access and smoother progression in the provision of services for children. The leading external working group on such work has established seven task groups to address specific issues such as early diagnosis and intervention, family support, equipment, housing, therapy, transition, participation, and support for children with complex health care needs. They are all issues that the hon. Gentleman raised today. The framework will lead to disabled children having access to modern health and social care services designed to meet their needs—services that give choices to them and their families.
We recognise the agenda that the hon. Gentleman has set out today. That is my priority and a key priority of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children. I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute commitment that we will work hard on every issue that he has raised. We may not be able to solve all the problems instantly, but I promise that we will endeavour to do so.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Housing
2 pm
Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important issue. Many Members have shown a great deal of interest in this Adjournment debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) who first suggested calling it.
Overcrowding is the forgotten issue in housing policy. Because it is so difficult, perhaps it has not been so much forgotten as put on the back burner, where it has remained since 1935, when the standards were first introduced. The point of this Adjournment debate is to set out how disastrous the standards are and how they can be improved, and to press for their improvement as part of any housing legislation introduced in the near future.
The number of families in statutorily overcrowded conditions is not known, because the figures are not collected. London Housing states that 150,000 households are overcrowded, but its definition is not exactly the same as statutory overcrowding. In the introduction to his Housing (Overcrowding) Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) referred to the survey of English housing, which states that 500,000 households nationally are overcrowded—but again, the definition is not necessarily the same as that for statutory overcrowding.
The actual number of statutorily overcrowded families is likely to be minimal, because the standards are so abysmally low that it is hard to breach them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and I have examined housing in her constituency. Although many of the families whom we met on that visit live in overcrowded conditions, when I counted up the people and the rooms, none of them was statutorily overcrowded. However, my hon. Friend knows of a number of cases of statutory overcrowding.
Many of us have been involved with housing over the years both as councillors and as MPs, and all the evidence, and the experience of those of us who have been involved with housing on a professional or a casework level, points to three things. First, overcrowded households include families with children. That may sound obvious, but it is worth emphasising that the issue concerns not only housing policy but policy for children. By and large, overcrowding does not affect single-person households. Secondly, the problem disproportionately affects people from ethnic minority communities. Some communities are affected more than others. In particular, the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets, on which Shelter has produced an excellent report, is seriously affected by overcrowding. Thirdly, overcrowding is a problem for young families with one or two children who are trapped in one-bedroom flats in excruciating circumstances—something that I see a lot in my constituency.
Overcrowding is often seen as a big city problem, but that is not the case. In my middle England constituency, I come across the problem too often. For example, I know of a Bangladeshi woman with six children who lives in a little terraced house. She has created six bedrooms in her house by making haphazard subdivisions. She shares one small room with her baby,
106WH
her 15-year-old daughter lives in another tiny room, her four other children sleep in a third room, another couple and one of their children share a fourth room, that couple's other three children, one of whom has special needs, sleep in another room, and a single man sleeps in an attic room.
Last weekend I visited a family who live in a one-bedroom first floor flat. The young woman, her husband and their two-year-old son share a bedroom. The daughter, who is about 10 years older, has serious special needs and sleeps in the sitting room. The sitting room is full of containers of clothes, baby items and toys. Both families have serious problems as a result of their overcrowded conditions, but neither is statutorily overcrowded. Neither has any hope of moving.
It is hard to overestimate the profound sense of injustice that overcrowded housing conditions can create in people. There is complete fury when people are told that they should relieve the pressure on the bedroom by putting a bed in the kitchen, or when they are told that they can meet the requirements for gender segregation if the wife sleeps in the same room as the daughter and the husband shares a room with the sons.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We can all come up with terrible examples of overcrowding. Would not a really good outcome of the debate be for the Minister to give a direction under the Homelessness Act 2002 that when local authorities carry out their homelessness plan they should also inquire into the exact amount of overcrowding in their area?
Ms Keeble: I shall come to some ways forward at the end of my remarks. I said at the beginning that the problem is very difficult to solve. There must be careful thought about how we progress. One real difficulty with overcrowding is that in none of those cases are the families statutorily overcrowded. If a survey were done of statutory overcrowding, the horror stories that everyone could tell would not show up, because the families are not statutorily overcrowded according to the present rules.
We must review the standards and set new ones that would have been more appropriate even in 1935, let alone today. We must also consider how the Government work with local authorities to map out the extent of overcrowding and to determine how to catch the small but acutely disadvantaged group of people who live in unacceptable conditions.
One could argue that people who are overcrowded should simply be regarded as homeless. That would create a catch-all, but no clear framework for solving the problem. I shall come on to some solutions later. It is important that proposals are put forward in this debate that can be picked up and implemented by the Government to ensure that we end what has been a complete scandal for many years.
The sense of injustice felt by people who live in such circumstances is increased when they see homeless families get two or three-bedroom houses. Most local authorities use more generous space standards for housing allocations, but overcrowded families do not score highly on points systems for transfers.
Overcrowding is often a problem for growing families who become trapped because they cannot get transfers, or because adult children who cannot get housing

107WH
remain with their parents and have children of their own. Two or three families may live in one house. One way out is for families to make themselves homeless, and some end up doing just that.
It is hard to overestimate the damage caused by overcrowding. It is an area on which the different aspects of Government policy are not joined up properly. Children cannot do their homework if the sitting room is a bedroom and there is no space to study. The consequences for health can also be dire. The British Medical Association's head of science and ethics has said that
"poor housing can cause psychological and physical health problems, and the best way to reduce health inequalities in this country is to improve living standards."
There are also risks to children's safety and well-being as the result of inappropriate sharing of bedrooms and the resulting lack of privacy.
The Government are making real progress in developing good children's policies and putting them into effect, but for some families, overcrowded housing is a barrier to child health, educational achievement and freedom from abuse.
There is nothing new about the criticisms of overcrowding standards. I invite Members to consider this statement:
"the right hon. Gentleman's standards as regards overcrowding are not standards which are tolerable in the twentieth century. He contemplates as a normal thing that living rooms should be used as bedrooms. I can never agree to that. I think it is wrong."—[Official Report, 20 May 1935; Vol. 302, c. 42.]
Here is another one:
"it would be much preferable to establish a standard which hon. Members can defend in the country, even if we give a time limit to local authorities, rather than hang around the necks of hon. Members and local authorities a standard of overcrowding of which this country will be ashamed within the next two years."—[Official Report, 29 May 1935; Vol. 302, c. 1191.]
Those criticisms of the overcrowding standards were made when the Housing Bill was on Report in 1935—the year that the standards were first introduced. It was expected that they would be upgraded in future years. It is interesting to note that those standards were introduced by a Health Minister, because of the link between housing standards and health.
The amendment tabled in 1935 was radical, because it proposed to disregard the living room in the calculation of standards. It was recognised that the standards were deliberately set low in order to prevent the building of a whole swathe of extra houses. That really is the rub. As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) pointed out, the question is not whether, but how, the standards should be changed,
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton set out a gold standard in his Bill, which has been very important, as has the report of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing Planning and Local Government, and the excellent work of Shelter.
Mr. Andrew Love: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. She will be aware that the standards in my Bill were based on those set in the English housing conditions survey, which is, by
108WH
unanimous acclaim, a modest overcrowding standard. To have a gold standard, we would be considering something significantly better than the standard in my Bill.
Ms Keeble: I take my hon. Friend's point. I was just trying to say that if his standards were enshrined in legislation, we would be doing extraordinarily well.
Whatever happens, we must see some improvements on the present position. It is a scandal that the standards MPs said in 1935 that they would be ashamed of two years after their introduction are still in place almost 70 years later, and without the modest improvements that were proposed then, such as discounting the sitting room.
My hon. Friend's standards would have been contained in primary legislation, but they should not be introduced there because they should be open to wide discussion. They should also be open to simpler amendment than primary legislation allows. Secondary legislation would provide for greater flexibility and allow us to improve standards without the problems that we have seen with past housing Bills, in which it has been difficult to change standards. There is a reluctance to commit too much to secondary legislation, but overcrowding standards are ideally suited to that form of settlement.
It is important to have absolute standards. The issue is not about establishing when housing overcrowding becomes a risk, as in the housing health and safety rating system's proposed method of considering overcrowding standards, but about specifying what standards of space accord with wider policy objectives for children and families. It is also about our changed perceptions of space and privacy compared with those of 1935. For example, should it be recognised that husband and wife should not have to sleep in separate rooms to meet overcrowding standards? I certainly think that it should. It is very difficult to explain to older parents that they might have to sleep with their grown-up children rather than each other because of the gender segregation requirements. It should also be recognised that children under 10 count as people, not half-people. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton says that the cut-off age should be five.
We should recognise that families need a living room. They are entitled to some space—more if the family is large—to use for recreation, leisure, eating, doing homework and the like.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I agree with the broad thrust of what the hon. Lady is saying. Something must be done about the problems, but how should it be done? I slightly disagree with what she said about the provisions not being in primary legislation. It seems to me that the Housing Bill that the Government are about to introduce would provide an ideal opportunity to deal with the problem, and it would update the Housing Act 1985, which is nearly 20 years old. Standards have moved on considerably since then.
Ms Keeble: It is a moot point where the provisions should be. I would just say that the Housing Acts passed after 1935 have always reinforced the previous standards. That is partly because there have been other

109WH
priorities. Certainly, local authorities were applying different, more generous standards during the 1960s and 1970s. With all the changes taking place at that time, perhaps it did not seem quite so important to improve the statutory standards. Including those standards in legislation has made them very resistant to change.
If it is not possible to get absolute agreement on the standards to be enshrined in the Bill, it might be more helpful to have secondary legislation so that there can be detailed attention to that particular aspect of housing. It is right that over time we should constantly improve the standard of housing and recognise that people should have more space for recreation. It would be nice if they had space for proper dining facilities, for example. It is also important that we understand that the changes that we introduce now would be subject to change in future years.
We should make absolutely sure that we do not pass legislation now and then leave it for another 70 years before there is the opportunity to change something, just because we used primary rather than secondary legislation. We need to consider that risk carefully, but we must not say, "We can't get agreement to change the wording in the Bill so we aren't going to do anything." I suspect that that is what happened with previous Housing Acts.
Probably the most difficult issue is that there needs to be a process of implementation, during which there would have to be careful assessment of the impact of changing standards and how the goals could be achieved. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton also made the point about the need for a survey so that we can quantify the level of overcrowding and ensure that we know how that can be managed.
Some of the issues involved in tackling overcrowding concern management of the housing stock, such as management policies for transfers, arrangements for housing homeless people, how we manage homelessness, and what we do about grown-up children with babies who are living with parents and grandparents. We also have to consider the design of new homes, including proper provision for larger families.
One option that I do not believe is open is to leave the standards untouched. They are offensive, they cause immense hardships for families with children—the very families that other areas of Government policy are so keen to support—and discriminate unfairly against particular ethnic minority communities. They are also virtually impossible for people at the sharp end in the communities to challenge, because of the different ways in which the various pieces of housing legislation work. I hope that careful consideration will be given to that matter.
Mr. Love: Is not one of the most important considerations the fact that the incidence of overcrowding in Greater London coincides with the incidence of the deepest child poverty in this country? One intensifies the other. If the Government have set themselves a target of reducing child poverty, there must be some action on overcrowding.
Ms Keeble: I agree. It is clear that overcrowding is about child policy, not just housing and family policy. Overcrowding and economic disadvantage are related. Also, there is a failure to take into account the pressures on the most disadvantaged families. The case in my constituency that I cited, in which one of the children living in those circumstances had special needs, is typical of a number of families. A family with children with special needs often needs extra space to manage the equipment and the behavioural problems. I hope that such issues can be taken forward by a really careful consideration of, and improvement in, the overcrowding standards. I also hope that this subject will be covered in any forthcoming housing Bill, and that we will at last bring our overcrowding standards not just into the 20th century, but into the 21st century.
2.21 pm
Ms Karen Buck: May I draw Members' attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on securing this important debate. She has shown a great deal of interest and concern about the issue, and is to be congratulated on giving us an opportunity to discuss the matter again today. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on all the work that he has done in bringing the issue forward.
Overcrowding is one of the most serious and pressing concerns for those of us representing constituencies facing a housing shortage. It has knock-on consequences for a number of the Government's agendas for tackling social exclusion, including agendas for health targets, educational achievements and antisocial behaviour. There are few areas of concern that the Government are rightly seeking to address, and into which they are putting resources, on which overcrowding does not have an impact.
I have made my next point before when speaking on housing issues in this Chamber and in my constituency. Overcrowding is one of the most serious causes of racial tension—I am sure that some of my colleagues face racial tension issues—for the simple reason that, at a time when there has been a great deal of media and political interest in immigration and asylum, the chronic housing shortage and its consequences create a sense among many people living in unacceptable and appalling conditions that immigration and asylum seekers are to blame for their plight. I shall draw attention to why that view is not true. However, I have no doubt about the unfortunate consequences of the situation in terms of public policy.
I hope that the contributions made today, and those that I am sure many of us will continue to make, can do something to get this terribly serious problem on to the Government's agenda. The problem with housing is that most people are either satisfactorily housed—thank goodness for that—or see housing as a market need. Many people who are buying their own houses will see their ability, or inability, to have the house that they want as a market transaction. Housing therefore simply

111WH
does not get the same attention as education and the health service. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and I have said, the impact of housing shortage where it is most acute is undermining so many of our attempts at progress on those other agendas.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton drew attention to the particular issues in London. There are impacts on other cities and parts of the country, and there are pockets of serious rural overcrowding to which we could draw attention, but there is no doubt that this problem impacts specifically and detrimentally on the capital. In London, overcrowding is almost four times as frequent as outside it, and there was a 21 per cent. increase in overcrowding levels between the 1991 and 2001 censuses. When we bear in mind that the 2001 census in London, Manchester and a few other places was woefully inaccurate, that does nothing to give us confidence that we have found the real scale of the problem. It is probably a great deal worse than census data give us cause to believe.
According to that data, which we shall have to use until we have any better, there has been a 21 per cent. increase in overcrowding levels in London compared with a 22 per cent. decline in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am extremely pleased about that decline, but we are grappling yet again with a serious regional imbalance. We are often stymied by the fact that we put forward policy solutions to a problem that are in danger of being dismissed because they have a particular regional impact. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister understands that those of us seeking to address this issue can do so only from the facts and experience of our own localities. The seriousness of the problem should not be masked by a national set of averages that, if examined, show that the rest of the country has enjoyed a decline in overcrowding levels in recent years.
The two boroughs in my constituency are among the worst affected in terms of increases in overcrowding. There has been a near doubling of overcrowding among tenants of registered social landlords in Kensington and Chelsea, and the amount of council stock deemed to be overcrowded has increased from 9 to 14 per cent. in Kensington and Chelsea and from 8 to 12 per cent. in Westminster. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North said, we have to remember what those statistics represent: absolute human tragedies.
Mrs C has two children, one with autism and one with heart disease. Their school has advised me that
"at the moment, their living conditions are severely hampering not only their social, but also their mental and physical development".
Another constituent wrote to me recently to say:
"My parents have allowed my family to temporarily stay in their property and as a result I share a 3 bedroom flat with 9 people … I occupy one small bedroom and share a double bed with my husband and 4 year old son, my two year old occupies a cot and frequently wakes in the night, disturbing everyone. My father is a pensioner with Parkinson's disease, depression, hypertension and bladder problems … my mother is also a pensioner … Two of my brothers are in full-time education and attempting to study for examinations."
112WH
A third constituent, Mrs. S, writes:
"I stressed all the support sent from my GP, Social Worker and from you regarding my health. My physical and mental state is seriously deteriorating. I am sinking into a deep depression as I battle with my housing situation daily. I am at breaking point! And the children are suffering too. Yes I now have constant heating and hot water",
for which she is grateful,
"but there are still the problems of the flights of stairs, lifting, carrying and climbing for four people sleeping in the one bedroom. No space for the children to play is made more apparent as the baby is very mobile now. The noise in the flat is worsened by the fact that there is no soundproofing. I cannot take any more. I am desperate and very vulnerable at this time."
As my hon. Friend said, even people suffering from such levels of overcrowding cannot for the most part become registered as statutorily overcrowded under the present legislation. As we have heard, children under one year of age do not count, despite the fact that they take up sleeping room and become mobile as they begin to crawl. Children under 10 count as a half. I referred the family of a Mrs. M to the environmental health office for an assessment, but the reply that I received stated:
"The ages of the children mean that the family currently has 4.5 'persons' in that the 3 younger children each currently count as 0.5 of a person."
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will understand that when constituents receive a letter telling them that a nine-year-old child counts as only half a person, it causes them great irritation. The child in question may be, as in the case of my constituents, aged nine and a half with special educational needs. Three of the family's four children have special educational needs relating to language and speech development disorders, which are not counted for the purpose of overcrowding. The rules make it impossible to compound either many different levels of medical need—because medical points are allocated for only one person in a household—or the impact of overcrowding on the family's medical problems. The result is that they cannot secure statutory overcrowding points.
My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the fact that under the 1935 legislation housing authorities are allowed to require the living room to be used as sleeping accommodation, regardless of the impact that that would have on the family's social life or privacy, or on children's ability to get a proper night's sleep or to study. However, things are slightly worse than that, because under legislation there have been instances when it has been decided that the kitchen could be used for sleeping.
A reply to a letter inquiring about a constituent stated that the lounge and two bedrooms were clearly included as sleeping accommodation, but that the difficulty for the environmental health department was whether to use the kitchen-diner as a living room, since there were a table and chairs in the room and it therefore seemed to be used for more than just cooking. It is possible for an environmental health department to decide that if a kitchen-diner is used for eating, it can therefore be used for sleeping. I would not know, because the information is not monitored across the board, in how many instances such a ruling has been made.
The problem is that even if a family can get through the equivalent of the biblical eye of the needle and qualify as statutorily overcrowded, they still cannot move, because of the shortage of accommodation. The

113WH
family of Mr. A in my constituency is statutorily overcrowded and has received the maximum additional points that are available. There are seven people in a two-bedroom flat, and they have medical points because the gentleman in the family has ischaemic heart disease. The family have not been allowed to move and are still 11th on the housing waiting list, having been on it with maximum points for about four years. A letter from the sure start unit in the ward where the family lives states:
"I do not understand why the family has not been able to move … the family are statutorily overcrowded with 2 adults and three children"—
it is in fact four children—
in a one-bed flat … the family is surviving in the most distressingly cramped conditions … Charlie … aged 11 years, and Faith, aged 5 go to sleep in their parents' bed and then, when they are ready for bed, the parents transfer them to a sofa bed in the lounge room … the two youngest children sleep in a cot beside their parents' bed … "
The mother
"is one of the main supports for her mother in law who lives nearby … who has cancer".
There are therefore good reasons for the family not to welcome a letter from the local authority asking whether they would be interested in being considered for a move to the north of England.
Another family, living in north Kensington and statutorily overcrowded in a housing association property, are a couple with four children over three years old. They live in a one-bedroom flat. I asked the environmental health department to assess the flat for overcrowding. Its view was:
"The recognition of statutory overcrowding will not provide an early offer of permanent local housing."
I was informed that the head of housing needs in the borough—who is an excellent housing officer and has been of enormous practical help to me over the years—has none the less advised in this instance that
"there are many hundreds of families with similar overcrowding currently registered for larger accommodation on the Council's Housing register."
Ms Keeble: Perhaps the Minister could confirm my understanding that if people are statutorily overcrowded and register with the local authority for a transfer, the matter ends there. Priority is granted, but there is no automatic right to rehousing as one might normally expect following a breach of a statutory standard. Once people apply for housing, they lose their immediate rights and the obligation to rehouse them ends.
Ms Buck: My hon. Friend is right. In some ways, it is worse than that. Her point leads me to my next sentence. Last year, the chief housing officer for the housing association wrote to me as follows:
"It would not be in your constituents' interest if enforcement action was taken in respect of statutory overcrowding as this would require us to evict the family for breaching the covenant requiring them not to overcrowd the dwelling."
According to statutory overcrowding legislation, it is the tenants' fault that they are overcrowded. In my experience, private tenants and tenants housed by registered social landlords and local authorities are
114WH
often technically in breach of their housing obligations if they are overcrowded. They are therefore the ones who are at fault, and they can be evicted. In practice, that does not happen, especially where children are involved. In this instance, however, the housing association's comment flags up a particular problem.
There is a serious and worsening crisis, especially in London. Given the nature of the legislation, it is extremely difficult for families to qualify as being statutorily overcrowded. When they do, it is almost impossible to move them. In many cases, families are told that their only option is to consider moving to the north of England. Some would welcome that, and I assure hon. Members that I have nothing against the north of England in this respect. However, many—probably the overwhelming majority—of these families have extremely strong local ties. Many of them are working, despite the conditions in which they live, and many are from minority ethnic communities with strong community links. Many, such as the family with the three children with special needs in language development, have strong ties with the health service and schools, which provide them with vital support for their children. Uprooting such families and moving them to another part of the country is simply not an option.
If we are to deal with the problem of overcrowding, we must treat it as important, monitor it and set targets. It is right that families living in substandard housing should be a target in the monitoring of child poverty. Defining homelessness and overcrowding as forms of housing need and as targets in tackling child poverty is also well overdue. If we do not commit ourselves to updating the legislation and to monitoring the impact of overcrowding and the problems arising from it, the issue will continue to stay below the radar. I join my hon. Friends in asking the Minister to reconsider the matter and to pursue it.
It is not satisfactory simply to wrap up the problem by using the standards that the Government propose. A few months ago, the Minister's colleague wrote that
"to raise the issue of overcrowding standards in isolation from other factors would not deal with the problem".
I suggest that if we do not raise these issues, and deal with them, the hard core of chronically overcrowded families will simply be ignored, and they will continue not to receive the attention that they deserve.
Will the Minister also undertake to consider the role of registered social landlords? Housing associations are increasingly becoming the primary providers of social housing, and we are finding that they have different standards in relation to overcrowding. I have seen many cases in which families in overcrowded accommodation finally receive their one chance of an offer. Their case is made to the housing association, but they are rejected because the association says that they are overcrowding the accommodation. For example, the association will not consider housing more than six people in a three-bedroom property. That means that a family with seven or eight members in the worst housing need, with no prospect of receiving an offer of four-bedroom

115WH
accommodation, is least likely to receive an offer because of the way in which the RSLs operate their own overcrowding standards. Obviously, we do not want to overcrowd accommodation more than we need to, but we must recognise that it is unacceptable to leave a certain cohort of households, which are in a chronic condition, at the back of the queue because of the way in which housing association rules work.
I now return to my opening point about some of the tensions, particularly racial tensions, arising out of the housing shortage. We must recognise that stock shortage is at the heart of that problem. There has not been a massive increase in the number of families who have presented themselves as being homeless and come through the homelessness route. The heart of the overcrowding problem is not London's rising population, but the decline of housing stock over the past 10 or 20 years. A recent parliamentary question about the total social landlord dwelling stock in England and Wales showed that the number of properties available for rent in London has fallen by 23,000 since 1997. If those 23,000 units had been available to us, we would have been able to relieve a great deal of overcrowding and homelessness.
Part of the problem is that Housing Corporation rules make it impossible for larger properties to be built in high-value areas such as London. We desperately need to procure and purchase four and five-bedroom accommodation to deal with larger families who are not offered three-bedroom accommodation. Although that would lessen overcrowding, they are turned away. We cannot produce that stock because of Housing Corporation rules and the way in which capital finance works.
It is time to grasp the nettle. The situation is intolerable for tens of thousands of overcrowded London residents, particularly those at the sharp edge, who are close to statutory overcrowding limits, or just over them. I hope that the Minister will raise these issues with the Department. I hope also that she will make the case for updating legislation, and for some of the rule changes and resources that are necessary to relieve the problem.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I feel compelled to remind the Chamber that we conventionally begin the first of the three wind-up speeches 30 minutes before concluding a debate. There are only 18 minutes left, and two hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I hope that they will bear that time constraint in mind when they are speaking, and when they accept and respond to interventions.
2.42 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard (St. Albans): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on securing this important debate. Most of us believe that the provision of secure, well-founded and affordable housing is one of the most important issues with which we must deal. It is particularly critical in the east and the south-east.
Overcrowding is a big issue. In my constituency, some extended families use overcrowding to move up the waiting list. Parents give their children, who often have a
116WH
child of their own, notice to quit, which leaves the young family homeless, and therefore a higher priority than an overcrowded household. That shows that there is a lack of affordable housing.
It does not matter how housing is allocated if the supply is insufficient to meet demand. This year, my area was fortunate enough to receive the highest allocation in the region: £18.2 million. It is one of the most expensive areas in the country for land prices and building costs, and there is a lack of skilled workers, but we are doing some good things. One of our more innovative schemes is due to be completed soon; I hope to persuade the Minister to cut the ribbon. It is for 52 two-bedroomed flats on a former electricity site, 40 per cent. of which are for key workers. No public subsidy has gone into the scheme. The flats will be kept for rent in perpetuity so that successive tenants can enjoy the advantage of an affordable home.
We recently granted planning permission for a mixed development on an old Territorial Army site, 35 per cent. of which will be affordable homes for rent. We are also developing small sites and lumping several together so that they can benefit from the economies of scale that normally accrue to large sites. I am also trying to persuade the local council and our local population that some of the land on an old aerodrome site of 300-plus acres, which was mined for gravel, should be allocated for housing, even though it is technically green belt. That land is also the subject of some speculation about the provision of a rail freight terminal: a 24-hour-a-day, 365-day-a-year operation. It seems to me that a few hundred houses, a bypass to the local village and some formed woodland would be a better option.
I want to raise two other issues, the first of which concerns empty homes. It is estimated that 750,000 homes are empty, with more than 80 per cent. in the private sector. Houses next to empty homes can suffer devaluation by as much as 10 to 20 per cent. according to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 gives the right to order disposal of empty public property. That process involves a public request ordering disposal.
As more than 80 per cent. of empty homes are in the private sector and not covered by the Act, now is perhaps the time to include them. Private owners served with a PROD could use the property themselves, let it, sell it or provide a justifiable reason—such as a planning reason—why it needs to stay empty. Even if only one quarter of empty homes were brought into use, that would equate to 180,000 extra homes.
The second issue is VAT on refurbished homes. VAT on new buildings is zero, yet on refurbished homes it is 17.5 per cent. We all know of homes that could be refurbished, but which it might be cheaper to knock down and rebuild because of the VAT. Many of us have been putting that argument for some years without any sign that it is understood or listened to by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Regeneration is rightly given a high priority by the Government. That would be greatly helped by the scrapping of VAT on refurbishment.
Overcrowding is a symptom of housing under stress. I welcome the Government's plans for major house building in certain areas. However, I would plead that cities, such as St. Albans where the housing need is as great as anywhere in the country, continue to receive substantial grants for new affordable homes.
2.46 pm
Ms Oona King: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on securing the debate. As a councillor, as an MP and as a Minister she has shown real commitment to helping families who live in overcrowded conditions. During her time as Minister, she visited the Boundary estate in Bethnal Green and listened to the experiences of a number of families living in overcrowded homes—families in which three or even four children shared a single bedroom; or families in which parents or siblings slept in the living room every single night. The health, well-being, educational attainment and employment prospects of those families—in other words, their entire future—are blighted because their homes too small.
The survey of English housing estimates that there are more than 17,000 overcrowded households in London. In Tower Hamlets, we have approximately 8,000 overcrowded households. That is the most severe level of overcrowding in the country, and is accompanied—unsurprisingly, as there is a direct link between the two—by the highest density of poverty in the country.
The vast majority of those overcrowded households are young families with two or three children waiting for a family-sized home to become available. Unfortunately, as my constituents know to their great cost, they have to wait for an unacceptably long time. Some have already waited more than 10 years. Some have waited for almost 20 years. I am sorry, but I will do what other MPs have done and illustrate the problem by referring to families with whom I come into contact. That is because it is so difficult to portray the level of human suffering involved. I am not using the worst cases; I usually use the worst examples, but I thought that this time I would go for the averagely bad.
Mrs. A lives in a small two-bedroom flat with her husband and four children. There is not enough room for all the children to have separate beds, and the boys and girls have to share a room. Mrs. B also lives in a small two-bedroom flat. Mr. B is elderly and disabled, and lives with his disabled wife, adult son, adult daughter and baby grandson. Once again, there is not enough room for everyone to have a bed, and there is not enough room for facilities to deal with Mr. and Mrs. B's disabilities. There is obviously no privacy for the adult son and daughter. Predictably, both those tenants have come to me asking for help to get the one available vacant house in their area. At least one of them will be disappointed; from my experience both of them are likely to be disappointed.
Mr. C lives with his wife and two children, aged five and two, in a one-bedroom flat on a high floor of a tower block. A third child is expected in three months. There is insufficient room for the existing children to have a bed each, and it is difficult to see how space could be made for a cot for the third child. I took a former Minister with responsibility for housing to a property in Tower Hamlets where an extended family of 16 people were living in two bedrooms—and I am sorry to report to my
118WH
hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North that none of the families that we visited have yet been rehoused in larger, family-sized accommodation.
Mr. Love: Is not the important point that none of those cases counts as statutorily overcrowded? That shows just how completely out of date the system is, as it cannot deal with modern circumstances.
Ms King: That is precisely the point. The accommodation of the last family that I mentioned, with 16 people in two bedrooms, is of course regarded as statutorily overcrowded, and another family on the Tower Hamlets waiting list who require five bedrooms also currently live in accommodation that is classed as statutorily overcrowded. However, my hon. Friend is exactly right: all the other cases that I have mentioned do not count as statutorily overcrowded.
I am sure that the lack of progress is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North initiated a review of the current statutory definition of overcrowding. As has already been said, the definition ignores babies and expects living rooms to be permanently available for people to sleep in. For the benefit of my hon. Friends, I should add that 70 years ago, the Labour party described those very same standards as intolerable in the 20th century, and a Labour Member of Parliament said that this House
"ought not to let it go forth that we regard it as a satisfactory state of affairs that people should normally have to sleep in living rooms."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 February 1935; c. 54.]
That was 1935, yet the same standards are still with us.
The review of those standards that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North initiated gave hope to overcrowded families in Tower Hamlets that the Government were turning their attention to their needs. However, after she moved on to the Department for International Development, no progress was made with that review.
Since then, we have been told that overcrowding will be addressed through the new housing health and safety rating system. Unfortunately, the HHSRS cannot provide that review, not only because the number of hazards due to overcrowding and a lack of space are likely to be dwarfed by the number due to factors such as fire risk, damp and cold, but because the HHSRS inevitably involves a subjective assessment of conditions in a property. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the only objective yardstick against which environmental health officers can measure hazards that arise from overcrowding and lack of space is the room and space standards in the current statutory definition—the very same definition that the Minister with responsibility for housing described as outdated. That is why I hope that the Minister will follow her predecessor's lead and signal that she is prepared to consider updating that definition, as that would give hope to families in my constituency.
The Housing (Overcrowding) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) does not give overcrowded families the right to insist that they are prioritised for rehousing ahead of homeless families, yet the fear that that might happen has delayed the Government's movement. A remedy of that nature is

119WH
specifically excluded from the Bill, because it is recognised that it might have unacceptable outcomes. However, local authorities already accept that such families have a right to a larger home, and in so doing they apply higher overcrowding standards than the statutory minimum. All that we are asking, therefore, is that the Government recognise that standard in law.
A modernised statutory definition will not add to the burdens on local authorities, but will help us to see more clearly what the problem is and where it exists.
If I thought that we could solve the problem of overcrowding with current or predicted resources, I would be less concerned about updating the statutory definition. However, despite the fantastic increases in Government investment in housing, we are still nowhere near doing that. Tackling overcrowding does not yet have the priority that it deserves. We are making huge investments: over the next three years we shall increase the total housing resource to £11 billion, we are on target to reduce the number of non-decent social homes by 1 million by 2004, and, through the transfer options, we are unlocking huge amounts of investment in social housing. I congratulate the Government on that. Tower Hamlets has had a welcome and much-needed 300 per cent. increase in investment in social housing, but it needs more.
I suggest to the Minister that the forthcoming housing Bill offers the chance to give decision makers an incentive to move overcrowding up the agenda. Across southern England, updating the standards would help to energise our campaign to end child poverty. Let us not forget that 48 per cent. of this country's children in poverty live in inner London. I know that many in the rest of the country do not believe that—they think that all the streets are paved with gold—but it is a fact. If we are to meet the Government's target of dealing with child poverty, we have to tackle one of the biggest issues that faces those children—overcrowding. It has to be moved up the agenda. That would help black and Asian families, who are seven times more likely to experience overcrowding than their white counterparts. Once one has faced up to a problem, one can begin to tackle it, and retaining a statutory definition that is so outdated and so rarely breached only helps us to convince ourselves that overcrowding is not a problem and does not need to he tackled. We need to set a new threshold—a gold standard—to aim for. The bedroom standard used in the survey of English housing is that standard, and the forthcoming housing Bill will provide the perfect opportunity to put it on the statute book.
I shall briefly offer some solutions. Admitting the scale of overcrowding is the first step in tackling it. The next is building affordable homes in the numbers that are needed. I have argued previously that the only way to tackle the housing crisis is to double our output of affordable homes. That would mean doubling our investment again, and I know that the money cannot be found immediately, so I suggest helping to generate an immediate increase in the number of council and housing association lettings. We need some short-term emergency measures to free up family-sized accommodation for families suffering severe overcrowding.
During a debate in June, I suggested an expansion of the seaside and country homes scheme. In the Minister's reply, he told me that Housing Organisation
120WH
and Exchange Mobility Services, which manages the scheme, has begun working with Girlings Retirement Options to give elderly people further options. I would be grateful for details as to how that has progressed.
Since the local restriction of right to buy, cash incentive schemes have become really popular in Tower Hamlets, with the result that more tenancies, including four four-bedroom tenancies this year, have been returned to the council to be re-let. A cash incentive is a cheap and efficient way to help tenants of social housing to become home owners. It empowers tenants by giving them choice over the size of their new homes. Please may we have more? The money for that has been cut, and although Tower Hamlets has subsidised it, we need it to be increased.
My last point concerns occupation. As well as there being many people who want to leave London, we have the advantage that a surprisingly high number live in homes that are not fully occupied. In London, 28 per cent. of council and registered social landlords' stock is officially under-occupied. The present incentive—between £500 and £1,000 for each bedroom—is not adequate; we need to increase it if we are to get people out of those properties. I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me on the points that I have drawn to her attention. We desperately need to tackle the terrible problem of overcrowding now.
2.59 pm
Matthew Green: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on having secured the debate. It is very timely in view of the forthcoming housing Bill, which will, as has been said, present a good opportunity to make changes.
I shall avoid covering much of the ground that the hon. Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), for Edmonton (Mr. Love), for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) have covered, because they have given excellent examples from their constituencies. I cannot do that: while we have a severe shortage of affordable housing in Ludlow, overcrowding is not as great a problem as it is in London. Let us consider the extent of it. About 500,000 households in the United Kingdom would be regarded as overcrowded if we adopted the bedroom standard. That is a significant number; it is about 3 per cent. of all households in the UK. In London, the figure is about 6 per cent. As we heard from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, the percentage is much higher among ethnic minorities. I understand that, by that definition, up to 30 per cent. of Bangladeshi households would he overcrowded. None of us can regard that as acceptable in the 21st century.
We have heard, rightly, about the effects of overcrowding, particularly those on health. The transmission of respiratory and infectious diseases and the increase in mortality and death rates are closely related to overcrowding. It is always connected with the spread of infectious diseases, either through the air or by physical contact. Measles, mumps, chicken pox, diphtheria and most respiratory conditions are more easily spread in overcrowded conditions, as are those that are spread by physical contact such as scabies. Longitudinal studies show that overcrowded housing dramatically increases the odds that young children will develop severe ill health in later life.

121WH
We know, too, about the emotional effect on families. There is good evidence that it causes developmental delays in babies and young children. The stress of sharing bedrooms leads to tension and an increase in the breakdown of family relationships. That can result in an increase in homelessness among the teenage children of families in overcrowded homes. Overcrowding contributes to homelessness; it does not compete with it. It also has a large impact on education. If children do not have quiet space in which to do homework and their sleep is often interrupted, they are less able to concentrate at school. They then perform badly, and have behavioural problems. Consequently, their educational attainment suffers by comparison with that of children who are not from overcrowded homes.
The problem is clear, well known and well documented, and it is growing. Why has it reached this point? Overcrowding was, by most measures, in decline until the early 1990s. It is linked to a reduction in the availability of affordable housing of all types, which happened because the right-to-buy policy decimated the council housing stock and also, where there were preserved rights, that of registered social landlords. Perhaps more worryingly for the Government, the number of new social houses built has declined since 1997. The housing and planning research centre estimates that between 83,000 and 99,000 affordable homes need to be built every year in order to meet demand. Even if we add together Housing Corporation-approved development grant, the effect of the transitional arrangement on the local authority social housing grant and houses from planning gain, about 50,000 homes will be built in the next 12 months, which will meet half of the estimated need. The shortfall will be at least 33,000 homes and will probably be more like 50,000 homes.
Those are the problems. What are their solutions? All hon. Members who have spoken have rightly said that the housing Bill is an excellent opportunity to introduce a modern statutory definition of overcrowding such as that outlined in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Edmonton. If I have the privilege of serving on the Committee that considers the housing Bill, I will try to ensure that such a definition is brought forward.
I understand that Ministers have some difficulties with a new definition. The Minister for Housing and Planning has said that the definition cannot be modernised in the housing Bill because such matters
"cannot be raised in isolation from other factors. Some of the current proposals would have the effect of imposing a quite unrealistic demand on the resources of the local authorities and diverting them from the excellent decent homes programme and their responsibilities to homeless families, who often live in far worse conditions than overcrowded households."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 631.]
I have some sympathy with his views.
There is a way to deal with the problem. We could put a definition in the Bill with a sunrise clause stating the number of years before the new standard is implemented, which would give the Government breathing space in which to commit extra resources or to deliver extra affordable homes to allow the standard's introduction not to cause perverse effects. No one in the Chamber wants a new definition to cause perverse effects.
122WH
If the Minister for Housing and Planning is arguing that the definition should not be included in the Bill because it will immediately cause perverse effects, a sunrise clause is a possible solution that he should examine seriously.
Ms Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that overcrowded families often become homeless, which is one way out of their problems?
Matthew Green: I accept that. The current definitions also cause perverse effects. I am attempting to give Ministers a means by which they can accept a new definition without causing themselves problems.
The supply of affordable homes lies at the heart of the matter. Every time an affordable home is built, it has a double effect on reducing overcrowding. If some people are moved out of an overcrowded home, the problem is solved for two households.
The Government are not doing enough on supply, and the answer involves more than throwing more money at the system. Planning gain is one of the major ways in which we can deliver more affordable homes. The hon. Member for St. Albans discussed a site in his area that contains 30 per cent. affordable homes. I say, "Well done," but that is not going far enough.
Mr. Pollard: It is 35 per cent.
Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction.
In some parts of the country—for example, my constituency—local authorities have made that figure 50 per cent. on sites containing two or more houses. One problem is that the Government's guideline suggests applying the percentage rule to sites containing 19 or more houses. We must apply that percentage throughout the country. Given the growth in house prices, there is sufficient affordability in the system for planning gain to deliver the extra houses. The Government must be stronger in driving through a higher percentage on all sites to ensure that planning gain is recovered from the system. We need not only a few local authorities situated here and there doing that but large numbers of them in high-demand areas. Otherwise, developers will avoid developing in one area and shift across to the next one. That is where the Government can have a significant impact.
Mr. Love: Indeed, the Mayor of London carried out a detailed study on the matter. It showed that a 50 per cent. target was feasible in many parts of inner London, but other parts of inner London and parts of outer London could not sustain such a target. I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments, but success will depend on the region.
Matthew Green: The proposal would be sustainable in south Shropshire. I suspect that the study should be reviewed.
Finally, we must give councils the choice to scrap the right to buy in their areas, because we must stop the decline of social housing. The Government have taken some action, but they have not gone far enough. Give councils power to replace the right to buy with a right to

123WH
invest in social housing. That will inject more capital into the registered social landlord sector and provide more affordable housing.
3.10 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). It is a pity that we did not hear from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). I congratulate him on his Housing (Overcrowding) Bill, his persistence as chairman of the all-party homelessness and housing need group and the work that he has done on the subject. It is common ground among us all that something must be done about the problem.
I came across an interesting article by James Gleeson and Maya Martinez. The headline conclusion was that
"London has three times the overcrowding problems of elsewhere in England, with one in 20 households now affected, according to 2001 census data."
There is doubt about whether the census data understate the scale of the problem in London, but they do make the point that while the problem is getting worse in London, it is probably getting marginally better in the rest of the country. The article comes up with a shocking statement that although
"only 2 per cent. of white families in London live in overcrowded conditions, for ethnic minority households the figure is over 14 per cent.—climbing to around 25 per cent for some Asian groups."
The point has already been made about the severe effect on children. We know that the problems of families who are homeless or living in overcrowded conditions are, in some instances, becoming much worse. Indeed, in his excellent speech in the House to introduce his Bill, the hon. Member for Edmonton said that
"until the late 1980s, the number of overcrowded households fell steadily year on year. In the past decade, the acute shortage of affordable accommodation has meant that many families have found themselves severely overcrowded but with little possibility of a move to larger, better-quality, family-sized accommodation."
He went on to say that
"500,000 households are overcrowded, of which about a third are in the capital."
Those figures have already been given by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green).
The hon. Member for Edmonton then made the point that I have just made about child overcrowding. He stated:
"Many families experience severe effects on their health, welfare and well-being as a result of overcrowding. According to recent research, there is a high prevalence of skin disorders and infectious diseases. Owing to a lack of space, children are at much greater risk of having accidents, and the stress of living in such cramped conditions can place a severe strain on family relationships."—[Official Report, 22 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 323-4.]
I am sure that we all totally agree with that. The question is: what is to be done?
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow rightly asked the following question:
"To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1985 he has (a) received a report from a local housing authority and (b) directed a local housing authority to prepare and submit a
124WH
report on the extent of overcrowding in their district, under section 334 of the Housing Act 1985".—[Official Report, 19 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 956W.]
I am sorry to get slightly technical, but it is important to recognise that there are powers under section 334 of the Housing Act 1985, which allow local authorities to undertake a survey of overcrowding in their area, draw up a report for the Secretary of State on the nature and extent of the problem and make proposals to provide the required number of dwellings. No reports appear to have been drawn up or submitted to the Secretary of State since those provisions were consolidated, and no Government have taken specific action to address the housing needs of those in overcrowded accommodation.
We need to take action to know the extent and scale of the problem. I hope that one outcome of today's debate will be the Minister telling us that she is taking real action to secure concrete data on the problem so that we know where it exists, how severe it is and which houses do not meet the 1985 standards, let alone the English housing condition survey standards. We need to have a handle on the problem, and once we have, as the hon. Member for Ludlow rightly said, we need to introduce primary legislation that will enable the Secretary of State by regulation to introduce a standard that can be incorporated over a period of time according to what resources are available.
We also need to apply that to the private sector. In making these remarks, I am conscious that whatever we do with the private sector, we need to encourage more private sector investment in the residential sector. That is an important way of being able to produce more affordable homes. On page 17 of the report on overcrowding from the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, it is stated:
"Proportionately more private rented homes are in poor condition than in the other housing sectors. Ownership is highly fragmented: most landlords rent out only one or very few homes, and have little chance to become expert property managers. Many turn to letting agents for help but agents' standards of confidence and probity vary greatly."
We have to think very carefully about how we are to deal with the private sector to help it to overcome such problems.
Although the Select Committee dealt with overcrowding and recommended a standard, the Government do not seem to have responded. The report was excellent, and it is an excellent way of going about our business to have the housing Bill subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny in that way. I quote what the report says on overcrowding at paragraph 32:
"Clauses 123-128 amend existing legislation on overcrowding in HMOs. Oona King MP's memorandum noted the effects of overcrowding on the health, welfare, education and employment prospects of occupiers. Yet as we heard from Shelter the problems caused by overcrowding outside of HMOs cannot be identified by the HHSRS"—
the housing health and safety rating system.
The report continues:
"We recommend that the Government take forward Shelter's recommendation that the Bill be used to modernise the current statutory overcrowding standards."
Members on both sides have suggested that the Bill could be an ideal opportunity to address the problem. We need to hear from the Minister whether it will be so used. If not, I do not think that we can wait another 18 years. The

125WH
standards—or, at least, the mechanisms for gaining an indication of what the problem is—were laid down in the 1985 Act. We look to the Government for action on the problem. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A Division has been called in the parent Chamber so we will suspend for a maximum, I hope, of 15 minutes. However, if participants in the debate return within that time we can start early, as soon as they are assembled.
3.17 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.29 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have lost 12 minutes, so we need to award 12 minutes' injury time.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I feel rather like a contestant on "Just a Minute" when the whistle has blown meaning that I have 10 seconds left. In those 10 seconds, I shall just quickly sum up what I think needs to be done.
We must introduce more measures to encourage the private sector to invest in its existing housing and new housing. We need more measures to encourage the public sector to build more affordable houses, and in that respect we have already produced proposals to extend the right to buy. We need to deal with the problem of empty houses. Mention has been made of 750,000 empty houses. We need to deal with the powers that we have in the 1985 Act and part 7 of the Local Government Act 2003 in order to require local authorities to draw up housing strategies that include the issue of overcrowding. We should require regional housing boards to give priority to tackling overcrowding in developing the housing investment strategy. These recommendations come from Shelter.
A new housing poverty indicator should be developed as part of the Government's measurement of child poverty and that should include an overcrowding element. Overcrowding should be included among the indicators used for the index of local deprivation. I appeal to the Minister to tell us how a new definition could be introduced into the Bill, over what time scale it could be introduced and how much it would cost. The Government have been addressing the problem for some time. Now is the time, if I may say so to the Minister, for action.
3.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) for securing the debate on this issue. When she was a housing Minister, she took a close interest in the matter. It is an area on which a series of hon. Members have spoken, drawing on considerable expertise, as well as constituency experience. My right hon. Friend the Minister for
126WH
Housing and Planning has agreed to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issues. I am sure that we shall discuss the issues further, and we shall respond in due course to the Select Committee's report, to which hon. Members have referred.
We have to recognise that overcrowding can cause serious problems for families. My hon. Friend referred to examples concerning children unable to do their homework. Hon. Members referred to health problems, family relationship problems, significant traumas and stress that can arise, and, particularly those from London, described the circumstances of their constituents. My hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) referred to examples from their constituencies of distressing cases of overcrowding.
It is estimated on the basis of the 1935 measures that 25,000 households are statutorily overcrowded. On the bedroom standard used by the survey of English housing, an estimated 2 per cent. of households—about 500,000—would qualify as overcrowded, mostly in the social housing sector.
Mr. Love: My hon. Friend mentioned that those were estimates of statutory overcrowding and overcrowding according to a more liberal standard. Would she give consideration to the Department's carrying out some more focused research into the levels of overcrowding and the impact that it has on all of the issues that we have discussed, such as health and education?
Yvette Cooper: I am happy to consider research issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) has done a great deal of work as part of his research for his private Member's Bill. Hon. Members will be aware that the Government try not to overburden local authorities with the collection of data, given the amount of data that they already have to provide.
The Government know that a significant number of overcrowded households are in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North was right to say that it is different in other parts of the country. London has specific housing problems. We must recognise that there is a problem but be very honest about how we address it. Overcrowding is not an isolated problem; it is often a symptom of wider problems, such as under-supply of affordable housing, as many hon. Members have said.
Families may be living in cramped conditions because they cannot afford to move to a larger flat or home, or because the demand for social housing is too great and too many other families are waiting for a home. They may be homeless families, or families in bed-and-breakfast or temporary accommodation. Overcrowding is part of the more significant problem of housing supply, which must be addressed, in London in particular.
Homelessness acceptances are another aspect of the same problem. They have increased to almost 31,000 in London. Bed-and-breakfast numbers have been reduced as a result of specific action taken by local authorities to address the problem of families stuck in cramped and inappropriate accommodation. It is one of the most severe aspects of the London housing problem. We must recognise that overcrowding is part of a wider issue, which involves meeting the decent homes target.

127WH
The underlying problem is the need for affordable housing supply, particularly in the capital. That is why the sustainable communities plan set out a major investment programme expanding the provision of affordable housing in London and the south-east. The Government have established investment programmes in housing supply across the board with 200,000 homes in addition to those already planned. There has also been significant investment to increase the number of affordable homes, supporting the London Housing Board strategy of investment in key worker homes.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) raised the issue of planning gain. We are keen to use planning gain to expand the numbers of affordable housing units. That is why we are considering further section 106 agreements and consulting on empty homes, which was an issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard).
We have the wider Kate Barker review—
Matthew Green rose—
Yvette Cooper: I am aware of the lack of time, so if hon. Members will allow me to make progress, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if I have time.
Overall, £5 billion will be invested in affordable housing between 2003–04 and 2005–06. That is double the investment in 1997. As hon. Members have said, the matter is partly about resources. The Government are substantially increasing the investment in affordable housing across the capital and the south-east.
Improvements are being made to the most extreme aspects of the problem. Rough sleeping has been reduced by two thirds and there have been significant reductions in the number of homeless families with children who are in bed-and- breakfast accommodation. We must consider how we address all aspects of the problem—temporary accommodation, homelessness, houses not meeting the decent homes standard, and overcrowding.
Ms Oona King: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Yvette Cooper: If I can specifically address the issues concerning overcrowding raised by hon. Members and if I have time, I will give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North specifically asked for changes to the statutory definition of overcrowding. It is not acceptable to defend a 1935 definition of overcrowding that is out of date. I have some sympathy with many of the points that hon. Members have raised.
128WH
I want briefly to explain the Department's concern about the proposals that have been made. We are investing resources in the London housing problem as fast as we are able. Changing the overcrowding standards will not create any extra homes or expand the housing supply any faster. The concern is that to set statutory definitions at a particular level would be to divert resources away from addressing the issue of bed-and-breakfasts, the homelessness problem and the wider problem of decent homes. As we invest in the London housing market, we need to ensure that, as well as tackling problems surrounding the bed-and-breakfasts and homelessness, we tackle overcrowding problems. We need to consider further how we can ensure that overcrowding is addressed alongside bed-and-breakfasts and homelessness.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Yvette Cooper: I am conscious that I have just one more minute. I am willing to respond further after the debate, but I want to make some final points.
We recognise the strengths of hon. Members' arguments. As we try to expand the affordable housing supply in London and the south-east, we must recognise the needs of all the different groups. We will be having further discussions about these issues over the next few months. Our approach has been to say that all the issues should be addressed together as part of local homelessness and housing strategies. We need to consider further how overcrowding is addressed as part of those strategies. Certainly, putting those strategies on a statutory footing will strengthen the case for that.
We are also considering the matter as part of the housing health and safety rating system. I recognise that hon. Members have raised concerns about that, but it is important to bring overcrowding into the health and safety system in a stronger way than before. The guidance to local authorities will make it clear that, for example, GP or hospital referrals will be relevant to the hazard assessment. I recognise that there is considerable concern from hon. Members about the matter, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I will have continued discussions with them.
I hope that I have explained the Government's concerns on the issue and I congratulate hon. Members again on raising such important questions. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought for one moment, as I was coughing, that we were going to have a by-election as well as a leadership election. Hon. Members must forgive me. I feel fine now.

Housing (Islington)
3.42 pm
Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to you for granting this debate on housing in my borough, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have agreed with the Minister that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) will also contribute to the debate.
The context is simply this: although the inner-urban constituency I represent projects an image of wealth, metropolitan chic, cappuccino bars, wine bars and places where Labour leaders do deals, unfortunately, the reality for a large number of people who live in the borough is not quite the same. Islington's is very much a tale of two halves. Many of the people whom my right hon. Friend and I represent are extremely poor and live in seriously overcrowded accommodation.
The problems of housing in my constituency are the reverse of the problems in other parts of the country. We have a massive shortage of housing for rent, either by the council or by registered social landlords. We have a huge housing waiting list and problems of children and families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or short-term leased accommodation. Few families are rehoused off the waiting list, and only those in serious housing stress have any chance of being rehoused. In the past few weeks, a bombshell has been delivered to us in connection with the condition of one of the major estates in my right hon. Friend's constituency: the Packington estate. He will speak about that later.
I will briefly cite three sets of statistics that will help to outline the nature of the problem. The first relates to homelessness acceptances. In 1997—the first year of the Labour Government—949 families were accepted in my borough. By 1999, that figure had risen to 1,298. In the latest year for which information is available, 1,314 families were accepted. That is a 400-plus increase in the number of families that the local authority accepted for homelessness.
The second set relates to temporary accommodation. In 1998, there were 737 families in temporary accommodation in my borough. In 2001, there were 1,481, and the number this year is roughly the same. In other words, the number of families in temporary accommodation has almost doubled. Some of that accommodation is deeply unsuitable, but all of it is very expensive, and it costs the housing benefit budget a great deal of money.
The third set of statistics relates to new lettings. In 1997, there were 2,000 new lettings. In 1999, that number had dropped to 1,500. In 2001–02—the last year for which Islington council could provide statistics—there were 1,084 new lettings. In other words, there has been a huge increase in the number of homelessness acceptances, an increase in the number of families in temporary accommodation, and a halving of the number of new lettings made available. We have just had a very interesting debate on housing overcrowding, and I must say in parenthesis that roughly 6 per cent. of all council accommodation in London is more than seriously overcrowded. I do not have figures for my constituency, but the evidence is that it is massively overcrowded.
130WH
Behind those bald statistics lie many tragic stories. My right hon. Friend and I could give a great many examples of families living in grossly overcrowded accommodation. In August, I visited a family with four children living in a registered social landlord housing block that was grossly overcrowded. The family were living in a one-bedroomed flat in very poor conditions. I asked the eldest girl how she did in her GCSE exams. She said that she had tried hard and found them difficult, but had found it impossible to study at home because there was simply no room to do so. How on earth can she be expected to achieve as well as the child of a middle-class family with his or her own personal computer and everything else? We condemn her for underachieving in school, but we should condemn ourselves for allowing her to live in such conditions. A few days ago, I visited another family with four children in a two-bedroomed flat on a local authority estate. One of the children had serious learning difficulties and definitely needed her own bedroom and decent facilities. What offers are available to her?
Very few options are available to such families, except, too often, that of moving outside London. The bald figures make it easy to suggest that people should move away, given the empty properties in the north-east and north-west and the overcrowding in London. However, it simply does not work like that. Jobs, education, family connections and communities are involved. I want some recognition of the massive housing needs in inner London, especially in my borough, and Government assistance to help to solve the problem.
There are also problems associated with the right to buy. In an average year in my borough, some 700 to 800 properties are sold, valued at an astoundingly low price despite the Government's decrease in the amount of discount available. Even in the last year for which figures are available, the average sale price was £71,000. Many of those properties are then sold on a few years later, and if one reads the property press, one will see the very high prices that even ex-local authority stock now fetches. There are probably some 10,000 families on the registered waiting list in my borough, but in the last year for which figures are available, only 214 properties were made available for new rent. That means that the number of properties made available for rent is roughly one third the number of those that are sold, and that the numbers of people in homelessness and in short-life rented accommodation have increased. The information that I have is that we, as a society, are spending an awful lot of money subsidising housing benefit for people to live in substandard, overcrowded private rented accommodation, when we should be investing far more in rented stock.
I ask the Minister to comment on some aspects of the problem. The Government have provided a very large amount of money for the improvement of existing council stock in Islington. I think that about £140 million has been provided in the past four years. I am grateful for that money—the new roofs, windows, doors and security systems, and landscaping and other improvements to some estates are very welcome, and I appreciate them. However, I hope that he recognises that any future cuts in the major repairs allowance will impact badly on people in the remaining estates that

131WH
have not been improved or repaired. Those people look to MPs and the Labour Government to provide them with better housing conditions. I hope that he will be able to persuade the Treasury of the value of investment in good-quality homes—in particular, for young people to grow up in.
My concern is that amid all the problems, very little is being built or developed. That is happening for several reasons, one of which is that the planning gain issue allows only a quarter of new developments to be for affordable rented housing. I am not very keen on those words and prefer the words "council housing", but never mind; that is the legal term. Miraculously, most developments in Islington come in at 14 units, so the 25 per cent. rule simply disappears—hence the present tiny numbers for development.
The council is unwilling, unable or at least not very keen to develop new properties. Since the Liberal Democrats gained control of Islington council in 1999 they have been obsessed with selling any property that they can get their hands on in order to lower the council tax slightly—although it still went up a great deal this year. They do not appear to have a housing strategy, and I should be grateful if the Minister commented on why the council is allowed to sell vacant council property and any other saleable building that it can get its hands on when there is a desperate housing shortage and housing needs should be addressed.
I attended a meeting organised by the Federation of Islington Tenants Associations a couple of weeks ago to debate a transfer to an arm's-length management organisation. It is unpopular among the tenants, and attendance at the meeting was quite good. The tenants take the view that the local authority is best placed to be the landlord because it is the most accountable body, and they are deeply concerned that the council is apparently allowed to go ahead with an ALMO application without holding a ballot of all the tenants. I should have thought that at the very least a proper ballot consultation with all the tenants in the borough should have been insisted on.
Estate transfers are a further issue. I believe strongly in the provision of public sector housing for people in housing need. Council housing has, by and large, done good work and provided good homes. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury chaired the local housing committee in Islington, there was a considerable increase in stock, as there was when the Minister for Children was housing chair and bought a large number of street properties. Many of those were expensive to rehabilitate and repair, but provided excellent homes for families in housing need. It is therefore with some concern that I note the major proposal for the transfer of the Tollington estate to North British Housing—or Places for People, which is its arm's-length subsidiary.
I have had meetings with Places for People and raised several concerns. Last week I was at a public meeting of tenants on estates that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning visited in the summer. They were concerned about losing accountability and about the fact that in order to pay for the demolition and reconstruction of part of the estate, whereby they would end up with flats that might be of better quality but would be no larger, 300
132WH
properties would be built—on an already overcrowded estate—for sale on the open market. I ask the Minister to consider seriously whether expecting tenants to pay for the reconstruction of their estate through the sale of land for the construction of properties that are to be sold on the open market is a sensible way to tackle the housing problems of a densely populated inner-city area.
As for the issues surrounding the performance of the company concerned, I have in front of me a letter about the way in which the Housing Corporation has placed Places for People under supervision because of concerns about its corporate governance at group board level. We should be seriously concerned if the largest estates in the borough are to be subject to a housing transfer application when the board of the housing association itself has been placed under supervision because, I understand, of mismanagement. Many tenants will vote against the transfer because of concern about the worse conditions overall that they think will arise, because of higher density, because of the record of the organisation concerned, and above all because of the loss of accountability in the way in which their housing is run.
We had a Labour Government in the 1920s in which John Wheatley played a great role in the construction of council housing—we have a John Wheatley house in Islington in recognition of his role. After the war, we were able to conquer much of the housing shortage. The Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 had a very good record on innovative, good-quality housing developments. I just want the children of working-class families in my borough and elsewhere in London to have the chance of having somewhere decent to live.
That requires us to grasp the nettle. We should not hand housing over to expensive, private sector solutions. Instead, we should invest in good-quality housing so that more and more people do not face the prospect of living in short-term bed-and-breakfast accommodation or, because it is their only offer of housing, having to move far away from where they have grown up and from their families and communities. We need investment in inner-city communities for those communities to thrive. I make that plea to the Minister today on behalf of the people in housing stress in my borough.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is presenting this so far splendid debate, has been kind enough to alert me to the fact that he and the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) consulted the Minister with a view to intervention. That is fine and all in order, save that we must be careful not to overrun. I would be remiss in my duties were I not to alert everyone to the fact that this debate must finish at 12 minutes past the hour.
3.57 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: Thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for giving me the chance to speak briefly.

133WH
I strongly endorse the passionate case that my hon. Friend has made for the need for substantial new investment in housing in our borough. Week after week, he and I meet constituents in desperate housing need—people living in overcrowded conditions in inadequate accommodation, in flats that are in urgent need of repair and renovation, on estates that have seen better days and from which many people wish to move away. It is now extremely difficult for the children of existing council and housing association tenants to have any chance at all of remaining in the borough in anywhere other than the parental home. The need is urgent.
I am grateful to the Government for the substantial additional investment in the borough during the past six or seven years. The money for housing work in the borough has been more than doubled, but it is still not enough. I hope that the funding will increase in the coming years. There are two urgent needs to be met. The first is the improvement of existing estates. Some £400 million-worth of repair, improvement and maintenance work is required to bring the estates up to the standards that the Government expect by 2010. The second need is to create new accommodation for people in need of it.
Having made that general plea, I want to raise one specific issue relating to the large Packington estate in my constituency. Only in the past three or four months has it been discovered that that estate was built on a large-panel construction basis. It contains gas systems and it is six storeys high. It has only just been discovered—although it should have been discovered 30 years ago—that the estate does not meet the health and safety requirements introduced following the Ronan Point disaster some 30 or 35 years ago. Following consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, the council has decided that, in order to abide by the regulations, the Packington estate must be demolished and redeveloped.
The estate is very large, with hundreds of flats, and the tenants will face substantial upheaval. I received a letter recently from a 73-year-old man who has lived on the Packington estate for 43 years. He faces being completely uprooted at a time in his life when that is the last thing that he wants, and the same is true of many tenants on the estate. However, the Packington's tenants are not the only ones for whom there will be problems: tenants everywhere else in the borough will face real difficulty, because the rehousing requirements from the Packington will pre-empt the resources available for rehousing and new accommodation for people who need it across the rest of the borough. The decreasing figure of 1,000 or so new lettings that my hon. Friend cited for the past year will be reduced even further as a direct result of the demands that the Packington redevelopment will create.
I hope that the Minister will discuss the Packington estate with the borough as a special case, and perhaps raise the need for special funding treatment to ensure that not only is the redevelopment the best for the Packington tenants, but it does not have a seriously adverse impact on the remainder of the borough's housing stock.
4.1 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I begin, as is conventional, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this debate on matters that are important for all who live in Islington. This is not the first time—farfrom it—that he has raised the issue of housing in the borough and the problems that many of his constituents face in securing good-quality housing at an affordable price.
I am also aware of the deep concern felt by other London Members about the matters that my hon. Friend has raised. Not least among them is my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who drew attention to two key issues: the need to improve existing estates to the decent homes standard, and the need for new homes. He raised his concerns about the Packington estate and its future. I undertake to pursue the matter and will be in touch with him shortly.
I am conscious of the relative brevity of the time available to me, but I cannot resist first responding warmly to the points about capital investment that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North made. It must be said that he has often been critical of Government policy on funding for housing, so the fact that he now congratulates us on the money that we are putting into housing improvements is an encouraging sign that our policies are, in his view, perhaps just beginning to bear fruit.
Since coming to office, we have more than reversed the decline in housing investment over which the previous Administration presided, to such an extent that funding in 2004–05 will be about three times the sum that was provided in 1997–98. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced £2.1 billion a—huge sum—over the two years for housing in London to meet our commitment to provide more affordable housing in the capital. That will provide more than 10,000 affordable homes each year, including homes for the key workers we need to deliver high-quality public services, and will help to bring existing homes up to a reasonable standard of decency. The total spend will of course be considerably more, because of private finance that can be levered in by housing associations.
I turn now to the issues surrounding decent homes and private sector investment that my hon. Friend raised. Even with the massive increase in investment in London's housing since the Government came to power, it is clear that there is no realistic prospect of the backlog of work required of authorities such as Islington in order to meet the decent homes target being met by public subsidy alone. Increasingly, we need to lever in more investment from the private sector.
There are a number of ways in which local authorities can attract private funding to enable them to meet the decent homes objective. The three options available are: setting up arm's-length management organisations, also known as ALMOs; private finance initiative schemes; and stock transfer. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has repeatedly made it clear that those are the only options. Each of them makes the best use of the available resources by separating local authorities' strategic housing responsibilities from their role as

135WH
landlord. That provides a strong incentive for better performance, ensures a sharper focus on the two distinct housing functions, and helps to guarantee tenants a greater role in the future management of their estates.
Islington council has considered the various options and decided that seeking ALMO funding is the best way to attract additional funding. It successfully bid in the last ALMO bidding round, and in August was offered £24.9 million in additional Government support for 2004–05 and 2005–06, with the possibility of further allocations in subsequent years subject to a satisfactory Audit Commission inspection of the ALMO once operational. I know that some in the borough—my hon. Friend may be one of them—see the ALMO as a backdoor form of privatisation. I want to assure him that that is not the case. ALMOs provide improvements to housing stock and the housing service by the front door. Council homes will remain council owned, and tenants will remain tenants of the council.
Although a tenants' ballot is not a legal requirement for an ALMO since there is no change of landlord, the necessary statutory approval for the ALMO to start work will not be forthcoming unless I am satisfied that the majority of tenants across the borough understand the implications and support the proposal in general. Officials in my Department and an independent tenant adviser are working with the council to help tenants reach an informed judgment, and to develop a mechanism to test tenants opinions and address their concerns.
I would also like to assure my hon. Friend that Islington's ALMO allocation is not set in concrete. It is a provisional allocation based on information known at the time of the bid. ALMO funding is allocated two years at a time, and allocations can be revisited if circumstances change. For Islington, and other ALMOs in the latest round, we have explicitly acknowledged that allocations may need to be reviewed if the eventual decisions on the distribution of management and maintenance allowances—on which we consulted this summer—have a significant effect on the overall level of resources available to ALMO authorities.
I now turn to the more specific issue of stock transfer. Islington is considering some smaller-scale stock transfers to supplement investment for the improvement of social housing. Tenants benefit from stock transfer because provisions are built into the new landlord's business plan for proper maintenance and future repairs. Homes are subject to a programme of catch-up repairs to bring them up to a modern standard. That investment is possible because, as private sector organisations, registered social landlords can borrow outside the public sector borrowing constraints, unlike local authorities. Increased investment also means that any backlog of repairs can be carried out and better living conditions achieved more quickly than if the properties had remained in local authority ownership.
136WH
Earlier this year, my hon. Friend raised concerns with my predecessor about the proposed transfer of the Tollington estate in his constituency. As he said, I visited that estate in July. I realise that the refurbishment programme will cause some disruption to tenants, but the council and the proposed new landlord are consulting tenants on a range of proposals to keep disturbance to a minimum. There are also plans to improve the existing community facilities on the estate. Nevertheless, we will agree the transfer only if a ballot of tenants shows that a majority supports it. My hon. Friend has recently written to me about the funding arrangements for the transfer and the forthcoming tenants' ballot. I have sent him a detailed reply covering both issues.
In the time remaining to me, let me say more about the central issue of investment in housing, which was raised by both my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North. At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the considerable increases in investment in housing in London. We anticipate that the number of social houses constructed in the next two years will be 50 per cent. greater than the current number. However, there will continue to be competing needs within London, and we are determined to ensure that resources are distributed in the best interests of our communities.
That is why we introduced new arrangements in the communities plan for regional housing boards to advise on how resources should be allocated to address strategic housing priorities in each region. The London housing board faces an extremely difficult task, and I congratulate it on the way in which it managed to get the key London players to work together to publish a regional housing strategy in July, which set out proposals to tackle London's housing problems. The scale and complexity of meeting housing demand in London merits a new approach. Costs, supply and demand are spread unevenly across London. Joint working between boroughs on a sub-regional and regional basis is essential. The London housing strategy strongly endorses a sub-regional approach. Sub-regional partnerships have been established in London, and all sub-regions are producing housing strategies.
Islington played a key role in developing the north London housing strategy, which I had the pleasure of launching last month. On the strength of the London housing strategy and the board's funding recommendations, we have decided to allocate almost £1.5 billion for affordable housing over the next two years, of which £371 million will be for key workers. My hon. Friend raised concerns that the direction of money to key workers will mean that fewer new houses will be available for social renting to tackle homelessness in London. We do not underestimate homelessness in London, but that will not be the consequence of the policy.

Wind Turbines (Dorset)
4.12 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce the debate on wind turbines in Dorset, and in particular in my constituency. I am grateful to the Speaker's Office for making this time available. I found out only yesterday that I had secured this slot because somebody else dropped out.
The topic is important, but when I speak about it, I am often accused of being a nimby. There are proposals on the table to erect up to 35 wind turbines, each more than 100 m tall, in the lower Winterborne valley in my constituency. The site is located between Blandford Forum and Dorchester and is very close to the villages of Winterborne Kingston, Winterborne Zelstone, Anderson and many other smaller settlements. The proposal worries constituents from all over my area. There is also a proposal to create a wind farm at Cucklington in Somerset, which is in the constituency of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is present today. That would have a significant impact on villages in my constituency, and in the general area of the Blackmoor vale, which runs through both of our constituencies. Villagers in my constituency including residents of Buckhorn Weston, Kington Magna, Stour Provost, Silton and Bourton are concerned about the development.
I am not a nimby. I am not against shopping centres or car factories; I just do not think that they should be built in the lower Winterborne valley, and I do not want wind turbines, those industrial monsters, coming into the Winterborne valley either. They have their place, but it is not in this most beautiful part of England. In our area of southern England we have a national park, the Dorset heritage coast and several areas of outstanding natural beauty, and the sites chosen for the development are the filling in the sandwich between those areas, which is one of the reasons why some of them have been chosen. The arguments would be just as strong and the issues would be the same if we were considering an area of outstanding natural beauty or a national park.
The Government's 2003 energy White Paper spells out good reasons for and sensible methods of reducing the environmental pollution arising from electricity generation. It encourages us to reduce consumption, increase conservation and equipment efficiency, clean up dirty processes and turn towards renewable sources in an attempt to secure a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. However, it appears to be obsessed by the technology of onshore wind power, which, although well established and relatively cheap, is still subsidised through the renewables obligation. It is by far the most controversial source of energy, because of the impact of massive numbers of ever larger turbines on the British countryside, which apart from being home to millions, is a priceless, high-quality asset. It is also, particularly in Dorset, home to an international tourist industry.
To date across Britain there are already about 1,000 wind turbines, which disfigure some of our finest landscapes to meet less than 0.5 per cent. of our energy needs, and even that capacity has to be backed up by conventional sources ready to be brought on line when the wind fails to blow—often in the coldest winter weather when demand is at its greatest. There are
138WH
proposals for turbines of unprecedented size—more than 100 m in height—which, because they reach for stronger winds further from the ground, are to be targeted in areas previously said to be insufficiently windy, as is true of the sites in Dorset and Somerset.
The Government's UK all-renewables target for 2010 is to increase output from the present 3 per cent.—nearly all of which comes from hydroelectric schemes in Scotland—to something like 10 per cent. In July, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced the round 2 offshore wind initiative, which will produce half that total, leaving only 2 per cent. to come in seven years from all other sources. That includes existing consents and the many other rising technologies, such as marine currents, solar and biomass.
That being so, I believe it is unacceptable that the consultation draft of planning policy statement 22 on renewable energy in England is forecast to dismantle protection for the buffer zones around nationally designated areas, and to instruct planning authorities to assemble ambitious and irreparably damaging target scenarios for thousands of immense wind turbines. The largest projects will be propelled to consent outside the democratic planning system by the Department of Trade and Industry-controlled Electricity Act 1989. That will lead to the destruction by Government decree of our finest countryside for no reason other than the appeasement of the onshore wind power industry and the establishment of green tokenism by a Government. That is deeply offensive to all lovers of the countryside.
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, on a week-long tour of the country examining renewable energy, yesterday issued a press release in which he said:
"We have placed the environment at the heart of energy policy."
He added that we all now understand better our impact on the natural environment, and spoke of climate change and its effects, but he ignored the visual impact of these developments. In its policy position statement issued last month, the Campaign to Protect Rural England stated:
"The English countryside will not be immune from the damage done by global climate change caused by excess greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere … Unlike conventional fossil fuel power stations, wind turbines can generate electricity without producing carbon dioxide."
It went on to say:
"CPRE believes there is a role for wind energy in providing electricity in the UK, but their intermittency and major visual impact limit the potential contribution of onshore turbines. Their location and extent need to be carefully controlled."
The CPRE concluded:
"At sea, wind turbines can operate at higher efficiency and will have reduced impact on cherished scenery. But we cannot rely on wind power alone to provide for our energy needs. There needs to be much more investment in harnessing a range of more predictable and reliable sources of renewable energy, such as the tides."
The issue does not just affect the UK. In a policy statement issued in February, the International Federation of Industrial Energy Consumers said about renewable energy in the EU:
"IFIEC welcomes the attention being given to renewable energy technologies, which should have a role in Europe's future energy supply options. It is important, though, to keep a balance between technological progress, security of supply and environmental protection issues."

139WH
It highlighted some special aspects of the promotion of wind power that are relevant to the case I am raising by stating:
"It must not be forgotten that wind power has an important limitation. The usage of the installed capacity is highly unstable and insecure being totally dependent on wind conditions at any given time. Thus, the average volume of power generated from wind farms is far less than the design capacity."
The IFIEC added that the
"uncertainty associated with wind generated power means additional costs",
because
"installed wind power capacity can not replace any other installed capacity. Due to the insecure generation volume, it is always necessary to back it up with reserve generation capacity. This means dual investment in generation capacities"—
the "other installed capacity" being, possibly, carbon fuels. Other reasons for the additional costs were that
"grid capacity has to be installed for the potential maximum load",
even though that will "hardly ever" be achieved, and that the
"decentralised locations of wind farms leads to inefficient investments".
The IFIEC concluded:
"All these mean additional costs for the electricity utilities and grid operators, which are then passed to the consumers through the electricity price."
I have several questions for the Minister about the developments in Dorset. Wind turbines operate for only 28 to 30 per cent. of the time, so there has to be back-up capacity to meet the grid's needs for the remaining 70 to 72 per cent. of the time. Do the Government agree with that statement? If so, what is the most suitable method of generating electricity to fill that gap? How much does the provision of back-up power for the remaining 70 to 72 per cent. of the time reduce the environmental benefits of using wind power? What is the level of subsidy to electricity generated by wind turbines, taking into account the guarantee of access to the grid and the need to meet the cost of keeping back-up capacity?
Do the Government support the position that, under the Electricity Act 1989, the big wind turbine companies are entitled to bypass local planning authorities if the theoretical maximum generating capacity of a group of turbines exceeds 50 MW? Is not the true capacity of such a group 28 to 30 per cent. of that theoretical maximum? In the event that the Government consider it in order to bypass local planning authorities, how can groups comprising substantial numbers of my constituents appeal against either a decision in my local case, or any Government decision to grant planning permission under the 1989 Act? I make no excuse for telling the Minister that several groups work in and around my constituency; for example, Dorset Against Rural Turbines, of which I am the honorary chairman, and Save the Vale, in the north of my constituency.
Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about Save the Vale, which extends into my constituency, covering Cucklington, Stoke Trister, Pen Selwood and other villages in the Blackmoor vale in Somerset. Does he agree that
140WH
whatever the merits of wind turbines—I actually think that there are many—they cannot override normal planning considerations of landscape value? Would it not be better to have a national and a local strategy for identifying the right sites in planning and landscape terms than to leave such decisions to an opportunistic and adventitious application process?
Mr. Walter: I agree with the sentiments the hon. Gentleman expresses. He is absolutely right to say that local people should have a say in the matter, and the process should not just be negative. Some positive strategy should come either directly from central Government or through the regional offices. Sadly, that seems to be lacking at present.
Finally, can the Minister tell me how wind turbines are perceived in other European countries, particularly in Germany and in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries, which appear to have halted their development?
Government policy on renewable energy, including the carbon emissions reduction targets that we discussed, is to be applauded in principle. However, in practice, through the choice of onshore wind turbines in unsuitable locations as a quick and easy option, that policy is causing utter mayhem by creating an artificial race, by distorting the marketplace and by destroying the countryside and entire communities' amenity value. There have been high-profile examples in Cumbria, and now in my own constituency, with the largest ever applications from National Wind Power and Your Energy for 32 turbines more than 100 m high.
There are significant weaknesses in the Government's policy, including false savings in carbon emissions; wind variations causing onshore wind turbines to work for less than 30 per cent. of the time, thereby requiring back-up capacity and resulting in no savings in CO2 emissions; liabilities to the taxpayer and consumer in cost and capital grants; and, most particularly, concerns about the preservation of the countryside and about community well-being. Increasing use of inland and lowland sites ruins the vanishing countryside and seriously affects the well-being of many communities in Dorset and elsewhere.
If wind turbines have to be used, they should be put offshore, as recently announced in a major Government policy initiative. We should aim to reduce excessive consumption through better education and greater awareness, and revise or delay the targets that have been set in order to allow more time, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested, for a comprehensive approach that uses other energy technologies that are coming on stream, such as biofuels, biomass, tidal, wave and solar.
4.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on securing this debate. He has a strong interest in the issue in his capacity as the chairman of Dorset Against Rural Turbines. As he generously revealed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services is unable to be here because he is going round Britain promoting renewable energy strategies.

141WH
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's very strong support for the principles of the Government's policy on renewable energy. Renewable energy is at the heart of the Government's energy policy. The White Paper "Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy" reinforces our commitment to renewable forms of energy. The Government have set four energy goals: to put ourselves on a path to cut the UK's carbon dioxide emissions by some 60 per cent. by 2050; to maintain the reliability of energy supplies; to promote competitive energy markets in the UK and beyond; and to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.
Renewable forms of energy will contribute to the achievement of all those objectives, in particular the reduction in carbon emissions, and to assuring future security of energy supply by diversifying the sources of electricity on which we can rely. They will also create new businesses and jobs, not only in energy generation, but in component construction and support services. In our White Paper, the Government confirmed our target of 10 per cent. of UK electricity being supplied from renewable sources by 2010, and set the aspiration to double that share to 20 per cent. by 2020. The main vehicle for reaching the target is the renewables obligation, under which electricity suppliers are required to supply a specified and growing proportion of their sales from eligible renewable energy sources. In addition, the Government are to spend nearly £350 million over the next four years supporting renewables that are not yet commercially competitive.
The 10 per cent. target is ambitious because we are starting from a low base. In 2002, only 1.7 per cent. of the UK's electricity was generated from renewable sources eligible for the renewables obligation. However, we are doing all we can to meet the target. Both onshore and offshore wind development will be critical to achieving that. Onshore wind power generation is an established technology and will make a major early contribution, while offshore wind developments are a growing industry with a vast potential. While I note the hon. Gentleman's preference for wind farms to be located offshore, both offshore and onshore wind developments are needed to form a balanced and significant input to the targets of 2010 and beyond.
We expect that wind energy will provide the vast majority of the growth necessary to reach our 2010 target, and will make the largest contribution to it. Our total wind capacity is close to 600 MW, while other projects together offering more than 1.25 GW capacity have received consent, and there are more in the pipeline. Achievement of the 2010 target would mean that UK wind-generating capacity could power one in six households.
The hon. Gentleman raises the subject of wind turbines proposed for the Winterborne area of north Dorset. My Department is aware of a proposal by National Wind Power Ltd. to apply for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct and operate 23 wind turbines at Muston Down with a combined capacity of about 65 MW. It is also aware of a smaller scheme proposed by Your Energy for a wind farm comprising 11 turbines at Lower Winterborne and the possibility of another smaller one
142WH
in the same broad area. Those will require permission under the normal planning regime. I understand that the Lower Winterborne proposal is being considered by the local planning authority.
Let me set out the procedure for proposals for power stations with capacity greater than 50 MW. Such proposals are considered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. When granting such a consent, the Secretary of State can direct that planning permission be deemed to be granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. National Wind Power has not yet submitted an application for consent to build a wind farm at Winterborne. In the event of a relevant local planning authority objecting to an application, the Secretary of State has a statutory obligation to call for a public inquiry into the application to be held. In considering an application, the Secretary of State takes into account the environmental impact, the views of the local community—including the relevant local planning authority and individuals—and the advice of statutory bodies such as the Environment Agency, the relevant countryside and nature conservation bodies, and heritage bodies.
In view of the possibility of other proposals neighbouring the one proposed by National Wind Power, the Department of Trade and Industry has requested that the environmental impact assessment statement, which accompanies the application, should consider the cumulative impact of all proposals in the vicinity. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, until an application is made and the views of those commenting on it are considered, I cannot say what decision will be taken. Likewise, it would be inappropriate of me to comment on those proposals in detail. The only assurance I can give him and his constituents is that their views, together with all other interests that arise in relation to development proposals, will be fully considered before any decision on an application is taken.
The Government are concerned about the landscape of Britain—it is in no one's interest to spoil it. Although we want to increase the use of renewable energy installations to reach our renewable energy target, that does not mean that we want development to take place where it would be inappropriate. The Government provide guidance to local planning authorities to help them to assess proposed wind farms and other such installations. That is included in planning policy guidance note 22 on renewable energy. That guidance will be updated, and the new guidance, called planning policy statement 22, is due to be published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as a consultation paper in early November. It will reflect the advances made in wind energy since the current guidance was published, and it will incorporate wider Government policies on energy, specifically carbon reduction. Similar legislation exists for Scotland and Wales, and all the guidelines clearly state that visual and other impacts should be considered in the siting of wind turbines.
Wind farm developers are required to consider all environmental aspects of wind energy projects, including those raised by the hon. Gentleman. Most small wind farms, and all large wind farms, are required to produce an environmental impact

143WH
assessment, which covers all the issues as part of the application for planning permission. The environmental impact statements produced as a result of those assessments are available to the public. Landscape architects are often consulted on the layout of wind farms, and they aim to ensure that the farms seem coherent and do not appear cluttered in the landscape. They consider the effect of the turbines against the skyline and from important viewpoints or beauty spots.
It has been suggested that the benefits of onshore wind farms are dubious, but I am advised that that is far from true. There are more than 80 onshore wind farms in the UK and together they provide enough electricity to power almost 400,000 homes. That is a useful contribution to our energy supplies. It is true that the electricity produced from wind power is more intermittent than electricity from power stations that run continuously. On average, an onshore wind turbine has a load factor of about 30 per cent., while the figure is a little higher offshore. That intermittency has implications for the design and operation of the electricity network, but we should keep a sense of proportion. Wind farms in the UK are geographically dispersed throughout the country and tend to be located in areas with a high wind resource. That dispersion significantly reduces the intermittency factor of wind-driven generation, since it minimises the possibility of all wind farms failing to generate electricity at the same time.
It should also be remembered that traditional generating plants, such as gas or nuclear, undergo occasional shutdowns for essential maintenance. That type of generating loss is more difficult to cope with than the intermittency of wind, because the amounts of electricity involved are typically of a greater magnitude. When the effect of that type of shutdown is compared with the intermittency of dispersed wind farms, the variation in output from wind generation is minimal. Furthermore, key research is continuing into storage technologies that will support intermittent generation and provide power to the network when conditions are less favourable, as will hybrid generation plants. Such developments will improve the overall performance of wind generation and limit the reserve necessary to maintain electricity supply in the event of either the accidental loss of a generating unit, or higher than expected demand.
As the proportion of intermittent generation increases, the cost of maintaining stable supplies also increases. We accept that those costs need to be managed in new ways, and we are already funding research into that through the DTI's renewable energy programme and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's sustainable power generation and
144WH
supply, or SUPERGEN, programme. As part of our current capital grant programme, in 2002 we allocated an additional £4 million to facilitate the demonstration of new control, storage and metering technologies.
It is important to address the concerns that have been raised regarding public attitudes towards renewable energy, including wind farms. The DTI commissioned research into public attitudes towards renewables, and the findings are broadly encouraging. Overall many people have favourable views on renewable energy, and the vast majority feel that the Government should promote its use. Those who are more knowledgeable tend to be more positive. Although the research identified a number of concerns about visual impact and impact from noise, it is interesting that those who currently live in the vicinity of a wind farm tend to be more positive than the general public.
We have concentrated on onshore wind energy this afternoon. As I said at the outset, we expect the bulk of the increase in renewable energy capacity to be from wind power. It is also important to say a little about developments offshore. In July, the DTI invited the Crown Estate to offer sites in the Thames estuary, the greater Wash and the north-west to developers in a competitive bidding process. The deadline for submitting proposals was 15 October, and the bids are now being assessed. I am pleased to have been informed that the initial indications from developers are promising. In the meantime, the projects resulting from the first round of offshore licensing are moving ahead.
I mentioned my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy's renewables tour. On Monday he visited North Hoyle, off the coast of north Wales, where the first major UK offshore wind farm will come onstream next month. Last week, he announced that four more offshore wind farms have received planning consent: those are at Lynn, Inner Dowsing, Cromer and Gunfleet Sands, all of which are off the east coast of England. Yesterday, at the British Wind Energy Association annual conference, he announced the award of six capital grants, totalling £59 million, to developers of offshore wind.
We should not, however, ignore the potential of other renewable sources to make their contribution, particularly in the longer term beyond 2010. The Government therefore support a wide range of renewable technologies, including biomass, solar photovoltaics, and wave and tidal energy, through the renewables obligation, our capital grants and the research and development programmes—
It being eighteen minutes to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pensions
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what pension entitlements are available for members of(a) the reserve forces and (b) the regular forces; and if he will make a statement. [134916]

  Mr. Caplin
  Pension entitlement for reservists is determined by the type of Reserve Service undertaken. Members entering Full-Time Reserve Service (FTRS), and those undertaking part-time reserve service on an Additional Duties Commitment (ADC), may be entitled to pension benefits under the reservists' section of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. Members of the Volunteer Reserve Forces are not entitled to membership of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, except when they are called-out or mobilised for permanent service; in these circumstances, the Department will alternatively, if they so wish, pay the employer contribution to their civilian pension arrangement. Members of the regular forces are entitled to membership of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. All members of the armed forces, whether regular, FTRS, ADC or volunteer reserve, may be entitled to benefits for an injury, illness or death that is due to military service; in these circumstances, arrangements are designed to provide that there is, at least, a broadly comparable level of benefit.

  Breast Implants
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to his Department of providing female soldiers with breast implants was in each of the last five years. [131913]

  Mr. Caplin
  The numbers of breast implant operations undertaken on female Service personnel, in Ministry of Defence Hospital Units, in each of the last five calendar years is detailed in the table.

  Number of operations undertaken

  1999

  7

  2000

  7

  2001

  6

  2002

  16

  2003

  4

  The costs of providing each operation was not recorded separately. Such operations would be carried out for clinical reasons, such as breast reconstruction following accident or cancer treatment, and not for purely cosmetic reasons.

  The numbers and costs of female Service personnel receiving breast implants in the NHS but outside of MOD Hospital Unit arrangements are not held centrally.

  Cadet Forces
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department will spend in 2003–04 on cadet forces; and what percentage of the overall budget of his Department that represents. [133752]

  Mr. Caplin
  The funding for the financial year 2003–04 is £80.5 million. This is less than one per cent. of the overall defence budget.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department will spend in 2003–04 in wages for those that help out with the cadet forces; and what percentage of the overall budget of his Department that represented. [133753]

  Mr. Caplin
  The funding for financial year 2003–04 is £36 million. This is less than one per cent. of the overall budget.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has ever ceased to offer payment to those that assist in running the cadet forces. [133755]

  Mr. Caplin
  This information is not held centrally, but indications are that any cases for ceasing to offer payment are few and would have been sanctioned for sound reasons in accordance with appropriate regulations.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the United Kingdom. [132110]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Communication Services Agency manages the provision of a substantial portion of call-centre type services across the Ministry of Defence and has no plans to outsource call centre premises outside the United Kingdom.

  There are some small helpdesk facilities operated within Ministry of Defence establishments in Cyprus, Germany and the Falkland Islands; these are all managed from the UK.

  Defence White Paper
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to publish the Defence White Paper. [134956]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I said in the Defence Policy Debate on 16 October 2003,Official Report, column 275, I intend to publish a Defence White Paper later this year.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 11 September 2003,Official Report, column 375W, on military police, when the last formal
  inspection by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary into the MOD police investigation branch

  229W
  and CID was carried out; and if he will give a copy of the report to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South. [132489]

  Mr. Caplin
  The last formal inspection of the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) took place in late 2001-early 2002. The inspection process included the work of the MDP Criminal Investigation Department. The report was published in April 2002.

  I will send the hon. Member a copy of the HMIC Report and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Overseas Facilities
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's permanent facilities overseas, what the cost was in each of the last five years, of maintaining each of them, to what use each facility is put; what the estimated value of each facility is: and if he will make a statement. [134648]

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

  1997

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  May

  Jun

  Jul

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  RN/RM

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  2

  1

  6

  0

  7

  1

  5

  2

  Dundee

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  1

  3

  6

  0

  7

  4

  6

  5

  Edinburgh

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  10

  2

  6

  4

  0

  12

  9

  4

  3

  Glasgow

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  14

  4

  8

  16

  0

  21

  21

  24

  10

  Inverness

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  1

  5

  11

  0

  10

  4

  2

  1

  England

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  281

  188

  258

  300

  4

  596

  421

  355

  124

  Wales

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  21

  11

  18

  19

  0

  40

  25

  30

  8

  N Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3

  2

  6

  4

  0

  7

  2

  5

  3

  ARMY

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  10

  6

  15

  4

  9

  10

  7

  3

  3

  Dundee

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  23

  22

  15

  23

  47

  30

  21

  17

  Edinburgh

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  33

  28

  21

  9

  22

  16

  20

  18

  16

  Glasgow

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  67

  82

  49

  44

  79

  76

  74

  80

  35

  Inverness

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  13

  9

  7

  8

  14

  10

  14

  5

  England

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  715

  938

  834

  606

  1,054

  970

  1,056

  1,007

  649

  Wales

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  109

  71

  86

  62

  83

  60

  113

  76

  26

  N Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  RAF

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  5

  1

  1

  2

  3

  2

  3

  1

  Dundee

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  9

  3

  2

  11

  4

  4

  4

  10

  2

  Edinburgh

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  4

  2

  8

  5

  4

  4

  7

  3

  Glasgow

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  8

  7

  6

  3

  22

  8

  9

  5

  Inverness

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8

  4

  6

  2

  1

  4

  1

  6

  1

  England

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  231

  239

  131

  232

  167

  266

  164

  290

  89

  Wales

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  27

  28

  15

  31

  20

  27

  21

  18

  9

  N Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  7

  3

  9

  3

  9

  5

  9

  3

  1998

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  May

  Jun

  Jul

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  RN/RM

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  4

  3

  4

  3

  2

  4

  1

  2

  3

  3

  10

  0

  Dundee

  4

  0

  2

  7

  1

  4

  3

  2

  2

  3

  1

  2

  Edinburgh

  14

  19

  10

  3

  15

  15

  5

  2

  15

  16

  15

  0

  Glasgow

  20

  15

  13

  9

  18

  29

  12

  4

  19

  15

  23

  1

  Inverness

  5

  5

  6

  1

  2

  6

  3

  2

  2

  4

  8

  0

  Parliamentary Questions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr, on 15 September 2003, reference 129531. [135217]

  Mr. Hoon
  I replied to the hon. Member on 27 October 2003,Official Report, column 6W.

  Recruitment
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 10 September 2003,Official Report, column 754W, on recruitment, if he will list the monthly recruitment numbers from January 1997 to January 2003 for (a) each of the recruitment posts in Scotland, (b) England as a whole, (c) Wales as a whole and (d) Northern Ireland as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [133654]

  Mr. Caplin
  The numbers of other rank enlistments for all three Services in each month from April 1997 to December 2002 are detailed in the following tables. Figures prior to April 1997 are not held centrally. Statistics for officer recruitment are not broken down by region.
  231W

  1998

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  May

  Jun

  Jul

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  England

  445

  394

  459

  173

  310

  366

  290

  182

  419

  432

  520

  18

  Wales

  39

  21

  36

  13

  24

  18

  26

  8

  25

  25

  50

  1

  N Ireland

  8

  9

  7

  1

  21

  9

  8

  5

  8

  12

  6

  0

  Army

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  15

  7

  6

  3

  16

  9

  9

  6

  15

  2

  7

  1

  Dundee

  50

  36

  25

  17

  32

  26

  14

  38

  44

  26

  34

  8

  Edinburgh

  42

  17

  21

  19

  40

  14

  24

  38

  59

  17

  25

  18

  Glasgow

  139

  69

  102

  46

  103

  46

  74

  82

  151

  66

  116

  22

  Inverness

  20

  9

  11

  8

  17

  8

  6

  10

  26

  9

  7

  2

  England

  1,213

  1,084

  828

  754

  1,146

  759

  900

  1,118

  1,795

  985

  1,214

  353

  Wales

  118

  80

  62

  79

  103

  53

  90

  87

  86

  100

  101

  31

  N Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  RAF

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  8

  5

  10

  2

  2

  4

  6

  1

  1

  4

  1

  6

  Dundee

  5

  8

  10

  5

  7

  2

  11

  1

  4

  3

  5

  2

  Edinburgh

  3

  3

  3

  3

  6

  2

  8

  5

  4

  6

  3

  2

  Glasgow

  15

  9

  16

  12

  12

  13

  21

  6

  4

  19

  12

  9

  Inverness

  4

  5

  4

  3

  7

  2

  4

  5

  5

  7

  8

  4

  England

  289

  180

  256

  246

  269

  176

  289

  106

  275

  321

  283

  172

  Wales

  22

  9

  21

  19

  20

  23

  88

  18

  36

  20

  36

  14

  N Ireland

  2

  9

  5

  15

  9

  6

  6

  2

  3

  8

  5

  9

  1999

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  May

  Jun

  Jul

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  RN/RM

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  3

  5

  5

  1

  3

  4

  3

  1

  5

  4

  9

  0

  Dundee

  5

  5

  5

  3

  3

  4

  3

  2

  6

  0

  8

  0

  Edinburgh

  21

  14

  12

  4

  20

  15

  9

  5

  17

  12

  20

  2

  Glasgow

  30

  19

  20

  29

  18

  17

  11

  6

  20

  21

  23

  2

  Inverness

  4

  6

  5

  0

  4

  2

  7

  0

  8

  6

  4

  0

  England

  434

  361

  320

  282

  430

  328

  337

  125

  462

  364

  526

  56

  Wales

  26

  30

  30

  20

  24

  19

  28

  15

  23

  31

  25

  8

  N Ireland

  9

  2

  6

  13

  5

  1

  9

  1

  8

  8

  9

  0

  Army

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  15

  10

  7

  6

  16

  6

  3

  13

  25

  9

  6

  3

  Dundee

  57

  20

  25

  38

  46

  26

  19

  27

  35

  22

  25

  14

  Edinburgh

  36

  13

  26

  17

  28

  25

  20

  39

  45

  10

  11

  13

  Glasgow

  122

  61

  76

  84

  118

  63

  40

  73

  91

  56

  58

  50

  Inverness

  14

  5

  12

  8

  15

  7

  3

  4

  25

  10

  5

  4

  England

  1,607

  887

  783

  741

  1,168

  723

  689

  884

  1610

  778

  1262

  443

  Wales

  122

  62

  61

  54

  100

  68

  89

  117

  115

  74

  108

  43

  N Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  1

  RAF

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  6

  6

  0

  1

  7

  7

  5

  0

  6

  3

  3

  2

  Dundee

  5

  6

  6

  8

  5

  5

  6

  2

  5

  6

  6

  6

  Edinburgh

  1

  3

  13

  6

  3

  10

  9

  2

  8

  15

  7

  4

  Glasgow

  11

  16

  13

  10

  10

  16

  15

  5

  19

  14

  10

  12

  Inverness

  3

  7

  1

  3

  5

  4

  5

  1

  7

  7

  4

  8

  England

  235

  246

  238

  205

  168

  280

  263

  151

  250

  303

  197

  167

  Wales

  22

  21

  20

  15

  13

  16

  31

  9

  25

  32

  15

  23

  N Ireland

  13

  16

  6

  5

  11

  12

  14

  2

  1 I

  13

  10

  8

  2000

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  May

  Jun

  Jul

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  RN/RM

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  2

  6

  3

  1

  4

  4

  4

  0

  3

  5

  8

  2

  Dundee

  3

  6

  6

  1

  6

  5

  4

  1

  3

  8

  3

  1

  Edinburgh

  4

  18

  12

  4

  17

  17

  12

  3

  14

  18

  24

  4

  Glasgow

  15

  17

  18

  5

  15

  14

  14

  1

  14

  13

  22

  6

  Inverness

  3

  2

  2

  2

  3

  1

  8

  0

  2

  5

  3

  I

  England

  331

  352

  391

  65

  417

  313

  354

  1

  385

  481

  346

  126

  Wales

  27

  18

  34

  3

  20

  21

  25

  0

  26

  32

  28

  9

  N Ireland

  6

  5

  9

  0

  16

  5

  8

  0

  5

  10

  6

  2

  232W

  233W

  2000

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  May

  Jun

  Jul

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  Army

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  23

  11

  2

  3

  12

  2

  13

  7

  22

  9

  6

  2

  Dundee

  40

  36

  19

  9

  23

  19

  19

  10

  51

  30

  22

  9

  Edinburgh

  39

  23

  14

  5

  9

  5

  22

  3

  55

  25

  10

  1

  Glasgow

  120

  73

  42

  35

  70

  34

  51

  45

  130

  58

  45

  16

  Inverness

  17

  16

  5

  6

  4

  3

  11

  6

  30

  11

  8

  3

  England

  1,626

  933

  810

  387

  886

  533

  834

  685

  1814

  1115

  763

  429

  Wales

  128

  106

  74

  30

  79

  76

  58

  78

  128

  106

  49

  56

  N Ireland

  2

  1

  6

  16

  9

  14

  11

  31

  54

  18

  6

  29

  RAF

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  7

  3

  1

  7

  5

  3

  4

  2

  5

  4

  5

  1

  Dundee

  6

  4

  7

  3

  6

  7

  3

  3

  12

  7

  14

  4

  Edinburgh

  11

  6

  9

  7

  3

  2

  3

  9

  6

  0

  14

  1

  Glasgow

  19

  7

  25

  13

  11

  10

  13

  9

  22

  3

  15

  3

  Inverness

  3

  3

  4

  3

  5

  2

  5

  4

  5

  2

  2

  1

  England

  316

  114

  321

  166

  234

  166

  210

  156

  328

  105

  344

  71

  Wales

  50

  18

  35

  13

  26

  27

  21

  26

  23

  12

  40

  22

  N Ireland

  9

  8

  22

  9

  3

  9

  6

  6

  12

  5

  16

  2

  2001

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  May

  Jun

  Jul

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  RN/RM

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  7

  3

  7

  0

  4

  6

  6

  0

  6

  11

  9

  0

  Dundee

  2

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  8

  0

  2

  6

  5

  2

  Edinburgh

  11

  11

  28

  3

  13

  16

  15

  0

  16

  25

  23

  6

  Glasgow

  16

  16

  24

  7

  8

  14

  16

  0

  18

  20

  16

  8

  Inverness

  6

  2

  4

  0

  2

  3

  4

  0

  2

  5

  5

  0

  England

  335

  349

  333

  95

  362

  322

  433

  3

  416

  541

  403

  139

  Wales

  28

  29

  38

  6

  22

  28

  27

  0

  38

  39

  25

  7

  N Ireland

  7

  8

  7

  2

  11

  2

  3

  0

  4

  12

  7

  4

  Army

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  12

  6

  8

  1

  5

  3

  3

  2

  11

  7

  11

  2

  Dundee

  59

  10

  21

  12

  17

  10

  23

  14

  42

  29

  14

  8

  Edinburgh

  47

  7

  21

  10

  21

  12

  11

  14

  42

  28

  8

  19

  Glasgow

  175

  25

  44

  29

  67

  31

  55

  55

  123

  83

  61

  23

  Inverness

  30

  5

  8

  1

  12

  0

  6

  3

  21

  16

  7

  3

  England

  1,600

  751

  847

  587

  783

  570

  765

  706

  2,061

  913

  752

  428

  Wales

  133

  84

  84

  77

  75

  54

  85

  73

  155

  87

  66

  25

  N Ireland

  14

  18

  20

  15

  9

  10

  14

  13

  42

  10

  1

  24

  RAF

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  5

  2

  0

  2

  3

  3

  1

  4

  1

  7

  2

  2

  Dundee

  10

  0

  6

  1

  7

  7

  2

  5

  6

  8

  2

  12

  Edinburgh

  14

  4

  5

  5

  5

  3

  7

  4

  7

  5

  5

  3

  Glasgow

  1

  13

  2

  2

  16

  13

  13

  7

  17

  5

  12

  14

  Inverness

  6

  4

  3

  3

  7

  4

  6

  6

  4

  1

  6

  3

  England

  335

  161

  138

  242

  208

  185

  221

  205

  211

  350

  239

  159

  Wales

  41

  22

  11

  30

  27

  27

  34

  29

  21

  30

  27

  22

  N Ireland

  11

  4

  5

  8

  4

  3

  7

  10

  12

  3

  8

  5

  2002

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  May

  Jun

  Jul

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  RN/RM

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  8

  12

  3

  2

  7

  4

  1

  1

  1

  0

  6

  3

  Dundee

  4

  5

  3

  2

  7

  6

  8

  2

  5

  0

  4

  4

  Edinburgh

  14

  8

  7

  13

  14

  16

  12

  5

  21

  0

  11

  4

  Glasgow

  8

  18

  7

  7

  11

  7

  10

  0

  11

  0

  15

  11

  Inverness

  9

  6

  3

  1

  1

  6

  5

  0

  3

  0

  5

  1

  England

  404

  367

  287

  252

  316

  341

  363

  45

  477

  181

  350

  217

  Wales

  44

  28

  15

  24

  21

  26

  23

  3

  32

  15

  23

  6

  N Ireland

  3

  8

  10

  3

  3

  4

  2

  1

  13

  0

  7

  8

  234W

  235W

  2002

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  Mar

  Jun

  Jul

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  Army

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  11

  5

  6

  3

  4

  2

  9

  12

  24

  4

  5

  3

  Dundee

  42

  14

  31

  8

  13

  8

  20

  18

  61

  9

  14

  8

  Edinburgh

  63

  17

  24

  21

  30

  17

  20

  29

  75

  16

  15

  4

  Glasgow

  130

  53

  67

  58

  49

  61

  93

  91

  130

  40

  53

  15

  Inverness

  17

  1

  4

  3

  5

  4

  5

  11

  23

  4

  4

  4

  England

  1,648

  753

  831

  679

  662

  633

  875

  1,004

  2,460

  668

  820

  414

  Wales

  164

  65

  98

  47

  54

  43

  66

  60

  143

  49

  44

  22

  N Ireland

  12

  8

  25

  8

  5

  8

  21

  35

  16

  48

  10

  53

  RAF

  Scotland:

  Aberdeen

  8

  2

  2

  2

  4

  2

  6

  3

  6

  6

  2

  0

  Dundee

  6

  1

  5

  5

  8

  5

  6

  8

  5

  11

  11

  7

  Edinburgh

  5

  6

  5

  5

  3

  3

  11

  4

  10

  10

  6

  1

  Glasgow

  6

  13

  0

  12

  17

  9

  30

  6

  12

  26

  14

  6

  Inverness

  2

  2

  4

  2

  6

  0

  9

  8

  6

  10

  5

  6

  England

  270

  147

  175

  157

  240

  158

  344

  248

  215

  358

  268

  142

  Wales

  35

  26

  24

  17

  37

  25

  36

  34

  22

  51

  21

  12

  N Ireland

  7

  8

  8

  5

  5

  3

  9

  3

  1

  7

  4

  1

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many properties were contained in his Department's married quarters estate on 1 October; and how many are held by his Department in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) overseas. [133370]

  Mr. Caplin
  Figures for Service Family Accommodation (SFA) in mainland United Kingdom are currently only available as at 30 September 2003 and are shown as follows.

  Number

  England

  45,207

  Scotland

  4,238

  Wales

  1,118

  Total

  50,563

  Figures for SFA elsewhere are currently only available as at 1 April 2003, as shown in the following table.

  Number

  HQNI

  3,180

  Germany

  14,479

  Cyprus

  2,330

  Falkland Islands

  55

  Gibraltar

  576

  PTC1

  1,040

  Total

  21,660

  1 PTC (Personnel Training Command): includes Ramstein, Brunssum, Izmir, Naples, Lisbon and Stavanger.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many units within the married quarters estate are in(a) Standard 1 condition, (b) Standard 2 condition, (c) Standard 3 condition and (d) Standard 4 condition; [133371]

  (2) how many service personnel are housed in (a) Standard 3 and (b) Standard 4 properties within his Department's married quarters estate; and what plans he has to reduce this number. [133375]
  236W
  Mr. Caplin
  The total number of houses in mainland United Kingdom that have been assessed for condition (more than 98 per cent. of stock) at the four standards for condition were categorised as below as at 17 October 2003.

  Standard

  Total number

  1

  23,413

  2

  22,692

  3

  3,502

  4

  179

  Properties currently at the lower two standards will be the first to be targeted for disposals as demand falls over the next few years.

  Figures for the number of houses from within the Standards 3 and 4 that are currently occupied are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many units within his Department's married quarters estate have been upgraded in each of the last five years; and what proportion of these were upgrades to the entire estate. [133373]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of houses brought up to Standard 1 for Condition in mainland United Kingdom in each of the past five financial years was:

  Number

  1998–99

  1—

  1999–2000

  1,308

  2000–01

  2,733

  2001–02

  3,340

  2002–03

  1,440

  1 Figures not collected at that time

  None of these years includes an instance where the entirety of any one estate was brought up to Standard 1. A number of estates are now fully at Standard 1 but these have been addressed in phases, over a number of years, to minimise disruption to both occupants and

  237W
  Service operational requirements. Currently, just over 50 per cent. of the core stock is at Standard 1 and over 90 per cent. of families are in properties at either Standard 1 or 2.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the conclusions of his Department's Business Process Review of the Management and Delivery of Defence Housing; and if he will list those consulted in this review. [133374]

  Mr. Caplin
  I expect the Business Process Review of the Management and Delivery of De fence Housing to be published in the spring of 2004. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House. To date, a wide range of stakeholders have been consulted including those involved in the delivery of Defence housing, their customers, other Government Departments, the trade unions and relevant bodies in the private sector. The final report will contain a full list of those consulted.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's married quarters were empty as at 30 September; and what proportion of this represents his Department's management margin required for managing change. [133378]

  Mr. Caplin
  At the end of September there were some 8,500 empty married properties in mainland UK. Of these:Over 1,500 are held for future deployments
  Some 900 are in the course of disposal during 2003–04 with additional properties identified as non-core and for disposal in 2004–05
  Some 550 are empty undergoing or awaiting modernisation

  The remainder are available to let or are already allocated or under offer to incoming families.

  The Defence Housing Executive's management margin for managing change requires an on-going continuous review to ensure delivery of homes to Service families. As at 31 March 2003, the management margin (i.e. the proportion of working stock vacant) was 13.6 per cent. The DHE's long term target is to reduce this to no more than 10 per cent. by financial year 2005–06.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his Department's disposal targets are for married quarters estate stock in each of the next five years; [133382]

  (2) what his Department's targets are for reducing the void rate levels in the married quarters estate; and if he will make a statement. [133380]

  Mr. Caplin
  Targets set for the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) are not expressed in terms of numbers of houses for disposal but as the progressive reduction of void rates in order to achieve, by 2005–06, a management margin of 10 per cent. (the management margin is the proportion of vacant working stock required to manage change).

  Some 12,000 properties have been released by DHE for disposal since January 2000. In addition, over 900
  238W
  properties are expected to be released during 2003–04. To maintain progress towards the long term target of 10 per cent., a greater number of disposals is likely to be needed during 2004–05, and in subsequent years, depending on demand.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will bring forward revisions to the Reserve Forces Call-out and Recall (Financial Assistance) Regulations 1997, S.I., 1997, No. 309. [133080]

  Mr. Caplin
  Work on revising SI 1997/309 (The Reserve Forces (Call-out and Recall) (Financial Assistance) Regulations is ongoing, and when it is concluded, I will make an announcement in the House. A consultation paper with proposals for revising the financial assistance available to reservists under SI 309/97 when called out into permanent service will be available at the earliest opportunity.

  Vaccines
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice the Deputy Chief Medical Officer gave on administering pertussis vaccine together with anthrax vaccine to service personnel prior to the 1991 Gulf War. [134574]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the Ministry of Defence paper: "Background to the use of Medical Countermeasures to Protect British Forces During the Gulf War (Operation GRANBY)" dated October 1997, a copy of which is in the Library of the House and available on the Internet at: http://www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/info/medical/mcm.htm, and to my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement's written answer of 9 October 2003,Official Report, House of Lords, c. WA70.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which vaccines administered to Service personnel prior to the 1991 Gulf War were not licensed for use in the United Kingdom; and what reports he has received that vaccines were not given in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. [134575]

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

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to have a public inquiry into the use of vaccines by the Department prior to the 1991 Gulf war; and if he will make a statement. [134621]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Government are not convinced that such a public inquiry would help answer the basic question of why some Gulf veterans are ill. We have not ruled out the possibility that we may look at this again if circumstances were to change, but in the present circumstances, it is only through the programme of independent scientific and medical research initiated by the Government that we are ever likely to be able to establish the causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses.

HEALTH

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the transfers into and out of formula spending share for 2004–05, and grants which are due to cease at the end of 2003–04; and whether his Department plans consequently to adjust the baseline calculation for floors and ceilings. [127165]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Secretary of State for Health intends to end three special grants in 2003–04: Deferred Payments (£40 million), Performance Fund (£96 million) and Care Direct (£2.2 million). No other transfers are planned at this stage, although the situation will not be finalised until the provisional local government financial settlement. In each case, the Government are considering whether to adjust authorities' baselines for Formula Grant and for Formula Spending Shares.

  Social Care
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget for social services in Lancashire was in each year since 1992. [134902]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The table shows the personal social services (PSS) budget figures for Lancashire county council, for each year since 1992–93. The figures include children's services.

  Social services budgets—Lancashire county council—1992–93 to 2003–04

  £ million

  PSS budget

  1992–93

  132,406

  1993–94

  156,288

  1994–95

  182,308

  1995–96

  200,193

  1996–97

  216,873

  1997–98

  231,046

  1998–99

  191,062

  1999–2000

  199,798

  2000–01

  216,811

  2001–02

  231,741

  2002–03

  262,069

  2003–04

  289,932

  Acetylcysteine
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of Acetylcysteine on the NHS. [133094]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Acetylcysteine is available on the national health service as a prescription only medicine.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to improve waiting times from referral by a GP to treatment for cancer services. [133892]
  240W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The NHS Cancer Plan sets out our strategy to reduce waiting times for cancer patients. A two-week outpatient waiting time standard was introduced in 2000 for all urgent general practitioner referrals of suspected cancer. In the last quarter—April to June 2003–98.5 per cent. of urgent GP referrals for suspected cancer were seen by a specialist within two weeks. By 2005, there will be targets of a maximum one month wait from diagnosis to treatment and a maximum two month wait from urgent GP referral to treatment for all cancers. Progress towards these targets is being achieved through increased investment, additional staffing levels, installing new radiotherapy and diagnostic facilities and streamlining care processes through the cancer services collaborative.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the relationship between the incidence of psychosis and cannabis use. [134347]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department monitors research into the effects cannabis has on mental health on a continuous basis. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) published a report in March 2002—"The classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971"—in which it described the range of harms caused by cannabis, including its known effects on mental health. There has been a lot of debate about the use of cannabis and whether it can lead to mental illness, especially schizophrenia. No clear causal link has been proven for the latter, although recent epidemiological research has shown a stronger association than previously evident. Cannabis use can unquestionably worsen existing schizophrenia (and other mental illnesses) and lead to relapse in some patients.

  In addition, on 29 September 2003, the Department published "Dangerousness of Drugs—a Guide to the
  Risks and Harms associated with Substance Misuse", which outlines the chronic and acute problems associated with a range of licit and illicit substances commonly used in the United Kingdom, including cannabis.

  Chronic Diseases
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the proportion of health spending which will be needed for chronic diseases over the next 50 years. [133724]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department has not commissioned its own research into this. There is a growing body of research and evidence that highlights the increasing significance of chronic illness. The Department has work in progress looking at the future burden of diseases, including chronic illness, and exploring the implications for services and patients.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his most recent estimate is of the number of staff
  241W
  employed in community health councils in England at risk of redundancy; and what the potential liability for redundancy costs is. [134582]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We estimate that 380 staff of community health councils will be made redundant. The cost of redundancy is estimated at £12 million.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many dentists were accepting national health service patients in(a) Stroud, (b) Gloucestershire and (c) England in (i) 1990, (ii) 1997 and (iii) the last year for which figures are available; [131495]

  (2) how many dentists in (a) Stroud and (b) Gloucestershire accept (i) national health service patients and (ii) only children as NHS patients; and how many are registered as private practices. [131496]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows the number of practices providing general dental services (GDS) in England, Gloucestershire and Cotswold and Vale Primary Care Trust, which covers Stroud, at August 1990, August 1997 and August 2003.

  These figures exclude salaried dentists working in the general dental service, dentists working in community dental services, personal dental services and hospital dental services and dentists who do no national health service work. Information is not collected centrally on the number of dentists who practice solely privately but it is thought that the number of such dentists is around 2 per cent.

  General dental service: number of dental practices at 31 August each year

  Area

  1990

  11997

  22003

  England

  8,547

  8,303

  8,623

  —

  —

  —

  Family Health Service Authority

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  97

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  109

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Primary Care Trust

  —

  —

  —

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  30

  Cheltenham and Tewkesbury

  —

  —

  34

  West Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  31

  Cotswold and Vale

  —

  —

  36

  1 Following the move from family health service authority (FHSAs) to health authority (HAs) in 1996, results were published by HA rather than by FHSA.

  2 Following the move from health authority (HAs) to primary care trusts (PCTs) in 2001, results were published by strategic health authority (SHA) and PCT rather than by region and HA

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board

  The number of practices accepting new NHS patients for registration at October 2003 is shown in the following table. The information is obtained from the www.nhs.uk website. This information is not available for earlier years.

  Some people choose not to register with a GDS dentist and only visit the dentist when they require treatment on an occasional basis. Patients may also obtain treatment from other NHS dental services, including dental access centres.
  242W

  NHS dental services: number of general dental service practices and personal dental service pilots accepting new patients for registration, 3 October 2003

  Primary care trust

  Registering charge exempt adults for NHS treatment

  Registering charge paying adults for NHS treatment

  Registering children aged 0 to 18 years for NHS treatment

  England

  3,471

  3,124

  4,340

  Four Gloucestershire PCTs

  12

  7

  12

  Cotswold and Vale PCI

  4

  1

  3

  Source

  http://www.nhs.uk

  Diabetes
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure the continuity of supply of animal insulin for those diabetes sufferers who do not wish to use human insulin. [134245]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department is in regular contact with the companies supplying animal insulin in the United Kingdom. Both companies have confirmed that they will continue to supply animal insulin for the foreseeable future.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about financing for care places in London in the next financial year. [134071]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There have been substantial increases in the level of funding provided for social services in London and across England in recent years which local councils can use to increase local provision or to rebalance the care home market and increase fee levels if that is what is needed. Independent researchers, Laing & Buisson recently published research on fees paid to independent sector providers, which shows that fees in the care home sector have increased nationally by an estimated 8 per cent. in 2002–03—well ahead of wages. This is clear independent evidence that care home fees are being increased.

  The revenue support grant for London boroughs reflects the higher costs of care in the capital, and this allows these boroughs to pay higher care home fees than local authorities in popular locations in the rest of the South East, especially on the border with London.

  Care homes face special challenges, such as high capital overheads, in London and this impacts on cost and availability. In order to meet these challenges London boroughs have developed a range of services to enable greater choice for older people. This is demonstrated by the fact that in London more people are receiving intensive home care packages than in any other region of the country.

  Lung Disease
  Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the introduction of a national service framework on lung disease. [135180]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no plans for a national service framework (NSF) on lung disease. We are, however, taking steps to improve services for people with lung disease. The children's NSF will include
  243W
  childhood asthma as an exemplar condition. The NSF for chronic heart disease already has a reduction in cigarette smoking as one of its major targets. We have also banned tobacco advertising and made smoking reduction aids available on national health service prescription.

  Additionally we have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to prepare guidelines for the management and diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We expect this guidance to be produced in 2004.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times since 2001 he has taken flights on departmental duties in the UK; how many of these were(a) charter flights, (b) first or club class and (c) by helicopter; and who accompanied him on each trip. [95389]

  Mr. Hutton
  [pursuant to the answer, 12 February 2003, Official Report, c. 820W]: I regret that the previous response the hon. Member received was incorrect. The response should have read as follows:
  "According to available information Ministers in the Department of Health made the following flights within the UK between 2001 and February 2003.
  My right hon. Friend, the then Secretary of State (Mr. Milburn) made one business class return flight, three single business class flights and one single premium economy flight. He was accompanied by one private secretary and one special adviser on four occasions.
  I made four business class return flights and two single business class flights. I was accompanied by one private secretary on three occasions.
  My noble Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) made two return business class flights.
  In her capacity as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend, the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made one business class return flight and six single business class flights. She was accompanied by one private secretary on three occasions.
  In her capacity as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, my hon. Friend, the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made three business class return flights and six single business class flights. She was accompanied by one private secretary on two occasions.
  In his capacity as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) made three business class return flights and two single business class flights. On four occasions he was accompanied by one private secretary and by two private secretaries on one occasion.
  In her capacity as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) made one business class return flight and was accompanied by one private secretary.
  In his capacity as Minister of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Mr. Denham) made one business class return flight and was accompanied by one private secretary.
  In her capacity as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) made one single business class flight.
  All travel was undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Library."

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government have given to any manufacturer or supplier of(a) MMR and (b) MR vaccine (i) an indemnity, (ii) an undertaking and (iii) a letter of comfort in respect of claims or potential claims arising out of the use of such vaccines. [134581]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: No.

  Pacemakers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients received heart pacemakers in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on the reliability of pacemakers. [134242]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures published in the National Pacemaker Database Annual Report for 2002 are shown in the table.

  For the United Kingdom

  Total

  New

  Replacement

  1998

  23,366

  18,674

  4,692

  1999

  23,705

  18,912

  4,793

  2000

  24,916

  19,439

  5,477

  2001

  27,028

  20,643

  6,385

  2002

  25,397

  19,154

  6,243

  The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency considers the overall current reliability of pacemakers to be appropriate.

  Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to combat PXE; and if he will make a statement. [134999]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 28 October 2003]: Specialised genetics services may play a role in the diagnosis of Pseudoxanthoma elasticum (PXE), and in giving advice to families about inheritance of the disease. As a result of the genetics White Paper and earlier commitments, the Government are investing substantially in genetics services.

  Smog
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his latest estimate is of the(a) mortality and (b) morbidity caused by smog in the UK; [133281]

  (2) what research he has commissioned on the effects on human health caused by the emission of oxides of nitrogen from conventionally powered vehicles. [133282]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health has commissioned several research projects on the health effects of nitrogen dioxide. These include research on the interaction between nitrogen dioxide and allergens in asthmatic volunteers; research on nitrogen dioxide and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; research on the impact of the 1991 nitrogen dioxide episode; research on the health effects of exposure to traffic; general air pollution projects which include nitrogen dioxide and some literature review projects. A
  245W
  full list of the air pollution research projects funded by the Department of Health is given on the air pollution website www.doh.gov.uk/airpollution/index.htm. The Executive Summary of a review of results of the air pollution research programme is available at www.le.ac.uk/ieh/pdf/sr4execsum.pdf.

  The Department of Health's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) has reported that, in 1995–96, air pollution in Great Britain was associated with deaths brought forward in those already ill and respiratory hospital admissions as shown in the following tables.

  Numbers of deaths and hospital admissions for respiratory diseases affected per year by PM10 (particulate matter generally less than 10 (m in diameter) and sulphur dioxide in urban areas of Great Britain

  Pollutant

  Health outcomes

  GB urban

  PM10

  Deaths brought forward (all cause)

  8,100

  Hospital admissions (respiratory) brought forward and additional

  10,500

  S02

  Deaths brought forward (all cause)

  3,500

  Hospital admissions (respiratory) brought forward and additional

  3,500

  Numbers of deaths and hospital admissions for respiratory diseases affected per year by ozone in both urban and rural areas of Great Britain during summer only

  GB, threshold

  GB, threshold

  Pollutant

  Health outcomes

  = 50 ppb

  = 0 ppb

  Ozone

  Deaths brought forward:

  700

  12,500

  all causes

  Hospital admissions

  500

  9,900

  (respiratory) brought

  forward or additional

  Source:

  COMEAP(1998)

  Since that time, pollution levels have reduced but COMEAP has concluded that a wider range of outcomes (such as cardiovascular admissions and loss of life expectancy due to long-term exposure) can be quantified. COMEAP will be producing a report updating the above estimates starting in 2004.

ENVIRONMENT

  US Reserve Fleet (Decommissioning)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what discussions, between which individuals, have taken place between the Government and the US Administration in respect of the ships from the US Reserve Fleet intended for dismantling in the UK. [133364]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]: There have been discussions between officials in the Department, the Department for Transport, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Environment Agency, and their counterparts in the US State Department, the US Marine Administration and the US Environmental Protection Agency. These discussions covered a range of issues including the safe transportation of the vessels across the
  246W
  Atlantic, the environmentally sound management of wastes arising from the dismantling of the vessels, and the authorisations and notifications necessary to undertake these operations.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the potential impact on the marine environment of the Tees estuary of the planned dismantling of ships from the US Reserve Fleet. [133365]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]: An assessment was made, by the Environment Agency in combination with other regulatory bodies, regarding modification of the waste management licence for the facility where the dismantling will take place. The assessment satisfied the Agency that the planned operations at the site would be unlikely to have a significant effect on the Tees estuary or the Teesmouth and Cleveland Special Protection Area. Other applications for permissions and consents relating to this case are subject to appropriate scrutiny by the relevant authorities.

  Abandoned Cars
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to deal with the problem of abandoned cars. [134348]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra is working closely with other Government Departments on a range of initiatives to tackle the problem of abandoned vehicles.

  Our role in this has included introducing, on 9 April 2002, regulations reducing the statutory notice period after which local authorities can remove abandoned vehicles from the highway. Local authorities can now remove from the highway those vehicles that they consider merit destruction after the expiry of a 24 hour notice placed on them.

  We have now consulted on a proposal to reduce the statutory notice period whereby a landowner can object to the removal of a vehicle(s) abandoned on their land. The consultation closed on 24 October. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, we may introduce a regulation in the new year to amend the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the impact of climate change on low lying coastal areas; and if she will make a statement. [134248]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) was set up in April 1997 and is funded by Defra. In April 2002, a set of scenarios, referred to as the UKCIP02 scenarios, were published. These scenarios cover four potential future UK climates based on a range of emission scenarios: low, medium-low, medium-high and high.

  Overall, the report concludes that is is likely that relative sea level will continue to rise around most of the UK's shoreline. The rate of increase will depend on the natural vertical land movements in each region and on

  247W
  the emissions scenario. By the 2080s, the sea level may be between 26 cm and 86 cm above the current level in south-east England.

  The report also concludes that extreme sea levels will be experienced more frequently. For some east coast locations, extreme sea levels could occur between 10 and 20 times more frequently by the 2080s than they do now, under the medium-high emissions scenario.

  The Defra publication, "Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance 3: Economic Appraisal", advises operating authorities to assume an increase in sea level of between 4 mm and 6 mm per year, where the higher level applies to the south and east of England. These allowances have been built into FM measures since the mid 1980s.

  EU Shellfish Directive
  Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulatory impact assessment has been carried out to establish the likely costs to (a) water companies, (b) other companies, (c) local authorities and (d) the Environment Agency arising from the implementation of the EU Shellfish Directive. [133110]
  Mr. Morley
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment was prepared for the major review of designated waters under the Shellfish Waters Directive (79/923/EEC) announced in 1999. It showed(a) costs to water companies in England estimated at £81 million, (b) no costs identified at the time to other companies and (c) no costs to local authorities. Costs to the Environment Agency are taken into account in their grant received from Defra and are in the region of £320,000 for 2003–04. Costs to water companies of possible further measures are being assessed as part of the current periodic review of water prices.

  Fly-tipping
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the use of fixed penalty notices to deter fly-tipping. [133103]

  Company

  Type of GMO

  Site of release

  Ordnance Survey grid reference

  Consent reference

  Acambis Research Ltd.

  GM bacterium

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London

  TQ 346 816

  02/R35/1

  Acambis Research Ltd

  GM bacterium

  Chiltern Clinical Research Unit, Slough, Berkshire

  SU 983 793

  03/R35/2

  Acambis Research Ltd.

  GM bacterium

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London

  TQ 346 816

  03/R35/3

  MicroScience Ltd.

  GM bacterium

  St. Georges Hospital Medical School, London

  TQ 269 712

  02/R37/01

  MicroScience Ltd.

  GM bacterium

  BIBRA International Ltd., Carshalton, Surrey

  TQ 275 621

  02/R37/02

  Hazardous Waste
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the circumstances under which the Environment Agency treats the movement of waste as an unacceptable risk to public health. [134451]
  248W
  Mr. Morley
  Because fly-tipping is a serious offence, it attracts penalties of up to £20,000 or six months imprisonment if convicted in a Magistrates' Court, or an unlimited fine and up to two years imprisonment if convicted in a Crown Court. Fixed penalty notices for fly-tipping are not being considered as it could give a confusing message as to the seriousness of the offence.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research she has commissioned into fly-tipping; and if she will make a statement. [133104]

  Mr. Morley
  Environmental Campaigns (ENCAMS), a Defra sponsored organisation, recently carried out a study to provide in formation on fly-tipping. The report is available from the ENCAMS website (http://www.encams.org).

  The Environment Agency have also conducted some research which has considered the types and volumes of waste illegally deposited on agricultural land. Details of this report will be published soon.

  Defra are currently developing an comprehensive research project to collect data on the causes of fly-tipping, an analysis of types and locations of fly-tipped waste, consideration of how fly-tipping might best be prevented and the effect that various waste management policies, both national and local, are having and will have on fly-tipping levels. Results should be available late next year.

  GM Organisms
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list National Grid references of trial sites where genetically modified organisms are being released into the environment under directive 2001/18/EC. [134707]

  Mr. Morley
  There are currently five active consents allowing companies to undertake clinical trials of GM bacteria for the development of vaccines in England. The sites of each release are set out in the following table. There are currently no field trials of genetically modified crops taking place in the UK.

  Mr. Morley
  Establishments or undertakings which transport waste on a professional basis in England and Wales, are required to be registered with the Environment Agency. Carriers of waste are also subject to the duty of care under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Both these sets of controls are designed to minimise the risk to the environment and human health.
  249W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Landfill Directive which will come into force in July 2004, with reference to existing potentially toxic landfills awaiting remediation. [134452]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, which implement the technical and regulatory components of the Landfill Directive, all hazardous waste as defined in the regulations will require treatment prior to landfill from 16 July 2004. From that date, co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste will be banned, except in certain specific circumstances. The Environment Agency is undertaking a permitting exercise that will bring all currently operating landfill sites, including hazardous waste sites, within the Pollution Protection and Control permit system. This will make the more stringent controls contained in the Landfill Directive a requirement for operating a landfill site in England and Wales.

  Kirby Report
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's response to the Kirby Report on remediation permits. [132664]

  Margaret Beckett
  The recommendations of the report "Remediation Permit—Towards a single regeneration licence" are being considered, and where appropriate, being taken forward in my Department's review of Waste Permitting. Informal consultation is currently taking place. A formal consultation on draft regulations is expected early next year. A formal response to the report will be prepared following that consultation exercise.

  Livestock Support Payments
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact on British agriculture of decoupling carried out(a) on an historic basis and (b) on the basis of regional averages. [132661]

  Margaret Beckett
  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 impact of each model on the distribution of CAP direct aid payments. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Company Finance Market
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales regarding the effectiveness of the company finance market. [135071]
  250W
  John Healey
  The Government issued a consultation document alongside Budget 2003 called "Bridging the Finance Gap: a Consultation on Improving Access to Growth Capital for Small Businesses". The consultation explored a wide range of issues concerning the ability of firms, and in particular, small and high-growth firms, to raise the finance that they need in the market. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) were one of many interested parties who responded to the consultation. The Government are currently considering the responses that it has received from the consultation and will respond in due course.

  Additionally, ICAEW is represented on an advisory group, established in Budget 2003, which is examining the role of accountants and other financial intermediaries in providing advice to firms about the financing options available to them. The group is expected to report to the Government next month.

  Company Tax (EU Harmonisation)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the EU has for the harmonisation of company tax within the EU. [134319]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's view is that fair tax competition is the way forward for Europe, not proposals for tax harmonisation. The Government will not support any action at European level that will threaten jobs or the competitive position of British business.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the EU has to combat(a) fraud and (b) evasion in company taxes. [134318]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The ED is considering a draft proposal to amend and update the Directive on Mutual Assistance (77/799/EEC), the objective of which is to improve the functioning of procedures so as to enable Member States to deal more effectively with cross-border tax evasion and avoidance. I submitted an Explanatory Memorandum to the European Scrutiny Committee on 10 September 2003.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) how he defines administrative co-operation in the draft EU constitution Article III-63 on company taxation; [134308]

  (2) how he defines combating tax fraud and tax evasion in Article III—63 of the draft EU Constitution. [134320]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The draft EU Constitutional Treaty proposed by the Convention on the Future of Europe does not contain definitions of these terms. Any changes to the provisions of the existing EU Treaties, including those in Article HI-63 of the draft Treaty, require the unanimous agreement of all Member States. The Government has made it clear in its White Paper "The British Approach to the European Union Intergovernmental Conference 2003" that it will insist that tax matters continue to be decided by unanimity.

  Departmental Employees
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees of the Treasury there were in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [135303]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the staffing figures published in the annual publication 'Civil Service Statistics' which covers permanent staff numbers (FTE basis). Copies of the publication are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The last edition, with updates based on April 2001 data was published in June 2002.

  Alternatively, this information is available at the following address on the Cabinet Office website: http://www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics/css.htm.

  EDS
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list payments made by(a) HM Treasury, (b) Customs and Excise and (c) the Inland Revenue to EDS in each of the last five financial years; and if he will make a statement. [134225]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The payments made to EDS in each of the last five financial years were as follows:

  (a) HM Treasury

  No payments made because HM Treasury has no commercial relationship with EDS.

  (b)Customs and Excise

  Customs and Excise Customs and Excise only have one contract with EDS through a framework contract signed on 5 July 2002.

  The payments made to EDS were:

  £ million

  2002–2003

  1.00

  20031

  1.21

  1 To date

  Both figures were exclusive of VAT.

  (c)Inland Revenue

  The Inland Revenue has a contract with EDS to supply IT services to the Department. The payments made during the last five financial years were:

  £million

  1998–1999

  208.4

  1999–2000

  252.3

  2000–2001

  247.0

  2001–2002

  299.1

  2002–2003

  331.9

  These figures exclude VAT and payments in respect of capital purchases.

  Eileen Tully Ruling
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with representatives of the Valuation Office Agency regarding the implications of the ruling in favour of Mrs. Eileen Tully against the Inland Revenue. [134501]
  252W
  Dawn Primarolo
  No discussions have taken place because of the very limited circumstances in which the Tully decision will have an effect elsewhere. The case was determined on the specific facts of the particular case.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the loss in potential revenue resulting from the ruling in favour of Mrs. Eileen Tully against the Inland Revenue. [134502]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No estimate of any potential loss of revenue has been made as a result of Mrs. Tully's Lands Tribunal decision.

  Energy Useage
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much(a) electricity and (b) other energy his Department has used in each year since 1997 (i) in total and (ii) per square metre; what the projected use is for each of the following years for which forecasts are made; what plans he has to reduce usage; and if he will make a statement. [135061]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) on 30 April 2003,Official Report, column 373W. The Chancellor's Departments will continue to ensure that they minimise energy spend/consumption while still meeting business needs. The Departments remain fully committed to meeting the challenging demands of the Government's Framework Targets.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost would be of reducing the starting rate of tax to(a) five per cent. and (b) nought per cent.for those earning less per annum that (i) £5,000, (ii) £10,000, (iii) £15,000, (iv) £20,000, (v) £25,000 and (vi) £30,500 assuming that the starting rate continues to apply to the first £1,960 of taxable income. [133177]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 November 2003]: Estimates are given in the table.

  Cost of reducing the starting rate of tax1 (in £ billion)

  Starting rate in 2003–04

  (a) Five per cent.

  (b) nought per cent.

  Total income per annum less than:

  (i) £5,000

  Negligible

  Negligible

  (ii) £10,000

  0.6

  1.1

  (iii) £15,000

  1.2

  2.4

  (iv) £20,000

  1.7

  3.3

  (v) £23,000

  2.0

  4.1

  (vi) £30,500

  2.3

  4.6

  1 Excludes dividends income at the starting rate

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes 2000–01 and are consistent with the April 2003 Budget.

  The figures exclude any estimates of behavioural response to the change.

  Pay Statistics
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average weekly gross pay(a) including

  253W
  and (b) excluding overtime for full-time workers in
  (i) Scotland, (ii) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (iii) Great Britain for (A) all manual, (B) all non-manual and (C) all workers in the last year for which figures are available. [134578]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Michael Moore, dated 29 October 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the average weekly gross pay (a) including and (b) excluding overtime for full-time workers in (i) Scotland
  (ii) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and
  (iii) Great Britain for all workers. (134578)
  The attached tables show the average gross weekly gross pay (a) including and (b) excluding overtime for full-time workers in (i) Scotland (ii) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (iii) Great Britain for all workers.
  The tables do not include estimates for manual and non-manual employees separately. This is because the data have been coded on the Standard Occupational Classification 2000 which does not differentiate between manual and non-manual employees. An alternative to the manual and non-manual separation can be derived from the New Earnings Survey (NES), based on the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC). However, the two classification methods do produce different results and, to avoid misunderstanding, tables based on the NS-SEC will not be used to substitute for manual and non-manual employees in publications. Hence there is no data based on the manual and non-manual separation.
  The NES publication criteria state that all estimates with a sample number less than 30 or a relative standard error greater than 5 per cent. must be suppressed. A large number of estimates have been removed from the lists due to the suppression criteria. The information is based on the 2003 NES, the latest survey for which data are available, providing earnings data for April 2003.

  Averge weekly earnings including overtime, all employees, April 2003

  £

  Area

  Average earnings

  Great Britain

  475.8

  Scotland

  436.8

  Scottish Unitary Authorities

  Aberdeen City

  524.7

  Aberdeenshire

  422.2

  Angus

  398.3

  Argyll and Bute

  381.2

  Scottish Borders, The

  355.6

  Clackmannanshire

  1—

  Dumfries and Galloway

  381.6

  Dundee City

  436.8

  East Ayrshire

  425.7

  East Dunbartonshire

  1—

  East Lothian

  394.8

  East Renfrewshire

  1—

  Edinburgh, City of

  467.0

  Falkirk

  412.9

  Fife

  409.7

  Glasgow City

  437.9

  Highland

  419.6

  Inverclyde

  379.7

  Midlothian

  409.1

  Moray

  1—

  North Ayrshire

  409.3

  North Lanarkshire

  444.1

  Orkney Islands

  1—

  Perth and Kinross

  405.5

  Renfrewshire

  439.7

  254W

  Average weekly earnings including overtime, all employees, April 2003

  £

  Area

  Average earnings

  Shetland Islands

  1—

  South Ayrshire

  442.5

  South Lanarkshire

  421.8

  Stirling

  429.8

  West Dunbartonshire

  1—

  West Lothian

  423.0

  Western Isles

  1—

  1 Data have been suppressed due to small sample size or high relative standard error.

  Average weekly earnings excluding overtime, all employees, April 2003

  £

  Area

  Average earnings

  Great Britain

  457.4

  Scotland

  417.3

  Scottish Unitary Authorities

  Aberdeen City

  502.6

  Aberdeenshire

  390.8

  Angus

  371.6

  Argyll and Bute

  358.2

  Scottish Borders, The

  340.9

  Clackmannanshire

  1—

  Dumfries and Galloway

  363.0

  Dundee City

  420.6

  East Ayrshire

  402.5

  East Dunbartonshire

  1—

  East Lothian

  377.4

  East Renfrewshire

  1—

  Edinburgh, City of

  455.0

  Falkirk

  388.9

  Fife

  387.9

  Glasgow City

  420.3

  Highland

  401.1

  Inverclyde

  366.6

  Midlothian

  394.1

  Moray

  344.7

  North Ayrshire

  394.1

  North Lanarkshire

  416.4

  Orkney Islands

  1—

  Perth and Kinross

  389.8

  Renfrewshire

  419.6

  Shetland Islands

  1—

  South Ayrshire

  419.8

  South Lanarkshire

  405.0

  Stirling

  403.9

  West Dunbartonshire

  1—

  West Lothian

  394.9

  Western Isles

  1—

  1 Data have been suppressed due to small sample size or high relative standard error

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of full-time workers in(a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain earned gross pay less than (i) £287.93 per week, (ii) £215.95 per week and (iii) £159.60 per week for the categories (A) male manual, (B) male non-manual, (C) all male, (D) female manual, (E) female non-manual, (F) all female, (G) all manual, (H) all non-manual and (I) all workers, (1) including and (2) excluding overtime in the last period for which figures are available. [134579]
  255W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Michael Moore, dated 29 October 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the percentage of full-time workers who earned gross pay beneath various thresholds in Great Britain, Scotland, and the unitary authorities in Scotland. (134579)
  I am placing in the House of Commons Library, six tables showing the percentage of full-time workers in (a) Scotland (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain who earned gross pay less than (i) £287.93 (ii) £215.95 and (iii) £159.60 per week for (A) male workers (B) female workers and (C) all workers, (1) including and (2) excluding overtime.
  The tables do not include estimates for manual and non-manual employees separately. This is because the data have been coded on the Standard Occupational Classification 2000 which does not differentiate between manual and non-manual employees. An alternative to the manual and non-manual separation can be derived from the New Earnings Survey (NES), based on the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC). However, the two classification methods do produce different results and, to avoid misunderstanding, tables based on the NS-SEC will not be used to substitute for manual and non-manual employees in publications. Hence there is no data based on the manual and non-manual separation.
  There are no data available for each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland for full-time workers who earned gross pay less than £159.60 per week including and excluding overtime due to our publication criteria.
  This is a result of the New Earnings Survey publication criteria, which state that all estimates with a sample number less than 30 or a relative standard error greater than 5 per cent. must be suppressed. A large number of estimates have been removed from the lists due to the suppression criteria. The information is based on the 2003 NES, the latest survey for which data are available, providing earnings data for April 2003.

  Performance and Innovation Fund
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the budget of the Performance and Innovation Fund was in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [134226]

  John Healey
  There is no Performance and Innovation fund. However, the Policy Innovation Fund was established in the 2000 Spending Review and the first year in which allocations were made was 2001–02. The budget for the years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 was £50 million per annum.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to increase stamp duty on homes. [134416]

  Ruth Kelly
  Stamp duty on house purchases will be replaced by stamp duty land tax from 1 December, but the rates for residential property purchases will be the same. Changes to the tax system are announced by the Chancellor as part of the Budget process.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what statutory authority he is seeking to recover 256W
  overpayments of tax credits within the current financial year (a) in cases of official error and (b) in other cases. [134995]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Section 28(5) Tax Credits Act 2002 deals with cases where it appears likely that an overpayment of tax credits under an award will arise for a tax year. It enables the Inland Revenue to amend that award, or any other award of tax credit to the claimant(s), with a view to reducing or eliminating the likely overpayment.

  Section 28(6) covers cases where a tax credits award is terminated on the grounds that those who had claimed had never, during the period of the award, been entitled to tax credits. In these cases, the amount paid under the award may be recovered as though it were an overpayment of tax credits identified at the year end.

  UK Debt
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total amount of debt owed to the UK by other countries was in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by country. [134726]

  Ruth Kelly
  Most of the debt owed by sovereign Governments to the UK Government arises from defaults on export contracts guaranteed by the Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD). Such debts usually become the subject of Bilateral Debt Agreements entered into under the auspices of the Paris Club of official creditors. Table 1 shows the debt owed to the UK Government as at 30 September 2003 under Paris Club Arrangements.

  In addition to debt rescheduled in the Paris Club, ECGD holds unrecovered claims on a number of countries, by far the largest of which is Iraq, where ECGD has unrecovered claims of approximately £620 million.

  The UK Government has already announced its commitment to providing 100 per cent. irrevocable debt relief for all countries eligible for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) upon their reaching Completion Point. In addition, for eligible HIPC countries yet to reach Decision Point, the UK does not ask for, or expect to receive, payments. Any debt payments that are made are held in trust until they can be returned to fund poverty reduction.

  The debts of Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda were all cancelled when they reached the HIPC Completion Point.

  The Department for International Development (DfID) no longer provides aid loans to low income countries. However, Table 2 shows the outstanding debt owed to DFID as of 31 March 2003 from loans made in previous years. In 1978, the Government cancelled nearly all of its aid debts to low-income countries, which were worth £1.2 billion. In September 1997, the Government launched the Commonwealth Debt Initiative (CDI). Under the CDI, the Government announced that it was willing to cancel the remaining aid debts, worth £132 million, of those poorer (lower-middle income) Commonwealth countries who were committed to the Millennium Development Goals, who

  257W
  were following sound economic policies, who promoted accountable and transparent governance and who were bearing down on corruption. To date, 12 countries have benefited from this initiative.

  Table 1—total amounts outstanding on Paris club agreements as at 30 September 2003

  £ million

  Market

  Total owed as at 30/09/03

  Algeria

  145.093

  Angola

  130.409

  Argentina

  35.533

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  1.562

  Brazil

  274.543

  Cameroon1

  64.098

  Central African Republic

  0.361

  Congo

  159.842

  Cote D'Ivoire

  18.898

  Croatia

  61.524

  Cuba

  97.110

  Democratic Republic of Congo1

  75.267

  Ecuador

  65.761

  Egypt

  151.92

  Ethiopia1

  11.76

  Gabon

  139.784

  Ghana1

  27.745

  Guinea Republic1

  3.887

  Guyana1

  35.709

  Indonesia

  785.053

  Jamaica

  1.497

  Jordan

  402.51

  Kenya

  18.856

  Liberia

  20.594

  Macedonia

  3.742

  Madagascar1

  27.179

  Malawi1

  0.391

  Morocco

  25.255

  Nicaragua1

  0.991

  Niger1

  8.232

  Nigeria

  4.494.293

  Pakistan

  9.145

  Peru

  124.814

  Philippines

  11.146

  Poland

  789.497

  Russia

  736.587

  Senegal1

  1.419

  Serbia and Montenegro

  306.876

  Sierra Leone1

  3.509

  Somalia

  31.897

  Sudan

  580.824

  Togo

  19.359

  Vietnam

  10.105

  Zambia1

  174.396

  Totals

  10,008.973

  1 Decision point HIPC

  Note:

  Total owed includes principal and interest including any arrears.

  Table 2—Outstanding debt owed to the Department for International Development as at 31 March 2003

  £

  Country

  Amount

  Brazil

  954,852.21

  Cayman Island

  99.70

  Columbia

  69,067.19

  Costa Rica

  174,886.14

  Cyprus

  59,374.00

  Ecuador

  7,418,148.69

  Egypt

  1,737,760.81

  Ghana

  2,736,275.01

  258W

  Table 2—Outstanding debt owed to the Department for International Development as at 31 March 2003

  £

  Country

  Amount

  Guyana

  16,941,962.08

  Honduras

  746,666.72

  Ivory Coast

  1,264,777.00

  Jordan

  14,057,480.78

  Malaysia

  815,159.31

  Mozambique

  67,500.00

  Nicaragua

  398,200.00

  Nigeria

  4,233,084.04

  Paraguay

  821,148.00

  Peru

  4,633,373.96

  Philippines

  1,006,985.25

  Senegal

  48,329.67

  Seychelles

  7,885,673.72

  St Kitts

  2,734,970

  Turkey

  9,636,553.52

  Zambia

  23,115,320.27

  Zimbabwe

  9,229,420.70

  Total

  110,787,068.77

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inward Investment (North-West)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs were created in each year since 1992 in the north-west as a result of inward investment. [134896]

  Ms Hewitt
  The figures in the table are based on information provided by inward investment companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. They are based on the companies' best estimate, at that time, of the number of new jobs associated with each investment.

  There is no requirement on companies to notify inward investment decisions to Invest UK and so the figures include only those projects where Invest UK and/ or North West Development Agency were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Number of new jobs

  1992–93

  1,012

  1993–94

  1,927

  1994–95

  1,986

  1995–96

  3,622

  1996–97

  1,556

  1997–98

  4,944

  1998–99

  3,224

  1999–2000

  4,768

  2000–01

  3,187

  2001–02

  1,987

  2002–03

  7,486

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1068W, whether the Government's proposals on transportation of small arms comply with Clause 11.14 of the Programme. [135101]
  259W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The new controls that the Government will be introducing on trafficking and brokering are fully consistent with the United Nations Programme on Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

  BAE Systems
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on BAE Systems relocation of its regional aircraft business to Ayrshire; what funding her Department has provided to BAE Systems plant at Prestwick for employment relocation and creation; and if she will make a statement. [134011]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has received one representation on BAE Systems' relocation of its new regional aircraft business to Prestwick in Ayrshire.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has provided no funding to BAE Systems' plant in Prestwick. However, following the company's decision to cease regional aircraft production, the Scottish Executive, having consulted with DTI, offered BAE Systems £2.4 million in Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) to support the consolidation of their Regional Aircraft Support Centre at Prestwick.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of(a) the impact of BAE Systems' decision to relocate regional aircraft production from its Woodford Aerodrome in the North West to Prestwick on employment opportunities in the North West of England and (b) the future viability of the aerospace industry in the North West. [134012]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department's understanding is that BAE Systems Regional Aircraft has not relocated regional aircraft production from Woodford in the North West to Prestwick in Ayrshire as, with the cancellation of the Avro RJX, the company took the decision in November 2001 to cease all further regional aircraft production activities. A number of different locations were considered before BAE Systems Regional Aircraft decided to place its new Regional Aircraft business, focusing on customer support, engineering and management support, in Prestwick.

  As regards the future viability of the aerospace industry in the North West, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, established the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team (AeIGT) in May 2002 to produce a 20-year vision for the future of the aerospace industry across the whole of the UK, including the North West of England, and to make recommendations as to how to make that vision a reality. Over 140 senior representatives of aerospace companies, Government Departments and trade unions, as well as universities and research bodies, have been involved. Work is now proceeding on the implementation of the AeIGT's recommendations and a wide range of stakeholders are involved in producing plans to achieve this, both nationally and at local
  260W
  level. The Chairman of the North West Regional Development Agency is a member of the AeIGT and has been, and continues to be, closely involved in its work.

  Chemicals
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the European Commission's draft proposals for the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals; and what assessment her Department has made of the likely impact of the proposals on the chemicals industry. [132860]

  Jacqui Smith
  The UK Government fully support the objectives set out in the Commission's White Paper on the new EU Chemicals Strategy. Following the Commission's consultations on draft legislative proposals in May to July this year, the Commission has indicated its intention of making a number of changes to the proposals. The Government welcome any changes intended to make the proposals more effective and workable, and will be considering the revised proposals in consultation with stakeholders. Once adopted, the Government will carry out a separate UK consultation, and that will be accompanied by a regulatory impact assessment.

  Defence Export Licences
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in how many cases where a defence export licence was revoked in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002 a defence export licence was subsequently granted to allow the export of the same items to an alternate destination. [134600]

  Nigel Griffiths
  This information is not readily available and would require both a computer and manual search of all records for the three years in question to determine whether there are identical matches and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with National Grid Transco about the maintenance of the network, following the power cuts in August; and if she will make a statement. [134044]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 23 October 2003]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not personally spoken with National Grid Transco on this issue—however she is being kept fully appraised of developments. I have spoken on a number of occasions with the CEO of NGT concerning the August power cuts.

  To ensure that all the facts have been assembled about these incidents, and that the appropriate lessons learnt for the future, the Government in conjunction with the Regulator—Ofgem, commissioned a report employing independent consultants. DTI's Engineering Inspectorate is also investigating the circumstances around the power interruptions.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment tribunal cases there were in(a) south Tyneside, (b) Tyne and Wear, (c) the north-east and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [134858]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following table shows the number of tribunal applications registered by the Employment Tribunals Service in the UK since 1997. Statistical information for the geographical areas of south Tyneside, Tyne and Wear and the north-east is not readily accessible and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Registered tribunal applications

  2002–03

  98,617

  2001–02

  112,227

  2000–01

  130,408

  1999–2000

  103,935

  1998–99

  91,913

  1997–98

  80,435

  1996–97

  88,910

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average amount of an employment tribunal cost award was in(a) south Tyneside, (b) Tyne and Wear, (c) the north-east and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [134859]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following table shows the average amount of an employment tribunal cost award in the UK since 1997. We are unable to supply the average amount of an employment tribunal cost award for south Tyneside, Tyne and Wear and the north-east.

  £

  Average cost award

  2002–03

  1,524

  2001–02

  983

  2000–01

  295

  1999–2000

  1,155

  1998–99

  743

  1997–98

  546

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average award for compensation in employment tribunal cases has been in(a) south Tyneside, (b) Tyne and Wear, (c) the north-east and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [134860]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Employment Tribunals Service only collects compensation statistics for tribunal cases covering the jurisdictions of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, sex discrimination and disability discrimination. Therefore, the figures quoted in the following table illustrate the average award for compensation in employment tribunal cases for the UK since 1997 in relation to the aforementioned complaints. We are unable to supply separate information for south Tyneside, Tyne and Wear and the north-east.
  262W

  £

  Average compensation award

  2002–03

  7,598

  2001–02

  7,306

  2000–01

  5,764

  1999–2000

  5,734

  1998–99

  4,449

  1997–98

  4,894

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment tribunal cost awards have been made against(a) respondents and (b) applicants in (i) south Tyneside, (ii) Tyne and Wear, (iii) the north-east and (iv) the UK in each year since 1997. [134861]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following table illustrates how many employment tribunal cost awards have been made against respondents and applicants in the UK in the last two financial years. The Employment Tribunals Service did not breakdown the statistics for applicants and respondents prior to 2001–02. We are unable to supply information for south Tyneside, Tyne and Wear and the north-east.

  Costs awards against respondent

  Costs awards against applicant

  2002–03

  307

  691

  2001–02

  169

  467

  Energy Production
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average cost of producing electricity through(a) nuclear, (b) coal, (c) gas, (d) wind and (e) other renewable sources was; and what the average price paid by suppliers for electricity from each of the above generators was in the last year for which figures are available. [135001]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 28 October 2003]: This information is a commercial matter for the electricity generators and suppliers. Some indicative information on potential future prices for renewable sources, and for electricity produced from nuclear sources is given in "The Energy Review, a Performance and Innovation Unit Report, February 2002" available at www.number-10.gov.uk/su/energy/ 1.html, and in the "Long-Term Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the UK" report prepared by an Inter-departmental Analysts Group, available at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/greenhousegas/index.shtml. Both reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1068W, on export controls, what her reasons are for concluding that it would be impractical to maintain a register of arms brokers. [135099]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government have already made clear that it proposes to register information on all those applying for licences, both for exports and for arms trafficking and brokering activities, thus creating a
  263W
  database available to be used for licensing and enforcement purposes, including as appropriate on an international basis. In addition, users of Open General Licences have to register to use the licence.

  The Government believe that licence applications should be scrutinised on a case-by-case basis, with regard primarily to the nature of the transaction in question. Scrutiny and approval of individual transactions to areas of concern achieves a greater measure of control than simply a general assessment of companies' or individuals' reputation.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what consideration was given in the company law review to bringing the audit requirements for industrial and provident societies in line with those of registered companies; [135114]

  (2) what consideration was given in the company law review to amending the requirement that obliges industrial and provident societies wanting to publish interim accounts to undertake a full audit. [135131]

  Jacqui Smith
  The remit of the company law review did not extend to industrial and provident societies.

  The Treasury will consider the modernisation of industrial and provident society legislation in the light of the proposed reform of company law.

  Insurance Premiums
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her assessment of the impact of insurance premium levels on the(a) construction, (b) manufacturing and (c) farming sectors of the economy. [134866]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Government have encouraged the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and British Insurance Brokers Association (BIBA) to work with business bodies and Trade Associations towards improving the availability of affordable cover. Since the publication of the Government interim report in June 2003, the ABI and BIBA have published a statement of good practice, making a commitment to provide at least 21 days' notice of their renewal terms for all policies, starting from 1 November 2003.

  Mr. Ashley Jenkins
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to hold an investigation into the activity of Mr. Ashley Jenkins whose company assets were frozen on 2 October; what representations she has received about this case; and if she will make a statement. [134253]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: Inquiries under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 into the affairs of Ashley Jenkins Ltd. and Ashley Jenkins SL, a company registered in Spain, were undertaken by officials of the Department's Companies Investigations Branch. The investigation's findings resulted in the presentation of a public interest winding-up petition, on 2 October, the High Court appointing
  264W
  the Official Receiver as Provisional Liquidator of both companies, pending the hearing of the petition on 14 January 2004.

  The Official Receiver's duties as Provisional Liquidator include the preservation and protection of both companies' assets and financial records.

  In view of the fact that this matter remains before the High Court it would be inappropriate for me to comment further about the affairs of the Ashley Jenkins companies.

  Outsourcing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to persuade companies to maintain jobs in the UK rather than outsource abroad. [134438]

  Ms Hewitt
  As companies in the UK are operating in an increasingly competitive, global marketplace, they must have the freedom to choose where to locate in order to maximise their competitive advantage. If we chose to operate a protectionist approach, we would run the risk of forcing companies to locate completely out of the UK. This would not be to our long term economic benefit.

  We will continue to create a stable, competitive environment in the UK. Our long term economic interest will be based on our ability to innovate to produce high value- added goods and services which need a highly skilled workforce, high calibre managers, forward looking unions and knowledgeable consumers.

  Red Tape
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to reduce the regulatory burden on small and medium-sized firms. [134440]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Among the measures taken by the Government to cut red tape are:cutting form-filling for 700,000 small businesses with our new flat rate VAT scheme;
  abolishing automatic penalties for late filing of VAT and giving UK businesses the best VAT threshold in Europe;
  cutting the number of regulations passed by Parliament in the past year by 793;
  cutting the time and bureaucracy it takes to set up a business from 28 separate licences, certificates and registrations in some cases ten years ago to less than a day now, costing under £10, while in the EU on average it takes four weeks to set up a new business and costs over £600.

  These measures and others have established the UK in the top three countries for low levels of red tape, favourable tax regime, flexible labour markets, open financing systems and modern infrastructure, according to the latest Economist Intelligence Unit/Apax Partners survey of 60 countries.

  British Gas's latest survey of business managers concludes that they are spending considerably less time dealing with red tape and non-core activities. 2.4 million SMEs have been created since 1997, including an estimated 1,690 in the hon. Member's constituency.
  265W
  We are seeking further improvements through Regulatory Impact Assessments, 'Think Small First' and Small Business Europe which promotes better regulation.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent research she has commissioned on the administrative burden on small businesses. [134949]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service, an executive agency of the DTI, commissioned the Small Business Survey 2003 in June 2003, to understand the concerns of small and medium-sized businesses. It has several questions on the administrative burden of small businesses, including how much time small and medium-sized enterprises spend each week on paperwork relating to complying with Government regulations and taxes.

  State Aid
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on which occasions since 1997 the Government have made representations to the EC regarding state aid by another member state. [133885]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 23 October 2003]: No register of interventions is held. Representations can be made in response to notices published in the Official Journal in accordance with Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty; or in cases before the European Court of Justice where it appears appropriate and in UK interests; or on behalf of UK businesses who raise concerns.

  World Trade Organisation (Cancun)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she will make to the World Trade Organisation on improving the logistics and organisation at WTO conferences after Cancun. [135127]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are currently discussing potential proposals in this area with other EU member states and with the commission. We are also in contact with the consultative group established by the Director General of the WTO, which we expect to produce recommendations in the course of next year.

TRANSPORT

  Air Travel (Compensation)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answer of 21 October 2003,Official Report, column 472W, on air travel (compensation), (1) if his Department will produce a partial regulatory impact assessment; and if he will place a copy in the Library; [135040]

  (2) if it is the policy of his Department to comply with the Cabinet Office guidance on regulatory impact assessment; and if it is being complied with in this case. [135041]
  266W
  Mr. McNulty
  A partial regulatory impact assessment on the proposed Regulation was prepared at an early stage, and has been periodically updated to reflect changes made to the original text as work on the proposal has progressed. The latest version reflects the Council's common position of 11 March 2003. However, following the recent conciliation process between the Council and the European Parliament, a number of amendments to the common position have been agreed and the regulatory impact assessment will need to be modified accordingly. On receipt of the final text of the Regulation we will be in a position to complete our assessment and, in due course, place a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  Airport Development
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what communities he has visited near airports which may feature in his White Paper on Airport Development. [134129]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers have met numerous delegations representing communities that may be affected by development options put forward in the consultation documents, "The Future of Air Transport in the United Kingdom". During the consultation, 18 public exhibitions were held across the UK at or near sites identified for potential airport development.

  Airports (East and West Midlands)
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he received during the extended consultation period regarding airports in the East and West Midlands. [134592]

  Mr. McNulty
  About 45,000 responses relating to airports in the East and West Midlands were received between 30 November 2002 and 30 June 2003.

  Aviation Fuel Taxation
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government are taking to press(a) member nations of the EU and (b) other international bodies to come to a common position on the taxation of aviation fuel. [134591]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 28 October 2003 to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney),Official Report, column 134W.

  Blue Badge Scheme
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will include(a) colitis and (b) Crohn's disease in future research on the eligibility criteria for the blue badge scheme. [134339]

  Mr. McNulty
  Following a recent review of the Blue Badge Scheme, we will be undertaking research into the independent mobility needs of certain groups of people, including people with colitis and Crohn's disease, to determine whether eligibility should be extended. We propose to take forward that research in 2004.
  267W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what (1) representations he has received from disabled motorcycle owners about problems with attaching disabled badges designed for car windscreens to motorcycles; [134799]

  (2) what advice he has issued to disabled motorcycle owners about attaching disabled badges to their vehicles. [134800]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under the current regulations the blue badge must be displayed on the dashboard or fascia panel of the vehicle, with the front facing forward, so that the relevant details are clearly legible from outside of the vehicle.

  For motorcycles we advise that the badge should be exhibited in a conspicuous position on the vehicle so that the relevant details on the front are visible. The precise method of attaching the badge is a matter for the badge holder to determine.

  We have received representations from individual disabled motorcyclists and from the National Association for Bikers with a Disability (NABD) about the problems of displaying the badge so that it complies with the requirements of the regulations. Following discussions with NABD we have agreed to support the Association in designing a suitable secure holder for the badge and the associated time clock. We are, therefore, funding a design competition for 2nd year students at Salford University's School of Art & Design. We hope to have the winning design by summer next year.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spent on advertising in(a) 1995, (b) 1997 and (c) 2003. [133729]

  Mr. McNulty
  Expenditure is recorded on a financial year basis and is shown in the following table.

  £ million

  1995–96

  6.4

  1996–97

  5.7

  1997–98

  4.5

  1998–99

  4.6

  1999–2000

  5.2

  2000–01

  7.8

  2001–02

  9.8

  2002–03

  10.2

  2003–04

  9.5

  1 estimated advertising outturn

  The increase in expenditure since 2000–01 reflects additional road safety advertising in support of the Government's road safety strategy "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer For Everyone" published in March 2000.

  Driving Licence Applications
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his target is for the time taken to process a provisional driving licence application from the date of receipt of the application to the applicant receiving their licence; and what proportion of applications were dealt with within the target in each of the last three years. [134662]
  268W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State's targets for the last three years have been as follows:

  Year

  Target

  Result

  2000–01

  95% in 9 working days

  Achieved

  2001–02

  95% in 8 working days

  Achieved

  2002–03

  95% in 8 Working days

  Achieved

  These performances have been reflected in the Agency's Annual Reports,

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which medical conditions require further enquiries to be made in applications for provisional driving licences; and what representations he has received from disability organisations in relation to driving licence applications from people with medical conditions or disabilities. [134664]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The medical conditions which need to be declared and where further medical enquiries would normally be undertaken are listed on all the main drivers application forms. For example, the Dl application form (available from post offices) is used to apply for first provisional licences and the D42 and D46 forms which are automatically issued by DVLA to prompt the renewal of medically restricted licences and renewal at age 70 and thereafter.

  We regularly receive representations from disability organisations and interested parties representing individuals suffering from medical conditions that may affect their ability to drive. This representation is welcomed and the information received is often referred to the Secretary of State's Honorary Medical Advisory Panels to help inform their decisions on medical fitness to drive and future policies.

  Trains (Smoking)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to persuade GNER to follow the example of Virgin Rail in banning smoking on all trains; [134969]

  (2) what plans he has to bring together the Health and Safety Executive, train operators and Network Rail to discuss the impact on public health of smoking at railway stations and on trains. [134970]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are no such plans. Under the Railways Act 1993 (as amended by the Transport Act 2000) train operating companies may regulate smoking in railway carriages and at their stations. It is a matter for the train operators to decide whether, and where, to permit smoking.

  Road Safety
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which proposals contained in his Department's road safety strategy require primary legislation; and in which legislation(a) they have been enacted and (b) he plans to enact them in each case. [133880]
  269W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The following primary legislation foreseen in the Government's road safety strategy "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone" has been enacted as follows:Figures in square brackets [3] refer to the relevant chapter of the road safety strategy
  [2] Change legislation on school crossing patrols, Transport Act 2000
  [3] Introducing mandatory logbooks for learner car drivers (to include night-time driving), Transport Act 2000
  [4] Strengthen police powers for roadside testing, accommodating drug screening devices and providing for drug recognition and impairment testing, Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003
  [7] Tighten the seat belt exemption for people on "local rounds of deliveries", Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003
  [10] Develop new technology which could help enforce the law more effectively e.g. digital breath-testing and drug-testing devices, Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003

  The following proposals await a suitable legislative opportunity:
  [3 & 8] Improvement of driver training and testing
  [4] Introduce evidential roadside breath-testing
  [4] Repeal UK driversl hours rules in favour of EU rules (pending outcome of European negotiations)
  [10] Provide for driver improvement schemes as a court disposal
  [10] Amend road traffic penalties in the light of Home Office Review of Road Traffic Penalties

  After research and consultation with local authorities the following are deemed no longer to require primary legislation and the Government has no current plans to implement them.
  [6] Creation of a hierarchy of roads by road usage
  [6] Development of a simpler method of making speed limits by reference to a speed management strategy

  The Government also considers that primary legislation may not be necessary for the following and has no plan to pursue it:
  [4] Giving police additional powers to undertake targeted breath testing

  Transport for London (Budget)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to increase the Transport for London budget for each financial year from 2005–06. [135175]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Progress Report on the 10-Year Plan for Transport, "Delivering Better Transport", published last December, set out indicative levels of spending in London through to 2010–11. Allocations for the period 2005–06 to 2007–08 will be considered in the forthcoming cross-Government spending review, the results of which will be announced next year.

  Unsupervised Railway Stations
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to meet local authorities, train operators and Network Rail to discuss the elimination of graffiti at train stations and adjacent railway lines. [134958]

  Mr. McNulty
  None.
  270W
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prosecutions there have been by British Transport Police of individuals who commit acts of vandalism on(a) trains, (b) railway stations and (c) railway lines in each of the last 10 years. [134959]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) does not record crime statistics split by stations, lines and trains. Also vandalism is not classified as a crime group but the offence of criminal damage is the closest equivalent. Prosecutions are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. However, the BTP have provided the information in Table 1 regarding the number of people arrested, summonsed or charged with criminal damage in the past six years which is the maximum period for which reliable data is available. Table 2 shows the total number of criminal damage offences reported and cleared for the last ten years.

  Table 1

  Time Period

  Number of Persons Arrested/Charged/Summonsed for criminal damage offences

  1 October 1997—30 September 1998

  607

  1 October 1998—30 September 1999

  669

  1 October 1999—30 September 2000

  644

  1 October 2000—30 September 2001

  537

  1 October 2001—30 September 2002

  549

  1 October 2002—30 September 2003

  554

  Table 2

  Annual criminal damage offences (1 April-31 March)

  Reported

  Cleared

  2002–2003

  6,502

  717

  2001–2002

  6,030

  846

  2000–2001

  6,536

  988

  1999–2000

  6,826

  963

  1998–1999

  6,573

  1,013

  1997–1998

  6,296

  1,105

  1996–1997

  7,984

  994

  1995–1996

  10,502

  971

  1994–1995

  13,156

  1,348

  1993–1994

  13,023

  1,280

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many unsupervised train stations there are in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Yorkshire. [134967]

  Mr. McNulty
  Figures for the number of unsupervised stations are not held centrally. There are no obligations on train operators about staffing stations per se. There are requirements to open ticket offices at the times specified in the 'Ticketing and Settlement Agreement' (TSA). The TSA includes over 1300 stations—more than half the stations on the network—including over 50 in Yorkshire. Train operators may staff stations and ticket offices over and above the requirements of the TSA.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent studies have been carried out by his Department into the impact on passenger numbers of fear of violence and antisocial behaviour at unsupervised railway stations. [134968]

  Mr. McNulty
  Departmental research was carried out last year on perceptions of personal security and concerns about crime on public transport. This included
  271W
  discussions on staffing at railway stations, what makes people feel insecure at stations, what measures could be taken to improve people's perceptions, and the impact that all these have on people's willingness to travel.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking with Network Rail to tackle vandalism and graffiti at unsupervised railway stations; [134972]

  (2) what steps he is taking to protect the rail infrastructure from criminal damage. [134974]

  Mr. McNulty
  This is primarily a matter for Network Rail as owner of the national network infrastructure, and the train operators to which stations are leased. Our Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority require it to encourage train operators to participate in both the Secure Stations and Secure Car Parks schemes, which award accreditation when specified standards of design and management are reached. The Strategic Rail Authority has funded the provision of CCTV at stations through its Rail Passenger Partnership fund, and CCTV will be provided at some stations under the Modern Facilities at Stations programme. We also support the initiative by the British Transport Police and train operators to recruit special constables from within their own staff.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with train operators on unsupervised stations. [134973]

  Mr. McNulty
  None.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources he has provided to(a) Sefton council and (b) the Merseyside Police Authority for monitoring anti-social behaviour. [132995]

  Ms Blears
  For this financial year 2003–04, the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit (ASBU) provided £700,000 to the Government offices of the north-west to spend on anti-social behaviour matters. The ASBU did not specify on what specific activities they should spend this money.

  Sefton have not been allocated any Home Office funds directly for anti-social behaviour initiatives, but a number of schemes should have an effect on anti-social behaviour. The Building Safer Communities Fund (BSCF) have allocated £30,000 to develop neighbourhood CCTV systems and a further £19,500 is being used to tackle alcohol-related disorder and improve education and awareness, both of which should have a "knock on" effect on anti-social behaviour.

  Under the Small Retailers scheme, £28,971 was awarded to Sefton and is being used to fund CCTV systems for a number of retailers in the Derby and Linacre and Netherton and Owell wards, and it is hoped that this will deter theft, vandalism and anti-social behaviour.
  272W
  For 2003–04, we also provided £200,000 to Liverpool City council for partnership working on anti-social behaviour initiatives. While Merseyside Police were not the direct recipient of this funding, they will obviously benefit from this injection of money, and via the Liverpool Crime and Reduction Partnership will have influence on how this money is best spent.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the anti-social behaviour units within police authorities. [132996]

  Ms Blears
  All local agencies need to work together if anti-social behaviour is to be tackled effectively and the Police Service has a key role to play. This is reflected in the National Policing Plan, which makes clear that dealing with anti-social behaviour is an overarching policing priority. While we have not carried out any formal assessment of the way in which police forces are tackling anti-social behaviour, it is one aspect being examined in the baseline assessments of police forces currently being carried out by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). The results will be available in the spring. Anti-social behaviour is also being addressed during HMIC's inspections of Police Basic Command Units.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the efforts of(a) police forces in Wales, (b) the South Wales police force and (c) other forces in the United Kingdom to engage with the programme to tackle anti-social behaviour. [133500]

  Ms Blears
  All local agencies need to work together if anti-social-behaviour is to be tackled effectively and the Police Service has a key role to play. This is reflected in the National Policing Plan, which makes clear that dealing with anti-social behaviour is an overarching policing priority. While we have not carried out any formal assessment of the way in which police forces are tackling anti-social behaviour either in Wales or more generally, it is one aspect being examined in the baseline assessments of police forces in England and Wales currently being carried out by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). The results will be available in the spring. Anti-social behaviour is also being addressed during HMIC's inspections of Police Basic Command Units.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government in respect of anti-social behaviour initiatives with particular reference to(a) pilot residential parenting schemes, (b) nuisance neighbours panels, (c) criminal justice interventions programme areas, (d) Operation Scrap-it, (e) Operation Gate-it and (f) Operation Scrub-it. [133501]

  Ms Blears
  The work in this area is being taken forward by the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit at the Home Office. The unit was set up in January 2003. Staff within the unit have undertaken visits to different parts of England and Wales gathering information from communities and practitioners about their anti-social behaviour priorities.
  273W
  This resulted in the introduction of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill and the publication of the White Paper, `Respect and Responsibilities' (March 2003). This was followed up by the launch of the Action Plan (10 October 2003) which outlines the initiatives mentioned above. The powers in the Bill relating to local authority powers to get graffiti off street furniture are a devolved issue (the powers will be given to 12 authorities in England in the first instance). It is for the Welsh Assembly to decide whether authorities in Wales will adopt these powers.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on anti-social behaviour. [133999]

  Ms Blears
  Tackling anti-social behaviour is a priority for Government. The Home Office published an Action Plan "Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour Together" on 14 October 2003. The action plan sets out existing and new work across the Home Office and other Government Departments which contributes to the drive to tackle anti-social behaviour across England and Wales.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he recommends police forces use to deter anti-social behaviour. [134000]

  Ms Blears
  As the Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan launched on 14 October makes clear, effective action to tackle anti-social behaviour requires effective partnership working between all local agencies including the police. The police have a very important role to play, and tackling anti-social behaviour is a key national policing priority under the National Policing Plan (NPP). Forces need to set out as part of their annual local plan and strategic plans under the NPP how they are going to address anti-social behaviour.

  The response of the police, working with its partners, will depend on the nature of the local problems. In responding to those problems, the police need to ensure that they are using the National Intelligence Model to identify and target action against anti-social behaviour; have in place agreed information sharing protocols with other agencies; ensure they are using their resources effectively, including the Special Constabulary and Community Support Officers; be clear about how the various interventions available, for example, acceptable behaviour contracts, anti-social behaviour orders, fixed penalty notices, can best be used as part of a local strategy. Police forces should also, with partner agencies, be considering how they will use the new powers which will become available under the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the aims are of the pilot scheme in Manchester in which people guilty of anti-social behaviour remain on housing benefit and accept training; and what plans there are for similar pilots in the North East of England. [134199]

  Ms Blears
  The Foundations pilot developed by Manchester city council, Irwell Valley Housing Association and the children's charity NCH is based on a NCH project that has been running in Dundee for the last five years.
  274W
  The pilot aims to provide intensive support to families who have a history of committing anti-social behaviour. It aims to tackle the causes of this behaviour and establish some stability for children living within the families. There are strict rules and high expectations of each family involved in this pilot. Each family will understand that certain behaviour will not be tolerated and would result in eviction from the scheme.

  At present there are no projects similar to the Dundee project in the North East of England. However a number of local authorities and their partners provide tenancy support and at least one is developing plans for a 'Dundee type' project.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the United Kingdom. [132105]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The available information held by the Home Office on call centres shows that the Home Office does not have any outsourced call centre contracts and has no plans to outsource such work outside the United Kingdom.

  Correspondence
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for West Worcestershire will receive a response to his letter of 7 July, reference M3286/3. [134330]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 24 October 2003.

  Drug-related Offences
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours he estimates have been spent by the police service in each of the last 15 years in dealing with drug related offences; how many hours per year on average this represented for each serving police officer; and if he will make a statement. [133903]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected. Police officers in particular exercise considerable discretion and judgement in the way they carry out their duties in this area as in others. Their deployment however is for the Chief Officer of Police who utilise a number of strategies to combat drug crime.

  The Government are strengthening enforcement at a local level, supporting the police to better tackle drug misuse. Through the updated Drug Strategy annual proactive expenditure on reducing drug supply is expected to be £380 million for 2003–04 for all enforcement agencies.

  We are taking high profile action against suppliers in communities with particular problems. Every opportunity from arrest, to court, to sentence, will be used to get offenders into treatment to break the link between drugs and crime.

  Essex Police (Special Branch)
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Special Branch constables were employed by Essex police on 1 September. [132636]

  Ms Blears
  It is not our policy to disclose details of Special Branch deployments at force level in the interests of national security, as to do so could compromise operations.

  Juvenile Offenders
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were committed by juvenile offenders in(a) Haltemprice and Howden, (b) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (c) the Humberside Police Authority area in each of the last two quarters for which figures are available; and how many cautions were issued. [132525]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 16 October 2003]: The information contained in the table gives the number of children convicted of all offences and those given reprimands and final warnings in Humberside, during the last two quarters of 2001.

  The information collected centrally does not enable cases in the Haltemprice and Howden constituency to be identified nor cautions in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Neither is it possible to give the number of crimes committed by juveniles, only the number of juveniles who are found guilty of all offences.

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in December.

  Number of children found guilty at all courts for all offences and those given reprimands and final warnings1, Humberside, last two quarters of 2001

  2001

  Area, age and disposal etc

  Qtr 3

  Qtr 4

  Total

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Children aged 10-17 found guilty

  112

  93

  205

  Children aged 10-17 receiving a reprimand

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Children aged 10-17 receiving a final warning

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Humberside Police Force Area

  Children aged 10-17 found guilty

  477

  382

  859

  Children aged 10-17 receiving a reprimand

  247

  186

  433

  Children aged 10-17 receiving a final warning

  129

  74

  203

  n/a = Not available

  1 Reprimands and final warnings replaced cautions for juveniles from June 2000.

  Metropolitan Police (Rental Vehicles)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent by the Metropolitan police on rental vehicles in each month since March. [133971]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is in the table. It has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
  276W

  Breakdown for each month: April 2003—September 2003

  Month

  Total (£000)

  April 2003

  1204

  May 2003

  497

  June 2003

  961

  July 2003

  1,203

  August 2003

  864

  September 2003

  668

  Totals:

  4,397

  1 This figure takes account of retrospective year end adjustments (credits for accruals) for 2002/03.

  Open Circuit Television (Monmouth)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an investigation into the contract to install open circuit television in Monmouth and the role of the then Acting Chief Constable of Gwent Police, Mr. Richard Thomas; and if he will make a statement. [130871]

  Ms Blears
  There are no plans for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to set up an investigation.

  I am advised by Gwent Police that Gwent Police Authority requested an investigation by the District Auditor relating to issues surrounding CCTV in spring 2000. The preliminary results of this inquiry led the Chief Constable of Gwent to refer the matter to the Chief Constable of West Mercia for a full criminal investigation relating to the then retired Acting Chief Constable, Richard Thomas, and others. Work on this started in July 2000. At the conclusion of the investigation a report was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, who having considered the evidence, concluded on 31 January 2002 that there would be no criminal proceedings. The recommendations within the District Auditors report are being pursued by Gwent Police Authority.

  Police
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his powers to recommend the capping of police authorities. [133611]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Secretary has no power to recommend the capping of police authorities.

  Powers to cap local authority budgets rest with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Prescott).

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the daily average proportion of police officers' time spent out on patrol following the introduction of community support officers and other civilian support staff. [134251]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: An analysis of diaries kept by 378 officers in seven forces prior to the introduction of Community Support Officers (CSOs) found that 17 per cent. of regular officers' time was spent on patrol. The Police Reform Act 2002 powers, which allowed the designation of CSOs and other support staff, were commenced on 2 December 2003. We have not yet repeated the exercise.
  277W
  However, a programme of research into the nature, frequency and effectiveness of beat patrolling by police officers and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) is under way. Results will be reported as soon as available.

  We know that there is significant variation between forces in the amount of time officers spend on front line duties, including patrol. We are, as part of the Police Performance Assessment Framework, collecting data from forces so that we can publish a baseline estimate of front line policing for all forces next year. We will then use this data to drive time spent on front line policing up, concentrating on those areas where time spent is lowest.

  Most forces currently spend around 60 per cent. of their time on front line policing and I would like to increase that figure.

  Police Authorities
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police authorities employ chief executives. [134249]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: Section 16 of the Police Act 1996 allows each police authority to appoint a clerk to the authority. It is a matter for each police authority to decide if the postholder is termed a chief executive. We do not hold information on this centrally.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police authorities have(a) a portfolio structure around themes of community leadership, performance appraisal and strategy development and similar areas of activity and (b) a panel structure. [134250]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: Section 6(1) of the Police Act 1996 lays upon police authorities the responsibility for securing and maintaining an efficient and effective police force for its area. How the authority organises internally to achieve this, is a local matter for the authorities themselves and not for central Government. Accordingly, there is no information held centrally by the Home Office on the internal structure of each authority.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his model internal structure for a local police authority. [134252]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The 43 local police authorities have the overarching responsibility to secure and maintain an efficient and effective police force for their area.

  How police authorities decide to structure the organisation is a matter for the authorities themselves in accordance with local circumstances. It would not be appropriate for central Government to provide a model structure for police authorities.

  Police Officers (Protection from Violence)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to protect police officers against violence while on duty. [133994]
  278W
  Ms Blears
  All police forces within England and Wales operate within the Health and Safety (Police) Act 1997 and must, therefore, conduct and maintain appropriate risk assessments into the roles of their staff. Where a risk is identified, control measures must be introduced to avert the risk or lessen its impact to an acceptable level.

  In terms of officer safety, the most significant control measures include regular, mandatory self-defence training and the provision of equipment, such as batons, handcuffs and incapacitant spray. All police forces in England and Wales have access to dual-purpose body armour (knives and ballistic) either as a general or pool issue. Specialist officers also receive additional Personal Protective Equipment.

  Snares
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been carried out in each police authority area for the illegal use of snares in the last five years. [133977]

  Paul Goggins
  Prosecutions for the illegal use of snares are brought under section 11(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, the information collected centrally on court proceedings does not distinguish offences connected with snares from similar offences under section 11 relating to other methods of killing or taking wild animals.

  Two prosecutions under section 11 in England and Wales were notified to the Home Office in 2001, one of which was in the North Wales police force area and the other in Greater Manchester.

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in December.

  Special Constables (West Mercia)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in West Mercia for each year since 1997. [134389]

  Ms Blears
  The number of Special Constables in West Mercia Constabulary since 1997 are set out in the table:

  At 31 March

  Number

  1997

  582

  1998

  512

  1999

  515

  2000

  476

  2001

  399

  2002

  339

  2003

  309

  We have made clear in the National Policing Plan 2003–06 our commitment to increase the numbers and effectiveness of the Special Constabulary.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to the police on publicising the fact that powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are in operation in the local area. [133967]
  279W
  Ms Blears
  The publicising of the use of section 44 powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 in any particular area is an operational decision for the force concerned. Any decision to publicise the fact that the powers are being used would be made in light of the operational objective, and mindful of the need to ensure that the information released can not be exploited by those intent on committing acts of terrorism.

  That said there is a legal requirement under section 45 of the Terrorism Act to inform any individual who is stopped and searched under section 44 that he or she has been stopped and searched under that section of the Act.

  TETRA Communications System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the refusal of the North Wales police to accept the TETRA communications system and (b) the concerns expressed about the system by the Lancashire force. [133733]

  Ms Blears
  All police forces in England, Wales and Scotland are committed to Airwave, the new radio communications system based on TETRA technology. The Airwave service will become available in North Wales in December 2004. Airwave is already available to 26 forces and has over 29,000 police users. The rollout is due to complete by mid-2005.

  Lancashire Constabulary, the pilot force for Airwave, is satisfied with the service, which has been fully operational since September 2001.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the annual(a) capital and (b) revenue costs are in 2003–04 of the police TETRA communications system. [133734]

  Ms Blears
  Airwave is the new radio communications system for the police service in England, Wales and Scotland.

  The estimated total capital cost to the Home Office for Airwave in 2003–04 is £78 million. The estimated total revenue cost in 2003–04 is £98 million.

  Trafficking for Labour Exploitation
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to introduce an offence of trafficking for labour exploitation. [134614]

  Beverley Hughes
  In the White Paper, "Secure Border, Safe Haven", the Government promised to introduce legislation on trafficking for both labour and sexual exploitation. Offences of trafficking for sexual exploitation are contained in the Sexual Offences Bill currently before Parliament. Legislation covering trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation is currently under development and will be introduced when parliamentary time permits. The United Kingdom played a key role in the negotiation of the 2002 EU Framework Decision on Trafficking, which commits all EU member states to the introduction of criminal offences covering trafficking for both sexual and labour exploitation.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of crimes committed in the last 12 months were violent; [133995]

  (2) what the levels of violent crime were in the London borough of Havering in each year since 1997. [134001]

  Ms Blears
  In the 12 months to March 2003, violent crime accounted for 17 per cent. of the overall offences recorded in England and Wales. Violent crime is comprised of the following offence classifications, Violence against the person, Sexual offences, and Robbery.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 October 2003, Official Report, column 18W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Broadcasting Licences
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what organisation is responsible for the issuing of radio broadcasting licences in Northern Ireland; what criteria are used in the issuing of licences; and if she will make a statement. [134823]

  Estelle Morris
  Responsibility for issuing radio broadcast licences in Northern Ireland lies with the Radio Authority. From 29 December 2003, responsibility will pass to Ofcom.

  The criteria used for the award of Independent Local Radio licences are set out in Section 105 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. Independent National Radio licences are awarded on a highest cash-bid basis in accordance with the provisions of Sections 85 and 98–100 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. Section 51(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 sets out the criteria for the award of digital multiplex licences. All other licences (i.e. cable, satellite, restricted service licences, digital sound programme licences) are issued in accordance with either Part III of the 1990 Act or part II of the 1996 Act, and the Radio Authority's published guidelines, copies of which I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Communication Media
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the steps her Department is taking to educate older people in the use of communication media. [134733]

  Estelle Morris
  The Government recognise that, in a rapidly changing media environment, it is important that all citizens are media literate and able to make best use of communication media.

  We have therefore, by way of the Communications Act 2003, placed a duty on the new communications regulator, Ofcom, to promote media literacy and to encourage the development of domestic electronic communications apparatus which can be used with ease by the widest possible range of individuals. The Act makes it explicit that, in carrying out these duties, Ofcom must have regard to the needs of older people. The Communications Act also requires Ofcom to set

  281W
  up a committee to provide them with advice on the interests of older and disabled people regarding communications matters.

  In addition, the Department for Education and Skills, in partnership with industry, the voluntary sector and other groups, has set up 6000 'UK online' centres to provide information and communications technology (ICT) access for adults with low or no ICT skills. This Government initiative, announced by the Prime Minister in September 2000, aims to help people develop the skills needed to use the Internet to access information, to send e-mail using a variety of communications media and to explore the opportunities that new technologies offer such as further learning and updating skills. The centres are asked to target potential users from six socially excluded groups including people aged 65 and over.

  Cultural Diversity
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress towards international standards on cultural diversity at the recent UNESCO conference. [134541]

  Estelle Morris
  It was agreed at the recent UNESCO General Conference that an international standard-setting instrument on cultural diversity would be prepared. The Director General of UNESCO would like to adopt a new draft instrument at the next General Conference in the autumn of 2005. He has also undertaken to consult other UN agencies with interests in cultural diversity. The UK will await the result of this and any internal consultations before deciding whether to become a party to the convention.

  Digital Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to ensure that digital terrestrial television access is available in all areas of Northern Ireland before analogue services are switched off. [134157]

  Estelle Morris
  The Government are committed to ensuring that terrestrial analogue broadcasting signals are maintained until: everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form (BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4/S4C and Five) can receive them on digital systems; switching to digital is an affordable option for the vast majority of people; and as a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers have access to digital equipment. A Digital Television Action Plan is already in place, designed to deliver these pre-conditions for switching off analogue terrestrial transmissions. A copy of the action plan is available at www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk.

  Football Pitches
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidance is given to the National Lottery regarding the use of timber and sustainable sources in lottery-funded projects; and if she will make a statement. [135073]

  Estelle Morris
  While it remains a fundamental principle that lottery distributors make decisions independently of Government on considering applications for grants for 282W
  lottery-funded projects, the Government have issued them with a number of Policy Directions. One of these encourages the distributors to take into account 'the need to further the objective of sustainable development'. This would include, although does not specifically relate to, the use of timber.

  The Department is aware of the importance of procuring timber from responsibly managed and sustainable sources and actively encourages all of its non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) to take account of the principles of sustainable development in making grants.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the Lottery awards granted in the north-west since 2000. [134897]

  Estelle Morris: 8,881 lottery awards have made since 1 January 2000 in the north-west region.

  Dates of lottery awards and the names of recipients will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Pleasure Piers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much National Lottery funding has been provided for the preservation of pleasure piers in the last five years; [134559]

  (2) how many pleasure piers have received public funding in each of the last five years; and from what sources of funds; [134560]

  (3) which pleasure piers being redeveloped and refurbished are in receipt of lottery funding. [134561]

  Estelle Morris
  We have contacted the Heritage Lottery Fund, English Heritage and the National Piers Society to request the information required, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Public Entertainment Licences
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to ensure that local authorities are able to set fees for public entertainment licences in order to reflect the proportionate risk of each establishment; and if she will make a statement. [134989]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under current law, an applicant for a public entertainment licence is required to pay a reasonable fee to be determined by the appropriate authority. The existing legislation does not provide a fee structure, however, case law has established that local authorities are entitled to recover the cost of administering the licensing scheme, provided that allowance is made for exemptions or reductions for charities. They are not empowered to raise revenue through a licensing scheme.

  The fees charged by local authorities for public entertainment licences are at their discretion but must be no higher than is necessary to allow the full recovery of their costs. On 10 of April 2000, because of concerns about the levels of fees being charged by some local

  283W
  authorities, the Home Office issued a circular in conjunction with the Local Government Association asking local authorities to review their public entertainment licensing fee structures to ensure that they abide by the case law and are defensible and proportionate in light of the principles of fairness, transparency and consistency, and do no more than permit full recovery of costs.

  Until the Licensing Act 2003 is fully implemented, we have no other mechanism for influencing fee levels.

  Under The Licensing Act 2003, provides for the payment of licence fees in relation to applications, notifications, licences and certificates. The fees will be set centrally by the Secretary of State and are intended to be set on the basis of full cost recovery to allow local authorities to do no more than fairly recover their administration, inspection and enforcement costs associated with in respect of the new licensing regime.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will take steps to ensure that any proposal by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to allow Iraqi Government ministries to establish armed security forces will specify that(a) all forces are properly trained, (b) they have a clear command structure and (c) all weaponry is surrendered at the end of each shift. [132386]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) have already taken steps to ensure that armed security services are established correctly and with the permitted authority. CPA Order No. 27 establishes the authority for Iraqi Government ministries to establish a Facilities Protection Service (FPS). The FPS will be recruited directly by Government ministries, but will wear the same uniform and operate to the standards as set out in Order 27 regardless of where they work. CPA Order No. 3 governs the usage of firearms by all armed security services in Iraq, including the FPS. All the texts of CPA orders can be accessed on the internet at: http:// www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/index.html

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Decommissioning
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many acts of decommissioning have taken place in Northern Ireland since April 1998. [134151]

  Jane Kennedy
  In 1998 the Loyalist Volunteer Force carried out an act of decommissioning in Northern Ireland. The IRA have carried out three acts of decommissioning (2001, 2002 and 2003) but I am not in a position to comment on where these events took place.

  Belfast Agreement
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on implementation of the Belfast agreement. [134154]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber).

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the level of co-operation between British and Irish Governments in tackling organised crime in Northern Ireland. [134155]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend, the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown).

  Unemployment
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on unemployment levels in Northern Ireland. [134156]

  Mr. Pearson
  Labour Force Survey estimates indicate that unemployment in Northern Ireland for the period June-August 2003 was estimated to be 5.6 per cent. Northern Ireland unemployment rates remain at relatively low levels in historical terms and have fallen by 2.9 percentage points from December-February 1998 when the unemployment rate was 8.5 per cent.

  Assembly Elections
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects elections to be held for the Northern Ireland Assembly. [134153]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).

  Peace Process
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of recent developments in the political situation in Northern Ireland. [134150]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).

  Water Charging
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's proposal for water charging in Northern Ireland. [134152]

  Mr. Spellar
  £3 billion must be invested in Northern Ireland's water and sewerage services over the next 20 years, to comply with European Directives on water quality and protect public health and the environment. To sustain this scale of investment it is necessary that
  285W
  Northern Ireland's water and sewerage services should become self-financing and be delivered outside Central Government.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Working Holidaymakers
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in respect of each Commonwealth country(a) how many applications for entry clearance as a working holidaymaker have been received since 1 January, (b) how many of the applications were refused, (c) what percentage of the applications were successful and (d) what percentage of the applications were refused. [132981]

  Mr. Mullin
  Worldwide statistics for all working holidaymaker visas are collated by financial year (1 April-31 March) only and are not available on a monthly basis.

  During the financial year 2002–03 the worldwide figures for the number of working holidaymaker visa applications that were received, issued and refused, and their percentages were as follows:

  Worldwide working holidaymaker statistics for FY 2002–03

  Number

  Percentage

  Applications received

  53,234

  —

  Applications issued

  49,361

  92.73

  Applications refused

  3,301

  6.20

  Applications outstanding1

  572

  1.07

  1 Applications outstanding include those: where the application was brought forward into the next accounting period before being resolved. Applications can also be withdrawn during processing and still count as an application received. Numbers of successful applications and entry clearances issued may also not match up because of the way entry clearances are issued: a mother and three children on one passport may count as four applications, but one entry clearance may be issued.

  Al-Qaeda
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about links between Qatar and(a) Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and (b) other members of al-Qaeda. [134632]

  Mr. Rammell
  Qatar faces a terrorist threat from al-Qaeda and associated groups, like other countries in the region and elsewhere. It has played a constructive role in the international co-operative effort against terrorism and we have a regular dialogue with the Qatari government on the subject. Our policy is not to make public the details of such dialogue.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which countries Ministers in his Department conducted arms promotion activities in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003 to date; and if he will make a statement. [112293]
  286W
  Mr. Straw
  [pursuant to his answer, 14 July 2003, Official Report, c. 48W]: I regret that an administrative error led to an omission in my answer of 14 July 2003 to the right hon. Member. The correct answer should read as follows:

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers regularly conduct overseas visits in the course of which they promote British exports, including those of defence equipment.

  For 2002, our records indicate that Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers carried out such promotion activities in Chile, Hungary, India and Singapore; and in 2003 to date, Singapore. In 2002, Ministers also carried out promotion in relation to exports to the Czech Republic, but while in the UK. In 2003, ministerial promotion also took place in relation to exports to India, but while the Minister was in the UK. Negotiations for defence exports may extend over many years and may often be raised informally in the margins of other meetings.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 18 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Shasta Parveen. [134216]

  Mr. Mullin
  I regret that as a result of a series of administrative errors, no reply was sent to my right hon. Friend to his letter of 18 September to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary will write to him in the next few days on this case.

  Human Trafficking
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the United Arab Emirates on trafficking in human beings. [134355]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government of the United Arab Emirates is taking action against trafficking. But we remain concerned about the use of young boys as camel jockeys. In July 2002 the UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs announced a ban on the use of camel jockeys under the age of 15. We welcomed this announcement, but there are reports that legislation is not always enforced. Visiting UK Ministers and our embassy staff at Abu Dhabi have raised our concerns with the UAE authorities and we will continue to press the UAE authorities to implement the ban fully.

  Iceland
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iceland about its decision to resume whaling. [135126]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 8 August, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Ben Bradshaw), issued a press statement expressing serious concern at the announcement by Iceland on 6 August that it intended to carry out lethal scientific whaling. On 10 September, the British Ambassador in
  287W
  Reykjavik, together with representatives from France, Germany, Sweden and the United States, handed the Icelandic Government a demarche, signed by the United Kingdom and 22 other countries, stating that the killing was unjustified and unnecessary. The UK will continue, along with other countries, to urge Iceland to reconsider its position.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent progress with the investigation into the deaths of Brian Peters and Malcolm Rennie in Indonesia. [132999]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am not aware of any recent progress in the investigation into the deaths of Brian Peters and Malcolm Rennie at Balibo in 1975, but I have recently written to the Special Representative of the Secretary General in East Timor, Kamalesh Sharma, to ask for an update. I am informed that the UN Serious Crimes Unit are unable to advance their investigation due to Indonesia's reluctance to co-operate with the investigation.

  Iranian Refugees
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the well-being of(a) Mr. Jamil Bassam and (b) Mr. Ebrahim Khodabandeh, the Iranians with refugee status in the United Kingdom arrested in Syria and handed over to the Iranian authorities; what representations he has made to the (i) Syrian and (ii) Iranian authorities on this matter; where the men are being held; and when they were last visited by (A) relatives,(B) Foreign Office officials and (C) the Red Cross. [134121]

  Mr. Rammell
  Jamil Bassam and Ebrahim Khodabandeh are not British nationals, so the UK has no legal right to offer consular assistance. After the two men were detained in Syria, our embassy in Damascus repeatedly asked the Syrian authorities for information, but the Syrian authorities did not respond to any of the embassy's four formal notes. Our embassy in Tehran has made it clear to the Iranian Government that we are taking a keen interest in the human rights of these two men. On 5 August Iranian authorities told our embassy that Mr. Bassam and Mr. Khodabandeh were well, that they continued to be held during investigations and that the Iranian judicial authorities had noted our call for due process. We are not aware of contact between the two men and their families. We have urged the Iranian Government on a number of occasions to allow a visit by the International Committee of the Red Cross. We are not aware that one has taken place.

  Middle East
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received by his Department about the proposed demolition by the Israeli authorities of the Shawamreh home in Anata in the West Bank; and what representations he has made to Israel on the issue. [133232]
  288W
  Mr. Rammell
  We have received representations about this specific; case. We deplore the seizure of Palestinian land arid the destruction of property in the Occupied Territories by Israel and have called upon the Government of Israel to stop these actions which undermine their commitment to the roadmap. The seizure of land and the destruction of property is provocative, increasing tension and mistrust, and making a comprehensive settlement more difficult to achieve.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for(a) the implementation of UN Resolutions on Israel and Palestine and (b) for Israel's obligations as an occupying power under the Geneva Conventions, of the military order issued by Israel on 2 October 2003 declaring land in the Occupied West Bank between the security fence and Israel's preoccupation 1967 border as a closed zone; and what action the UK Government intend to take. [133530]

  Mr. Rammell
  The implementation of this Israeli military order will have grave consequences for those Palestinians who live between the fence and the 1967 border and those who farm land in this area. It reinforces the concern that Israeli construction of the fence on occupied land amounts to de facto annexation of Palestinian lane[west of the fence, and prejudges the outcome of a final settlement based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 1397 (2002).

  Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Occupying Power is only permitted to evacuate a given area of the occupied territory:
  "if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand".

  We expect Israel to comply fully with this obligation.

  My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean has raised with the Israeli Ambassador our concerns about this and other Israeli activities affecting the humanitarian situation of Palestinians. We are in close touch with the US and other allies to ensure that Israel understands the opposition of the wider international community to the route of the fence.

  Nepal
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress on human rights in Nepal. [135193]

  Mr. MacShane
  We remain seriously concerned about continued violations of human rights by both the Nepalese security forces and the Maoist insurgents.

  There has been some encouraging progress this year, in particular during the ceasefire which held from January to August. We welcomed, for example, the formation of a Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) human rights cell to monitor and investigate reported human rights violations, and the first ever courts martial for human rights abuses. Reports of violations on both sides went down during the ceasefire.
  289W
  Regrettably, however, credible reports of human rights violations have continued to be received, and have increased since the ceasefire broke down. These reports implicate the security forces in serious abuses such as illegal detentions, torture, disappearances, and summary executions (the Ramechhap incident as reported by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a particular example), and point to a residual culture of impunity in some elements in the security forces. We are pressing hard for these matters to be investigated thoroughly and for those responsible to be held to account. There is also clear evidence of Maoist abuses, including public torture and executions.

  The UK is actively involved in encouraging greater respect for human rights, including through political pressure; human rights training for the security forces; and support for the National Human Rights Commission, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and civil society. A human rights Code of Conduct applicable to both sides would be a key element in any resumed peace process.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether Nepal is a safe country for the return of refugees. [135194]

  Mr. MacShane
  Asylum applications from Nepal—as with other countries—are considered on their individual merits in accordance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. In reaching decisions on individual cases, the Home Office—the Department responsible for considering these applications—takes full account of objective country information about the situation in Nepal. This would include information regularly provided by officials. An individual recognised as a genuine refugee from Nepal would not be made to return.

  Passports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much a passport cost in each year from 1997. [134005]

  Mr. Mullin
  The fee for a standard adult passport issued by a British diplomatic mission in each of the years from 1997 is as in the following table.

  £

  1997 to 25 March 1998

  18.00

  26 March 1998 to 11 April 1999

  31.00

  12 April 1999 to 15 December 1999

  43.00

  16 December 1999 to 20 November 2002

  49.00

  2 November 2002 to 1 October 2003

  54.40

  2 October 2003 to present

  56.50

  Sri Lanka
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 16 October 2003,Official Report, column 334W, on Sri Lanka, if he will list the non-governmental organisations whose representatives he met in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [134425]
  290W
  Mr. MacShane
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Mike O'Brien) visited Colombo in January of this year. During his visit he met with representatives from international and national non-governmental organisations including the World Bank, UNICEF, UNHCR, United Nations Development Programme, the Centre for Policy Alternatives, Sri Lanka First and the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka.

  West Bank/Gaza Strip
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 16 October 2003,Official Report, columns 336-37W, when he last had discussions with representatives of the Government of Israel concerning demolitions and destruction of infrastructure in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; what (a) explanations and (b) assurances were offered by Israel; and if he will make a statement. [134430]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has urged Israel to improve the humanitarian situation throughout the Occupied Territories in his contacts with Israel's Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom. My Noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean expressed the Government's serious concerns about the demolition of Palestinian property in a meeting with Israel's ambassador, Zvi Shtauber, on 22 October. In previous discussions with representatives of the Government of Israel on this issue, security concerns have been cited for military operations conducted in the Occupied Territories which have resulted in the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure. Israel has in the past undertaken to ensure such operations have a minimal impact on the Palestinian population. We recognise the Israeli authorities have a legitimate right of self defence against terrorist attacks, but we continue to urge them to ensure their response to the threat is proportionate.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adult Learning
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned into communities which are under-represented in participation in adult learning. [134981]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department has not commissioned research on geographical communities but has a number of research studies underway or recently completed that examine groups which are under-represented in adult learning.

  Adult learning participation has been regularly researched through the National Adult Learning Survey of over 6,000 adults in England and Wales. The results from the most recent survey in 2002 were published by the Department in April this year. They include analysis of the barriers to learning that people face as well as their learning patterns and attitudes. A longitudinal follow-up to a sub sample of the respondents to the 2001 survey, called Pathways in Adult Learning 2003, will be published in spring 2004.
  291W
  A tracking survey of 2,000 learners who have participated in Adult and Community Learning is also underway. The research will analyse the characteristics and motivations of those who participate in such learning, and the longer term outcomes. The first sweep is underway, and results will be published in spring 2004.

  The Department has commissioned evaluations of policies that help those under-represented in learning. The Adult and Community Learning Fund, set up in 1998 to support local community based adult learning, has regularly been evaluated. The most recent evaluation was published by the National Foundation for Educational Research in July 2002.

  Adult Guidance Pilots, which ran until March 2003, provided advice and guidance on learning and work opportunities to people facing particularly difficult barriers, such as those with low or basic skills, ex-offenders and refugees. The results of the evaluation will be published early in 2004.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangement he will make to monitor and develop the public strategy for widening adult educational participation. [134982]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We will be monitoring and developing public strategy for widening adult educational participation through the implementation of the commitments set out in the White Paper21st Century Skills, Realising Our Potential. In particular the new Skills Alliance of key Government Departments, economic partners and key delivery agencies is driving forward the Skills Strategy delivery plan. This includes work on the Learning and Skills Council's strategy, Successful Participation for All: Widening Adult Participation.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking in conjunction with other Government departments and public bodies to support the Learning and Skills Council's strategy for widening adult participation. [134983]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government fully supports the Learning and Skills Council's recently published strategy, Successful Participation for All: Widening Adult Participation. It has an important role to play in implementing the Skills Strategy. My Department is represented on the LSC's Widening Adult Participation Implementation Group along with representatives from Further Education Colleges, Local Authorities and other providers. The LSC is maintaining and developing partnerships with a wide range of Government Departments and Public Bodies in order to realise its long term vision for widening adult participation.

  Beacon Schools
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have become beacon schools in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [133686]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Beacon Programme was introduced in September 1998. The programme started with 75 schools, increasing to almost 1,150 schools in six subsequent expansion phases by September 2002. A292W
  detailed breakdown, including the 120 schools which are no longer in the Beacon Programme, has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have lost beacon status in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [133687]

  Mr. Miliband
  120 schools have left the Beacon Programme since it started in September 1998. 57 of these transferred to the Leading Edge Partnership Programme. A detailed breakdown has been placed in the Library.

  Foundation Degrees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost is of the current advertising campaign for foundation degrees. [134976]

  Alan Johnson
  The current Foundation Degree advertising campaign commenced August 2003 and will run until end March 2004 at a total cost of £2,800,000. This figure includes extensive national press, targeted trade and business press and on-line advertising. Of the total figure, £850,000 is for a national press and local radio campaign planned for the new year.

  GCSE
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils in Lancashire passed five or more GCSEs at grades A-C in each year since 1992. [134903]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentage of pupils who achieved 5 or more grades A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ in Lancashire Local Education Authority since 1992 is shown in the following table:

  Academic year

  Percentage of 15 year olds achieving five or more grades A*-C GCSE/GNVQ

  1992

  36.5

  1993

  39.4

  1994

  41.1

  1995

  41.7

  1996

  42.6

  1997

  43.8

  1998

  47.0

  1999

  48.0

  2000

  49.6

  2001

  50.1

  2002

  51.7

  20031

  52.9

  1Provisional

  The figures prior to 1998 are not directly comparable with the later years because of the local government reorganisation that took place in 1998.

  Higher Education Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has, in conjunction with the Higher Education Funding Council for England, to change the formula for payments for teaching by higher education institutions; and what
  293W
  representations he has received about the transition to any new formula and therefrom to a future regime permitting top-up fees. [134124]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England is consulting the higher education sector on proposed changes to its funding method for teaching for 2004–05. The deadline for responses is 14 November. The consultation document "Developing the funding method for teaching from 2003–05" is available on the HEFCE website at http://www.hefce. ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2003/03 427.

  Learning Communities
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on progress in developing a strategy for learning communities. [134978]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Good progress has been made on developing the Learning Communities strategy. A community workshop has been held with front line practitioners. A project board is being established and the scoping document has been sent out to all relevant parties. Over the next few months officials will be working with Government Offices and key stakeholders to work up proposals for their regions. Testbeds will commence in April 2004

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the level of participation of young school leavers in modern apprenticeships was in the last five years; and what percentage of the cohorts it represented. [134986]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Participation data are collected in line with the Public Service Agreement (PSA) for modern apprenticeships which states that "By 2004, at least 28 per cent. of young people to start a Modern Apprenticeship by age 22". The technical note for this target clarifies this to mean first-time entrants to Foundation or Advanced Modern Apprenticeships by those aged 16 to 21. The outturn will be starts, defined above, during the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) academic year 2004/5 expressed as a proportion of the most recent population estimate for that cohort from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Data disaggregated into age cohorts are not routinely available.

  While Modern Apprenticeships have a longer history, fit for purpose data for the PSA target have been compiled only since 2001/2:

  2001–2

  2002–3

  Modern Apprenticeship starts

  137,000

  2144,900

  (percentage)

  1(22.8 percent.)

  1(23.9 per cent.)

  1 Proportion calculated using ONS population estimates DME50 Table 4

  2 Data for 2002/3 outturn is provisional; due to be finalised by the LSC in January 2004

  Modern Language Teaching
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were in training specialising in a modern language, in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [135011]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of entrants to initial teacher training courses in secondary modern foreign languages since 1998/99.

  Postgraduate

  Undergraduate

  Total

  1998/99

  1,606

  51

  1,657

  1999/2000

  1,431

  38

  1,469

  2000/01

  1,610

  23

  1,633

  2001/02

  1,689

  16

  1,705

  2002/03

  1,725

  7

  1,732

  2003/042

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Note:

  The data shown above excludes trainees on the Fast Track scheme in 2001/02 and employment based teacher training.

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency

  Nuclear and Chemical Engineering Graduates
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many graduations in(a) nuclear and (b) chemical engineering there were in each year since 1990. [130194]

  Alan Johnson
  Figures for nuclear engineering are not held centrally.

  The available information covering chemical engineering is in the table. Figures for 1993/94 and earlier years are not held centrally on a comparable basis.

  First degree chemical engineering graduates from UK institutions

  Academic year

  Number of graduations

  2001/02

  936

  2000/01

  980

  1999/2000

  1,046

  1998/99

  1,123

  1997/98

  1,116

  1996/97

  1,189

  1995/96

  1,221

  1994/95

  1,212

  Sources:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency

  Phonics Teaching Methods
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will carry out a meta-analysis of the relative effectiveness of(a) analytic and (b) synthetic phonics teaching methods. [135021]

  Mr. Miliband
  The phonics seminar which the Department held in March 2003 and Professor Greg Brooks' report, published in August, have made a very significant contribution towards ensuring a clearer understanding of the research on phonics and its implications for the National Literacy Strategy. The Department is considering Professor Brooks' recommendations for additional research, which will be assessed against other research priorities.

  School Bus Services
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many education authorities operate school bus services for pupils other than those with special needs. [134797]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We do not collect information about local education authority bus operations.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils in each education authority are provided with a special school bus service; and at what cost. [134798]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We do not collect information on the percentage of pupils receiving transport to special schools. In 2001/02 total LEA expenditure on home to school transport was £561 million. Of that figure, £254 million (45 per cent.) was spent on transporting children to special schools.

  School Performance
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his policy to reduce the size of schools that perform to an above-average standard. [134838]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Secretary of State does not decide the size of schools. To reduce the number of places at a school, the admission authority (the local education authority for community and voluntary controlled schools, the governing body for foundation and voluntary aided schools) would have to change the school's admission arrangements, after the required consultation, so as to include a lower admission number. Other local schools or neighbouring local education authorities could object to the Schools Adjudicator if they disagreed with the new lower number. So could 10 or more local parents, if the new number is below the school's measured capacity.

  Our guidance to local decision-makers on changes to school organisation makes it clear that blanket assumptions should not be made about the optimum size of a school; and that the priority must be to secure the highest standards.

  School Trips (Funding)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what weight is given to the costs of funding school trips for schools in deprived areas when the Department calculates school budgets; [135133]

  (2) whether there are (a) national and (b) local distributors of funds for schools in deprived areas seeking funding for school trips; [135134]

  (3) what resources are allocated to schools in areas of high deprivation to ensure that they are able to comply with his Department's guidelines on allowing children in receipt of free school meals to attend school trips. [135135]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Education Funding Formula does not include a factor to specifically take account of the cost of funding school trips for schools in deprived areas. It does include a factor to take account of the 296W
  extra costs of educating deprived pupils. The factor uses data on families in receipt of Income Support and the Working Families Tax Credit.

  I am not aware c f any national or local distributors of funds for schools in deprived areas seeking funding for school trips.

  It is for a school's governing body to decide on the allocation of resources for school trips from the school's budget share. Regulations require that all local education authorities distribute some funding on the basis of social deprivation.

  Skills Strategies
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on progress on the alignment of national, local and sectored skills strategies. [134977]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Skills Strategy "21st Century Skills—Realising our Potential", published on 9 July 2003, set a long-term agenda through to 2010. Central to the success of the strategy is ensuring that implementation is achieved in a sustained and coherent way. We have firmed a national Skills Alliance, bringing together the key Government Departments with employer and union representatives and the key delivery agencies to drive forward the Skills Strategy delivery plan. At the first meeting on 14 October, the Skills Alliance agreed its terms of reference and began to identify its priorities and a forward agenda to end 2004. The members decided that its focus would be on strategic issues; monitoring progress; delivery on the ground; and ensuring collaboration between the key agencies. The Alliance intends to report on progress annually.

  Specific approaches include Sector Skills Agreements, which will be designed and delivered in collaboration with the national arid local Learning and Skills Councils and Regional Development Agencies to ensure that there is a coherent response to sector needs nationally, regionally and locally. We have also asked Regional Development Agencies to work with key partners, including LSCs, Jobcentre Plus and Small Business Service taking acccunt of the needs of sectors. Together, in consultation with a wide range of other partners, they will develop proposals to establish partnerships which will ensure that employment, skills and business support priorities are addressed in an integrated way. We expect the first regional skills partnerships to be in place from April 2004.

  Soft Key Skills
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in formulating viable measures for the attainment by pupils of soft key skills. [134980]

  Mr. Miliband
  The current national specifications for the key skills of Working with Others, Problem Solving and Improving Own Learning and Performance have been in use since September 2000.

  Specialist Schools
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist schools have failed to have their status renewed. [134935]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since the Specialist Schools Programme began in 1997 some 39 specialist schools have failed to have their status renewed.

  Student Complaints Adjudicator
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the appointment of an independent Student Complaints Adjudicator and the establishment of an office to service this function. [134122]

  Alan Johnson
  The higher education sector has established the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) to consider cases which students have been unable to resolve within their higher education institutions. The OIA was incorporated as a company on 7 July 2003. The Board of Directors have appointed Dame Ruth Deech as the Independent Adjudicator and Michael Reddy as Deputy Adjudicator and are currently in the process of recruiting other staff, establishing the office and setting up systems. The OIA expects to be able to receive cases early in 2004. The Government fully supports the higher education sector in providing students with a fair, open and transparent means of redress when things go wrong.

  Thameside College
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects the Learning and Skills Council inquiry into Thameside College to be completed; if he will make a statement on the outcome when it is completed; and what financial provision he has made to deal with its outcome. [133900]

  Alan Johnson
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has received a formal complaint alleging breaches of corporate governance and management and financial irregularities at Thameside College. An 298W
  investigation into these allegations has been completed. The report of the investigation is now being written and will be considered and decisions based on its findings made when it is received. The findings of the investigation and decisions taken will determine whether a statement is made. Any financial implications resulting from the investigation and decisions will be dealt with by the Learning and Skills Council.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether 100 per cent. of the tuition fee will be paid to higher education institutions in the academic year for which it is charged. [134060]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 20 October 2003,Official Report, column 438W, where I stated that the Government will pay the tuition fee to the higher education institution during the academic year for which it is charged.

  University Funding
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportions of income from university top-up fees are expected to fund(a) postgraduate research and (b) undergraduate teaching. [134322]

  Alan Johnson
  These will be matters for Higher Education Institutions to decide for themselves.

  University Medical Schools
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the Answer of 21 October 2003,Official Report, column 502W, on university medical schools, to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), if he will identify the sum for additional funding by each university. [135027]

  Alan Johnson
  No. The sum referred to was allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) which does not, as a matter of policy, publish sensitive student data at course level for individual institutions.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Liability Insurance (Companies)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to prevent companies from trading without appropriate liability insurance; and if he will make a statement. [134233]

  Mr. Browne
  Although compliance levels remain high, all non-compliance is serious. Uninsured companies reduce the compensation available to their employees; transfer the cost of accidents to the taxpayer; and have an unlawful competitive advantage over their legitimate competitors.

  The Department is taking a number of actions to re-inforce compliance in the second stage of its review of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI). These include developing an enforcement database and issuing supplementary guidance on procurement in the public sector to make the confirmation of contractor and subcontractor compliance a more explicit part of the tendering process.

  We will report in Autumn on the progress that has been made and any further steps we intend to take.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) companies and (b) individuals have been prosecuted for trading without appropriate liability insurance in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [134234]

  Mr. Browne
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is responsible for enforcing Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI).

  Over the past five years HSE has prosecuted 18 individuals, 14 companies and 2 partnerships for trading without liability insurance. The breakdown for each operational year is as follows:

  Individuals

  Companies

  Partnerships

  1998–99

  0

  1

  0

  1999–2000

  4

  0

  0

  2000–01

  4

  0

  0

  2001–02

  4

  6

  2

  2002–03

  5

  4

  0

  Total

  17

  11

  02

  Grand Total = 30

  For the period 1 April to 30 September 2003 the breakdown is as follows:

  Individuals

  Companies

  Partnerships

  1

  3

  0

  Asbestos Surveyors
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many asbestos surveyors are registered in the United Kingdom. [134186]

  Mr. Browne
  The United Kingdom Accreditation Service has accredited 50 organisations that carry out inspections for asbestos in buildings. A further 40 organisations have applied for accreditation. Only the number of organisations accredited is known not the number of asbestos inspectors they employ.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the tenure status of pensioners who are entitled to council tax benefit but do not receive it. [135222]

  Mr. Pond
  Council Tax Benefit is administered by over 400 local authorities, each of which is required by legislation to take appropriate steps to ensure that people with a potential entitlement to Council Tax Benefit are made aware of the help available.

  Information is also contained in leaflet GL17 "Help with your Council Tax Benefit" as well as various other information leaflets and posters produced by the Department.

  The information is in the table.

  Estimated tenure status of pensioners entitled to but not in receipt of Council Tax Benefit in 2000–01

  Benefits Estimates of Lake-Up

  Tenure type

  Proportion (per cent.)

  Local Authority tenants

  11

  Private renters

  14

  Owner-occupiers

  75

  Total

  100

  Notes:

  1. "Private renters" includes pensioners renting accommodation from Registered Social Landlords.

  2. Estimates cover the pensioners in the private household population of Great Britain. The data source is the Family Resources Survey.

  3. A pensioner is defined as either a single person aged at least 60 years old or, if a couple, both will be termed pensioners if one is aged at least 60 years old.

  4. This analysis should be treated with caution as there are possible sources of error, such as misidentification in modelling entitlement to Council Tax Benefit, misreporting of benefit receipt, and inaccuracies in grossing-up estimates from sample data which have not been corrected for.

  Source:

  Data underlying the statistics presented in the DWP series "Income Related Bene its estimates of TakepUP".

  Health and Safety Executive
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was to the Health and Safety Executive in 2002–03 of employing casual staff, broken down by region; and when this practice will be terminated and only permanent staff employed. [132538]

  Mr. Browne
  During 2002–03, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) employed both casual and agency staff. We do not have details of the costs broken down
  301W
  by specific regions. The costs shown are the only breakdown available. A further breakdown could be made available only at disproportionate costs.

  Annual costs by region (£)

  Agency staff

  Bootle

  660,844

  London

  418,180

  Nationally

  817,514

  Sub total

  1,896,538

  Casual staff

  Bootle

  35,784

  London

  37,059

  Nationally

  18,288

  Sub total

  91,131

  Agency and casual staff total

  1,987,669

  HSE has no plans to end the practice of using temporary staff. These contracts provide essential short-term cover for such events as maternity/sick cover, projects or gaps prior to recruitment. The use of temporary staff is carefully monitored to ensure that these are used only in appropriate circumstances.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the basis is of his policy that the Field Operations Division of the Health and Safety Executive no longer visit companies where an adverse insurance report indicating defects in plant and equipment has been received. [132541]

  Mr. Browne
  The Field Operations Directorate of the Health and Safety Executive has never had a policy to visit companies where an adverse inspection report has been received. Until recently they had an administrative procedure to write to companies asking them to confirm that action had been taken. This procedure, which involved 10 full time staff equivalents, added little or no value as companies had almost invariably acted on the report. The procedure was stopped in April 2003 and the administrative staff time applied to work more directly supporting inspectors.

  Insurance Premiums
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to require, as part of Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance, main contractors to bear responsibility for any subcontractors that they employ. [132842]

  Mr. Browne
  For the overwhelming majority of employers it is a legal requirement to have Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI).

  In support of this, model conditions of contract in guidance on procurement in the public sector expect contractors to comply with the requirement to have

  Projected expenditure on winter fuel payments, free television licences for the over 75s, and Christmas bonus for pensioners

  £ million, 2003–04 prices

  1997–98

  2002–03

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  2040–41

  2050–51

  Winter fuel payments

  227

  1,758

  1,808

  1,608

  1,476

  1,194

  962

  Free TV licences

  0

  384

  469

  636

  903

  1,231

  1,477

  Christmas bonus for pensioners

  131

  113

  102

  81

  74

  62

  48

  302W
  (ELCI) and provide that contractors shall be responsible for the acts and omissions of their sub-contractors as though they were their own.

  However the Government intends to issue supplementary guidance with reference to ELCI, to make the confirmation of contractor and subcontractor compliance a more explicit part of the tendering process.

  We would encourage a similar standard in the private sector.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to issue guidance to the insurance industry advising that companies with proven good records in health and safety should have that reflected in lower insurance premiums. [132845]

  Mr. Browne
  The Association of British Insurers (A BI) recently announced an initiative "Making the Market Work" under which an ABI/lnsurer assessment committee will advise trade associations on their health and safety schemes taking into account best practice features that employers' liability compulsory insurance (ELCI) insurers expect to see in place.

  Government are also working with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to link its 'risk profiling' tools to insurers underwriting decisions.

  These initiatives are a first step towards ensuring that insurance premiums better reflect the health and safety records of companies.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will include in his Department's second report into employers liability compulsory insurance a study of(a) the administrative and legal costs incurred in settling claims and (b) their impact on premiums. [132849]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department included a study of the administrative and legal costs incurred in settling claims and their impact on premiums in the First Stage Report of the Review of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance published on 3 June 2003. A copy of this is available in the Library. The Department's second stage report to be published in the autumn will not repeat this analysis but will set out the further actions that we propose to take. A copy of this will also be placed in the Library of the House on publication.

  Pensioners' Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of public expenditure on the(a) winter fuel allowance, (b) free television licence and (c) Christmas bonus for pensioners in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 2002–03, (iii) 2010, (iv) 2020, (v) 2030, (vi) 2040, (vii) 2050 and (viii) for other years for which estimates have been made. [134472]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is in the table.
  303W
  Notes:

  1. All figures expressed in £ million, 2003–04 prices and rounded to the nearest million.

  2. Projections are those underlying the Budget 2003 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, Annex A.

  3. Expenditure is for Great Britain, except free TV licences for the over 75s which is for the United Kingdom.

  4. The winter fuel payments expenditure includes expenditure on the 80+ annual payment announced in Budget 2003.

  5. Current government policy on uprating of benefits is assumed throughout.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of public expenditure on public sector pensions as a percentage of gross domestic product in(a) 1997–98, (b) 2002–03, (c) 2010, (d) 2020, (e) 2030, (f) 2040, (g) 2050 and (h) for other years for which estimates have been made. [134477]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  Public expenditure on public sector pensions is measured as contributions by Government employers to funded schemes plus pension payments and other outgoings, net of employee contributions and other receipts, in the case of unfunded schemes. The Treasury has no operational need to aggregate expenditure across all public sector pension schemes.

  Public expenditure in the four major unfunded pension schemes (NHS, Teachers, Armed Forces and Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme) accounted for 1.00 per cent. of GDP in 1997–98 and provision was

  Table 1: The gross cost of uprating the basic State Pension by 1.5 per cent. above inflation from April 2004

  £ billion

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  All pensioners

  0.9

  1.3

  1.9

  2.6

  3.3

  4.0

  Pensioners aged 65 and over

  0.7

  1.0

  1.4

  1.8

  2.3

  2.8

  Pensioners aged 70 and above

  0.6

  0.9

  1.2

  1.7

  2.1

  2.5

  Pensioners aged 75 and above

  0.4

  0.6

  0.8

  1.1

  1.4

  1.7

  Pensioners aged 80 and over

  0.2

  0.4

  0.5

  0.7

  0.8

  1.0

  Table 2: The gross cost of uprating the basic State Pension by 1.5 per cent. above inflation from April 2004

  £ billion

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  All pensioners

  0.7

  1.0

  1.4

  1.8

  2.3

  2.8

  Pensioners aged 65 and over

  0.5

  0.7

  1.0

  1.3

  1.6

  2.0

  Pensioners aged 70 and over

  0.4

  0.6

  0.8

  1.1

  1.4

  1.7

  Pensioners aged 75 and over

  0.3

  0.4

  0.5

  0.7

  0.9

  1.1

  Pensioners aged 80 and over

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.4

  0.5

  0.6

  Notes:

  1. All costs are rounded to the nearest £100 million and are in 2003–04 price terms.

  2. Gross costs are calculated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with Budget 2003 assumptions.

  3. The net costs are calculated using the DWP Policy Simulation Model for 2005–06. The net cost represents the cost after allowing for any offsetting savings in income-related benefits.

  4. It is assumed that the start of the Savings Credit is increased to the value of the earnings linked basic State Pension.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2003,Official Report, column 252W, on the state pension, what allowance was made for the non take-up of means-tested benefits in each of the six years in question. [132891]

  Mr. Browne
  The net costs of earnings uprating are calculated using the Department's Policy Simulation Model. The model takes account of the take-up of benefits and its results are consistent with the 304W
  made in 2002–03 for net expenditure equivalent to 1.03 per cent. of GDP. Final figures for 2002–03 will only be available when resource accounts are published.

  To help inform the illustrative long-term fiscal projections, estimates are being made of likely future expenditure on public service unfunded pensions under a variety of scenarios. We will consider how far it would be meaningful to disaggregate these projections into different components given the critical dependence of estimates on the assumptions made.

  State Pension
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his Answer of 15 July 2003,Official Report, column 252W, on the state pension, if he will calculate the figures on the assumption that earnings growth exceeded price inflation by 1.5 per cent. in each of the six years in question. [132890]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is in the tables.

  Department's forecasts for benefit expenditure and case loads for 2004–05 and 2005–06. In calculating costs for years after 2005–06 no change to levels of take-up is modelled.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 15 July,Official Report, column 252W, on the state pension, what assumption has been made in each of the six years in question for the amount by which earnings growth exceeds price inflation. [132893]
  305W
  Mr. Browne
  The previous answer was consistent with economic assumptions underpinning the 2003 budget. Medium and Long-term projections as published in the 2003 budget, forecast real earnings growth at 2 per cent.

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
  Judges are accountable for their judicial decisions via the appeal system. A successful appeal to a higher court does not of itself provide a basis for criticism of a trial judge. Where the Court of Appeal does record criticism of the trial judge, the judgment is always sent to the judge concerned. and where there is any reason for concern about the conduct of the judge, it is sent to the presiding judges. From time to time where judges are not performing adequately, they may be given advice and guidance, or training, or different workloads or types of workload by the responsible senior judiciary.

  In cases where the judge's conduct is seriously impugned, the presiding judges will refer the matter to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, and the Lord Chief Justice to consider complaints about conduct.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assistance has been offered by the Legal Aid Board to Mr. Liam Campbell and Mr. Michael McKevitt. [133237]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Legal Aid Committee of the Law Society of Northern Ireland, which has statutory responsibility for the administration of civil legal aid in Northern Ireland, has indicated that under Article 24 of the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, it is prohibited from giving information about individual cases.

  Matrimonial/Family Court Orders
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will ask the Law Commission to review the law on variation of matrimonial and family court orders. [134494]

  Mr. Lammy
  Under the current law, the courts are empowered to vary orders made in family proceedings in appropriate circumstances. I do not propose to ask the Law Commission to undertake such a review at the present time.

  Small Claims Courts
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how long the 306W
  average waiting time has been for hearing small claims in the small claims court which serves the Teesside area in the last six months. [134296]

  Mr. Leslie
  Under the Department's Public Service Agreement with HM Treasury, the average waiting time for a small claim is measured from allocation to the small claim track to the disposal hearing and should be no more than 15 weeks. There are 12 county courts within the Tyne-Tees group that conduct small claims hearings, and in the period April to September 2003, the group's average was 9.7 weeks.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what proportion of(a) claimants and (b) defendants was legally represented at any stage of actions in the small claims court in the last three years. [134299]

  Mr. Leslie
  Figures relating to the representation status of each party in a small claims case are only available for the final hearing stage. The percentage of parties represented by a solicitor at this stage are provided in the table.

  Percentage

  For claimant

  For defendant

  Total small claims hearings

  2002

  42.7

  33.2

  55,719

  2001

  50.9

  39.1

  58,333

  2000

  48.7

  35.1

  55,836

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many claims the small claims court for the Teesside sub-region determined in each of the last three years. [134302]

  Mr. Leslie
  There are 12 county courts within the Tyne-Tees group that conduct small claims hearings. During 2002, the number of small claims disposed of by way of a hearing throughout the group was 1,146. In 2001, this figure was 1,572, and in 2000, it was 1,208.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the average cost per claim to claimants has been of pursuing a claim in the small claims court in the last five years. [134305]

  Mr. Leslie
  Claimants pay a fee on issue of proceedings. A small proportion will pay a fee on allocation to track (principally defended claims). Taking both fees into account, the average paid in fees on small claims (up to £5,000) issued in county courts was, over the last five years:

  £

  1999

  57.50

  2000

  63.33

  2001

  63.33

  2002

  63.33

  2003

  61.83

  Some claimants (on small and large claims) will additionally seek specific orders during the course of proceedings and some of those who have obtained judgment will issue enforcement proceedings. In both

  307W
  cases, further fees will be payable. It is not possible to attribute these extra fees to the average payable on small claims, specifically.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many claims were dealt with by the small claims court in England and Wales in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03. [134306]

  Mr. Leslie
  During 2000–01, the number of small claims disposed of by way of a hearing was 58,730. In 2001–02, this figure was 54,742, and in 2002–03, it was 56,988.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the average time has been from filing a claim to a hearing date in the small claims court in each of the last five years. [134307]

  Mr. Leslie
  The figures asked for are provided in the table.

  Average waiting time (weeks)

  2002

  31

  2001

  28

  2000

  29

  1999

  26

  1998

  24

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the effect of section 8 of the Local Government Act 2003 on the competitiveness of small businesses. [135070]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Section 8 of the Local Government Act 2003 will have no effect on the competitiveness of small business. It forms part of the new local government capital finance system allowing local authorities to use borrowing and credit without Government consent, where they can afford to do so without extra Government support.

  Community Regeneration
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures the Government has introduced to help disadvantaged communities regenerate themselves. [134118]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government helps communities regenerate themselves through strategies such as the Communities Plan and the Neighbourhood Renewal strategy; which include additional support for programmes such as the Market Renewal pathfinders (new funding of £500 million) and the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (£975 million over the next two years). For the longer term the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is supporting community participation and effective public service improvement in the most disadvantaged communities.

  East Midlands Regional Assembly
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how much the East Midlands Regional Assembly has spent on legal advice since it was established(a) in total and (b) on its incorporation; [134736]

  (2) if he will list (a) public relations and communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by the East Midlands Regional Assembly since June 2001; what services were provided in each case; and what the cost was in each case; [134752]

  (3) how many equivalent full-time employees were employed in the East Midlands Regional Assembly (a) when it was established and (b) on 1 May; [134757]

  (4) how many publications have been issued by the East Midlands Regional Assembly in each year since its establishment; and what the cost was in each case; [134758]

  (5) how many conferences have been organised by the East Midlands Regional Assembly in each year since it was established; and what the cost was in each case; [134759]

  (6) many research projects the East Midlands Regional Assembly (a) planned to commission and (b) commissioned in 2002–03; and what the rationale of each project was; [134760]

  (7) how many conferences staff of the East Midlands Regional Assembly have attended since the Assembly was established; what the (a) cost and (b) purpose was in each case; and how many were overseas conferences. [134789]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The East Midlands Regional Assembly is a voluntary body which receives Government grant. The details of its expenditure is a matter for the Assembly.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance his Department has given to the East Midlands Regional Assembly on its incorporation. [134750]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not given the East Midlands Regional Assembly any guidance on incorporation.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers his Department has in relation to the operations of the East Midlands Regional Assembly. [134751]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The East Midlands Regional Assembly is a voluntary body. The only locus the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has is in terms of checking that the assembly's membership is representative of the region, for the purposes of designation and in terms of the funding agreement about its use of Government grant.
  309W
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the statutes which govern the operation of the East Midlands Regional Assembly. [134753]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The East Midlands Regional Assembly is a voluntary body and is not governed by statute.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what position Mr. Simon Brian holds within the East Midlands Regional Assembly. [134765]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Mr. Simon Brian is East Midlands Regional Assembly's Communications Manager.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which organisation audits the accounts of the East Midlands Regional Assembly. [134766]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Newby Castleman of 22 Park Road, Melton Mowbray, LE13 1TT.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what responsibilities local authorities have in relation to the(a) movement of hazardous waste and (b) identification of material contained in landfill sites. [134453]

  Amounts of council tax collected1

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Inner London

  City of London

  1,331

  1,417

  1,571

  1,830

  2,091

  2,280

  2,551

  2,644

  Camden

  37,056

  43,630

  50,506

  58,740

  60,660

  60,840

  65,780

  69,600

  Greenwich

  29,234

  36,751

  42,630

  46,802

  48,267

  50,108

  52,074

  56,861

  Hackney

  20,781

  23,071

  26,801

  26,618

  27,787

  29,625

  36,716

  44,568

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  30,740

  35,882

  44,846

  47,912

  50,515

  53,881

  57,654

  58,743

  Islington

  26,040

  31,335

  38,133

  40,736

  43,349

  43,783

  45,786

  46,640

  Kensington &, Chelsea

  34,281

  37,334

  42,781

  45,354

  49,832

  49,102

  55,316

  64,412

  Lambeth

  31,512

  31,924

  41,908

  42,931

  46,740

  46,401

  58,396

  65,919

  Lewisham

  30,418

  32,537

  41,976

  43,267

  46,284

  52,070

  57,426

  62,481

  Southwark

  26,694

  34,584

  38,100

  43,211

  45,193

  52,919

  55,892

  61,468

  Tower Hamlets

  15,380

  18,419

  21,742

  23,978

  27,478

  31,839

  34,662

  38,699

  Wandsworth

  27,209

  35,719

  38,825

  30,242

  36,648

  40,158

  46,130

  41,475

  Westminster

  22,708

  25,260

  28,980

  31,866

  34,074

  36,137

  41,036

  44,996

  Total Inner London

  333,384

  387,863

  458,799

  483,487

  518,918

  549,143

  609,419

  658,506

  Outer London

  Barking & Dagenham

  17,906

  19,475

  22,858

  25,951

  27,766

  30,060

  32,712

  34,808

  Barnet

  62,897

  68,042

  75,680

  83,756

  87,787

  97,072

  103,031

  108,870

  Bexley

  38,328

  40,037

  44,750

  49,845

  55,312

  58,926

  64,237

  69,686

  Brent

  27,083

  27,051

  38,836

  41,902

  48,516

  52,570

  55,255

  60,805

  Bromley

  55,687

  60,924

  68,076

  71,584

  78,385

  86,353

  97,867

  105,146

  Croydon

  56,216

  57,745

  64,627

  73,295

  83,487

  84,302

  90,750

  92,588

  Haling

  42,784

  45,009

  53,922

  60,563

  66,164

  70,814

  77,710

  84,178

  Enfield

  44,005

  46,958

  53,461

  57,529

  63,150

  67,115

  75,117

  82,041

  Haringey

  33,226

  35,330

  43,165

  46,422

  49,023

  52,552

  55,531

  59,516

  Harrow

  n/a

  39,659

  46,560

  51,503

  55,675

  60,842

  67,748

  72,747

  Havering

  39,055

  42,674

  49,577

  54,880

  59,243

  66,473

  72,568

  79,367

  Hillingdon

  41,846

  43,968

  49,477

  55,678

  61,194

  67,696

  74,588

  81,231

  Hounslow

  35,478

  39,162

  44,479

  47,402

  52,496

  58,158

  64,650

  69,485

  Kingston upon Thames

  28,585

  30,454

  33,410

  36,394

  42,231

  47,128

  52,594

  58,606

  Merton

  34,447

  37,134

  42,613

  46,781

  49,435

  54,335

  60,845

  65,371

  Newham

  19,112

  20,040

  24,894

  26,810

  30,400

  33,735

  38,069

  41,568

  Redbridge

  37,513

  39,582

  45,190

  49,297

  55,261

  59,162

  64,173

  69,449

  Richmond upon Thames

  47,754

  51,112

  56,319

  57,691

  64,420

  70,465

  77,674

  85,077

  Sutton

  33,569

  35,534

  39,166

  43,716

  47,441

  50,690

  55,524

  61,623

  Waltham Forest

  32,313

  36,215

  44,685

  44,065

  46,192

  49,544

  53,829

  57,988

  Total Outer London

  n/a

  816,105

  941,745

  1,025,064

  1,123,578

  1,217,992

  1,334,472

  1,440,150

  Total Greater London

  n/a

  1,203,968

  1,400,544

  1,508,551

  1,642,496

  1,767,135

  1,943,891

  2,098,656

  1 Irrespective of the financial year to which it relates,

  n/a = not available

  310W
  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local authorities have no regulatory responsibilities regarding the movements of hazardous waste unless they are directly involved in the production, collection or processing of the waste in question. Movements of hazardous waste in Great Britain are controlled by the Special Waste Regulations 1996 and enforced by the Environment Agency. The Regulations require that hazardous waste be monitored from the moment it is discarded until it reaches its final point of treatment, disposal or recovery. The Environment Agency is the regulatory authority for controlling landfill sites and local authorities have no role in regulating licensed or permitted sites. However, under contaminated land legislation, local authorities do become responsible for closed landfill sites in certain circumstances.

  London Boroughs (Council Tax)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much council tax was collected in each year in the London boroughs since 1996. [135157]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The table shows the amounts of council tax collected in each London borough and the City of London, irrespective of the financial year to which they relate, in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03.
  311W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of council tax due was collected in the London boroughs in each year since 1996. [135158]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following table gives the in-year council tax collection rates for each London borough

  In-year council tax collection rates1

  Percentage

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Inner London

  City of London

  99.0

  98.1

  97.5

  97.4

  98.2

  98.3

  98.4

  97.6

  Camden

  83.7

  87.7

  88.5

  91.1

  92.3

  92.7

  93.5

  92.7

  Greenwich

  89.4

  91.4

  92.2

  92.2

  91.3

  92.2

  92.0

  92.8

  Hackney

  78.8

  79.4

  78.1

  74.5

  67.9

  67.8

  74.0

  79.5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  87.4

  87.6

  89.1

  92.3

  93.2

  93.8

  94.5

  95.1

  Islington

  80.8

  83.0

  88.3

  88.9

  90.2

  90.0

  91.5

  88.4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  93.2

  94.9

  94.9

  95.2

  95.6

  96.0

  95.6

  95.6

  Lambeth

  71.8

  78.6

  80.3

  80.3

  84.4

  82.0

  86.5

  90.1

  Lewisham

  81.5

  84.8

  90.6

  90.6

  92.0

  93.3

  93.7

  93.7

  Southwark

  83.7

  84.7

  81.9

  81.3

  80.2

  87.1

  90.2

  92.0

  Tower Hamlets

  87.3

  87.2

  86.7

  88.1

  88.3

  89.3

  90.7

  91.8

  Wandsworth

  88.6

  87.9

  90.9

  91.4

  92.8

  94.0

  94.5

  94.8

  Westminster

  93.6

  92.6

  92.6

  93.7

  92.9

  91.8

  93.0

  93.5

  Average inner London

  84.4

  86.7

  88.0

  88.5

  88.7

  89.6

  91.1

  91.9

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  95.4

  94.9

  95.0

  95.3

  94.7

  94.0

  94.5

  91.8

  Barnet

  94.4

  94.7

  95.1

  95.3

  95.6

  95.8

  96.2

  96.2

  Bexley

  96.4

  96.2

  94.5

  94.2

  94.9

  95.4

  95.7

  96.0

  Brent

  87.0

  87.6

  89.5

  91.4

  90.4

  92.0

  91.1

  89.5

  Bromley

  97.4

  97.2

  97.4

  97.0

  96.3

  96.6

  96.5

  96.4

  Croydon

  93.4

  92.1

  92.4

  92.8

  91.7

  91.9

  93.9

  94.7

  Ealing

  92.9

  94.3

  94.8

  94.9

  94.4

  93.4

  94.1

  94.6

  Enfield

  90.8

  91.8

  91.8

  93.5

  93.7

  94.4

  94.6

  94.6

  Haringey

  81.4

  84.7

  82.3

  85.0

  85.1

  88.8

  90.1

  92.5

  Harrow

  n/a

  96.4

  96.9

  96.8

  96.2

  98.2

  98.6

  97.2

  Havering

  96.5

  96.7

  97.7

  96.8

  95.6

  96.4

  96.1

  95.9

  Hillingdon

  93.9

  94.3

  95.0

  95.7

  95.0

  95.6

  96.5

  95.2

  Hounslow

  88.8

  92.7

  91.9

  91.4

  93.4

  94.0

  93.9

  93.8

  Kingston upon Thames

  97.3

  97.1

  93.9

  91.9

  93.7

  94.0

  95.9

  96.5

  Merton

  96.9

  94.4

  95.5

  95.1

  95.2

  95.7

  95.6

  96.5

  Newham

  76.9

  81.0

  82.0

  83.1

  83.3

  84.9

  86.8

  90.0

  Redbridge

  94.7

  95.6

  96.1

  96.1

  95.7

  95.5

  95.7

  95.7

  Richmond upon Thames

  96.4

  97.0

  97.3

  96.2

  96.7

  97.0

  97.6

  97.6

  Sutton

  98.3

  98.0

  97.4

  97.0

  97.3

  97.3

  97.3

  97.3

  Waltham Forest

  88.9

  91.5

  91.8

  87.8

  87.7

  88.0

  90.6

  93.0

  Average outer London

  92.9

  93.8

  93.8

  93.9

  93.7

  94.3

  94.9

  95.0

  Average Greater London

  90.1

  91.4

  91.8

  92.1

  92.1

  92.8

  93.7

  94.1

  1 Amount of council tax due received by the end of the financial year as a percentage of the net collectable debit for the year.

  Note:

  n/a = not available

  Mining Communities (Regeneration)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much(a) funding and (b) other resources have been made available to support the regeneration of the former (i) tin mining and (ii) coal mining communities of West Cornwall in each of the last five years; and if he will list the (A) funding streams and (B) other resources available to support the regeneration of former mining communities in the UK. [134077]

  Yvette Cooper
  A detailed breakdown of funding and resources made available to support the regeneration of tin mining and coal mining communities in West Cornwall is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  312W
  and the City of London for each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03. The collection of council tax continues after the end of the financial year to which it relates. This means that the percentage of council tax ultimately collected for any financial year is greater than that shown in the table.

  However, in the past five years indicative funding for projects to assist communities generally within the Camborne, Pool, Redruth areas, which lie at the heart of the former tin mining areas of West Cornwall, by the South West Regional Development Agency is as follows:

  £

  Indicative spend

  1998–99

  1,816,529.00

  1999–2000

  713,496.00

  2000–01

  398,021.00

  2001–02

  2,313,686.00

  2002–03

  516,300.00

  2003–04 (to date)

  552,767.00

  313W
  Furthermore, the Camborne, Pool, Redruth Urban Regeneration Company was approved in September 2002 to help address deprivation, attract private sector interest and investment and secure improvements to the local environment and public realm in Camborne, Pool and Redruth. The Company—CPR Regeneration—is funded jointly by the local authority, English Partnerships and the South West Regional Development Agency.

  Two national programmes support the regeneration of the former coal mining communities. These are: (i) the National Coalfields Programme and (ii) The Coalfields Regeneration Trust. In addition, a range of national regeneration programmes provides support to all areas including former mining areas such as those controlled by the Regional Development Agencies, the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and the Housing Investment Programme.

  Para-professional Staff
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with(a) local authority associations and (b) trade union representatives on national conditions of service for pa ra-professional staff and those on term-time only contracts; and if he will make a statement. [132499]

  Yvette Cooper
  Ministers of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have no discussions with local authority associations or trade union representatives on these issues. Pay and contractual arrangements for support staff are determined at local level.

  Pensioners (Council Tax)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many pensioners pay council tax in the UK; and what estimate he has made of the total tax they pay in England. [134794]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Tim Loughton, dated 29 October 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many pensioners pay council tax in the UK and for an estimate of the total tax they pay in England. (134794)
  Estimates for council taxes are based on the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02" produced by the ONS and published on the National Statistics website on October 21st 2003. The analysis can be obtained from the House of Commons library or from the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/taxesbenefits. It includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey. This is a
  314W
  sample survey covering about 7,500 households in the UK and sample sizes for pensioner households are only sufficient to give very approximate estimates.
  Pensioner households have been defined as those where the Household Reference Person is retired or unoccupied and aged 65 or more and male, or 60 years of age or more and female, and economically inactive.
  Detailed information on the definition of the Household Reference Person can be found in Appendix D of the document at the following address:
  http://www. statistics. gov. uk/downloads/theme_social/Family_ Spendi ng_2001–02_revised/Family_Spending_revised. pdf
  Estimates for 2001–02 suggest that there were about 6 million pensioner households (single and couples) in Great Britain and that about 5 million of those paid council tax (i.e. their net council tax was greater than zero). Council tax is not paid in Northern Ireland. Net council tax is defined as gross council tax less benefits and discounts, where a household reports taking up a council tax benefit entitlement.
  The data suggests that single and couple pensioner households in England paid about 3 billion in council tax net of benefits and discounts. However, these estimates of numbers and payments will not match population data or administrative payments data because of sample size and weighting issues as well as possible inaccurate reporting by respondents.

  Street Warden Scheme
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to provide funding to extend the street warden scheme to Romford. [133998]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are no Office of the Deputy Prime Minister funded warden schemes operating in Romford. No application was made to set up a scheme in Romford during the initial bidding round in 2001.

  At present, there are no plans for a further round of Office of the Deputy Prime Minister funding for new warden schemes beyond March 2005, however, if the constituents of Romford wish to start up a warden scheme in their area, we would suggest that funding would need to be secured from sources such as the local authority, Registered Social Landlords or from the private sector, as many other neighbourhood warden programmes have done.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government has to fund further street warden schemes in Suffolk. [134407]

  Yvette Cooper
  In the County of Suffolk, Street Warden Schemes funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are operating in Lowestoft, Bury St. Edmunds and Ipswich. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's funding for Street Warden Schemes is a four year programme which concludes in March 2005 and there are no plans to extend funding past this date.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is actively working with existing schemes to help them secure mainstream funding from sources such as local authorities and the private sector. Support and guidance is also being provided to areas wishing to set up schemes with their own resources.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teachers' Pension Scheme
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband)
  Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £45 million will be sought, prior to funding from the winter supplementary estimate process becoming available, to meet a further cash requirement for existing services (teachers' pension scheme payments), as provision for the total net cash requirement on the estimate is exhausted.
  14WS
  The teachers' pension scheme fund is managed by The Department for Education and Skills and administered under contract by Capita Business Service Ltd. The Department's funding to Capita is completed on a daily basis with the funded amount being determined by the net cash requirement for payments that Capita makes on behalf of the teachers' pension scheme.

  Cash drawn down from the consolidation fund is greater at the beginning of each month because appropriation in aid arrives too late to fund this expenditure. To enable the Department to meet its November and December funding obligations, £45 million will be required to make up the shortfall between the funding requirement and winter supplementary funding becoming available.

  Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £145 million for teachers' pensions will be sought in the winter supplementary estimate for the Department for Education and Skills. Pending that approval, expenditure estimated at £45 million will be met by repayable cash advances from the contingencies fund.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be undertaking a ministerial visit to Edinburgh on Monday, 3rd November? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Secondary Schools: Selection
2.36 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to change selective secondary schools to comprehensive schools.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have no plans to change selective secondary schools to comprehensives. We have put in place mechanisms to allow local decision making on selection.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. After so many years of exposing the inadequacy of the 11 -plus examination, why do we still permit some local education authorities to continue with it? At least two LEAs still do so. I say this to my noble friend in particular given that Labour governments have made the abolition of this examination their clearly stated objective. If the Government say that it is a matter of choice, which is implied in my noble friend's reply, who will accept responsibility for the literally hundreds of failures of this examination among young folk? Failure can devastate not only their careers but their lives.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is very knowledgeable on these issues and he will know that the context in which we discuss selection is very marginal to secondary education provision in this country. Of over 20,000 secondary schools, only 164 are grammar schools. As I indicated in my reply, the reason why grammar schools are retained is because local opinion expresses itself in those terms.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, was it not Alastair Campbell, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, who referred to "bog standard schools"? Does the Minister agree that it would be far more sensible for
256
the Government to concentrate on de-bogging bog standard schools than mess about with schools which are working very well?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not sure that Alastair Campbell was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister on that occasion, and he certainly was not speaking on behalf of his wife who, over recent months and years, has been fervent in her campaign in support of the comprehensive principle. However, I accept one point made by the noble Lord; namely, that it is important to concentrate on improving standards. We are proud of our record in terms of the improvements made over recent years and, as I hope will be conveyed to the House in the very near future, we intend to continue with that strategy of improvement by providing the necessary resources.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on the question of standards, does my noble friend agree that the evidence from Kent, which has a highly selective educational system, is that not only do less bright children do less well than in other parts of the country, but the same is true of the brighter children also? Is not that the evidence which shows that selective education works against the interests of very many children?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the issue of the significance of selection has been debated for many years and even those who are most fervent in espousing the concept of selection—encompassing most, if not all, of the Conservative Party; I retract that: not all, some enlightened members of that party have not favoured selection—acknowledge that the benefits are concentrated on those who are selected. They have not paid attention to research into the effect of selection on others.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, could not the whole House rally behind the fact that the vast majority of school-age children go to comprehensive schools? Instead of slagging off those schools in one way or another, should we not do everything possible to raise and continue to raise standards in comprehensive schools to everyone's benefit and to the benefit of equality of opportunity?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree entirely with those sentiments and I am sure that the noble Lord has expressed the general feeling in this House. He will recognise, as I mentioned earlier, that raising standards requires the Government to be committed to providing the necessary resources. We shall be giving direct evidence of that commitment shortly.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in Essex, the 11-plus examination is voluntary and no one needs to take it if they do not want to do so? Indeed, the vast majority of children do not take it. We are very proud of our comprehensive schools as well as our selective schools.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that contribution. I think that it is recognised across the country as a whole that the best strategy for improving the quality of education and raising the standards which our students reach is not to opt for selection at the age of 11, thereby creating rejection among those who are not selected.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, are there any plans to reverse the Greenwich and Kingston judgments which enable selective schools to recruit pupils from far and wide outside their areas?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there are no plans to do so at present because, as I have indicated, the number of selective schools is so small as to be on the margin of education provision in this country.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the year-on-year increase in GCSE qualifications must be a tribute to the achievements of our comprehensive schools because most children go to them?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making that point. The whole House will recognise that there have been significant improvements in the standards achieved by our young people, for which great credit must be paid to their teachers, to their parents and, most of all, to the young people themselves. But, of course, the question of structure does arise. It is of benefit that comprehensive education has extended the opportunity for young people to sit examinations and to pass them adequately, which is much beyond expectations many years ago when the country had a selective system.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will my noble friend now answer my specific question—who is responsible for the failures? He will readily accept that, where there is a selective system, for every child who passes the 11-plus there will be at least five or six who do not. Who is responsible for the failures, the LEAs or the Government?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I recall that at one stage in his distinguished past my noble friend was an education officer. He will know that each local authority is responsible for education provision in its area. In those few areas where selection is still maintained, that is also the responsibility of the local authority.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to congratulate Ms Diane Abbott on the courage she has shown in her choice of school for her child?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I thought that that question might arise. I also thought that I had not too adequate an answer given that, on the whole, this noble House refrains from commenting upon individuals in the other place. I propose to follow the norms of the House.

Better Regulation Task Force Report
2.44 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
In light of the report of the Better Regulation Task Force on Better Regulation, what is their response to the chairman's statement that "the National Health Service is the greatest victim of regulatory excess".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Government are committed to reducing burdens on NHS front-line staff and are shifting the balance of power to the local level. But, with NHS spending at £62 billion a year and increasing by more than 7 per cent in real terms annually, public accountability and independent inspection remain essential, as the report of the task force accepts. Public protection also requires effective professional regulation.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very upbeat reply. He quickly passed over the aspect of regulation but there are at least 36 bodies entitled to inspect NHS hospitals— probably more. The Government have created eight of them in their term of office and have plans to create even more. What concrete steps are the Government taking to simplify the number of regulators and to reduce the burden on NHS front-line staff?
Lord Warner: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads the report carefully he will find that 28 bodies are mentioned, 18 of which are the professional regulatory bodies of professional bodies. If he goes through the report, he will also notice that the authors state that the continuing trend towards separating delivery from central government suggests that the role of independent regulators will become increasingly significant. The Government welcome the report. As the noble Lord will know from our work on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will reduce the number of regulators.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what is the cost to the National Health Service of this additional regulation? How much more will it cost than previously?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the answer to the factual question is that I do not know. I shall write to the noble Baroness. The report shows that there is a need for powerful, independent regulators, and that policy is supported by the Government.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is it correct that the National Health Service is the largest corporate employer in the United Kingdom? If so, does the Minister agree that that is not in itself a reason for excessive regulation?
Lord Warner: My Lords, by and large, we have a regulatory system that is fit for purpose given the scale

259
of the NHS, the complexity of its activities, the need to protect the public and the need to ensure that public money is spent wisely. As I said, we are talking about a £62 billion a year business which has been much increased through investment by the Government.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, now that the individual regulatory authorities for the various health professions have been reformed and undergone major reconstitution with government support, is it really necessary to have a council for the regulation of the health professions overseeing the activities of these powerful and well organised individual bodies?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the spirit of the thinking behind that decision echoes some of the ideas in the Better Regulation Task Force report to improve the co-ordination between different regulatory bodies and ensure that best practice is shared. The council tries to achieve that purpose.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while there may have been a rational reason for setting up each of the regulatory bodies at the time, it is the accumulation of large numbers that has such a demoralising effect? Does he further agree that it is lime for the Government to look at the cumulative effect of these bodies and to consider whether some pruning could be arranged?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I accept the spirit in which my noble friend offers his thoughts. However, as I said earlier, there are proposals in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill to incorporate the functions of four regulators into the functions of one regulator in the form of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. The Government welcome the report. They will consider what further steps can be taken and will respond to the report by the end of the year.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, bearing in mind the long list of inquiries into things that have gone significantly wrong both in the health service and in social care, does the Minister acknowledge that good, streamlined regulation is vital to the community in terms of the human cost?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The names which drip off my lips are Alder Hay, Bristol Royal Infirmary, the Kennedy report and Victoria Climbié, to mention but a few.
Earl Howe: My Lords, are the Government relaxed about the fact that since 1997 the number of administrative staff in the NHS has gone up by 27,330, according to the latest figures that I have, while the number of available beds in the NHS has gone down by 14,000?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am now aware of those figures as the noble Earl has drawn them to my attention. I do not take from that information anything other than
260
that the efficiency of the NHS has increased under this Government, the numbers of professional staff working in the NHS has increased and the productivity for patients has increased.

Mugabe Regime: Travel Ban
2.50 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will continue to support the common position adopted by the Council of Ministers of the European Union imposing a travel ban on named Zimbabwean individuals in the Mugabe regime.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, yes.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very clear reply. I support entirely the common position on the travel ban on Mugabe's thugs. My noble friend will be aware that this policy has given the governing council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva the excuse to cancel the conference which was to be held in London next year and was due to be attended by Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan. Does she agree that this raises some very serious issues for the IPU, as not only does it make it impossible for future conferences to be held in any EU member state, it also calls into question the nature of the organisation when it appears that a majority of countries which have no more than a passing acquaintance with parliamentary democracy are able to ride roughshod over the views of the rest?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that our commitment to upholding the travel ban was demonstrated very fully by our decision not to ask for waivers for banned Zimbabweans to attend the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference which was scheduled to take place in London next year. The fact is that the IPU has now decided to move the conference from London in order to get round the travel ban in very much the way suggested by my noble friend. Her Majesty's Government regret that decision by the IPU, but we stand by our commitment, under international law, to uphold the travel ban. It is of course a matter for the IPU now to decide where it wants to hold the meeting—if, indeed, it wishes to do so—and who it wishes to invite to such a meeting.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Speaker of the Zimbabwean Parliament, Mr Emmerson Mnangagwa, refused to answer any of the letters addressed to him by the Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and that when the IPU tried to send a mission of three people to Harare, they were turned back at the door? In view of the fact that the governing council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union passed a resolution on 3rd October condemning the unlawful detention, torture and ill treatment of

261
33 Opposition MPs in the Zimbabwean Parliament, should not the travel ban be extended to cover all the ZANU-PF members in the present Zimbabwean Parliament?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I was not aware of that exchange, or non-exchange, of correspondence that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has drawn to our attention. However, I am bound to say that I am not surprised to learn of the situation he describes.
There are now 79 individuals on the banned list, which will come up for review in the European Union in February next year when, no doubt, points such as the one the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has drawn to our attention will be put before the EU. Your Lordships will also know that there are members of Her Majesty's Government who are banned from travelling to Zimbabwe. I enjoy the very peculiar distinction of having been banned twice—once as a Trade Minister and once as a Foreign Office Minister.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I believe that the Minister will agree with me that the common position makes specific references to the breakdown of the rule of law and order and to human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. How can we reconcile our support for that with the Home Office statement that it is safe to return to Zimbabwe? Indeed, the Home Office's policy requires Zimbabwean asylum seekers to seek voluntary return; unless they do so, they are refused accommodation, support and the right to work. May I suggest to the noble Baroness that there needs to be some reconciliation between this position and our very correct foreign policy, particularly in view of the immediate impact of CHOGM?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the position that the noble Baroness has drawn to our attention because she was kind enough to bring this matter to the attention of officials in the Foreign Office and the Home Office. I understand that she has had a meeting with officials and that the very matters she has raised with your Lordships are under consideration. She will know, of course, that there is a factsheet available to individuals who wish to return to Zimbabwe—its details have been discussed with the noble Baroness. However, she has raised some important questions and I understand that she may shortly expect a response from those with whom she has had the discussions.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, what will happen if Mr Mugabe decides to travel to CHOGM?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, he will cause considerable embarrassment, not least to the Nigerian Government, and I imagine that that embarrassment will extend to others. Noble Lords may also like to know that Mr Mugabe has not been invited.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, may I press the noble Baroness a little further on that question? Does she
262
accept our view that the Government were right to uphold the travel ban in relation to the IPU, even though the consequences have been a little unfortunate? But as for the meeting in Nigeria in December, surely the world should be moving to prevent such a journey taking place. Is it enough simply to wring our hands? Can we not mobilise support within the Commonwealth, of which we are a partner and a member, to prevent Mugabe and his gang going to Nigeria and to bring home the argument that merely because they have been suspended for one year they have somehow fulfilled their penalties and should be allowed back in? Surely we should reject that view with the utmost vigour.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the fact is that when one does what is right, there are very often what the noble Lord has described as unfortunate consequences. That is what we have to face. With regard to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, we are not merely wringing our hands, as the noble Lord puts it. We have not invited Mr Mugabe. We have discussed this matter with the Nigerians and shall continue to rally as much support as possible for the position which has been adopted by Her Majesty's Government. We believe that we have a strong moral argument which is supported by many, many people in the Commonwealth. Perhaps, if I may say so, the noble Lord's injunction should also be addressed to some of the others in the Commonwealth who also need to be encouraged on this point. I see the noble Lord nodding at that remark, and I hope that he and his party will do so.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of any action that the French Government might have taken to emphasise their solidarity with European Community decision-making in the light of the vote of the French parliamentary representatives, which showed a remarkable lack of solidarity?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have had our—how shall I put it?—differences of opinion with some of our friends in France over the travel ban. Your Lordships may recall an interesting interlude in the operation of the travel ban earlier this year in relation to a meeting held in Paris. However, under the EU common position, there is the possibility of a country issuing a visa for Zimbabweans to travel when such travel would accommodate a meeting under a treaty obligation. I refer, of course, to the meeting in Rome from 9th to 18th October at which the EU ACP arrangements were discussed. That was an obligation under a treaty, so the travel ban did not apply. That is a rather different European position from the one to which 1 believe my noble friend Lord Tomlinson was referring.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government getting help from South Africa or is South Africa being extremely difficult in this situation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are getting some help from South Africa but, as I am sure the noble Baroness will know, there are a number

263
of our friends in the Commonwealth whose position on this is more nuanced than ours. When we have hoped, for example, to gain support in the United Nations for the possibility of a Security Council resolution, as I indicated yesterday, there has not always been the enthusiasm that we would have wished to see.

Postal Strikes in London
2.59 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking steps to promote an early end to the current series of postal strikes in London.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, no one will benefit from industrial action by postal workers in London. It will disrupt services to consumers and businesses that rely on Royal Mail services. Resolution of disputes is a matter for the management of Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union. The Government continue to encourage them to sit down together and reach a settlement on all outstanding issues.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, the first part of which I agree with. Would he agree that, whereas a 24-hour stoppage is tolerable, to suspend postal deliveries for a full week, as has happened in the greater part of London, causes immense hardships—not only financial hardships to individuals and businesses but emotional distress as well? One thinks of lonely elderly people waiting in vain for the three or four birthday cards that they can normally look forward to getting, or the recently bereaved widow waiting for letters of condolence and support.
As successive governments have awarded Royal Mail quasi-monopoly status, is it not incumbent upon the Government to do everything in their power to bring this matter to a speedy resolution?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree that the disruption is most unwelcome. In fact, the 24-hour disruptions to which the noble Lord made reference were also most unwelcome and made difficulties for people. I recognise the points made about the elderly. We are doing everything in our power to ensure that all benefit claimants receive their payments over this difficult period.
The Government are doing all they can to urge the two sides to come to agreement. They met yesterday afternoon and are meeting again today. We trust that those meetings will prove to be fruitful.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I deplore all that is happening and share the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. What is the number of items—letters and parcels—that have been delayed? When the situation is resolved, how long will it take to return to
264
normal, so that those of us in the wider community can return to the service to which we have become accustomed?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not able to give a figure for the number of items that are held in the post. That is an ever-changing figure, as the noble Lord will recognise. In addition, this is unofficial action and, therefore, we have not been able to predict the effects on the postal services. The noble Lord is right that the Post Office will expect to put maximal effort into restoring its services to normal as rapidly as possible when the disputes are settled. The first issue is, of course, to get the disputes settled.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, will my noble friend join with me in wishing the talks well this afternoon? We are in a situation in which 20,000 low-paid workers have withdrawn their labour, 11 major mail centres are shut, every London delivery office is closed for delivery and there is already a prospect of the dispute spreading to Southend, East Anglia, Oxford and other places. That is a matter of concern for the Government.
Would my noble friend agree it is not good to hide behind the idea that management must manage, when the Government appointed the current management structure, which is carrying out a vengeful and spiteful attack on those people who had an official day's action? When they returned to work, old agreements that had been properly negotiated were torn up and thrown in their faces. Can my noble friend spare the time this afternoon to sit down with me so that I can tell him about some of the incidents that have taken place in the name of the management that our Government, this side of the House, agreed to— although not with my permission or approval? When the Postal Services Act 2000 went through this House, I warned noble Lords what would happen. Get those spiteful, vengeful dogs off the back of these decent postal workers!
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will recognise how knowledgeable my noble friend is about these issues. I can only benefit by sitting down with him later this afternoon and discussing the issues further. What I am not prepared to do is to debate the merits of the dispute over the Dispatch Box when, as he will recognise, there is much complexity involved. It is absolutely essential, as he has said, that the two sides get together and address the issues properly.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, as noble Lords know, the strike, although spreading, is unofficial, and is taking place notwithstanding the valiant efforts of the Minister's noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer— who is not present today. Nevertheless, would the Minister agree that the dispute demonstrates the need for the Government to encourage moves towards compulsory arbitration in disputes involving essential public services?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House recognises one point that the noble

265
Lord made; namely, that my noble friend Lord Sawyer has contributed substantially to improvement in industrial relations. In the past three years, industrial relations in Royal Mail have improved, and the present outburst of unofficial disputes is doing considerable damage.
The noble Lord will recognise that, when we are dealing with unofficial disputes, the only way of resolving them is by the two sides getting together. They met yesterday and did not resolve the issues, but the talks are continuing, and it would be quite inappropriate for outside agencies to act at this stage.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, speaking as a lonely elderly person who is aware that her birthday cards have gone astray, may I ask the Minister what he considers normal? Does he consider it normal that, when a parcel is delivered, the postman no longer rings the bell but simply leaves a card? While paying huge tribute to the postal services in the Palace of Westminster, will he ensure that, while the conversations are going on, more attention is paid to the efficiency of the Post Office as it works at present?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is in the interests of Royal Mail to ensure that it offers the best possible service. However, the noble Baroness will recognise why some aspects of past practice are inappropriate in this day and age. We can all recall the times when packages were left on our doorstep, or with friendly neighbours. It is much more difficult these days to distinguish people, when all sorts of material is sent through the post. It is important that items are collected by the individual concerned, that proper regard is given to security, and that items are not simply left outside the house.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I speak with my old trade union hat on. Are the Government satisfied with the progress being made, bearing in mind the report of the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, about the industrial relations situation as it has developed in the Post Office? Does the Minister agree that the huge fat-cat salaries being paid at the top end of the structure are unhelpful?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, salaries at the top level are related strictly to performance-related agreements, and payment is made only on the basis of achievement. The House will recognise that the disputes and difficulties will affect the hitting of such targets.
More generally, my noble friend, with the vast trade union background which he brings to bear on these matters, will recognise that there have been improvements in industrial relations in Royal Mail. This setback has sprung from difficulties over one issue alone—the question of the London allowance. In other parts of the country, great progress has been made, with the assistance of my noble friend Lord Sawyer. All is not
266
gloom. At present, we are in difficulties, but I reiterate the point that the two sides are meeting again today. We hope for a successful outcome.

Children: Contact with Separated Parents
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to introduce a legal presumption for parents to have continuing contact with their child following a divorce or separation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, generally it is in the best interests of the child to have a continuing relationship with both parents following separation. We will encourage contact where it is safe and we will look at ways of diverting more cases away from the courts.
Where one parent refuses to comply with court-ordered contact, we want to look beyond the courts' current options of fine or imprisonment. We shall publish our proposals for improving contact in November.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, does he accept that it is only right that separated parents should each have a legal presumption of contact with their children; that is, real parenting time? Surely that would ensure that both parents could continue to contribute to their children's family life and that those children would benefit from care by both their parents and any grandparents and extended family members who were able and willing to play a role in their upbringing. Does the Minister agree that while children's safety should not be put at risk, it is cruel, inhuman and plainly wrong to keep fit parents from their precious children without a compelling demonstrative reason, and that it is cruel and damaging to the children as well as to the parents and the grandparents?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as I indicated in my reply, it is the Government's view that it is strongly in the interests of children that they have such continuing contact with both their parents when it is safe to do so. However, we believe that the Children Act 1989 quite rightly put the responsibility for making decisions on contested contact issues with the courts, with the focus being on what is in the best interests of the child. We continue to think that it is right that the courts have a wide discretion to exercise judgment on what is in the best interests of the child looking at the particular circumstances of each case that comes before them. Having said that, we are strongly of the opinion that we need to try to find ways of encouraging increasingly successful contact arrangements because we share the view that it is desirable in the vast majority of cases that children have contact with both parents as part of their growing up.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, if the noble Lord means what he says about the Government's

267
presumption that what we are discussing is in the interests of children, why will he not accede to the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that there should be a presumption? The courts would still have the opportunity of going against that presumption if it seemed appropriate to do so, but the presumption would be a great help in achieving the objectives the Government appear to endorse.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not fully understand that argument because as the law currently stands the courts have the duty as their prime obligation to consider the interests of the child. In our experience the Government, the family courts themselves and the judiciary recognise the desirability, where it is safe to do so, of a child having continuing contact with both parents, as common sense tells us. They have full liberty to reach the objective that the noble Lord indicated. We think that is a correct principle. Having said that, we have to pursue mechanisms to increase contact wherever we possibly can.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the key to ensuring the welfare of children in these circumstances lies with the parents jointly agreeing how they will fulfil their responsibility to their children, and that any introduction into the process which encourages a battle around the rights of either or both of the parents would be disastrous? The system, including the provision of family mediation services, ought to work to encourage parents to fulfil their responsibilities. Will the Minister encourage us to believe that the Government will seek to increase support for such services in support of parents in this situation?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate put his finger exactly on the central issue—how one can try to motivate parents to be more successful in reaching agreements for effective contact in the interests of their children. The evidence is that those cases that go to court appear to be less satisfactory in reaching outcomes that both sides think work than those that are dealt with by agreement between parents. Therefore, the whole thrust of our policy is: first, to try to ensure that when the court makes an order it is enforced and enforceable, which is not always the case, and, secondly, to try to push processes to mediation before they get into a court process, which does not appear always to be the best way of resolving these very difficult disputes. I strongly endorse what the right reverend Prelate said.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the spirit of the answers that he has given so far. If the Question had mentioned "presumption", it would have received a warm and wide welcome on these Benches. However, it mentions "legal presumption". Since the man of property is still with us, it raises the need for equal security against the risk which is sometimes underestimated of physical or sexual violence either to the child or to the woman. As we agree that the interests of the child are paramount,
268
does the Minister agree that this is often best discovered by the use of a genuinely independent advocate for the child?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there are circumstances when it is right and necessary that the child has an independent advocate both in child contact cases and more often in child protection cases. I recognise and agree with that. I also take the thrust of the noble Earl's point about it being desirable that both parents have continuing contact without unduly fettering that by making it a specific legal obligation. There is no conflict between those objectives in practice in most cases because in practice it is desirable for the absent parent to have contact and, therefore, one wants to work towards making a reality of that both in the interests of the child and in the human interest of the absent parent.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I am sorry but we are out of time.

School Funding 2004–06
3.17 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement about the funding of schools in the years 2004–05 and 2005–06. I am placing the details in the Library of the House.
"On 17th July this year I set out to the House the principles which I would follow to restore confidence in the school funding system, deliver stability in school budgets and give certainty for head teachers and governors. I promised a further update in the Autumn.
"Responsibility for school funding is shared between government, LEAs and the governing bodies and head teachers. We all want to ensure that schools can plan and manage their resources effectively to achieve the highest possible standards. I want to express my appreciation today for the commitment of all the education partners to these ambitions, and for the constructive way in which representatives of schools and local government have worked with us. I am confident that this will continue.
"As I said in July, I intend to support schools in three ways: a minimum increase in every school's budget; additional resources to help every LEA to support schools with additional pressures; and targeted transitional support to help all schools to achieve balanced budgets.

269
"I promised to introduce for 2004–05 and 2005–06 a minimum per pupil funding guarantee for every school, taking account of the average cost pressures facing schools in those years. I will achieve that by increasing both LEA core funding and the funding received from DfES grants.
"My officials have examined the relevant cost pressures—including increases in teachers' pay where we have assumed an inflation-led settlement. These pressures naturally vary between schools. However, following extensive consultation with our education partners, my best estimate for next year is that the combined effect of these factors on the average school will be of the order of 3.4 per cent.
"Each school receives funding through LEAs in two main ways: funding directly related to pupil numbers and funding relating to fixed costs. We have concluded, after careful consideration with our education partners, that pupil-led elements should rise by 4 per cent per pupil and fixed elements by 4 per cent in cash.
"This means that a school whose pupil numbers stay the same between 2003–04 and 2004–05 will be guaranteed a 4 per cent per pupil increase in its overall budget next year.
"A school whose pupil numbers decline will receive a funding increase of more than 4 per cent per pupil, to help cover fixed costs. However, because of declining pupil numbers, the number of primary schools with reduced cash budgets—and so possibly staff numbers—will be significant, as there are around 50,000 fewer primary pupils this year, with a similar reduction next year. Secondary schools with falling rolls will be in the same position.
"A school whose pupil numbers are increasing will be guaranteed at least a 4 per cent increase for all its existing pupils. Those schools will be guaranteed a rise of at least 4 per cent in their cash budgets and an overall per pupil increase of at least 3.4 per cent.
"I said in July that we would consider carefully the position of very small schools. Those will receive an increase of at least 4 per cent if their pupil numbers do not change. However, our general approach may not be appropriate for very small schools with much higher than average fixed costs. Therefore, funding for schools with 75 pupils or fewer will be determined according to their LEA's own school funding formula. For special schools, whose funding is normally based on places rather than pupil numbers, the guarantee will be a minimum 4 per cent increase in funding per place. LEA funding for specified costs, such as rates, will continue to be funded at cost and will be apart from the guarantee.
"The 4 per cent level at which 1 have set the minimum schools guarantee already takes some account of cost variation around the 3.4 per cent average. However, I should stress that that guarantee represents only the minimum increase that a school might receive next year. Across the
270
country, many schools will receive per pupil increases of more than 4 per cent, since the overall increase in education formula spending will be more than 5.5 per cent per pupil. The final budgets will be determined by LEAs, in consultation with schools forums and after the local government finance settlement has been announced. However, today's announcement should—subject to pupil numbers— give schools an early indication of the minimum increase in their budgets.
"For 2005–06, my expectation is that the minimum schools guarantee will again be at least 4 per cent for a school with unchanged pupil numbers. I will keep that under review and announce the final figure in due course.
"Other elements of schools funding will also be increased on the same basis. Thus the Learning and Skills Council will increase all its funding rates for school sixth forms by 4 per cent in 2004–05, and will increase current school sixth-form allocations for the period April to July 2004 by 4 per cent. Similar arrangements will apply in 2005–06.
"The changes to the Standards Fund caused significant problems for some schools this year, so in July I undertook to reverse the cuts which had previously been announced for the next two years. That additional spending is reflected in the Standards Fund allocations which are being issued to local authorities today.
"In 2004–05, schools will generally receive a cash increase of 4 per cent on this year's Standards Fund allocations. There will be some limited exceptions. Those include: grants where the amount of funding is directly related to actual costs; specialist schools, where I increased the funding rate in September this year and will make a further increase to £129 per pupil in 2005; and grants where funding is being especially targeted for policy reasons. For example, we are uprating the ethnic minority achievement grant by 4 per cent, but also taking the first steps towards a fairer distribution. However, no school will receive less ethnic minority achievement grant in cash terms in 2004–05 than it is receiving this year.
"Moreover, next year schools will receive either a 4 per cent increase on their per pupil schools standards grant, or the value of their announced SSG band for 2004–05, whichever is higher. Both Standards Fund and school standards grant will be uprated again— in line with the minimum schools guarantee—in 2005–06. I am also adding resources to revenue support grant to reflect in LEA baselines the budget support grants paid to some authorities in 2003–04.
"The total additional funding to maintain and uprate the Standards Fund and school standards grant, and to mainstream the budget support grants, will be £435 million in 2004–05 and £520 million in 2005-06.I am placing full details in the Library.
"I can also confirm that threshold pay costs will be fully funded next year. As at present, schools will be able to draw down well over £500 million from my department on a demand-led basis. In addition,

271
the £205 million we have allocated this year for performance-related pay will be uprated at least in line with the headline pay settlement for next year. If proper arrangements for point 3 of the upper pay scale can be settled, further resources will be allocated in September 2004.
"The schools guarantee must of course be backed by adequate resources for the local education authorities. Next year, I will therefore set the minimum increase in the schools formula spending share at 5 per cent per pupil. Again, that is a minimum—most increases will be higher. The provisional SFSS increase for each authority will be confirmed at the time of the local government finance settlement, but we expect the ceiling to be at least 6.5 per cent per pupil.
"As I said in July, every authority will receive sufficient grant in each of the next two years to cover its formula increase in education spending. Given that commitment, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will be writing to authorities to set out the Government's clear expectation that every LEA passports in full its SFSS increase into a matching increase in its schools budget, unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances. I have statutory powers to require LEAs to set a minimum schools budget, and I will be prepared to use those powers if it is necessary to do so.
"I also expect LEA spending on their central education budgets to rise no faster than spending on schools. I am confident that most LEAs will concentrate on increasing schools' delegated budgets over the next two years, but the draft regulations that I have issued reflect my determination to achieve that. Under my proposals, LEAs will be able to seek an exemption in exceptional local circumstances. I will confirm the minimum increase in SFSS for 2005–06 next autumn but, if the minimum schools guarantee is 4 per cent, I would expect the minimum increase in SFSS again to be around 5 per cent.
"My proposals have been drawn up to support schools. But that support will not be at the expense of other services. In line with the commitment that I made in July, the Government will be providing additional resources for other services, including children's social services, to support spending in those services. The details will be announced as part of next month's local government finance settlement.
"My statement in July emphasised my commitment to sustaining school workforce reforms. That commitment stands. Much progress can be made from schools managing their total resources—people and money—more strategically and working in different ways. Over the next two years, the increase in resources for schools— through schools formula spending share and DfES grants, and including the additional resources that I am confirming today— provides headroom over the average cost pressures that schools face, to help schools make the most of the national agreement.
272
"The primary responsibility for maintaining sound financial management rests with schools themselves and their LEAs. I acknowledge that LEAs need more flexibility to help schools to balance budgets over the next two years, so I am amending the regulations to enable LEAs to target their resources at those schools which have particular problems, whatever their source. It is the responsibility of LEAs to use that flexibility. I expect them to do so and am confident that my expectation will be fully shared by the communities they serve.
"However, I do recognise that there are a limited number of cases where balancing budgets is beyond the capacity of individual schools and LEAs in the short term. That is most likely in those LEAs that have received the lowest increases in education formula spending and DfES grant between 2002–03 and 2004–05. For those LEAs, I therefore propose to make a targeted transitional grant available over the next two years and I am issuing indicative figures today. Those assume that that grant will be available to take the increase in funding for all authorities over the two-year period, up to a minimum of 12 per cent. That is well ahead of our best estimate of unavoidable pressures for those years. I estimate that that will cost around £120 million and benefit around a third of LEAs. The final allocations will be confirmed at the time of the local government finance settlement.
"However, that additional resource will be provided only where I am convinced that the LEA has made every effort to support its schools from within its own resources; that is, it should be passporting its SFSS increase in full; it should be directing its resources to delegated schools budgets as far as possible; and it should be intending to target the schools in greatest difficulty. It will be a condition of grant that each LEA prepares, with the schools concerned, a costed and credible plan to bring its schools' budgets into balance by 2006–07.
"In 2005–06, I propose to make further grant available to the same authorities at around half the level of that provided in 2004–05. Again, I will confirm the detailed figures next autumn.
"LEAs whose increases between 2002–03 and 2004–05 were greater than 12 per cent should be able to resolve local difficulties within their own resources. However, I do recognise that there are individual schools which have spent above their income this year and may therefore face difficulties in getting their budgets back into balance. Therefore, where an LEA can put forward a compelling argument that additional, transitional funds are needed in the short term—above and beyond those already available to it—and in order to avoid real damage to children's education, I am prepared to consider bringing forward DfES grant payments, so that the LEA will have funds available in 2004–05 for that purpose, with the expectation of a consequential reduction to what it will receive in future years. I will confirm the maximum amount that I might be prepared to make available to each LEA in that way following the local government finance settlement, but 1 expect the calculation to be based on a maximum grant of £300,000 per authority,

273
or 0.2 per cent of the authority's total education resources in 2004–05, if that is higher. Such grant would be subject to conditions similar to those for the targeted transitional grant.
"I am confident that the measures I have outlined today will help to create stability for schools. We will do all we can to help LEAs work with their schools, where necessary, to get budgets back into balance over the next two years. That is because, for any school, an annual excess of spending over income is not sustainable. I acknowledge that getting back into balance may mean difficult decisions. Where school spending varies significantly from the average—where 80 per cent is spent on staff costs and 20 per cent on non-staff costs—or from its income, the school needs to act to get back into balance.
"It is therefore vital that schools are well able to plan and manage their resources effectively. More and better support for schools is needed in that area, so I am announcing today that my department has commissioned KPMG to work with the National College for School Leadership and headteachers' associations to design and develop a varied menu of support and guidance to help schools' budget management. That support will be available from the turn of the year. It will prioritise schools in those LEAs that are in receipt of the targeted transitional grant.
"The proposals that I have announced today are designed to help restore confidence in the school funding system and increase stability in school budgets. I am grateful for the help and advice that we have received from our education partners. I have set out the framework for the school funding system over the next two years. It is now for LEAs to address the needs of every school, and for heads and governors to ensure that the resources they receive are used effectively. We all share responsibility for school funding and we must continue to work together to get it right".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very long and extremely complicated Statement. If there are other Members of this House who have understood it better than I have, I will hand over my job to them.
We were promised transparency. However, the Statement reads like a Russian novel. One has to return again and again to previous references in order to track the promised money and to make a judgment whether schools will be better off as a result of the announcement. Transparent the Statement is not.
The Government told us in a convoluted way that schools, parents, children and LEAs will all be grateful for the Statement and that all will be well in the world of school-based education. At this stage, we must take the Government at their word; and at this stage, we do. However, it is important to record that much of the
274
complexity of the announcement reflects the necessity for the department to address the chaos of last year, which was frankly of the Government's own making.
Last year, the Government blamed a failure of modelling and tried in vain to lay some of the blame on LEAs. The fact that a number of financial adjustments had to be made during the course of the year, and the conditions which created a legacy of uneven provision across the country, are testament to the ill thought-through and ill trumpeted settlement last year.
Children have suffered; teachers and headteachers have made huge sacrifices, many losing their jobs; and ancillary staff have also been affected. The Secretary of State in another place, when referring to the list presented to him by my honourable friend Damian Green of authorities with deficit budgets this year, accused those LEAs of scaremongering. Do the Government believe that the £14 million deficit of the Secretary of State's own county council, Norfolk, and the £22 million deficit of Kent County Council are merely figments of their imagination? If so, will the Minister provide some assessment of what he thinks those deficits are?
It is clear that more time will be needed to absorb the detail of the Statement. However, to help us understand it, will the Minister clarify the nature of the base measurement that was used for the 4 per cent-per-pupil increase? For example, those schools that were hard hit last year and those schools that benefited—some considerably—will remain in the same differential position. If there is a flat 4 per cent increase for all pupils, nothing will change. The schools that suffered most will benefit least and the schools that gained most will benefit greatly. I know that some money has been made available to address discrepancies. However, there was a threat in the Statement that that money will be clawed back over time.
What is the split between the Treasury and the LEA? More particularly, what will be the impact of the settlement on the local taxpayer? How much new money is planned to come from the Government?
What flexibility will there be for LEAs? What flexibility will they have if the only way in which they can meet all the demands and government guarantees that go with the settlement is by raising more local taxes? If the Secretary of State has threatened to use his powers to stop them raising those taxes, that money can come from only one other place and that is from other services. The Secretary of State has give a guarantee that that will not happen. Is there therefore a guarantee that the cash which will come from government will allow local taxpayers a fair deal and will allow LEAs properly to meet the obligations set out in the Statement?
Teachers are very concerned that funding will be inadequate to meet the pay awards to those who qualify under the performance-related pay scheme. Can salary increases be funded? Have the Government taken on board the fact that as pay increases, so, too, will national insurance? It will increase not only for individual employees throughout the education sector, but also for employers—the local authorities—as the pay bill increases.

275
The long Statement contains only two lines about special educational needs, indicating that it is to receive the same 4 per cent increase. However, there is no mention of the additional costs incurred as a direct result of the Government's legislation. Special educational needs have had a raw deal from the Government. Earlier this year, the Secretary of State said that some LEAs were spending too much on SEN. How much is too much? What comfort is there in the Statement for children with SEN?
Will the Minister tell the House how the 3.4 per cent increase, deemed to be the cost increases faced by schools, is made up? What are the constituent elements? Will the learning and skills councils allocate a 4 per cent increase in funding to all students, including those additional students in sixth-form school-based education? Is the additional money allocated for under-achieving ethnic minority children announced in the Statement to be new money met by the Government, or will it come from the overall education budget?
Meanwhile, we have to take the Government at their word. Like the local education authorities, the parents, the teachers and other staff, but most especially the children, we will be vigilant in examining how the proposal works in practice. Once again, the Government have raised the stakes. Throughout education, expectations are high. Last year, those expectations were cruelly dashed and government Ministers passed the buck to others.
Only when the detail of the settlement is completed by the Deputy Prime Minister will we be able to make a judgment as to the merits of the Statement and the degree to which children in the classroom will benefit—and, of course, the degree to which local taxpayers, who are suffering sorely from past settlements, are treated more reasonably.
The Secretary of State claims that this settlement will restore confidence, deliver stability and give certainty. Following the débâcle of last year, there is a mountain to climb. Much is now in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister.
3.43 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. 1 echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on the complexity of the Statement.
The Statement was necessary because government announcements made in April about the funding of schools came unstitched during the summer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, it was initially blamed on local authorities. However, it became clear that ultimately the fault lay with the department for failing to do its sums. That became clear once the Select Committee for Education and Skills in another place looked at the matter in detail.
In July, the Minister made a second Statement in order to explain what had gone wrong and he then promised this follow-up Statement. He then said that he would wait until the teachers' pay review commission had reported but it has not yet done so. He now says that the Government anticipate the pay
276
settlement taking place, but I am surprised that the Statement has been made before the review has been announced. I hope that the figures incorporated in the Statement mirror those which will come forward in the pay review. Presumably, the Secretary of State has prior knowledge of that.
We on these Benches welcome two other aspects of the Statement. First, it gives schools longer to plan next year's budgets. Last year, everything came unstitched at the last moment but this year they will have more time. However, they must still wait on the local government settlements, which will take time to put together. In the next month, most LEAs will be rushing around trying to sort out precisely what the Statement and its implications mean.
We also welcome the additional money which appears to be forthcoming. I say "appears to be" because it is by no means clear that there will be any new money. Will the Minister say whether there is any new money in the coffers? The only additional money I can identify as forthcoming is the £100 million to £120 million which will go into the transitional budgets. Equally, the Statement implies that the Government are withholding the increases for teachers moving up to the third level of the upper pay spine and perhaps that £ 100 million will be clawed back from the pay increase. Will the Minister clarify that issue and let us know whether the Government are expecting to save approximately £100 million in not paying the increases on that upper part of the pay spine?
Last year, the NUT survey estimated that 20,000 teachers and support staff had lost their jobs as a result of the mess in funding. Will the Minister clarify the situation in regard to primary schools, where rolls are falling? It has been mentioned that 50,000 pupils will be affected in each of the next two years because of that fall. My impression is that the guarantee does not fully apply to primary schools.
Some problems arise here. First, 1,000 extra teachers are being trained for the postgraduate certificate in education. Is the department confident that there will be jobs for them in primary schools next year? Is it confident that it will be able to meet the obligations to which it has committed itself? Secondly, will the Minister clarify the issue surrounding the pay spine? The Statement indicates that if proper arrangements for point three of the upper pay scale can be settled, further resources will be allocated in September 2004. What are those further resources? Where are they coming from? Is that new money or not?
In relation to the Standards Fund, the Statement makes clear—and it was clear in July—that the Government intend to reverse their previous decision and that the money will go directly to the schools instead of being merged into the general LEA budget. However, I would like the Minister to clarify one issue. There appears to be a reshuffling of the DfES budget in order to find some of the money which is to be forthcoming for the transitional arrangements, for example. As a result, those authorities worst hit last time will be somewhat better off this time. We mentioned, for example, Kent,

277
Sussex, Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex. Is the correct inference that the LEAs which did better under last year's settlement will be doing worse under this one?
Furthermore, although we were assured that the workload agreement is going forward, is there really enough money in the package for that? At present, the amounts available seem to vary enormously from school to school and, indeed, from LEA to LEA.
I have two further short questions. First, it is not clear to me how schools which were running deficits this year will cope. Transitional arrangements are in place but, so far as I can see, they are loan rather than grant arrangements. I wonder how far the Minister is confident that those schools will be able to recoup the necessary money and pay it back. I am also particularly concerned about schools which borrowed against capital this year in order to meet their expenses and whether that means that they will have to forgo capital improvements that they had hoped for.
Finally, I have a question concerning the money for sixth forms and sixth-form colleges which comes from the LSC budget. Again, will the Government put new money into the LSC budget for that or will other parts of the budget have to be cut back in order to meet those commitments?
3.51 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the responses to the Statement from the two noble Baronesses. I agree that the Statement is complex but that does not mean that it is not transparent. It merely means that we have to work very hard to analyse carefully the exact implications. But it was ever thus with school funding and local authority funding. I shall certainly attempt to clarify the matters which have been the subject of questioning from the Opposition.
First, I believe that the welcome for the Statement has been a little more grudging than is justified. Let us take the question of new money. Effectively, as set out in the Statement, the Government are providing £435 million in 2004–05 and £520 million in 2005–06 for schools over and above the amounts previously announced. That meets some of the detailed points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She asked whether there was new money and the answer is "yes".
Secondly, in being critical of the Government, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, should recognise that we are putting additional resources into schools. We all recognise the problems that were created last year when certain aspects of the model by which schools would receive the money did not prove to be as valid as we had hoped. But that problem was created by an extremely generous government allocation to schools. The Government fulfilled their commitment to spend more on education to an extent that, in my view, neither of the other two parties can remotely match. That is certainly the case with regard to the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. As a tax-cutting party, it is looking for substantial cuts in public expenditure
278
and should therefore be rather more cautious about challenging a government who are having some difficulties with their expenditure.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether the amounts of £435 million and £520 million respectively are to be provided on top of that announced following the Comprehensive Spending Review?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is exactly right. They are increased sums of money. The precise point raised by the noble Baroness was whether some of the figures, which clearly require additional sums to be allocated, represent new money. The figures that I have just quoted are the global sums of new money available.
I recognise the validity of some of the points addressed to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, concerning the problems experienced last year by, for example, Norfolk and Kent. We have listened carefully to their representations. They are among a group of counties for which we are making specific proposals to increase resources in recognition of the fact that the deficits which they identified had some validity. It is not that we accept the total position which they present in any way, shape or form. We recognise that a quarter of the counties have experienced difficulties, and that is what we are seeking to address.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister has missed my point. His colleague in another place, the Secretary of State, called those counties "scaremongering". Does the noble Lord agree with that? If they are not scaremongering, what is the assessment of the deficit?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my right honourable friend indicated that the figures were subject to challenge in the department against a background of a number of authorities clearly needing extra resources this year. When I repeated the Statement, noble Lords heard clearly and explicitly that we are meeting some of those increases. However, we do not accept some of the more extensive figures quoted by local authorities. We have held discussions with them and my right honourable friend made it absolutely clear that, following this Statement, he would continue to hold discussions with local authorities in that category. The local authorities participating in those discussions have done so very effectively. They recognise that there is a conscious intention on the part of the Government to address the difficulties experienced last year by some 30 counties.
I turn to the question raised by the noble Baroness concerning students with special educational needs. I recognise her long-standing commitment to, and interest in, that area. We are proposing that the same 4 per cent should be allocated for improving the opportunities and support for students with special educational needs. We are merely indicating that expenditure by some authorities last year represented such a large percentage increase that it could not be

279
sustained continually. There had to be recognition of the fact that improvements must be made. The 4 per cent will certainly be in addition to the base line created by those authorities when they were generous last year.
However—the noble Baroness herself has made this point from time to time—we also emphasise that part of the problem which arose last year was that money that we had expected to go into the general schools budget was directed by local education authorities to other priorities. We are insistent that the priorities of schools are properly identified. That is why, when local authorities apply for additional transitional support, we expect them to set out with great accuracy the particular needs of the schools and how they intend to spend that additional resource.
Therefore, in response to the general question of whether we have taken account of issues such as the pay review for teachers, the answer is "yes". However, we do not know the precise figure. We are genuinely in a chicken-and-egg situation. If we wait for teachers' settlements to come through, the announcement that we make about the overall position will delay schools' capacity to plan and budget. If we do what we are doing here and make an intelligent and, we hope, reasonably precise estimate of the additional costs, we can then make a Statement and provide schools and local authorities with such information that will be to their advantage as regards budgeting. I believe that that point has been recognised on both sides of the House.
The same issue relates to the question of the workload agreement. That has been taken into account in the figures which have been prepared, and I believe it will be seen that the Government have been able to make reasonable estimates of the impact upon schools. We all recognise that schools vary enormously, but we clearly have in place a. model of the costs which schools should incur. As a general model, we believe that about 80 per cent of schools' expenditure should go on salaries for teachers and 20 per cent on other costs. Where schools depart massively from that position, that causes difficulties. Indeed, some schools have departed from it. We shall ask that they return more closely to that model with the advice that we hope to provide through the assistance we are giving to schools on budgeting.
4 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the Minister was rather sad about the fact that my noble friend Lady Blatch and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, gave a grudging—I think that was his word—welcome to the Statement. However, I have to say that it was the most convoluted 20-minute Statement in financial terms that I have ever heard. I pay a compliment to the Minister. After he finished repeating the Statement I received a copy and quickly read it. He made it sound less convoluted than it reads. It is an appalling Statement. I suggest that perhaps the department should ask the Plain English Campaign to cast its eye over Statements such as this before they are delivered.
280
All the percentage figures are completely in the ether. I have three questions. First, does the Statement result in an increase in percentage of GDP spent on education in this country? I am bowling this at the Minister, but perhaps he could write to me stating how much other European Union countries spend on education as a percentage of GDP. Secondly, how much money will go on bureaucracy in attempting to get teachers and everyone else involved in the education system to understand the figures and to come up with managing them? Thirdly, how much will KPMG be paid for this consultancy? Will it be running around LEAs and training them in how to deal with financially convoluted processes? As a supplementary question, was the appointment of KPMG open to competition? Was this consultancy advertised or was it just plucked out of the air and given to KPMG as a nice juicy job?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is well versed in the nature of the British economy. She will recognise that against the background of growth which our flourishing economy provides, if the Government increase expenditure on schools by 4 per cent and have a target of 5 per cent for local authorities, generally the percentage expended on education in this country will rise over the lifetime of this period of our administration, as it did in the latter years before the last general election. So we are fulfilling our promise. That is why I chide noble Baronesses opposite who support positions which advocate tax cutting. They will recognise that there is a price to be paid in terms of the limits we can offer elsewhere. That is why we are determined to fulfil our priorities on education and health.
As to the extent to which by the end of this administration, after eight years of a Labour Government, we shall have moved up the league table as regards percentage of GDP spent on education, I merely indicate that I cannot give that precise figure. I do not know the performance elsewhere with great accuracy. However, we are moving up that league table. This is a commitment by the Government which is being fulfilled in this Statement. It is being fulfilled also in relation to the second question.
I apologise if, in the words of the noble Baroness, the Statement is convoluted. However, part of the difficulty is that we are seeking to guarantee that the money arrives in schools rather than, as she says, being wrapped up in bureaucracy. That involves very careful and selective targeting. Hence the difficulty.
As regards the noble Baroness's final point, I do not know how much KPMG was paid. I do know that this was put out to tender. It is helpful for schools to have assistance on effective budgeting.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and welcome unambiguously the prospect of additional cash for schools. Could any headteacher who is intelligent, who has read the

281
Statement and who has passed the examination in it draw any deductions now about the state of his budget next year in specific percentage terms?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, no doubt some headteachers will find that more difficult than others. Some run much more complex schools than others. However, the position is clear. We intend to increase the resources available to schools. We were hopeful that last year's position would be one in which all schools would receive benefit from the allocations made. Because of difficulties over certain aspects of finances and relationships with local authorities, it was not always the case that every school benefited in the way in which we would have liked. Now we are guaranteeing a basic 4 per cent floor for all schools. We are ensuring that schools which are in particular difficulty, are disadvantaged and running deficits receive additional help. Headteachers will certainly recognise that.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, clearly, the Statement has been produced because there have been real problems in schools and local authorities. Because of such problems all the formulas that Members find difficult to understand are contained here. It seems to me that what should be done at decent speed is for between 12 and 20 schools to have their budgets for the current year considered, for this document to be applied to them and for it to be shown how it will affect different schools. I refer to large schools, small schools, primary and secondary schools within different local authorities. People would then have an understanding of how the formula would work in relation to their school. Can the Minister achieve that?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is local flexibility for school governors and local authorities. Elements of flexibility need to be taken account which are dependent on local decisions, as is entirely proper in our education system. Certainly, we could draw up an example using two or three schools to indicate what this will mean to them. We cannot do that for every school in the country; it is not our role to do so. This is contingent on decisions which they take. As I tried to make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, the Statement contains good news for headteachers because the issues of underfunding are being addressed and resources are being made available.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I suggest that this is needed so that people know that it is good news.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was extremely apposite. We shall not know whether this is a good Statement until we hear the reaction of headteachers and local authorities. As someone who was chairman of a local education committee, albeit a long time ago, I know that school funding is complicated. It is based on extremely complicated formulae. For the first time in my recollection the
282
Secretary of State has given a full account of what he has done. He has had to do that because of the muddle that schools have been in. Teachers need to know quickly what their situation will be.
It seems to me that one statement made by the Minister regarding the fall in numbers was hugely significant. He said that rolls had dropped by 50,000 this year and will drop by another 50,000 next year. I expect that that will be cumulative. That drop in numbers will move year by year into secondary schools and there will be huge problems in funding. If we remember, the last time that school rolls fell, which was in the 1970s, the cost of the school remained the same but the number of pupils and the funding per pupil fell. So one hopes that anticipation of those problems is built into this Statement. I do not imagine that the noble Lord will be able to tell us whether that is so, but it would be absolutely essential.
I have one question for the noble Lord. Of the 4 per cent per pupil added on top of what had already been promised and the 5.5 per cent—I believe that that figure was mentioned—for other costs in the school, how much will be used up in salaries?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on the last point, as I indicated in response to an earlier question, as the noble Baroness will recognise, inevitably a substantial part of any school's budget—80 per cent for an average school—is used for staff costs. That is a significant element in its budget. We have taken account in the 4 per cent figure of expected additional staffing costs which will flow from the eventual settlement made by the teachers' salary review board.
On the more general issue of the very diffuse and difficult world of effective planning ahead, of the few figures given probably one is of school numbers. They fluctuate, but nevertheless we were able to anticipate that there would be 50,000 fewer pupils in junior schools. As the noble Baroness indicated, that reduction will flow through the system in due course.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I acknowledge that the Government's Statement is presented as an increase in expenditure to enable education authorities to balance their budgets more effectively and equitably. Is there any hope in the mind of the Government that nationwide there may be particular enhanced educational opportunities flowing from this expenditure? Perhaps I may make a specific inquiry, on which I would be happy to hear subsequently. Does the Minister anticipate that as a result of this there will be any increase in the availability of musical instruments being taught in schools?
Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, my Lords, the noble Lord has identified an area which has caused great concern in the past. We know about the enormous drop in the teaching of music in schools with the reduction of expenditure, both on full-time teachers employed in schools and peripatetic music teachers. I can say only that we are seeking to ensure that the education budgeting by schools and by local authorities will have far fewer problems than last year.

283
We have increased the amount of money available. The decisions on whether that then is. reflected in particular areas, such as the one on which the noble Lord expressed interest, is of course a matter for local decision. But I agree with him: it is an area for concern. I think that that view is shared widely in the community and in local authorities—and schools respond to community needs.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on what clearly is a considerable sum of extra money. It is difficult to understand how it has all been organised and cut for the different branches of the education system. The Minister has already indicated that special educational needs will have special attention. But what proportion of the extra money will be allocated to educationally deprived areas where—I would certainly argue—the cost of educating children is probably double the cost in other better equipped areas?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords., the noble Baroness speaks with considerable authority about these issues. I agree that they are important priorities. The Statement refers to the ethnic minority grant. It recognises that schools with a large number of ethnic minority students for whom often English is not the first language are an important priority. They need extra resources. That is why we are seeking to ensure that such resources are targeted. I very much agree with her.
The issue with regard to special educational needs is very much a decision for each local education authority. I can only attest to the fact that some of our difficulties last year were a reflection of some local authorities showing such a significant commitment to this group as to incur levels of investment and expenditure which is difficult to match year on year. We are ensuring that we do not see that figure drop, but we cannot expect enhancement at quite the level that occurred in some areas last year.

Criminal Justice Bill
4.16 p.m.
Report received.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATION OF PART 1 TO UNDER-EIGHTEENS
The provisions of the following sections shall not apply to persons under the age of 18—

(a) section 4;

(b) section 6;

(c) section 8; and

(d) section 9."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
We now reach the Report stage of this controversial Bill. The Marshalled List is littered with a vast number of government amendments. Sadly, the vast majority of those amendments are not in response to concerns expressed in Committee. The only exception to that observation relates to Part 9, and I generally welcome those amendments. Time is now running out for the Government to reach agreement on the Bill. We must all hope that they use that time wisely.
I turn to Amendment No. 1. Its purpose is to invite the Government to put their position in Part 1 on the record with regard to children. Some of the provisions of the Bill that we believe should not in some circumstances be applied to those under the age of 18 include, for example, Clause 4, involving the matter of street bail, Clause 6, entitled,
"Limits on period of detention without charge",
and Clauses 8 and 9, which are about taking fingerprints and non-intimate samples without consent.
We shall of course turn much later to the serious matter of whether young persons under the age of 18 should be subject to the mandatory sentences for murder in Schedule 19.
I have included these particular clauses in the amendment so that the Government can tell the House at the start of our deliberations what kind of response they will make to the serious objections that came from around the Committee about their plans for children.
I am aware that since Committee the Government have had some very constructive meetings with the Children's Society on these matters. Yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and I had a meeting with the Minister on the same issues. I hope that today she will be able to put forward some proposals that satisfy the House on these matters.
The response of the noble Baroness may mean that we can reduce the amount of time that would otherwise be needed for debate on this part. In particular, I would welcome an explanation of the guidance that will operate in respect of those under 18, and whether the Government have received an assurance from the Children's Society that the drafting of the guidance is now acceptable.
I have some additional questions on street bail. I have been requested by the Children's Society to put these questions to the noble Baroness. What arrangements have the Government made with regard to guidance on street bail as it affects young people? What alternative ways of policing low-level offending do the Government propose? Does the Minister accept that this could lead to a reduction in the need to use street bail at all? Is it really necessary for the whole arrest process to be completed for young persons? Does the Minister accept that it could be effective for young people to be taken home and given time to attend the police station with their parents or guardians? I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I support the amendment. The crux of the argument is this: the Government have set up a distinct youth justice system

285
and, in their Green Paper Youth Justice—The Next Steps, reiterate their basic approach as follows:
"When children and young people do become involved in crime we would continue to operate a distinct youth justice system broadly on present lines, with a clear and visible response to offending behaviour from age 10 upwards".
If that is so, why are the Government so reluctant to remove young people from some of the elements of the new legislation? One of the main themes in the Green Paper is,
"managing young remandees in ways which help to prevent the guilty reoffending".
If that is the case, keeping them in a police station for up to 36 hours and taking fingerprints without consent will not help. It is just treating the young person like a criminal, so the danger is that he will think that he might as well fulfil the prophecy.
Section 6 is the most serious issue. It increases the period of detention without charge for a non-serious arrestable offence to the same time that currently applies only to serious offences—an unwarranted escalation. The Minister says that it will be used only in unusual circumstances, but, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said in Committee, if the police cannot get their act together in 24 hours, they should send the person home. After all, by definition, we are talking about non-serious offences.
On street bail, my concern, like that of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is to keep young people out of police stations. But I am concerned that in the hurly-burly of the street it will be difficult for a police officer to operate all the safeguards appropriate to young people. During private meetings referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the Minister mentioned the guidance and training of police officers in that regard. However, it would be very helpful to your Lordships' House if she could give us some reassurance on the record today about how that would operate.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I, too, support the amendments. I have the same concern about children being expected to comply with systems set up for adults. It is not good enough for the Government to say that such powers will be used only in exceptional circumstances. When governments legislate, they should always look in their wing mirror for the less benign government that may come into power later. That is why it is so important to ensure that the ground rules are sensible and not likely to be abused. It is not good enough to legislate while saying, as we have heard repeatedly in the Bill, that the powers will be used only exceptionally. We cannot accept a promise from the Minister as one that will be held to by others who may follow in her footsteps.
I ask the Minister, whose life in the law has centred around issues connected with children, in particular to recognise the importance of separating children from adults for the very special reasons that we know should apply: their inexperience and vulnerability matter; therefore, we should give them special protection.
286
I happen to believe that there should be a separate system altogether for children and that they should be taken out of the criminal justice system. The Government certainly do not seek to be as bold as I would like them to be. I would have thought that a truly bold and modernising Labour government would have thought of doing that. I certainly would not have thought that one would wish to include children in some of the powers that the Bill affords to the police and the authorities. I ask the Government to think again.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords—
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I, too, support the amendment. I, too, have received from the Children's Society and others notice of their concern that the Bill is flawed at a number of points—both here and in later amendments—in its assimilation of children into the criminal justice system that it is creating for adults.
I wish to amplify the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that powers intended for exceptional use might be used by a less benign future administration if they are built into a statute. We know that the relationship between the generations in society is not always healthy. The pressure of rhetoric and journalism to move towards a less benign attitude towards children and their discipline is not just something that we might hypothesise could happen under a future administration; it is a very present reality.
Even this Government could not ignore the pressures, if another notorious case involving children arose, to deal with them by a reflex response that would subject them to methods of discipline and punishment inappropriate for use against children. That pressure is a present reality. Noble Lords must, therefore, be very vigilant at every point in the Bill where children are being drawn into the criminal justice system. We should be very clear that there are safeguards against present—not future—popular acclaim for a kind of toughness that I doubt is always appropriate for adults and is certainly not appropriate for children.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, concern has been expressed from almost all sides of the House. The police have wide discretion, particularly on arrest and bail. Have the guidance notes made them aware of the importance of how the powers are used, bearing in mind that previous monitoring of similar exercises shows a tendency to pick on particular racial groups? That seems to feature prominently later in the criminal justice process.
I take it that, as with normal bail, the presumption is that a person will be granted street bail unless the offence is very serious. If that is the case, is it necessary to proceed with the arrest of youngsters when they could be taken home, as the Children's Society mentioned, and their parents or respective adult asked

287
to appear with them at the police station at an appropriate time, rather than starting a criminal process so early?
Lord Corbett of Castile Vale: My Lords, I share the general concerns voiced around your Lordships' House. But there is a danger that we are not paying enough attention to other things gong on, well ahead of any criminal justice system, affecting under 18 year-olds.
From my experience as an MP, there were children as young as 13 and 14 who I might otherwise flippantly suggest were orphans— I knew that they were not— whose behaviour was menacing and frightening to everyone who lived around them. So I do not think that we should get starry-eyed about what happens on the ground in too many areas of the country. However, one would hope that by the time anyone under the age of 18 was even considered for what is proposed in this part of the Bill, other things would have happened. The Youth Justice Board, which enjoys support throughout your Lordships' House, is in place and there are attempts at earlier intervention through schools with parenting orders and other such things.
I am saying only that we should consider these things in the round. In doing so, we should recognise that there will be some circumstances—and one hopes that there will be few—when to have a cut-off that says that none of these powers can be used unless the person concerned is 18 will encourage some people to behave badly. Some Members of your Lordships' House may have anecdotal experience of children as young as nine taunting police officers saying "You can't touch me and 1 know that". They boast about it. I wish to add that note of caution to this debate.
The Minister of State, Home Office(Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Corbett for reminding us of the reality of what happens on the ground and for bringing a sense of balance to our discussion. All Members of this House are totally committed to making sure that children have the right sort of support, guidance and assistance, and my noble friend is right to say that we must set that in the context of all that has been done—with the Youth Justice Board, the opportunities that we are providing in this Bill and others and in the system that we have provided to give children a proper alternative to the behaviour that some of them regrettably exhibit. The Government are not being starry eyed about children. We are seeking to address their needs in a proportionate way.
I also hear what my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws says about recognising the importance of separating children from adults. Noble Lords will know that, in many places in the Bill, that is precisely what the Government have done. We have sought to provide a proper protective net for children so that we differentiate in an appropriate way. I also hear what my noble friend says about not being able to dictate if there is a less benign government. I hope that I will be forgiven for saying that, at the moment, that does not seem entirely likely.
288
I very much take on board what was said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Walmsley, about needing a proper discussion at this stage and placing on record the sorts of aspirations and expectations that we are putting in place. Amendment No. 1 would exclude persons under the age of 18 from the important changes to PACE contained in Clauses 4, 6, 8 and 9. All those clauses are designed to make important contributions to the effectiveness of police investigations, the improvement of police efficiency and the whole process of dealing with and reducing crime. Tackling juvenile crime is at the core of that process and completely exempting this group from the changes we are proposing would significantly lessen their impact.
I take on board what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester said about the tendency of some people to treat children with a reflex response that is all about discipline and punishment. We do not believe that to be the right approach and it is not in evidence in the Bill. However, unfortunately, juveniles commit a very high proportion of crime and they are responsible for a great deal of reoffending. Latest available figures show that 25 per cent of the total notifiable arrests were of juveniles and that 26 per cent of convicted juveniles were reconvicted within a year.
Clause 4 provides the police with the option to grant bail to arrested people without the need to take them to a police station. The key aim here is to keep more officers on patrol for longer periods so that they are visible to the public and can deter and deal with crime. We fully recognise that officers must apply careful discretion in deciding whether to grant street bail and that is particularly important where juveniles are concerned.
The draft guidance, agreed with representatives from children's charities following proceedings in Committee, emphasises the special considerations necessary in relation to juveniles before, during and after the granting of street bail. For example, it is particularly critical in relation to a juvenile that the officer is satisfied that the juvenile fully understands the process and what is happening.
The welfare of juveniles is a prime consideration and that means listening to what they have to say about their particular circumstances and taking into account factors such as the time of day and any possible risks the juvenile may face from parents or other carers. Arrested juveniles are entitled to the support of an appropriate adult at the police station and that would apply in the same way when they answer to street bail. The Government seek to give the officer an opportunity to exercise his or her discretion in a way that could inure to the advantage of the juvenile. Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Walmsley, said that they would not wish to see juveniles unnecessarily detained in police stations if there were no good reason for that. I absolutely agree.
Clause 6 increases senior officers' discretion so that they can authorise extended detention up to 36 hours in relation to a broader range of offences. The existing 24-hour limit means that the police can be forced to rush through investigations or content themselves with

289
a lower quality of evidence than might have been achievable if more time had been available. The use of the extended power is likely to be particularly relevant in cases of street robbery or when the police have to deal with a large of number of suspects. It would be wholly inappropriate to exempt juveniles in view of their regular involvement in offences of this nature.
We want this provision to help to ensure the successful investigation of offences. The key safeguard is the requirement for a senior officer of at least superintendent rank to make the decision in each individual case. In addition, the guidance we have drafted in relation to this provision stresses that detaining a juvenile beyond 24 hours will be justifiable only in exceptional circumstances or when the offence is indeed a serious one. The guidance emphasises the need to have strong regard to juveniles' special vulnerability and to seek and consider the views of the appropriate adult protecting their interests.
Clauses 8 and 9 involve amendments to Sections 61 and 63 of PACE and will allow the police to take fingerprints and a non-intimate sample from all persons arrested for a recordable offence and detained at a police station as a matter of routine. It is important that the police can take fingerprints quickly in order to prevent persons who may have previously come into contact with the criminal justice system from evading justice by giving the police a false identity and also for the police to be aware of any persons who may pose a risk to themselves or to others. That is a real problem in many cases. Sometimes it is necessary to take protective measures because of the innate vulnerability of that person, but the police can take them only if they know who they are.
Establishing the true identity of a juvenile, or even that the person is a juvenile, is vitally important both for the individual and the police officers dealing with them. The fingerprints and the profile obtained from the non-intimate sample can be checked against the two databases to see whether they match any taken from a crime scene. Potentially, that will allow more crimes to be resolved at an earlier stage.
Many young people who may be arrested as juveniles are not charged and may never go on to commit an offence. However, it is difficult for the police to distinguish between those who may or may not commit a crime in the future. It is, therefore, a sensible precaution to retain DNA profiles as a norm. Retaining an arrested person's fingerprints and non-intimate sample, whether it is a juvenile or an adult, as the norm is proportionate to the benefits to society and the prevention and detection of crime. Law-abiding citizens have no reason to be concerned about their fingerprints and samples being retained on the databases. The law already makes it clear that their use is restricted to the prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution. The DNA profiles on the database of persons who have not been convicted of an offence have a marker to indicate that. The profiles of persons who have been arrested but not charged will also carry a marker to that effect.
290
The National DNA Database is not a criminal record. Just over 5 per cent of the 2 million profiles on the database are of individuals who have not been convicted of an offence. DNA profiles and the personal identification data associated with them are held by the laboratories that analyse them and the custodian of the National DNA Database. The laboratories and the custodian are subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, and their databases are registered with the Information Commissioner. Personal data are kept securely and are accessed only on the authorisation of a designated person.
I do not think that there is a sufficient case to exempt juveniles from any of the important changes. Doing so would seriously dilute their effectiveness and the guidance and safeguards to which I referred will help to ensure that there is no adverse impact on juveniles resulting from their special vulnerabilities. On that basis, I hope that I have given a full explanation of the reasons why we think that our response is proportionate. I hope that the noble Baronesses will not press the relevant amendments.
Clause 6 will enable the investigative process at the police station to be completed effectively in the best interests of ensuring successful outcomes in the Criminal Justice system. Amendment No. 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, would defeat that objective by continuing to limit detention beyond 24 hours to those offences deemed "serious arrestable". There are circumstances relating to a broader range of offences in which additional time will be necessary to achieve a successful outcome. Consideration must be given on a case-by-case basis and on the decision of a senior police officer, namely a superintendent or above.
The application of the new power will be considered on an exceptional basis, and the officer requesting or authorising any increased period will have to consider what circumstances merit the use of the new power. Although we are authorising extended detention for a broader range of offences, the circumstances of the case are the determining factors, rather than the type of offence. That is an important distinction. We do not want to use the power as a blanket; we want it used only if and when it is absolutely necessary. That approach meets our broader objective of allowing senior officers the relevant discretion for a set of offences that fall below the highest level of seriousness. That is an important distinction and should be emphasised.
Amendment No. 11 would have an adverse impact on that approach, as well as the undesirable consequence of reducing the existing scope for extended detention. Restricting the extended period of detention to indictable-only offences would reduce the number of offences that benefit from the longer period before charge. For example, the offence of theft is triable either way. Under PACE, it may be deemed a serious arrestable offence depending on the scale of loss to the victim or level of gain to the offender. The amendment would take away investigative powers already available to the police.

291
I was asked to emphasise the relevant parts of the guidance. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about that. The guidance emphasises that use of the power is, generally, unlikely to be justified in more than a relatively small set of circumstances. Specifically, its use in investigations involving juveniles and other vulnerable groups should be considered only on a wholly exceptional basis. It is also important to remember that the Human Rights Act 1998 gives additional protection.
I was asked why we did not just allow the police officer to take the child home on bail. We have made it clear that, if someone is arrested, they will generally be taken to a police station from where they may ultimately be bailed, unless the circumstances make street bail the right step to take. A key purpose of police bail is to enable officers to stay out.
I hope that I have said enough and have been as comprehensive as both noble Baronesses wanted me to be. I hope that I have satisfied them that everything that should be on the record is now on the record and is consistent with the conversations that we have enjoyed for months.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, invited us not to be starry-eyed. As somebody who chaired a youth court for several years before coming to the House, I assure him that I am not. In a youth court, one sees before one a procession, sadly, of dead eyes. They are the eyes of people who are dead to the world around them and have no care for what it can do to them.
I took to heart the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. We must be wary of drawing children into a system that is designed for adults. We must be careful that, when children and those under the age of 18 commit something that is defined as an offence, we treat them appropriately, taking account of the fact that they are children and may need treatment different from that required for others who have committed a similar offence.
I am grateful to the Minister for doing exactly as I invited her to do and hoped that she would. She has put on record a clear explanation of the discussions that have been held and of the Government's position on the matter. She will not be surprised if I say that, although she has gone a long way to meet my concerns, I must ask the Children's Society and other children's groups whether they believe that there is anything further that should be brought back at Third Reading. That may not be the case, and we may address such further concerns in other amendments. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO SEARCH FOR FIREARMS
If a police constable has reason to believe that a person or persons in a particular area may be carrying firearms, he may arrange—

(a) for the area to be sealed off; and

292

(b) for the searching for firearms of any people or vehicles in that area, by whatever means he considers appropriate."

The noble Lord said: I originally moved the amendment in March last year, when we were discussing the Police Reform Bill. I shall not apologise to the House for moving a similar amendment to this Bill. The purpose of the amendment is unchanged: it is to assist the police to detect guns and remove them from the street before they are used and to demonstrate to an increasingly scared urban population that they are doing so.
The need for the amendment is more acute than it was a year and a half ago. Guns are pouring into the underworld and on to the streets. Many, we now learn, come from political criminals in Northern Ireland. Gun crime over here is becoming an ever-greater threat. On average, every day, there are 28 firearms offences in England and Wales. That does not include airguns, which, in general, have a less serious effect. Thirty years ago, the figure was 15 offences a week.
That total of more than 10,000 firearm offences in 2002–03 is double that of 1998–99, which is the first year that the Government could be regarded as having any responsibility. On average, two people are murdered each week with guns. The great bulk of firearm crimes—some 60 per cent—are committed with handguns. So much for the value of the highly controversial legislation requiring all licensed handguns to be handed in.
The Government were right to try the two-month amnesty for guns earlier this year, which netted the hand-in of 44,000 guns, which, to me, is an astonishing figure. But I doubt whether more than the tiniest fraction of those guns were handed in by criminals. The time has come for the police to go out and seek illegal guns. My amendment would help them do so. The greatest part of gun crime—68 per cent—is committed in three police areas; that is, London, Manchester and the West Midlands. In each of those areas, gun crime is increasing at a rate of more than 40 per cent per year.
Last year, the Minister who replied was the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. I see that he is here. Perhaps he has come to reply again. I hope that he has a different brief to the one he had last year. He said that there were sufficient powers to stop and search and that my amendment was unnecessary. I found his argument unconvincing. He quoted no less than five Acts of Parliament which, in certain circumstances, might allow the police to search people for weapons, stolen property or other prohibitive articles. I am sure that there are twiddly bits of the law which, in many cases, could justify the police searching when they suspect that there are guns. Of course, there are powers to stop and search if a police officer thinks that someone is carrying a firearm. But that is not what my amendment is about.
One of the Acts that the Minister quoted was the Terrorism Act 2000. The amendment has nothing to do with terrorism. It is to do with gun crime, which is escalating at an ever-increasing rate. I am no lawyer, but I believe that it is inappropriate—to put it mildly— to use legislation enacted for one purpose for

293
something that is quite different. I want the police to have a clear, unambiguous legal mandate to act. The Minister said last year that the police have not asked for that power; more is the pity. Eighteen months later, they may take a different view.
In passing, one might note that a few years ago the police did not favour the introduction of identity cards. Now, the present Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is frequently quoted publicly as asking for them. The Government are in the process of discussing the matter, but, as I understand it, have not yet convinced the entire Cabinet.
My amendment would do two things. First, it would send out a message that the Government are deadly serious about the criminal use of firearms and that they are determined to take any action that will reduce such crime by making the possession of a gun—real or replica—on the streets a very risky undertaking. Publicity would be given to these new powers; the high-profile use of the powers would send a fresh message to those carrying guns that it has become more risky to do so. When I say, "risky", I mean, "risky": there would be both a greater probability of being caught and the penalties would be much higher.
In Clause 265, the Government have inserted a five-year mandatory sentence for the illegal possession of firearms. Whatever one's view of the Government laying down mandatory minimum sentences, people with guns—especially if they are caught carrying them on the street—will face very unpleasant consequences. It is no slight argument that my amendment would reassure a public who have become more and more sceptical of the practical protection that they are receiving from this Government's much vaunted, but now rather tired, slogan: "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime". The toughness is becoming almost cosmetic. It is rather like those television shows of all-in wrestling where the actors always survive to fight another day.
Secondly, when there is reason to suspect that someone in a particular area may be carrying a firearm, the police could seal off that area and make a rapid scan. In the case of pedestrians, the use of hand-held metal detectors, with which everyone is immensely familiar at airports and so forth, is obviously a largely foolproof and non-invasive method. I agree that searching cars would be more difficult. There would be different problems.
I recognise that sometimes when those carrying guns—perhaps in a club—become aware of a police operation, they might seek to dump the guns. That should enable the police to recover the guns, which is a primary objective of the exercise. The use of the powers would take time to develop, but police forces have the initiative, intelligence and local knowledge to develop techniques for using those powers effectively.
Last year, I quoted from a powerful speech made by the Labour Member of Parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Diane Abbott, in which she said:
"gun crime is casting a terrible shadow over my constituents".— [OfficialReport, Commons, 28/2/02; col. 939]
It is to deal with that disturbing statement, made by someone who knows all too well what they are talking about, that my amendment seeks to make a contribution. Anyone who saw, as I did, the brilliant, but chilling play, "Fallout" by Roy Williams, about crime subculture in some parts of London, will realise the crucial role of handguns in that culture.
I spoke to Diane Abbott yesterday. She said that next week a Back Bench committee on gun crime, which she chairs, will be publishing its report. It will indicate that the Government need to do much more to deal with gun crime. Therefore, if my amendment is accepted, I hope that it will receive a reasonably favourable reception when it goes back to the other place.
We must also learn from the USA where, sadly, due to a misplaced phrase in the Constitution, gun law still rules in many areas. I am thinking of the success of the tough regime of the former mayor of New York, Rudolf Giuliani. Since 1994, more than 90,000 guns have been seized from the streets. Shootings have plummeted by more than 74 per cent. Those who visit New York know that it has changed from being the murder capital of the world to being the safest large city in the United States. Thank God, we have nothing like that level of gun crime here. But, in Britain's cities, it is moving in the wrong direction.
The Minister ended his reply last year saying that the Government are always happy to take another look at such proposals and that these matters should be kept under review. Nineteen months later, I believe that the time has come for action. That is why, if the Home Office, through the Government, continues to resist the acceptance of my suggestion, I may wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has raised the important issue of gun crime, which is so prevalent in the inner-city areas of our country. He rightly described areas such as Greater Manchester, the West Midlands and London. We see repeated headlines about ordinary citizens being victims of gun crime, gun crime related to drugs and a gun culture which has destroyed the lives of so many young people.
The newly emergent culture of black-on-black gun crime has followed the pattern of what happened in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Gun crime is obviously on the increase. The fear among ordinary people is now greater than ever before. Despite the number of guns handed in at the time of the gun amnesty, it did little to improve the situation. Even though we have high-profile policing, people now feel unsafe on our streets. 1 therefore believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has done a public duty by focusing attention on the issue.
One has only to move among the communities of our inner cities to see that black people are as often the victims as anyone else in those areas. Many ordinary citizens, lawfully resident here, have asked how many times they will have to attend the funerals of their young people before the carnage that is destroying innocent lives is controlled.

295
However, I have some serious concerns about the wider implications of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Its impact on some sections of our community could be counter-productive. Let us imagine sealing off an area such as Brixton, Broadwater Farm or Handsworth. The police would have the power to search anyone in those areas for firearms using any "appropriate means". A large number of people in certain racial groups will be affected. I do not doubt that innocent people have nothing to fear, but I suspect that caution is necessary.
The use of stop and search powers has blighted good relations between the police and ethnic minority communities. Even if there was a clear-cut link between the use of stop and search powers and crime rates, there could be no argument. The statistics show that black people are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched than are while people, a disparity which has created a worsening relationship between the police and the black community. It is difficult to exaggerate the damage which such a proposal may cause. It would further alienate young black and Asian people from the police and the criminal justice process.
The way forward must be to draw on the experience of the police towards a fairer and more effective use of police powers. We should make better-targeted use of the stop and search powers, more use of intelligence rather than a blanket approach to incidents which in the past has resulted in serious disturbances. Black and Asian people are as ready as white people to endorse police action if it is properly applied; such action would find public consent. However, the amendment would revert to the old practices. We have already thrown out the baby with the bath water; I do not believe that we need to throw the bath water back in.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will reflect on these points. Let me say that existing legislation already gives police constables very wide powers. If the suspicion relates to terrorism, powers are already set out in the Anti-terrorism., Crime and Security Act 2001. However, those powers do not seem to have helped to solve the problem.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gun Crime is just about to publish its report. If at all possible, we should await the recommendations of that report and then decide on the appropriate course of action. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for raising this issue, but I hope he will understand that we shall not be able to support this amendment.
5 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am in no position to comment on the extent of the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has spoken, but surely this amendment is ridiculously far too wide-ranging to deal with it. First, it applies whenever a constable has reason to believe that a person is carrying a firearm, even when he is carrying it legally. If I am carrying my shotgun, perfectly legally, to my car, that would trigger this clause.
296
Secondly, no definition is made of the size of the areas which could be sealed off. Perhaps, in a somewhat Freudian fashion, the noble Lord referred to the "areas" of London and Manchester. Is he suggesting that the whole of London is to be sealed? The noble Lord shakes his head, but what is a particular area? Would Westminster be one of those areas? No limit is put on the size and scope of a place that may be sealed off.
Thirdly, once an area has been sealed off, a police constable may search any person or any vehicle, regardless of whether the people or the vehicles are those which he had reason to believe might be carrying the gun. I know that textual criticisms are perhaps not that favourably received in this House, but before one confers a power such as this, one must have some regard to the practicalities and to reasonableness.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is the noble Lord only intervening with a question?
Lord Monson: Yes, my Lords. I simply wanted to ask my noble friend whether he was aware that a shotgun is not classified as a firearm.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I was not aware of that, but the point I wanted to make was that I could still be searched even if I were carrying my licensed firearm. Perhaps my example was inappropriate and I apologise for that.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we are much indebted to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for having raised this issue. No one can doubt that there is great public concern about the growth in crime associated with and involving the use of firearms. It is certainly right for us to consider whether there is a case to be made for the police to be given powers which they do not have at present in order to deal with this menace.
I believe that there are two questions to be answered. First, is any new power required? Even if one responds to that by saying, "No", there is the second question, which is: would it be desirable, in order to seek to calm public fears, to restate the law in very plain terms?
It is worth recalling our almost interminable debates on whether it was necessary to give the police new powers under the road traffic Acts to stop vehicles in order to test whether people had taken alcohol. We debated whether there should be a power to set up road-blocks, and a power to stop people on a random basis and then to test them. I was always firmly against any new powers being taken. First, I did not think it was necessary. I was convinced that, under the road traffic Acts, the police already had the power to stop any car, at any time, for any reason; and, secondly, I certainly did not think that it would be good for relations between the police and the public if we were to write such a power into the statute book, thus encouraging the public to criticise the police because it might be used oppressively. It was far better to leave

297
things as they were and allow the police to use their existing powers, which were in fact very much more potent than the public believed.
The question we must address today is, first, whether there are sufficient powers. I am sure that the Minister will address most of her remarks to that point. If she were to reply that there are such powers, but that they are set out in this and that statute and some are rather difficult to explain to the public, then I would ask her to address my second question: would it not be wise to restate some of those powers in very plain terms so that the public may be assured that, under certain circumstances, it would be possible, in an emergency, for the police to set up a cordon and stop every person entering the area to check whether he was carrying a firearm? I should have thought that the police have those powers already, but I should like the Minister to explain the present law.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I join in the general welcome given to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for tabling this amendment. We must remind ourselves of the deep public concern over the growth of the criminal use of firearms. I should say, and here I chide my noble friend just a little, that part of that frustration is reflected in the long length of time it has taken the police to put into effect the National Firearms Certificate Holders Register, which passed into law in 1997. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has been active in ensuring that the database is taken seriously. In a sense it is beyond belief that it has taken so long, and that there is no up-to-date national record of those holding firearms, those who have applied for licence renewals and whether they have been granted or refused a licence. It is quite incredible and I simply remind my noble friend of the position along the route to what I really want to say.
After the tragic events at the start of this year involving the murders of the two sisters in Birmingham, I can attest to the enormous concern of everyone living in that part of the city about those wasted lives and those of others which, unhappily, have followed since. I am quite sure that it is the case that, in general, within the major cities of this country, the police have a fair idea of where illegal firearms are likely to be held. I am quite sure also that the police respond as best they can to public concerns over these issues.
However, we know from experience of dealing with crime that successful detection comes from two main sources. First—although this may sound like a truism it cannot be stated often enough—it comes from community co-operation, a lack of which is perhaps the single biggest impediment to a better clear-up rate. I am not knocking the police—there are all kinds of reasons why these things happen—but any police officer will immediately attest to the fact that their success in the job that they are doing in policing the areas to which they are attached comes from the support given by the local community.
Again in the area of the City of Birmingham that I had the privilege to represent, a turn-round in public attitudes and support for what the police were doing to combat
298
those dealing with drugs has led to an 85 per cent drop in drug dealing on the streets. The community, which was doing all kinds of other things at the same time, felt strong enough to say to the police, "This is the evidence that you need to deal with this problem. We expect you to deal with it and to achieve results". There have been some very dramatic results. As I said, the rates of known drug dealing—not drug use—have fallen dramatically.
On the back of that community co-operation comes intelligence. It is well known in another context—and noble Lords will forgive me if they feel I am trying to teach them to suck eggs; I am not—that the regular patrolling of streets by large numbers of police officers is perhaps not the most effective way of dealing with crime. I remember being informed that a police officer would have to patrol a street for 30 years in order to witness a burglary taking place.
Policing is becoming much more intelligence led and much more targeted. We have now the benefits of automatic number plate recognition—and, with that, the photographing of those at the wheel of such vehicles—which is being regularly used at all ports in this country. It is of immense use in the effort to combat a whole range of criminal activities.
The point I am making is that on the back of better community support and on the back of the technology that can aid the targeting, use and collection of intelligence, the police are likely to have a better chance of recovering illegally held firearms.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that we must be very careful in many areas because of their ethnic composition; we must ensure that these measures are not misunderstood. I hope that your Lordships will not misunderstand what I am saying—I am sure that you will not—because a crime is a crime and I do not care about the ethnic background of whoever is proven to be responsible for it. But, having said that, we have to show some sensitivity and there is always a danger that a random sweep can do far more damage than good, although the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is to be wholly commended.
As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said, I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure the House that there are powers available to enable the police to deal with specific situations where they believe that in a particular house at a particular time there is likely to be a person or persons with firearms.
The only other thing that I wish to say is that it is not my intention to speak on every amendment before the House.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment but I agree with my noble friend Lord Bledisloe that it is far too widely drawn. Perhaps I may offer a couple of suggestions to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. It seems to me that he should specify a particular rank of police officer who could authorise such a proceeding and that he might pay some thought to the searching of premises as well as of people and vehicles. I accept that that may require an even higher degree of authorisation. I hope that the noble Lord will keep trying.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is of course possible to identify a superficial blemish or inadequacy here and there in my noble friend's amendment, but that is not really the point with which your Lordships will wish to be concerned.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Waddington that my noble friend Lord Marlesford has rendered a service to the House by drawing attention to an issue to which we could so readily become wearily resigned—that is, the proliferation on our streets of illegal weapons, illegal firearms. It would be easy to accept that this situation is with us and that it will get worse and worse and it is important that this proliferation should be drawn to our attention. That is what the amendment does.
We heard on a previous occasion—we have been reminded of it today—that the Government's response has been, "Oh well, these powers are available. They are here and they are there—notably in the prevention of terrorism legislation''. We are seeing what might be called "powers creep"—that is, the use of powers under the prevention of terrorism legislation in circumstances for which they were never intended to be made available and in which, perhaps, they are unlawfully used. Not long ago, an incident where this was alleged to have happened—I believe in London— elicited an apology from on high.
It is not enough to say that the Prevention of Terrorism Act will allow people in most circumstances to intervene in the way the amendment seeks to authorise. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that there is already a specific power readily discernible in a single Act which enables this action to be taken, or, alternatively, give a sympathetic response to a very helpful amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I, too, take the view that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is doing the House a service in raising this issue for debate. He is right not to apologise for his persistence in doing so year on year.
I would add to his argument by reminding the House that, in the cities mentioned during the earlier part of the debate, those who have to deal with cases in the magistrate's court, in particular, when they come for first hearing, find that virtually no potential witness is willing to attend the court to give evidence of what has occurred. Those are real issues.
However, under the non-terrorism provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 there is very extensive redefinition, codification arid extension of the powers available to the police and other control authorities to obtain information by covert as well as overt means which will lead, it is to be hoped, to the arrest of those concerned in the proliferation of firearms, particularly handguns.
300
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that, for what it is worth, in my experience of murder and manslaughter cases—even in those committed with firearms—a significant proportion of the homicides are domestic rather than related to major crime, and the statistics should be viewed in that light.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—I have to reflect that this is the third time in a fortnight that I have found myself agreeing with him, which is probably a sign of increasing age rather than anything else—and I should like to add to what he said along the same theme. As he reminded the House, there has been a problem recently in relation to the exercise of the powers under Sections 44 and 45 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in relation to the defence exhibition in London— DSEI, as it is called for short. If one looks at what has occurred in relation to the exercise of those powers, one thing becomes apparent immediately, in my view. The police already have extensive powers to stop and search. They actually have, if properly applied, all the powers which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, would probably want if he were to analyse them with great care, to achieve the ends he wishes to meet, but there is a comprehension gap in the police.
I urge the Minister who replies to the debate to tell the House that the Government are making ongoing efforts to ensure that the police constable who is referred to in the noble Lord's amendment—which includes the constable who is there on the beat, often at a moment of tension, and is sometimes brought from another force to an area about which he knows little— understands the options open to him. There are options for stopping and searching under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. There are options for stopping and searching under the Terrorism Act 2000. Indeed, there is not just one set of options for stopping and searching under the Terrorism Act 2000, but multiple sets of options. Other options for stopping and searching are open to police officers.
I have inquired recently into whether there is a sort of menu or guide which enables constables to understand the choices they have to make. They may stop under one option but find that the search they carry out comes under another. For example, they may stop under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act because of possible terrorism, but may reach a decision that they do not want to search for terrorist material—which is all they can search for under Section 45 of the Terrorism Act—and instead may wish to search for firearms or for dangerous drugs. Therefore, they have to decide that their search should continue under another set of legislative provisions.
This is difficult for a police constable. I urge the Government and, indeed, ACPO, encouraged by the Government, to take steps to ensure that the bobby on the beat, if I can use that old-fashioned phrase, knows what his choices are. Otherwise he and his force will face expensive and hugely time-consuming civil action by those against whom they may have had reasonable suspicions but happened to use the wrong piece of legislation.

301
In summary, I suggest that the powers are there, we can achieve the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, but there needs to be a greater understanding of how the kit that is available can be used to best effect.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I join other Members of the House in thanking my noble friend Lord Marlesford for tabling this amendment. While it is not a perfect amendment, if nothing else, it serves a very useful function in drawing out the debate in a very constructive way. When my noble friend last introduced a similar amendment, I supported the principle, and I do so again today.
I readily acknowledge that there is already a plethora of law dealing with guns, particularly illegal guns, and of course the police have many powers that they can use. But so much of the law that we pass today is simply a regurgitation of existing law, because existing law is either not sufficiently understood or not sufficiently applied. So, as legislators, we make another attempt and draft a new provision, which is what my noble friend is trying to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, hit the nail on the head when he said that the plethora of existing law is very often difficult for the policeman on the beat, who faces the problem of a suspected criminal in a particular situation and has to deal with it. He has to have the law behind him in his actions, otherwise he cannot act. He has to know what he is doing, and police training is fundamental.
Whether we should have a new law is ultimately a matter of judgment. The Government may well say, as they have said before, that they need not do this now and there is plenty of existing law. But if my noble friend is sufficiently persistent, I suspect that he may win the day. It may not be today, it may not be this year or next year, but possibly in two or three years' time, if—and this is the point—the problems of gun crime in our communities, particularly our conurbations, continue to become bigger and more difficult, causing greater and greater concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that so much of this, sadly, is black on black crime. He cannot protest about that and then protest about the use of targeted intelligence which leads to stop-and-search operations, possibly stopping and searching black people more often than white. If that is where the crime is—and that is where the majority of gun crime, sadly, appears to be—targeted intelligence will mean that inevitably, in certain areas, blacks will have to be searched more often than whites. The police, regrettably, have to face potential community odium in order to do their job. They have my sympathy.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, rightly criticised the rather wide scope of the amendment. He was concerned about what the police might do if he were marching down Piccadilly with a gun and seemed to assume that they would immediately act to shut the area down. That is highly unlikely; if he were to do so, a policeman might well tap him on the shoulder, say,
302
"Excuse me, sir, but may I see your licence?" and nothing more would happen. But if a policeman on the beat happens to see a man who he has strong reasons to suspect is carrying a gun going into a restaurant, what is he to do about it? It is necessary not just to know whom he saw going in with the gun but possibly to search everybody else because the guy who walked in with a gun might subsequently have handed it to somebody else who might have handed it to a third person. The issue is not straightforward.
The debate around the amendment has been extremely useful, and I await the Government's reply with interest. We have lots of law that could deal with this matter but the reality is that, in many parts of our more urban communities, that law is not seen to be a success. It may be, in part, a failure of community attitude—I thought that was a very useful comment. If the community wills a safe and crime-free community, on the whole, after a time, they get it. That is part of the difficulty.
This has been a very useful debate. The principle of the amendment should be supported on the basis of restating, in simple language which everybody can understand, a position which is wrapped up in the existing law in so many different ways.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness; she may have decided that after such a full and rounded debate, I should not speak, but I am going to disappoint her and go ahead—albeit very briefly, she will be relieved to hear.
I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important matter. He is right: there is a great concern among the public about the illegal use of firearms. If the Government believe that my noble friend's objective is already adequately covered by other legislation, I would, like others, be grateful if the Minister could quote chapter and verse so that we can be assured that the amendment is not necessary. I listened with great care and interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I agree with him that there is a comprehension gap, so we may need to have something that clearly puts into legislation the kind of precautions that my noble friend seeks.
My noble friend referred to Diane Abbott, who chairs the All-Party Gun Crime Group. I should declare an unpaid interest as one of her vice-chairs— probably her most useless vice-chair, because as a consequence of having to sit so many days in your Lordships' House on this and other Bills, I have not contributed one iota to the admirable report that is about to be published next week. I rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but I must do so on this occasion, because I would not necessarily have to wait until the publication of that report to support my noble friend's amendment today.
My noble friend is right to seek assurances today and, if necessary, if he feels that those assurances have not been adequately given, he is right to want to test the opinion of the House. If he does so, I shall of course

303
support him. Naturally, one must seek to take up whatever time there is in a Bill that is passing through to get a point across. He may have to wait several years before the Government introduce another Criminal Justice Bill. I hope so, although I do not have much real hope of that. Perhaps when the Minister responds, her first words will be words of joy—that there will be no Criminal Justice Bill in the next Session.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, if only it were so.
I join those who say that this has been a good short debate, and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for raising the issue. However, he will have a reply in a different voice and tone, but it will be the same message.
Several noble Lords made their points eloquently, and I shall not recite them. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, with the pithy dissection made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, with the comments of my noble friend Lord Corbett and the comprehensive recitation given to us so well by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on the powers already available.
I should say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, because I believe that he misunderstood the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The import of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was that the issue of gun crime is a matter of importance to all our communities, and the black and minority ethnic community is no exception, because they have had the vice of gun crime visited on them. There was no suggestion that it was disproportionate in its occurrence to white gun crime, but simply that they joined together in the pain visited on the community, and that we can expect the same sympathy, anger and concern from the black and minority ethnic community as from any other part.
The disproportionality to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, alluded to did not come from the nature of the offence. It is important that we make that distinction, because I am sure that other noble Lords would not want the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, to be misunderstood. I certainly did not misunderstand him.
When this matter was raised earlier, in relation to the Police Reform Bill, my noble friend Lord Bassam in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, set out the extensive powers that have again been referred to in passing during our short debate. For example, he referred to the powers under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and various provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000. Those have already been alluded to, so I shall not recite them again. In addition, Section 47 of the Firearms Act 1968 enables a constable to require the handing over of the firearm and any ammunition for examination so that he may ascertain whether the firearm is real or imitation, what type of firearm it is, whether it is loaded, or whether the ammunition is suitable for use in the firearm.
304
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, with his usual delicacy and kindness, referred to the amendment as having certain superficial blemishes. I acknowledge that kindness, but regrettably, on this occasion, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, had it correctly. The amendment has a number of fundamental flaws. During the earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, recognised the existence of these powers, but emphasised that he saw a need for powers to seal off areas to facilitate searching. On that specific point, we remain unconvinced that what is proposed is a proportionate response to the issue, for all the reasons given earlier by other noble Lords.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Government are fully committed to supporting the police in their efforts to tackle gun crime, which is a scourge. It is important to ensure that the police have the necessary powers available to them. Our developing programme to tackle gun crime includes tackling the links to drug supply and crime, through initiatives such as the Criminal Justice Interventions Programme and the National Crack Plan; reducing the supply and availability of firearms; effective police operations to drive down firearm offences; tough laws and effective enforcement; and engaging the worst affected communities to address the underlying gun culture. This Bill includes proposals for a five-year mandatory sentence for illegal possession of prohibited firearms.
However, we do not believe that it would be right to go as far as allowing for whole areas to be sealed off merely because a constable reasonably believed that some person within their area was carrying a firearm, even when there was no perception of any immediate danger or threat. When there is a reasonable belief that serious violence may take place in a particular locality, existing legislation already allows for generalised searching of persons and vehicles. That would not extend to sealing off the area, but anyone within or entering the area could be searched.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, says about whether we need to recite the provisions again in this Bill. I respectfully suggest that we do not. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, has a real point about ensuring that in practice police officers on the ground have a proper understanding of their powers and know how to exercise them. There is training, and that training will have to continue. When this Bill becomes law, there will have to be further training. However, the powers can be properly exercised by skilled police officers selecting the options available. I take to heart what was said about the increased need to do that, and perhaps the need to discuss further with ACPO how best to do that.
Although I do not think it would be justified to allow areas to be sealed off and swept for firearms as the noble Lord proposes, we are taking a whole range of actions to bite down hard on gun crime. We hope that the further measures in the Bill will be successful. I have heard all that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford,

305
said. I hope that, notwithstanding the vigour with which he said he would press the amendment to a Division, he might think again.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answer. I fear that in many ways my overall impression is that we have not moved forwards in the 18 months since I raised the issue. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, we have moved backwards. To the same amendment last time, he opened his speech by saying:
"From these Benches we lend support for the amendment".— [Official Report, 12/3/03; col. 692.]
Various points have emerged. It was a little fatuous for the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, to make the point that he made. He seemed to ignore the common sense that the police would use in applying such laws. Furthermore, it is open to the Government and the Home Office to give precise guidance as to how such a law would be used. I am not saying for a moment that the wording is right, but I believe that the intention is right. I believe that there is a lacuna. The Minister has just emphasised again all the complicated possibilities that arise and that people have to know exactly where to find the measure. I am offering a much more general mandate to make the position perfectly clear. Of course, that mandate could be supplemented with guidance. My noble friend Lord Waddington and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made the telling remark that there is a lack of comprehension in this area.
There is also a danger that we are not taking on board the real fear that exists in certain communities. I got that feeling from talking to Diane Abbott. I suspect that none of us is worried about people carrying guns in the areas where we live. I personally believe that an awful lot of people would be very glad to see these kinds of powers put in place and that we could rely on the police to enforce them sensibly and sensitively with the help of guidance. For that reason I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 140.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Colwyn, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Astor, V.

Craigavon, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Crathorne, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Denham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

L. Dundee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Buscombe, B.

Feldman, L.

Byford, B.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Flather, B.

306

Fookes, B.

Moynihan, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fowler, L.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Glentoran, L.

Noakes, B.

Goschen, V.

Northbrook, L.

Hanham, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Higgins, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hooper, B.

Parkinson, L.

Howe, E.

Patten, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Peel, E.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Plumb, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Rawlings, B.

Kimball, L.

Rees, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Renton, L.

Kingsland, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Kirkham, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Liverpool, E.

Selsdon, L.

Luke, L.

Sharples, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Skelmersdale, L.

L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mancroft, L

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marlesford, L. [Teller]

Trumpington, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Waddington, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wakeham, L.

Montrose, D.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Acton, L.

Erroll, E.

Ahmed, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Alli, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Andrews, B.

Chancellor)

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Falkender, B.

Bach, L.

Farington of Ribbleton, B.

Barnett,L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Filkin, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gale, B.

Billingham, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Blackstone, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Borrie, L.

Goudie, B.

Bragg, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brennan, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brett, L.

Gregson, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Brookeborough, V.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Brookman, L.

Harrison, L.

Burlison L.

Haskel, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hayman, B.

Carter, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Christopher, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hoyle, L.

Crawley, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L

David, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hylton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Dixon, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Donoughue, L

King of West Bromwich, L.

Dormand of Easington, L

Kirkhill, L.

Dubs, L.

Lane, L.

307

Layard. L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Levy, L.

Rendellof Babergh, B.

Lipsey, L.

Rooker, L.

Listowel, E.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Sandwich, E.

Lockwood, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sheldon, L.

McCarthy, L.

Simon, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stern, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Strange, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Marsh L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Tenby, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turnberg, L.

Monson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Walpole, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Warner, L.

Nicol, B.

Warnock, B.

Northbourne, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Weatherill, L.

Paul, L.

Whitaker, B.

Pendry, L.

Whitty, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Wilkins, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prashar, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Radios, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.52 p.m.
Clause 2 [Warrants to enter and search]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 1, leave out "company" and insert "presence"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4.I can be brief on the matter. I tabled the amendments to invite the Minister to put on record his response to questions that I asked him in Committee. He is not in his place, but never mind. I am sure that the noble Baroness will respond just as well.
Clause 2 increases the powers of persons who accompany constables executing search warrants. It gives such persons the same powers as the constable who is executing the warrant, provided that the person is,
"in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable".
When we debated that in Committee on 30th June, I and other Members of the Committee referred to the importance of training being given to those who accompany constables in those circumstances, and that it should be clear what arrangements had been made for a disciplinary system to which the civilians should be subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said (at col. 613 of the Official Report of that date) that he would write to me covering issues relating to not only civilian discipline but training. I waited with bated breath for that exciting letter and. by golly, was I made to wait.
It arrived in the nick of time at lunchtime today. I now invite whichever Minister is about to respond to put that response on record, so that it may be available to the public as it was to me, if somewhat in haste. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly support the first of my noble friend's amendments. It is a very necessary drafting amendment. In the circumstances, "company" does not seem appropriate, but "presence" is ideal. On her second amendment, I must confess that I am a little puzzled because I am not quite sure how a layperson would ever receive such training. That may be because of my ignorance.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I apologise straightaway to the noble Baroness. When 1 saw the amendments, I was somewhat puzzled about why she had tabled them because I had understood that we had written to her. I caused inquiry to be made as to whether the letter, if sent, had been received, and that was the vehicle through which she eventually— thankfully—received it. Both she and I now understand why we are here at the moment.
It is not clear that Amendment No. 3 would achieve what the noble Baroness wants to achieve. A civilian in the "company" or "presence" of a constable amounts to the same thing. They both imply that the constable is on the premises with the civilian authorised by the warrant. I make it plain that we want to ensure that the constable is on the premises with the civilian to provide supervision and guidance, but it would defeat the object if he had to be looking over the civilian's shoulder throughout the process.
Amendment No. 4 would make it explicit that accompanying civilians could exercise search-and-seizure powers only when they had received appropriate training. I understand why the noble Baroness has phrased the amendment in that way. We recognise the importance of police supervisors providing adequate guidance to accompanying persons about the roles that they are asked to fulfil. Specific training will often be necessary, particularly where certain individuals are used in this capacity on a regular basis. With that in mind, we will emphasise the importance of relevant training in issuing guidance to the police about how to use the new provisions.
There may be circumstances where the straightforward nature of the task involved or the experience of the accompanying civilian means that formal training is not necessary and that clear guidance and instruction will suffice. Furthermore, it may be difficult to allow for training where people have to be brought in at short notice because they have a particular skill or knowledge required at the time. We would expect there to be a slightly tighter level of supervision in those circumstances to ensure that all was well. The constable would of course retain overall responsibility for the operation. Where that is the case, it will be crucial that the police officers involved explain the tasks and procedures clearly and supervise the accompanying persons carefully.

309
For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. I have ensured that a copy of the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to the noble Baroness is placed in the Library for the interest of all those who wish to see it.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I accept her explanation and assurances, and shall not return to the amendment at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved. ]
Clause 3 [Arrestable offences]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 13, leave out from second "of to end of line 14 and insert "cannabis or cannabis resin"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 relates to Clause 3(3), and seeks to avoid including all class C drugs in the same category as cannabis. The Government's defence of their proposal in Committee was weak and the logic of their reasoning not easy to follow. Although a great many research organisations, doctors and psychiatrists agree that the dangers of cannabis are yet to be fully assessed, the Government are proposing to reclassify—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think that I can save the noble Lord some pain by saying that we intend to accept the amendment in principle. In due course, we will come forward with a government amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, that is a generous offer. I have had my breath taken away in the nicest possible way, so I shall not move the amendment. I look forward to seeing what the Government have to offer.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved. ]
Clause 5 [Drug testing for under-eighteens]:
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 6, leave out ""14"" and insert ""17""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. One reason why we have so much law in this country is that whenever an issue arises, instead of looking at the statutes to see what we have in our armoury and how it is working, the Government immediately bring in new legislation in an effort to be seen to be doing something. This issue is one such case.
The Government have said that the purpose of the drug-testing provisions is to ensure early detection and therefore early treatment, but I believe that the measures are unnecessary, given that any child charged will already be referred to a youth offending team officer for assessment of its needs. Part of that assessment is an analysis of any substance misuse, and
310
all YOTs have a specialist to follow up any needs or further assessments. Given that, I cannot see why it. is necessary to bring in the compulsion element.
I appreciate that the Government's aim is to ensure that children receive the help that they need. Compulsory treatment by court order is a very serious prospect, given that a breach is a criminal offence. The breach rate for adult drug testing is horrendous: 5,419 of the 6,186 orders made in 2002 were breached. That means that many, many children are likely to be in breach of the orders, thereby escalating their interaction with the judicial system just at the time when our aim should be to reduce it. We are putting them in real danger of committing a further offence by suggesting the orders be compulsory.
Moreover, Schedule 20 does not include the necessary safeguards to ensure that the dangerous step of using court compulsion to treatment would be taken only where absolutely necessary and where voluntary options had already been tried and tested. Children should have access to treatment services when they need them. Voluntary treatment is the most effective way to ensure successful outcomes for them and does not carry with it the danger of escalating into a breach-of-order offence I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 would change the maximum age at which a juvenile requires an adult to be present during drug testing from 17 to 18. The reasons for that were given by my noble friend Lady Anelay in an earlier debate.
I explained in Committee that it appeared from the drafting of the Bill that the Government shared our belief that under-18s should be given special treatment for the intrusive process of drug testing. That is evidenced by the heading of the clause. However, the Government then shifted the goalposts for those aged 17 and 18. To be candid, we were not satisfied with the replies that we received.
I again emphasise that it is inconsistent for the Government to exclude 17 year-olds from special treatment when it comes to the need for an appropriate adult to accompany the child during testing. The Government appear to be overly concerned with PACE regulation provisions and resources, rather than with the practicalities and needs of a child's welfare.
The Minister observed at col. 64 of Hansard of 7th July that to include 17 year-olds,
"would not be consistent with the current provisions in code C of PACE".
That is an all-too-familiar response and it is an anomaly in PACE regulations that both the Children's Society and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child have repeatedly tried to change. The more they are criticised on that point, the more the Government seem to fall back on the rather narrow defence that a change would not fit with the current PACE provisions.

311
The noble Baroness continued:
"The effect of increasing the age to include those under the age of 18 may lead to confusion. It would also necessitate the presence of an appropriate adult for those aged between 17 and 18 solely for purposes relating to the testing process. That may put undue pressure on family relationships, or have a disproportionate effect on resources".
First, I do not see how increasing the age to include all those under 18 could lead to confusion. On the contrary, the fact that special provisions exclude those between 17 and 18 from the category of child for whom the clause provides seems to be a more likely source of confusion. Secondly, the argument that undue pressure might be put on family relationships does not stand up to scrutiny as that would surely be equally true if we were discussing 14, 15 or 16 year-olds, but they are still required, quite rightly, to be accompanied by an adult.
Thirdly, the pressure would not be "undue", but entirely necessary, since it is designed to protect the safety and welfare of a child—that is, someone under the age of 18—during the drug-testing process. Finally, the claim that it might have a disproportionate effect on resources, even if true, is a lame excuse. The Government have made a drug strategy a central plank of their policy to contain crime, so what better use of resources could there be?
The Children's Society has explained that the number of children held by the police in an average year increases exponentially with the age of the child, with the biggest jump in numbers seen among 16 and 17 year-olds. We can therefore assume that if 17 year-olds did not need to be accompanied by adults for drug tests, some police time would be saved, but I stress that that is at the expense of the child's welfare. To omit 17 year-olds from certain clauses that protect children for administrative convenience is indefensible. Amendment Nos. 8 and 9 would ensure that a clause which the Government have carefully entitled "Drug testing for under-eighteens" meant just that, and that the laws drafted under it would relate to all children under the age of 18.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I will be able to explain a little more clearly why we disagree with the amendments to satisfy both the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.
Amendment No. 6 would raise the minimum age for drug testing under the clause from 14 to 17. I understand that the noble Baroness believes that that would create more protection than would the provisions before us. I shall explain why I disagree.
There is strong evidence to suggest an association between the frequent misuse of substances and offending and other anti-social behaviour among young people. It is therefore important to identify drug-misusing offenders at an early stage and to take every opportunity to encourage them to access treatment and/or other programmes of help. If a young person under 18 is charged with a trigger offence, it is important to determine, where possible, whether his offending is linked to the use of illegal drugs, particularly the drugs which cause the most harm such as heroin and crack-cocaine.
312
The purpose of the drug test is to act as a screening tool to be used in conjunction with other interventions such as arrest referral. The effect of increasing the minimum age of drug testing from 14 to 17 would be the loss of that opportunity to identify young offenders who are taking specified class A drugs. We are targeting those aged 14 and above on the basis of the research evidence that we have. That evidence includes the clients of 11 youth offending teams and it suggests that the mean age at which younger offenders have reported first taking these drugs is around 14 to 15. We are trying to assist those vulnerable young people by giving them a little help at a time when they really need it.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, will the Minister explain why young people of that age group, who are using serious drugs, would be not picked up by the assessment of the youth offending team? Why is the test needed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, our evidence suggests that they are not being picked up by the youth offending teams. We are trying to increase the safety net. The Bill aims to make each intervention with an offender a meaningful one in order to assist them to break the cycle of offending. The noble Baroness will know that the earlier we can do that, the better. Once patterns of behaviour are established, they are much harder to break than if we were able to make an early and targeted intervention before the real difficulty has ripened and taken root.
By identifying young drug misusers at an early stage in the criminal justice system, after charge, the young person can be engaged in interventions to address his drug use at the earliest opportunity before it escalates. We therefore propose that Amendment No. 6 should be resisted.
Amendment No. 7 is a consequential amendment that would remove the provision for the presence of an appropriate adult in the case of a person under the age of 17. For the reasons that I have just set out, we propose to resist that amendment too.
Clause 5(3) provides for the presence of an appropriate adult throughout the drug-testing procedure for those persons who have not attained the age of 17. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 would raise the age at which the testing procedure must not take place, except in the presence of an appropriate adult, from under 17 to under 18.
The noble Lord was clear in reciting the reasons I gave in Committee and I do not resile from those. However, we do not believe that this would be consistent with the current provisions in Code C of PACE—the code of practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers—or with other drug-testing provisions in the Bill. That is important because the provisions applicable under PACE Code of Practice C require any person who appears to be under the age of 17 to be treated as a juvenile, in the absence of any clear evidence that he or she is older, and consequently

313
provides that an appropriate adult is required to be contacted and asked to attend the police station to see the detained juvenile.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she explain why the clause is headed
"Drug testing for under-eighteens"?
If it were "under-seventeens", we would understand what she was driving at.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the heading "under-eighteens" makes it clear that we are dealing with minors. Once one is dealing with an 18 year-old, one is dealing with an adult. The reason for the phrasing is to make clear that the provision deals with minors and not with adults. Of course, if the matter causes difficulty we can look at it again, but we believe that the heading is perfectly proper.
The effect of increasing the age to include those under the age of 18 may lead to confusion. It would also necessitate the presence of an appropriate adult for those aged between 17 and 18 solely for this purpose. That is exactly what I said in Committee.
We acknowledge all the concerns that the noble Lord has expressed. However, as I have outlined, we consider that there are sound reasons for maintaining consistency in the age level for the presence of an appropriate adult for drug-testing purposes with that in the appropriate adult criteria set out under PACE. We also consider that this age level should be applied consistently across the drug-testing provisions of the Bill and with other legislation. The noble Lord said that consistency should not matter in this regard—or it should not be the determining factor—but we believe that it has importance. Nevertheless, we recognised the perceived inconsistency of treating some aged 17 as adults during the detention process.
The review of PACE conducted by the Cabinet Office and the Home Office in 2002 recognised the need to consider whether more consistency should be introduced into the age levels applying to juveniles across the criminal justice system. That work will soon be underway. I can assure noble Lords that the views expressed on this issue today and on the previous occasion will be taken into account in that consideration. However, we do not believe that it would be proper to do so in a piecemeal way. We need consistency and clarity and for the time being we believe that this is the most appropriate way forward.
At this stage therefore, and for the reasons I have outlined, we propose that Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 be resisted. I reassure the noble Lord that we have heard what he said in Committee and that we have heard and inwardly digested what he has said today. When the matters are reviewed, those statements will be fully taken into consideration in the PACE review. But it will be done holistically and not piecemeal. I hope that he agrees that that is a more appropriate way
314
of dealing with PACE than taking bite-sized pieces out of it in a way that might cause confusion and get us into difficulties I know he does not want.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. She has repeatedly said that she has heard the concerns raised in this and the earlier debate. Will she acknowledge that whatever may be the individual arguments on individual amendments, the incremental effect of the Bill is to bring more young people within the range of adult treatment within the criminal justice system? Will she also acknowledge that for those of us for whom that is a serious concern, and for organisations such as the Children's Society, whatever may be the argument for each individual amendment, the incremental effect of the Bill must be taken most seriously?
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we take these matters absolutely seriously and we are not taking a tranche-by-tranche approach to the Bill. We believe that its strength is the holistic nature of its provisions. Therefore, the right reverend Prelate will know—we have been in company throughout the 59 hours in Committee and I am sure we will be in company for the remainder of the Report stage—that we have tried to put these provisions in the context of how they should be seen in the whole. All the steps we are taking with young people in the community bite as regards education, health, cautioning and early intervention. That is not taking a piecemeal approach but it is looking at the whole piece.
I do not hesitate from telling your Lordships that we are trying to do something different from anything that has been done previously. This is the first time that the sentencers will have the whole palette—they will be able to look not only at the single offence, but to try to dig beneath it. They will be able to look at the difficulties—some of them social and intractable— which lurk beneath and address them. Only by addressing those difficulties will we cease to have young people continuing the cycle of abuse, offending, deprivation and loss. There is a loss not only to their victims but to themselves. They are too valuable for us not to fight for their recovery and this Bill does just that. I do not accept at all that we have "lost the plot".
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am grateful in particular to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester for his intervention because he put the matter more clearly than I did in expressing concern that with compulsory drug testing the danger of young people committing yet another criminal offence could be escalated. The point he made was what I meant, although he put it much better.
I am afraid that the Minister has failed to convince me of the necessity of the provision. However, I do not intend to test the opinion of the House at this stage. I shall go away and read carefully what she has said and consult the children's organisations about this important issue of escalation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved. ]
Clause 6 [Limits on period of detention without charge]:
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved. ]
Clause 7 [Property of detained persons]:
Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 11 A:
Page 6, line 7, leave out from "him)," to end and insert "for the word "shall" there is substituted "may""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11 A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11B and 11C. I am disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to address the concerns we expressed in Committee about this part of the Bill. These amendments are therefore by way of a compromise and 1 urge the Minister to support them.
I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 11A and 11C. Section 54 of PACE would be amended in such a way as to remove the requirement that a detainee's property be recorded. We feel that perhaps this goes too far, so we are proposing that the custody officer simply "may" record the property of someone who is detained.
However, our Amendment No. 11B states that if a detainee requests that his or her property be recorded, as it is now, the custody officer must comply with that request. That amendment covers everyone against any accusation of loss of property or the planting of evidence and ensures that the state upholds its obligations to maintain the safety of someone's property when he or she is in custody.
In order to reduce bureaucracy, which is the main plank of the police's argument, there are now sophisticated recording procedures which would take a nanosecond to use and which would certainly stop the laborious use of every piece of property being recorded manually. Digital photography could also be used as a way of ensuring that property is thoroughly recorded.
Therefore, I believe that the argument about bureaucracy is wearing a little thin. Our amendments seek to put the onus on the person who is detained to request his or her property to be recorded, should he or she wish that to happen. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, briefly, I fully support the amendments. They meet the objective of my noble friend Lord Hunt, which he set out in Committee.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I believe that the intention of Amendments Nos. 11A and 11B, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, is to clarify that the custody officer should retain the legal capacity to record whatever property a detained person brings into custody and to make any such records in the detained person's custody record.
We believe that, in principle, there is force in what the noble Baroness said in relation to the first two amendments. However, we are a little concerned about
316
the wording of Amendment No. 11 A. As currently worded, it would effectively remove the absolute obligation on the custody officer to ascertain what a detained person has with him, but I do not believe that that is what any of us on either side of the House wants to achieve.
Allowing for that and for the close relationship between the two amendments, I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Anelay, will be satisfied with an undertaking from me to bring forward amendments at Third Reading to achieve the clear intention of what each of us appears to be proposing today.
However, Amendment No. 11C appears to be intended to oblige the custody officer to make a record of property when requested to do so by the detained person. The guidance that we are drafting in relation to this clause will make it very clear that any reasonable request to record property should be complied with if it is practicable to do so. Imposing an absolute requirement to comply with requests would, we respectfully suggest, not be helpful as it would open the door to deliberately obstructive requests for excessive and time-consuming recording which are not fully justified by the circumstances.
On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will understand why we are not minded to accept Amendment No. 11C. However, we hope to deal with that matter in guidance to everyone's satisfaction.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I heard what she said about guidance and "any reasonable request". We have been along this road before. I very much look forward to seeing what she brings forward at Third Reading. In the mean time, I shall not press the matter to a vote and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11B and 11C not moved. ]
Clause 8 [Taking fingerprints without consent]:
Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 17, after "offence" insert "and an officer of at least the rank of inspector authorises them to be taken"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12,I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. The amendments cover Clauses 8 and 9 and are grouped together.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to insert a requirement that an officer of at least the rank of inspector authorises the taking of fingerprints without the consent of the detainee. Taking fingerprints without consent can still be construed as interfering with a person's liberty, and the use of those powers must be carefully monitored. Therefore, it would be far preferable for a manager of some seniority to take that responsibility. I maintain that fingerprints constitute personal data and, as such, must be treated with safeguards. The taking of them should be authorised by someone who is clearly accountable and has a thorough knowledge and experience of the law.
In Clause 9, again, we simply seek to insert a requirement for a person of at least the rank of inspector to authorise the taking of— this time— non-intimate samples without consent. Proposed new subsection (2D) is a simple insertion of that requirement. For these Benches, the taking of non-intimate samples without consent is even more problematic than the taking of fingerprints without consent. At present, only samples from those who are charged may be taken without consent. It is a slippery path indeed to take samples from just anyone who happens to have been arrested but before he has been charged with an offence.
Notwithstanding what the Minister said earlier in her explanation on Amendment No. 1 at the beginning of this afternoon's debate on Report, it seems to me that the Government are beginning to build a database on which people's DNA will be kept and that they are doing so by stealth. No proper debate has ever taken place about the taking of non-intimate samples. Indeed, the Government's own advisory body— the Human Genetics Commission— recommended in May 2002 that the Government should promote a greater degree of dialogue about the justification for the apparent increase in the range of offences for which DNA samples may be taken. It also recommended, among other things, which bodies should oversee the work of a national DNA database.
Therefore, even the Government's advisers are cautious about the burgeoning numbers of people who could conceivably be added to the database. It is a very worrying matter, and I hope that the Government will consider the amendments carefully. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we are dealing here with the taking of fingerprints. My experience as an advocate goes back to the 1980s. In my view, an inspector will not always be available. At present, we devolve quite a lot of power to a police officer— usually a sergeant, but it may be a police constable— to undertake rather essential practices. There is nothing magical whatever about an inspector doing that work, particularly in relation to fingerprints; nor is it consonant with present practice. I consider myself, together with a number of other Peers, to be a custodian of civil liberties, but I have never heard anyone criticise the present procedures.
We must bear in mind that an inspector may not be on duty but that, invariably, a person will be on duty who has much experience in that regard. I believe that the amendment is misconceived on two grounds: first, it is not consonant with current practice; and, secondly, it never will be.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support the amendments. We share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. Of course, there is a careful balance in the existing provisions of PACE between the perceived need for the police to have new powers and the need for protection against an abuse of those powers. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, challenges us, as supporters of the amendments, by saying, "Well, it's okay now so why mess around with it
318
when it is working?" Of course, the point is that here the Government are proposing a considerable extension of powers into realms where the police have never been able to exercise them. I shall give way to the noble Lord if he wishes to ask a question.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is the case only in relation to one thing: the taking of fingerprints.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as we have already heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, the Bill adds by increments to the assaults on liberties. This is one such step. I remind the House that the Joint Committee on Human Rights set out a clear statement of concern about the powers that we are debating. Paragraph 54 of its 11th report states:
"This leaves us significantly concerned about the risk that arrangements for managing the hugely increased volume of personal data which would become available through the operation of the proposed new powers would be inadequate to secure compliance with ECHR Article 8".
There are two principles here: the propriety of taking fingerprints from a person who has been arrested but not charged and the decision to add that information to a database. I remain convinced that I am right to support the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, in challenging the Government to justify this extension of police powers. The Government were unable to convince us in Committee, reported in Hansard of 30th June 2003 at cols. 709 to 711. Since then there has been time for the Government to consider and rally their arguments. I shall be interested to see if the Minister is able to be more persuasive today.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, certainly I hope that I shall succeed in being more persuasive. These extensions, as the noble Baroness has referred to them, are extremely important and will have a beneficial effect upon our ability to ensure that the system is just and fair and that those who perpetrate crimes against others are brought to justice.
I thank my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for his support, which is welcome. On the last occasion on which we discussed these issues noble Lords asked about correspondence we had had with Justice, the Law Society and the Human Genetics Commission raising many of the concerns previously raised by your Lordships on the proportionality of the proposed amendments, the creation of a universal DNA database, abuse of the proposed powers, access to personal data held on the database and security of the samples, and the sharing of information with foreign investigative agencies. I hope that I have been able to reassure all three organisations in my replies and shall endeavour to do the same in your Lordships' House today. I hope also that I shall be able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that there is no difficulty in terms of managing the data and that adequate safeguards are in place, which will mean that her concerns have no foundation in fact.

319
Perhaps I should first remind the House why the Government propose to amend Section 61 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so as to allow the police to take fingerprints from a person arrested for a recordable offence and detained at a police station as a matter of routine. It is important for the police to be able to do that quickly in order to prevent persons evading justice by giving the police false identity and for the police to be aware of anyone who may pose a risk to themselves or to others. I explored those issues when we discussed the amendment, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Harris rightly commented.
I reiterate that the proposed amendments would introduce an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and possibly inhibit the police from being able to ascertain quickly who it is they are dealing with. That is important not just for the police but, as we explored earlier, possibly also for the individual concerned. The Government's proposed amendment to Section 63 of PACE in Clause 9 will allow the police to take a sample of DNA from a person arrested for a recordable offence and detained at a police station as a matter of routine. The profile obtained from the sample can then be searched against the national DNA database to see whether it matches that from a crime scene. That will potentially allow for more crimes to be resolved and at an earlier stage, with corresponding savings in police time and cost but, just as importantly will save from misery those who have continued offences visited upon them by people who are not so identified.
Imposing a restriction whereby the taking of the sample has to be authorised by an inspector or above would introduce an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. That is important because we do not suggest that these are powers, as noble Lords rightly know, which will be unusually exercised. We suggest that they will be a routine exercise of power.
In previous debates, noble Lords suggested that safeguards must be maintained and that it should not be right for the investigating police officer to require fingerprints or a DNA sample to be taken. I ask noble Lords to consider the nature of the harm which it is said is being caused which requires these additional safeguards. The existing safeguards introduced by PACE will continue to apply and the use of this information is restricted to the prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution.
Noble Lords may be concerned about the abuse of such powers, particularly in the light of recent revelations. We believe that police can make mistakes on occasion but that there are now sufficient powers in terms of guidance in codes of practice on how to exercise such powers and if they are used, how to exercise them lawfully. Existing remedies are available to anyone who feels that he or she has not been treated fairly or in accordance with the law. These safeguards have worked well. There have not been any complaints about the way in which the procedure has worked.
320
Anxiety has also been expressed about the suggestion that this is legislation by stealth. That is very much what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. This is not a back-door attempt by the Government to create a universal DNA database. If that were part of the Government's agenda, I agree that it would raise significant practical and ethical difficulties and there would be a need for a national public debate such as we have seen over the issue of entitlement or identity cards.
In view of the enormous cost of such an enterprise, the Government would in any event have to consider seriously whether that was an effective way to target crime. I can assure noble Lords that such an idea is not on the Government's agenda. To those who say that these proposals will create a universal database I suggest that for that to be achieved everyone at some point in their lives would have to be arrested. We hope, of course, that that will not be the case. I hope that noble Lords agree that to create a national database using arrestable offences as a way forward would not be prudent or practical.
Ensuring public safety and fighting crime are among the most basic functions of the state. Striking the right balance between protecting individual privacy and taking necessary and proportionate action to protect the public is equally important. The Government are of the view that these proposals are proportionate to the benefits in terms of the prevention and detection of crime.
From our debates on the last occasion, noble Lords will know how useful some of these issues have been in terms of detection of crimes committed in the past and, indeed, in the future. We want to be proportionate. Already there are 2 million profiles, including about 177,000 in the first year. There has been significant enhancement of the data, which has been beneficial not simply to those dealing with cases but to the wider public because we have been able to detect crime more easily. I ask noble Lords seriously to consider whether in all conscience that is something they wish to frustrate.
Baroness Kennedy of The Straws: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask whether the Government have put their mind to the distinction to be made between a database which keeps the "barcode", the information which allows police and the authorities to make a comparison with a sample taken from a crime scene, and the keeping of the sample from which the barcode is made. As the noble Baroness will know, when a person is arrested a swab is taken from the inside of their cheek. From that sample is taken, from what is called the "junk DNA", a barcode. That barcode is then used to process it against other samples from the crime scene or to make comparisons with any other crime scene.
Those concerned with civil liberties and those involved in the scientific community are exercised by the rationale for keeping a sample. The question is: will it be used for some questionable purpose in the future? Is it possible that when we know more about genetic science, the Government's intention— or that of any

321
future government— may be to use this information to, for example, flag up those with a propensity for crime? The public would find that kind of usage very questionable. The suggestion is that the samples need not be retained but that only the barcode would be needed for the identification purposes outlined. So why is there a need to keep samples?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very much understand why my noble friend made those comments. We would say that the barcode is not enough. I understand too the fear she expressed that the samples would be used for some nefarious purpose, and she talked about a propensity for crime. I make it absolutely clear that that is outwith anything within the Government's contemplation. The noble Baroness will know that the barcode really is not enough because we need to allow for retesting and, with technology moving on, to upgrade old samples.
When we previously debated this issue, I referred to a case that was solved after 20 years because a sample had been taken and retained at the beginning of the use of this technology. Of course 20 years ago it would not have been possible to identify the person because the technology had not evolved to such a stage to make that possible. But, because the sample existed, one was able to use it for identification purposes, which could properly be used just because the technology had been proved. So it was not an improper purpose; it was a proper purpose. The sample enabled someone to be identified. He had committed a minor offence, such as shoplifting a very small item. The person was identified as having committed a number of very serious rape offences many years before. We were able to bring that person to justice because the sample had been retained.
We have clearly thought about how these powers should be used. I reassure the House that the provision is for that purpose alone. I note what my noble friend has said, but I am very happy to be able to lay that matter to rest. That is not the Government's intent. I recognise the anxieties there would be about that if it were.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full reply. I shall read carefully her comments in Hansard. We are most concerned about the routine exercise of power. I shall look carefully to see whether we should bring these issues back at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Taking non-intimate samples without consent]:
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved. ]
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
"DESTRUCTION OF FINGERPRINTS AND SAMPLES

(1) Section 64 of the 1984 Act (destruction of fingerprints and samples) is amended as follows.

322

(2) In subsection (3), the words ", except as provided in the following provisions of this section," are omitted.

(3) Subsections (3AA), (3AB) and (3AC) are omitted."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we raised this matter in Committee and I do so again. The amendment relates to the further extension of circumstances in which the police may take non-intimate samples from a person in police detention. That includes taking such samples from a person arrested for a recordable offence. Such samples can be taken without the consent of the individual, only requiring the authorisation of an inspector. The new power is available whether or not the sample is required for the investigation of an offence and where the person is suspected of being involved.
One of the powers being given to the police is that DNA profiles extracted from an arrested person will be added to the DNA database and checked for matches with DNA taken from other scenes of crime. At the heart of the debate is the argument advanced by Justice about whether it is appropriate or necessary in a democratic society to obtain and retain information from innocent people. If the database is not considered appropriate, there is no logic in allowing the police to retain such samples of profiles.
The public are always very happy to co-operate in cases where DNA is sought from a large number of people to assist in solving a heinous crime. However, if it is generally known that people who are not proceeded against or are found to be innocent in court might have samples retained, it might be difficult to obtain the public's co-operation.
I also draw the Minister's attention, as I did in Committee, to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on whether such information will be available to foreign investigators and intelligence agencies; the propriety of passing such information; and the damage it could cause to individuals.
We do not oppose samples being taken to determine whether or not a charge should be made. That is in the interests of the individual if he or she is innocent. We object to the proposal that this should be routine or on a continuous basis, irrespective of a charge being levelled. The whole question relates to infringing the rights and liberties of the individual. We believe it is for the court to determine in each case whether the sample or profile should be retained. These matters are for public debate and should not necessarily be pushed through as part of the Criminal Justice Bill. When liberties are affected we believe that we should strongly object. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as my name is attached to the amendment, I rise briefly to support it. I made it clear when we debated these matters in Committee that if the Government could not accept the compromise that I offered at that stage— they did not and I was defeated on a vote— that I would put my full support behind this amendment, which I do today.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, during our previous debate on this amendment, I said how important it is that the police are able to retain all the information assembled during the investigation of an offence, not least to enable them to investigate a possible future miscarriage of justice.
Retention of fingerprints and DNA samples, as the noble Baroness will know, can be used to establish innocence as well as guilt, and in enabling the swift elimination of innocent people from investigations with the minimum of inconvenience. I know that that is something which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would welcome and would wish to see happen.
The police are already able to retain other information gathered as part of an investigation, such as witness statements and photographs. Samples and fingerprints are really no different from those pieces of information.
Furthermore, if the fingerprints and DNA samples are retained, they will be available to the police in the event of that person committing an offence in the future. I repeat: law-abiding citizens have absolutely nothing to fear from their fingerprints or DNA being retained, as they may be used only for the prevention or detection of crime.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I want to ask her whether the Bill divides humankind into three— the guilty who have been convicted of offences, the not guilty, and the probably dodgy. I do not wish to be probably dodgy, and I do not really wish to live in a society in which a substantial body of its citizenry have been marked in some database as being probably dodgy. Whatever the noble Baroness has. so graciously and persuasively said in argument, I think that is actually the incremental effect of the Bill.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I disagree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. There are not three categories of people— the guilty, the not guilty and the probably dodgy.
All we seek to do is to enable the system to make proper and judicious decisions in identifying those who have committed crimes. I wish that the world was not as it is. but we must: deal with it as it is. In reality, we must look at those who are arrested and have committed offences, and those who have repeated such offences. We live in an increasingly sophisticated world, where those who wish to avoid justice become increasingly skilled at doing so. It is therefore incumbent upon those of us who seek to redress the balance and to make the world fairer and more just to say that there is only one type of person, that we will treat everyone the same, and that we will use every available tool to differentiate the sheep from the goats. We know that others will do the same on a certain day that we will all have to meet in due course.
324
We seek to make a difference and to give those entrusted with the justice system the tools to make decisions clearly. I emphasise that the provision is not simply for those we wish to convict. DNA development has allowed us to release people wrongly imprisoned and sentenced as a result of a miscarriage of justice because our data in the past were flawed. There is a benefit but also a burden. It is a tool that can enable us to convict the guilty and to release the innocent. If the bottom line is to ask, "Is that a tool that I wish to throw away?", I say openly that it is not. It is a tool that can be used for justice, as a sword to pierce the guilty and, it is to be hoped, to shield those who are innocent.
Without detracting from everything that we have said, I understand the anxieties on the issue, but, with respect, I do not agree with them. Noble Lords expressed concern about sharing the protection of information on the National DNA Database. Those concerns were echoed in correspondence that we received from various parties, including Justice. Noble Lords mentioned, in particular, concerns about data protection and what some regard as the lack of clarity on the accountability of the owners and custodians of the National DNA Database. Concerns were also expressed about privacy protection where information may be made available to foreign investigators. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, touched on all those issues. I hope that I was able to reassure noble Lords on the latter point during our previous debate.
Access to personal data held by the custodian on the National DNA Database is restricted to persons authorised to have access by the custodian and the data subject, or their representative, as required by the Data Protection Act 1998. Persons are authorised to have access only to carry out their work. The access controls are tiered to limit the level of access to that necessary for this. The access controls are documented and strictly enforced. Accountability for any breach of Article 8 of the ECHR would be according to where any breach occurred; for instance, it could be within the office of the custodian, the Forensic Science Service laboratories, other forensic suppliers or the police.
We have safeguards. The powers will be used judiciously and justly; they will not be abused. I ask noble Lords opposite to think carefully before depriving us of this opportunity to do justice, not just for those accused, but those wrongly convicted, too.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but I remind noble Lords that we are talking about innocent people found not guilty in court and not proceeded with. The Minister says that law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear; I am afraid that they have everything to fear when their civil liberties are being eroded. If the Government genuinely want the measure, why not hold public debate and consultation on it? At that stage we would know what the public really wanted. The measure affects people's liberty, so it is about time we put a stop to it. I intend, therefore, to test the opinion of the House.
6.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 101.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Addington, L.

McNally, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Maddock, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Mancroft, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Marlesford, L.

Avebury, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Barker, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Blatch, B.

Newby, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Noakes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northesk, E.

Byford, B.

Northover, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Colwyn, L.

Palmer, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Peel, E.

Denham, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dholakia, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Razzall, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rennard, L.

Ferrers, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Flather, B.

Roper, L.

Fookes, B.

Russell, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Sandwich, E.

Goodhart, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.[Teller]

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Higgins, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hooper, B.

Stern, B.

Hooson, L.

Stewartby, L.

Howe, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Taverne, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kimball, L.

Tope, L.

Kingsland, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kirkham, L.

Wakeham, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Walmsley, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lyell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Worcester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Berkeley, L.

Alli, L.

Billingham, B.

Amos, B.(Lord President)

Blackstone, B.

Andrews, B.

Borrie, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brennan, L.

Bach, L.

Brett, L.

Barnett, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

326

Brookeborough, V.

Hylton, L.

Brookman, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Burlison, L.

King of West Bromwich, L

Campbell-Savours, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L.

Layard, L.

Christopher, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McCarthy L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

David, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Mallalieu, B.

Dixon, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Evaas of Parkside, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Nicol, B.

Farrrigton of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Filkin, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gale, B.

Radice, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal.B.

Goudie, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Haskel, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Walpole, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Warner, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitaker B.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.5 p.m.
Clause 13 [Offences committed on bail]:
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) moved Amendment No. 16:
Page, 9 line 39, leave out from " not)" to end of line 40.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 22, and indicate the Government's position in relation to Amendment No. 19 to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
We discussed in Committee the wording that appears in three clauses. It was intended to make clear that, when a court is satisfied that there is not such a risk as is identified in the clause— a significant risk of the commission of further offences, for example— it would not be under an obligation to grant bail irrespective of other considerations. As I said in Committee, if a court concluded that a defendant was not likely to abscond again but thought that there were

327
other reasons to refuse bail— a risk of interference, for example— it was sensible to provide for the court to retain the power to refuse bail.
The words caused some difficulties. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, proposed some wording— the wording that now appears in his amendment. We have looked at the matter again and concluded that it is an unnecessary precaution. There is little danger that a court would be under a misapprehension about how it would approach such a matter— it would in any event recognise that, if there were other reasons for not granting bail it would take those into account. Given that the words in question caused confusion, we thought it better to omit them. That is what the three government amendments do.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, proposes keeping words in and substituting a different form of words— those that he proposed in Committee. Having considered the matter carefully, we believe that it is best to drop the phrase altogether. I hope that the noble Lord will consider that that meets his concerns. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, for the reasons outlined by the noble and learned Lord, it is not necessary for me to press Amendment No. 19. I am happy that the words, which the Government concede are confusing, have been left out of this and other clauses. Accordingly, I need not pursue the matter that concerned me in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Leave out Clause 13.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have considered at some length the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in Committee. It was his view that these provisions were consonant with the European Convention on Human Rights. I take a different view, but we are not going to settle this on the Floor of the House. The matter may well go to the courts and I shall leave it to them to adjudicate. I will not pursue the matter.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved. ]
Clause 14 [Absconding by persons released on bail]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 10, line 16, leave out from "custody" to end of line 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved. ]
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 10, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) The application of sub-paragraph (1) above shall be at the discretion of the court where the defendant is suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20) (admission for assessment).""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of new paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1976 Act limit the chances of bail being granted by, inter alia, stating that failure to give the defendant a record of the decision to grant him bail shall not constitute a valid excuse. A defendant who fails to comply with those conditions and who has a mental health condition could, as a result of the two sub-paragraphs, be denied bail. The amendment would make special provision for the granting of bail to those suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning in Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
The Government say that they have considered the special nature of those with mental conditions and concluded that provision is made for them in the Bill. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that, if the person had a mental disorder,
"the court would be entitled to find, and would be likely to find, that that person had 'reasonable cause' for his failure to surrender. So the presumption against bail would not apply". — [Official Report, 7/7/03; col. 108.]
As I read sub-paragraph (3), the court is required to take into account whether a defendant has a "reasonable cause". That does not seem to apply to the remainder of sub-paragraphs (3) and (4). Such details are key, and it may be helpful if I read out the sub-paragraph:
"Where it appears to the court that the defendant had reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody, he does not fall within this paragraph unless it also appears to the court that he failed to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon as reasonably practicable after the appointed time".
The claim made by the Attorney-General that those with a reasonable cause will be excused does not appear to be entirely true, given the detail of the wording. Overall, a defendant with a mental health problem who may have had a reasonable cause for failure to surrender to custody is given special consideration, unless he also failed to turn up at a certain place and time. That is my reading of the Bill. The word "unless" largely cancels out what comes before. Similarly, sub-paragraph (4) lacks any consideration for those with mental health problems.
Amendment No. 20 would provide a failsafe for those of our fellow citizens who are unfortunate enough to suffer from mental health problems. It cannot be sensible, given the pressure on our prisons generally, to remand such persons in custody. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as I said in Committee, the Government take the point that it would be unjust if a defendant were remanded in custody because of the risk that he would not surrender, if he was not responsible for his actions. Clause 14 places particular significance on a failure to surrender to custody.
Despite what the noble Lord said, I stick to what I said then: if it is clear that the defendant has a disorder and that that disorder has led to his non-appearance, the court would be entitled to find— I anticipate that it would find— that he had reasonable cause for his

329
failure to surrender. That is the clause to which the noble Lord rightly drew attention. If it appears to the court that the defendant had reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody, the paragraph does not apply.
I must make two points. First, the fact that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder will not necessarily of itself mean that his failure to attend is reasonable. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who made the point in Committee that mental disorder crossed a wide range. In those circumstances, the court would have to consider whether the condition was the reason for failure to attend. The noble Lord's amendment would not allow that. He may say that it does because the matter would be left to the discretion of the court. However, the amendment would not do what the Government believe is necessary, which is to focus on the failure to attend as a significant fact.
The noble Lord's second point was that what I said in Committee was not right because of the second part of the clause. The clause goes on to say that the paragraph will not apply if it appears to the court that the failure to surrender was reasonable but that it will apply if,
"it appears to the court that he failed to surrender … as soon as reasonably practicable after the appointed time".
Respectfully, I take issue with the noble Lord about that. If a court has reached the view that, because of a disorder, the failure to surrender to custody is reasonable, it will not go on to say that it is reasonably practicable for him to attend on the next occasion, if that condition still exists. In other words, the words "reasonably practicable" carry within them the concept of whether the failure to attend was reasonable because of the disorder. The flaw that, the noble Lord suggests, is to be found in what the Government say is not there. The other clause includes the concept of reasonableness as far as concerns practicability as well. The Government do not think that the amendment is necessary. There is a sufficient safeguard against the danger with which the amendment is concerned.
The noble Lord made a point about sub-paragraph (4). I regret to say that I did not entirely follow it. I am happy to deal with the point, if the noble Lord wishes to repeat it. I understood him to refer to sub-paragraph (4) of new paragraph 9AB, which, as I understand it, is to do with the giving of a copy of a record of the decision to grant bail. We had that debate in Committee. The question is simply whether a technical failure to provide a copy of the record is in itself a reasonable excuse for not attending. In certain circumstances, it will be a reasonable excuse if someone does not know that they are to attend, but if someone knows that they are to attend and has been told by the court, the clerk and their own lawyer, no one will accept it as a reasonable cause if they then say, "I didn't have a piece of paper".
330
I hope that I have understood the point. I suggest that we need not be concerned about it in the particular context that the noble Lord raised.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I accept that there is a wide range of mental health conditions, not all of which would permit the person to escape from the provisions of the clause. It is not a complete let-off. As the noble and learned Lord kindly remarked, the amendment was drafted to give the court discretion in such cases.
I am grateful for the emphasis that the noble and learned Lord placed on the phrase "reasonably practicable" and for the explanation that he gave of the construction that is placed on those words. In the light of his comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Appeal by prosecution]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved. ]
Clause 18 [Drug users: restriction on bail]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 14, line 46, leave out from "not)" to end of line 47.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 23:
Leave out Clause 18.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think that we can assume that the Government's purpose is not simply to extend the grounds for refusing bail— although clearly Clause 18 does that— but to encourage class A drug users to undergo treatment. We all recognise that a large proportion of property crime is attributable to misuse of class A drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and crack. We fully support the policy that underpins Clause 18; that is, to encourage drug misusers to undergo treatment. However, we want such treatment to lead these people out of crime and not into further crime by breaching an order.
We know that a large percentage of those who test positive for class A drugs do not comply with drug treatment orders, thus sending them back into court for re-sentencing. Therefore, it would be more fruitful to look at why that is, rather than to force more people into treatment on pain of failing to obtain bail. The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee expressed concern about the practicality of enforcing such conditions against drug misusers who consent to the bail conditions, but then fail to comply with the treatment.
In Committee, the Minister assured us that the provisions under Clause 18 will apply only in areas within which such treatment is available. Your Lordships may recall that we were informed that in one police area there is an eight-month waiting list for detainees willing to submit to such treatment. I continue to have concerns about that. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General promised to write to me about any improvement in the availability of

331
high-quality drug treatment. I do not believe that I have received such information. I therefore remain sceptical about the practicality of the provisions.
The problem is that there is little confidence among drug users in the efficacy of many of the treatments available. Only 7 per cent of those who tested positive in a pilot in north-east London agreed voluntarily to any form of referral for assessment or treatment. In view of the lack of confidence in the treatment, it is not right to make it a condition of bail that people subject themselves to it.
Secondly, according to Liberty, there are human rights issues here as well as practicalities. Your Lordships may recall that in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, reminded us of the human rights of the victim, whom drug addicts might mug, steal from and perhaps injure while seeking property to sell in order to buy drugs. But we do not do any favours to those potential victims if we flagrantly forget the human rights of those accused of such crimes.
According to Liberty, issues are raised under Article 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998; that is, the right to liberty and security of person. It does not fit into one of the permitted exemptions under Article 5.1.c, although detention of drug addicts is permitted under Article 5.l.e. We would dispute that that justification applies to a person detained pending trial. The Government's presumption seems to be that drug users commit offences, therefore anyone who refuses treatment would be likely to commit offences while on bail and, therefore, should be refused bail. But, every bail application should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
In Clause 18, the introduction of a presumption against bail places the burden of establishing an entitlement to bail on the detained person rather than on the state. That has been considered by the Law Commission in its publication, Bail and the Human Rights Act, which concluded that such a reverse burden could breach Article 5.3. Liberty also argues that Clause 18 may raise issues under Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights— that is, the right to respect for privacy and family life. There will be an obligation on a person, who has not been convicted of any offence, to undertake drug treatment to avoid remand in custody.
I appreciate that the Government are concerned that there is a link between crime and drug use, which I accept, and that they are promoting drug rehabilitation. However, I do not accept that applying a sanction that will involve the loss of liberty is an acceptable way of promoting such a policy, particularly in view of the climate of availability and quality of drug treatment services in this country at present. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it would be impossible for the Government to accept the proposal that this clause should be omitted from the Bill. It is a rather long clause, with very important amendments to previous legislation. In passing, perhaps I may say that a very large proportion of the Bill consists of amending
332
legislation that has been passed before. I hope that one day there will be some consolidation of this Bill and all the previous legislation dealing with criminal justice. That is necessary for the achievement of justice. If our law is in a state of continuous cross-reference, with all the confusion that that can cause, it will be difficult for justice to be achieved. I have some sympathy with what the noble Baroness said in moving that Clause 18 be omitted, but, quite frankly, that would be chaotic.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, recognises that the Government have a concern about the link between offending and drug use. The Government do not just have a concern about it; they are absolutely confident that there is a very strong link between drug use and offending. I mention again what I mentioned in Committee: research demonstrates that the use of heroin or crack cocaine is associated with higher levels of offending than offending by non-drug users— nearly 10 times as much.
Anyone involved in law enforcement— for example, the police and others involved in the criminal justice system— is well aware that time and again people charged with offences have a drug problem. Furthermore, the drug problem often leads them to further crime in order to feed that habit. Therefore, sadly, there is every chance that many offenders, if released on bail, would do exactly that.
The Government propose that where an adult who has tested positive for a specified class A drug but has refused to have his dependency assessed— or, having been assessed, refuses to undergo relevant follow-up action— is charged with an imprisonable offence, that would have a very significant consequence for bail. It does not mandate that there would be no bail. New paragraph 6A, inserted by subsection (4) of the clause, makes it clear that the court should not grant bail,
"unless the court is satisfied that there is no significant risk of his committing an offence".
If there is no such significant risk of committing an offence, the fact of the drug dependency or the failure to undergo treatment will not count against the person for bail.
This is a very serious issue. The noble Baroness is right, too, to indicate that the Government do not want just to say that the consequence is that bail would be refused, but also to give encouragement to people to undertake testing and appropriate treatment. We would much rather see people who are suffering from drug abuse being helped to get rid of that abuse by helping themselves and helping society as a result.
So there is a benefit in the provision: it will divert drug-misusing defendants into assessment and the appropriate follow-up assistance. It is important to take the opportunity to encourage drug-using offenders into treatment where their drug use can be addressed. I would hope that all noble Lords agree that that is an important and proper objective.

333
I should like to deal with the two issues raised by the noble Baroness. First, I must apologise for the fact that she has not received the letter that I promised her on the last occasion. There is nothing to say other than that I am very sorry this has happened. Only today did I learn that she has not had it. Perhaps I may set out now what will be in the letter, which will be sent very shortly. In that way I can deal with the particular points raised in relation to the availability of treatment.
The noble Baroness generously recognised that, on the last occasion we discussed this, I had said that the provision can apply only in areas where the court has been notified that arrangements for conducting assessments and providing suitable follow-up have been made. Further, they must not have been withdrawn in the area in which the person would have been resident if granted bail. That is made clear on the face of the Bill. The provision will not be brought into force in a given area unless the relevant assessment and follow-up is available. It is likely to be piloted in selected court areas, which will enable us to see how it is working.
We recognise that more treatment capacity is needed. We have already reduced waiting times and increased the numbers in treatment. The target is to double the number of people in treatment by 2008 to 200,000 per year, which is over the 1998 baseline. Direct annual expenditure on drug treatment services, including within prisons, will rise from £ 503 million in the financial year 2003–04 to £ 573 million from April 2005. That includes mainstream spending, prison treatment and pooled budgets.
We also need to ensure that additional investment in drug treatment is translated into additional capacity at the local level. Capacity is being strengthened in the communities most affected by drug misuse, drawing drug misusers into treatment through frontline health services, community outreach and using every opportunity presented by the criminal justice system.
The National Treatment Agency is working with drug action teams to ensure that drug misusers in all areas have access to the full range of treatment. We are also working to further reduce waiting times for treatment. The National Treatment Agency's programme to reduce waiting times is yielding significant improvements in access to services across the country. Waiting times for drug treatment services are being reduced in line with NTA targets. The average waiting time is currently 4.2 weeks for in-patient detoxification services and 4.5 weeks for residential rehabilitation services.
The NTA is also undertaking significant work to plug gaps around the country, thus ensuring that everyone, irrespective of their route of referral, has access to treatment where required, and that the treatment is available quickly and consistently. I can also say to noble Lords that Ministers at the highest level in the Government are concerned to ensure that we are in a position to provide the treatment that the noble Baroness rightly says should be made available as widely as possible around the country.
334
With my apology for not having given the noble Baroness that information before, I hope that at the least it provides some reassurance that the Government are serious about this matter. Perhaps I may repeat that these provisions will not apply except in areas where the treatment and assessment services are available.
I turn now to the human rights issues, which comprise the second point made by the noble Baroness. I am aware of the two points raised by Liberty. I do not accept them. First, I address the proposition that the clause does not fit into one of the permitted exceptions under Article 5(1)(c) of the ECHR. The exception under Article 5 to which this does relate is that which refers to detention considered reasonably necessary to prevent a person committing an offence. We have in fact amended this approach in line with the report of the Law Commission, to which the noble Baroness referred, in order to make it clear that it focuses on the likelihood of further offences being committed, which is a permitted exception. The issue is not simply the fact of drug use; it is the fact of drug use which leads to further offences being likely. That is why there is the exception to which I drew attention before.
So, there being a link between drug addiction and re-offending, which I suggest that all those involved in the criminal justice system and noble Lords in this House would accept without hesitation, we can focus on the perfectly proper exception: whether further offences are likely to be committed.
The other point raised by Liberty relates to Article 8 of the convention, covering the right to private and family life. I understand that that is in the context of a defendant being required to undergo a drug test to obtain bail. As noble Lords will know, Article 8 is one of those which is subject to limitations. Put broadly, those limitations are appropriate in a democratic society for the protection of the rights of others or other perfectly proper purposes. I have no doubt that the requirement that a person should submit to a drug test in order to be in a certain position so far as bail is concerned is a proper requirement, justified under Article 8.2.
Perhaps I may repeat what I said in Committee: these provisions are justified by the need to balance the protections of society against the risk of re-offending, with appropriate incentives for treatment for those who can benefit from it. While I understand the points that have been made, I remain of the view that Clause 18 is extremely important both for the public and drug users. Further, I respectfully agree with the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that removing this clause would lead to considerable difficulties in any event.
I also take the noble Lord's point about justice requiring clarity in legislation. Of course he is right to point out that many of the provisions in this Bill involve amendment to previous Acts. It has been something of a trend for successive administrations to seek to amend criminal justice legislation in order to achieve better justice and better protection for our citizens. However, I take his point about the complexities. Of course I can

335
give absolutely no undertaking as regards finding time to introduce a consolidation Bill, but his point has been noted.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his response. Perhaps I may reassure him that we agree with the Government in accepting that there is a very strong link between acquisitive crime and class A drug use— there is absolutely no difference between us on that point. Further, there is very little difference between us on the matter of the need to make available plenty of high-quality drug treatment services, and I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for outlining the improvements in that area. I hope that he will not blame me for continuing to put pressure on the Government on these matters. I do so because I know that we both share the same objective.
Turning to the points made on the human rights issues, if I were someone in danger of losing my liberty, even if I did not have much confidence in the drug treatment being offered to me, I would accept it. I would then be in danger of failing, being in breach of the order and then coming back to face another criminal offence. That is the matter which concerns us. However, I shall discuss again with Liberty the technicalities of the issues raised tonight by the noble and learned Lord. I thank him for his explanations. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Breast Cancer and Abortion
7.40 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what evidence links breast cancer with abortion; and what measures they are taking to alert women to any risks involved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware, October is breast cancer awareness month. This is therefore a timely debate and I am grateful for the opportunity to ask this Unstarred Question today.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the United Kingdom and affects some 41,000 women every year. It claimed 13,000 lives in 2001, making it the second most common cause of cancer death in women after lung cancer. As the honorary chairman of the Forget Me Not Appeal for Liverpool's Royal Teaching Hospital, I am glad to report that our appeal raised £ 4 million for cancer treatment facilities, including the Linda McCartney Centre for Breast Cancer, which I invited Cherie Booth QC to open.
Throughout the country substantial progress has been made in detection and improved treatment of breast cancer. I hope that what I say today will further help to reduce the incidence of breast cancer among women.
I have never made any secret of my position on abortion. I have always believed in the right to life of the unborn. I do not believe that many of those who supported the Abortion Act 1967 ever anticipated that it would lead to some 6 million legal abortions or to the one in five pregnancies that now end in an abortion. I have also argued that being pro-life is not about choosing between a woman and a child. It should surely be about caring for both and affirming life and human dignity at every stage of life from conception to natural death.
So the issue is not whether you are for or against abortion; it is about its possible consequences. My remarks rely entirely on published studies, evolving medical knowledge, judicial settlements and freedom of information.
For some time now, I have been studying the effects of abortion on women and the evidence linking induced abortion to breast cancer. I find the evidence quite compelling, and it is that evidence that I lay before your Lordships' House today.
Twenty-eight out of the 37 independent studies that have been carried out world-wide have linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of 15 studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, 16 of which found increased risk.
In 1996, Professor Joel Brind of Baruch College in New York and his colleagues at Pennsylvania State Medical College conducted a review and meta-analysis of the studies. It is important to note that half of the Brind team were abortion law supporters. That study found an overall 30 per cent elevated risk among women choosing abortion after their first full-term pregnancy, and a 50 per cent elevated risk among women choosing abortion before their first lull-term pregnancy.
It is thought that there are two ways in which abortion may cause breast cancer. First, an induced abortion causes biological changes to occur in a woman's breasts which make her more susceptible to breast cancer. During pregnancy, a hormone called estradiol, a type of oestrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast significantly to multiply. By seven to eight weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500 per cent over what it was at the time of conception.
If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated— and therefore cancer vulnerable— cells than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full-term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk-producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she had before the pregnancy.
A second way in which it is claimed that induced abortion can cause breast cancer is through delayed first full-term pregnancy. One of the most common ways in which women delay their first full-term pregnancy is of course by abortion.
In February 2000, the New England Journal of Medicine, possibly the world's most influential medical journal, acknowledged evidence of the link between induced abortion and breast cancer in an article written by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. By contrast, the major studies cited as undermining any link, such as the Lindefors-Harris and others study of 1989 and the Melbye and others study of 1997, are seriously flawed by misclassification and methodological errors.
Over the past six years I have had meetings with Ministers and with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and I have corresponded with the department. For more than two years now my colleagues and I have been told that Cancer Research UK is looking at this issue and will be producing a report. That report has yet to see the light of day.
In the RCOG's 2000 guidelines on the Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion and in a recent Written Answer in another place, the RCOG and the Government maintain that evidence of a link between induced abortion and breast cancer is "inconclusive". Yet the RCOG has also acknowledged that the meta-analysis by Professor Brind,
"had no major methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded".
It is impossible to reconcile the RCOG's two statements and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that issue today.
The recent scare with HRT supports the argument for a link between induced abortion and breast cancer. HRT and induced abortion share one thing in common— they raise oestrogen levels. A low fat diet and avoidance of alcohol also reduce a woman's exposure to the hormone oestrogen, which is the key trigger for breast cancer.
Women have a right to know about every possible risk factor for breast cancer, so why the silence on what appears to be a significant risk factor for breast cancer— induced abortion?
If the Government do not place sufficient weight on the mounting evidence of a link between induced abortion and breast cancer, there will be class-action law suits similar to those we are witnessing against the tobacco industry. Years of denial and complacency could lead to claims for billions of pounds in compensation.
In the United States, two more states, Minnesota and Texas, have just passed informed consent statutes requiring abortion clinics to warn potential clients about the link between induced abortion and breast cancer. The world's first known abortion-breast cancer settlement was reported in Australia 2001 because a young woman had been denied information about the possible link. Here at Westminster last year I met the lawyers who acted in that case.
Yesterday, in Washington DC, at the American Senate, I was briefed on the case of a 22 year-old woman from Philadelphia who had an abortion when she was aged 17. Last week she became the first person in the United States successfully to settle a medical malpractice case based on a claim for the failure of her doctor and the abortion clinic to inform her of the increased risk of breast cancer due to abortion.
I also spoke two days ago to Norma McCorvey, who used the pseudonym Jane Roe in the Supreme Court case Roe v Wade in 1973. She is now a leading opponent of abortion, not least because of its effect on women's health.
Today I urge the Government to do two things. First, the Department of Health should, as a matter of urgency, review and publish all the research. Secondly, the Government should press the Cancer Research UK working party to publish its report or at least its interim findings.
Obviously not all women who have breast cancer have had abortions, and no one should imply that. Similarly, not all women who have had abortions will get breast cancer. However, induced abortion causes women to change their childbearing patterns, which in turn leads them to forgo the protective effects of an early first full-term pregnancy. Young girls and women who abort before they have had a child— that is, the majority of abortion patients in the United Kingdom— are at most danger.
The independent evidence linking induced abortion with breast cancer should be— and I am sure will be— of concern to every Member of your Lordships' House. Whatever our views on abortion may be, we should surely all oppose the suppression of evidence and debate. We should all be in favour of freedom of information and empirical research. The Abortion Act 1967 gives women the right to choose, but women also deserve the right to know.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should be grateful if he would give me the opportunity, as chair of Cancer Research UK, to assure him that there will be no need for the Department of Health to press for publication of the results. This is a major international study designed to find exactly the evidence and conclusions that the noble Lord seeks. It will be peer reviewed appropriately and then— and only then because it is an important subject for women— it will be made available in the same way as all our research.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness. I am glad that we are fighting on the same side in this particular battle.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I must, first, declare an interest as chair of the all-party choice group and chair of the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV.
The Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the link between abortion and breast cancer is one that, as he himself said, he has raised on

339
a number of occasions, having spent some time examining the issues. He is perfectly entitled to do so, but my concern is that what he is doing has the potential to cause a great deal of unnecessary anxiety among women.
The noble Lord said that this was not a debate for or against abortion, but there appears to be a concerted campaign by LIFE as part of its continuing action to remove a woman's right to choose. Professor Jack Scarisbrick, LIFE's national chairman, said on 23rd June this year:
"Political correctness means that the 'sacred cow' or abortion can never be blamed in any circumstances".
Such a statement criticises the many men and women who supported the 1967 Act, which eliminated real tragedies that killed women and maimed many of them for life. I certainly do not wish to go back to the days before the 1967 Act. I have great respect for the noble Lord's views, but I disagree with him fundamentally. I believe that the 1967 Act, to use its own words, cares for life— it cares for those women's lives.
It is true, as the noble Lord said, that there has been an increase in breast cancer since the 1980s, but much of that increase has occurred in women between the ages of 50 and 64 who have been invited to have breast cancer screening for the first time. As the noble Lord also said, many factors increase the number of women diagnosed with breast cancer. Breast cancer risk is strongly related to age, with more than 80 per cent of cases occurring in women over 50. The risk of breast cancer for current users of HRT is 66 per cent higher than for never-users. Being overweight and obese increases the risk of post-menopausal breast cancer. Other risks identified are women's reproductive history, excessive alcohol intake, and only today we heard on the news that there was a risk of breast cancer from a high fat diet. Last Sunday's Observer highlighted the fact that girls whose periods began at 11 are 50 per cent more likely to develop breast cancer than girls who began their periods at the age of 15. All these factors have to be considered.
A substantial proportion of breast cancer cases can be explained by factors which influence exposure to oestrogen, and hormonal factors. During any pregnancy, hormone levels are high and this results in a short-term increase in breast cancer risk for the years following a full pregnancy, after which there can be a long-term decrease in risk. Therefore, pregnancy itself can create risk.
Research in respect of any of these factors is crucial, but it is also crucial that that research is credible and not influenced by the views of those carrying it out. For instance, one piece of research evidence that I read was by someone called Patrick Carroll. The research document did not say that LIFE had funded that piece of research. It is terribly important that the people asking for research to be carried out are identified.
Because I am very biased on the question of abortion, I intend to rely not on evidence from pro-choice groups, which I could have done, but on the impartial views of health professionals. It is essential that any woman considering an abortion must have
340
the facts accurately presented, including all the possible alternatives, so that she can give genuinely informed consent.
As the noble Lord said, in March 2000, the Royal College issued evidence-based guidelines on the care of women requesting an abortion. That included the question of the association between breast cancer risk and abortion. After considering the Brind evidence that the noble Lord referred to, the Royal College specifically reassured women who have had an abortion or who have breast cancer that the research evidence on this question is to date inconclusive. Indeed, it identified that studies based on the linkage of national registers on induced abortion and breast cancer, which are less open to bias than case control studies that rely on the recall of subjects, have not shown any significant association.
In December 2001, Professor Allan Templeton of the Royal College said:
"Life are mischief making, we reiterate our advice to women that no causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been proven"
Early studies by an American cancer organisation showed variable results, and these have been used as evidence in many instances. But many of those studies were flawed in a number of ways that led to unreliable results. Small numbers of women were involved, no medical records were used and data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed. The organisation has since conducted better designed studies, using larger numbers of women and consulting medical records. These studies consistently showed that there is no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.
In February this year, the National Cancer Institute in the United States brought together 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Their conclusions were clear: having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.
Cancer Research UK, in its briefing for this debate, identifies many of the differences in studies between case-controlled studies and cohort studies. It found that three out of four case studies showed that there was no significant increase in risk and that the cohort studies showed no link. I appreciate that that work is ongoing and I hope, as the noble Lord does, that we will soon be able to have the findings. We may well be satisfied about different conclusions, because I am fairly certain that, from the evidence so far, the conclusions will not be what the noble Lord is looking for.
In conclusion, the weight of unbiased scientific evidence indicates that induced abortion does not influence a woman's likelihood of developing breast cancer. The efforts of anti-abortionists to scare women away from exercising their legal right to choose abortion is not based on any causal relationship.
I repeat the words of Professor Allan Templeton of the Royal College in reassuring women who might be worried about these tactics that the research evidence on the question to date is inconclusive.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am bound to say that I think the noble Baroness was a little unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He did not, in any part of his speech that I heard, indicate that he wished to inhibit a woman's right to choose, as the noble Baroness said he did. I do not like abortion either, but both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I are democrats; we recognise that when a law is passed, it is a law, and that is what happened. I do not think that the noble Lord was asking this House, this country, or all our women to go back to a point when abortion was illegal.
I think the House is indebted to the noble Lord for bringing these factors to our attention. I am sure that others were as shocked as I was to hear some of the things he said. For instance, it is 50 per cent more likely, say some researchers— only some, of course— that women who have had an abortion will develop breast cancer. Surely that must be taken seriously. If the woman has a family history of breast cancer, the risk of her contracting it rises to 80 per cent after an abortion. Of course there will be some who seek to deny that there is any truth in these revelations. I am so sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is leaving the Chamber. Actually, I see she is taking her place on the Woolsack, and I am grateful to her for remaining with us.
I do not think it is reprehensible for any group to fund research. What is wrong with that? Surely we are broad-minded enough to say that anyone can fund research and then we will listen to what everybody who funds research has to say. I read all the information that we have been given so far. China, for instance, strongly denies that there is any link between abortion and breast cancer. Well, I am not surprised at that, given that the Chinese government make abortion not something that a woman can choose but something that is absolutely compulsory. We have all been horrified by the rights of women in China being ignored in that way. They would have looked pretty silly if they had said that there was a link with breast cancer when they themselves are imposing it on women.
Those who seek to deny that there is any truth at all in these revelations remind me of the fact that, for years and years, people who did not want to believe it pooh-poohed the research that showed that smoking caused cancer. "Rubbish!" they said, and smoked their way to an early grave— not all of them, of course, but many did. Eventually it was recognised that they must at least be warned. They have the choice: they can choose to carry on smoking, but at least they are warned that there is a danger attached to it. However, it has taken years and years to get to that point.
There can be no shadow of a doubt that it is now made supremely easy for young girls to get abortions, and many people believe that that is a very good thing. I read somewhere recently that Britain is the abortion capital of the world. We are now told by researchers that the cancer risk they run is "incalculable"— that was the word used— if they had a history in their family
342
of breast cancer and had an abortion before the age of 18 That is not something that one can easily just argue away. At least, let us consider it, and of course let us look at whatever other research is carried out on the issue.
The researcher that came up with that fact studied 12 women, all of whom were diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they were 45. Surely, even those who reject such findings should acknowledge that, at the very least, the girl presenting for an abortion should be warned. That is all that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is asking for She should be asked at least about her family history. Even if there is only a tiny amount of suspicion that there is a danger, surely it does not do any harm at least to ask her whether she has any such history in her family.
Abortion is championed by many to be no more significant or dangerous than having a tooth out. I believe that people who say that are wrong. Just as some smokers do not get cancer, some women who have a termination of pregnancy will not get it either. But the danger is there, and women deserve to be told about it. I have been concerned for many years that women who have severe psychological problems after abortion have never been warned about the risk. Not all of them suffer in that way, of course; a tough woman will not be bothered particularly, but a sensitive woman often is. That worries me, too, because those are the women who suffer— particularly if they do not conceive afterwards.
There is no packet on which we can print a warning, but we owe it to those women to ensure that every abortion clinic and every hospital carrying out the operation must look at the facts— all the facts. If they find significance in those facts, they must be open and honest with their patients and give them information about what a termination might bring in its wake.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has raised an issue related to women's health I shall take the question at its face value, as it relates to the welfare of women. I shall not get in to the ethics or morality of the abortion issue. It is sad that sometimes women's health issues are used to fuel controversy about contraception, abortion and even hormone replacement therapy.
On Monday of this week, there was a debate in your Lordships' House, which I took part in, about inequalities in health, particularly in the North West of England. There are significant differences in the quality of health in different parts of the UK, let alone the world. Where general health is poor due to diet, lack of exercise, smoking and drinking, underpinned by poor socio-economic conditions, then specific health conditions are likely to be poor, too. In the North West, coronary heart disease, strokes, respiratory diseases and life expectancy rates are worse than in the rest of the country. So are the rates for breast cancer. Hereditary factors, referred to by noble Lords, and socio-economic factors, are by far the greatest determinants in poor health, together with

343
genetic factors, which must not be forgotten. I suggest that the inequalities are what governments should concentrate on.
There has been much debate on the causes of cancer. Some seem indisputable, in association with the socio-economic factors to which I have just referred. Smoking is the cause of much ill health, as well as cancer. We all know the stories of people of 90 who have smoked 40 cigarettes all their lives and are fit and well. Here genetic factors are clearly strong; but by and large, the link between lung cancer and smoking seems irrefutable.
That is not so with breast cancer. We can all be selective about evidence, but I have read a considerable number of reports in connection with this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, referred to some of those reports. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the US National Cancer Institute have evaluated studies and published evidence-based guidelines. The American study tells us that,
"induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk".
I now turn to the national evidence based clinical guidelines for induced abortions, which tell us that the vast majority of induced abortions— more than 98 per cent— take place because the pregnancy threatens the mental or physical health of the woman or her children. These are not mainly young girls. The guidelines go on to offer very specific guidance for clinicians which state that,
"verbal advice must be supported by accurate, impartial information which the woman considering an abortion can understand and may take away and read before the procedure … Professionals providing abortion services should possess accurate knowledge about possible complications and sequelae of abortion. This will permit them to provide women with the information they need in order to give genuinely informed consent".
The only advice that could be given in relation to the link with breast cancer at the moment in that it is not proven.
Women need information to make health choices; so do men. But women choose abortion because they see it as the only option in their current difficult situation.
Discussions about the link between breast cancer and anything that affects hormonal balance are not new. Women who choose to delay their first pregnancy beyond the age of 30 for very good reasons appear to have a greater risk of developing breast cancer. Women who choose not to breast feed also appear to increase their risks. I have read that breast cancer rates in nuns are very high due to their not having pregnancies and not breast feeding, whereas their cervical cancer rates are low due to lack of sexual activity. I have also read about possible links between breast cancer, alcohol consumption and certain foods. It is all very complex and very speculative.
But now let me move on to women's health choices. Let us suppose— I repeat "suppose"— that there were a link between breast cancer and abortion, and let us make an analogy with the link between breast cancer
344
and hormone replacement therapy — a link much better established so far as I know. Should women be denied a choice? I have had friends who were so devastated by menopausal symptoms that they were suicidal from lack of sleep due to night sweats, from hair falling out and hot flushes. Some women have horrendous reactions to the menopause, some do not. The friends I know who have been made miserable would have done anything to relieve those symptoms. They took hormone replacement therapy. That was their choice even though they may have known of potential risks.
The contraceptive pill has been associated with risk yet many women, for one reason or another, do not want a pregnancy. They are prepared to weigh up the risks and benefits. Professionals can give information only to help them make choices.
As I said earlier, women who make the choice of abortion do not make it lightly. I repeat that in 98 per cent of cases abortion is chosen because of a threat to the physical or mental health of the woman or her family. They have this right to choose even if there is risk involved. We all take risks every day. We drive, we cross roads and we perform tasks in the home or garden which may lead to accidents. We choose to take those risks.
We all know the risks of unsafe abortion. In the developing world it is the risks of maternally related mortality and morbidity as the result of poorly spaced pregnancies and complications from unsafe abortions— nearly half— that are major health concerns. I have worked in the former Soviet Union where at one time women had few reproductive health choices. The deaths were not from cancer.
Abortion is a women's health issue. A woman's reproductive health is what is best for her after being given all the information and weighing up evidence, risks and benefits. Let us be quite clear that women are generally very concerned about their health and that of their families. They do not take decisions lightly They are entitled to choice.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, the topic before us tonight is,
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what evidence links breast cancer with abortion, and what measures they are taking to alert women to any risks involved".
I have two answers to the proposition posed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The first is a very brief one. So far as the first part of the Question is concerned, I hope that the Government will do nothing until they have reliable and accredited information which they should then pass on to women in order to inform them of the risks. It is entirely irresponsible to alert women to risks unless there is proper accreditation.
So far the research to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, alluded has no credibility whatever. The research upon which he depends is so flimsy as to be damaging. I take a sad view of this debate tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is flying a very dangerous and damaging kite.

345
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has rightly been honest and open about abortion tonight. It has been his main interest for many, many years. I was going to use the word "obsession" but I shall not do so; it is an interest. Let us pluck out of the air the most frightening of abortion outcomes for women. That would probably be breast cancer. Why those two matters should be linked in this debate is self-evident: in linking the two matters we could be regarded as validating that link. That in itself is incredibly damaging and frightening.
Let us consider the two categories that we are debating. Speakers have already said quite rightly and properly that women do not undertake abortion lightly. A termination is a very big decision. It is often taken for purely medical reasons, sometimes for social reasons or a combination of the two. To put into the minds of such women the concept that termination could put their lives at risk at a later stage is a matter that ought to be looked at very critically indeed. It is grossly unfair to put such pressure on a woman who is making such a fundamentally important decision in her life.
Let us also look at the woman who has had a termination and might pick up a tabloid paper tomorrow. One of my fears is that, by having this debate, we could see the sort of tabloid headlines that we have all seen before. We have seen scares about HRT— in many ways, that is an ongoing debate— and many other such headlines. I saw one recently that said that having a scan and early diagnosis was in some way unnecessary and unhelpful.
I speak with some authority on the subject. I can tell the House that any woman who has had breast cancer becomes an immediate expert. Every part of her brain is on the lookout for any further information. Any such headlines that come into the public domain as a result of the debate would be appalling. I can only hope that other matters going on in this House today will make sure that that does not happen. We do not want publicity to be given to the issue, because it is not founded on fact or sound research. We have already heard about pregnancy, oestrogen and hormones. All that is known to us. We know that oestrogen is a factor not over weeks, but over a different period of time. We accept the problem. Certain scientific evidence is acceptable.
Suddenly putting the two factors— breast cancer and abortion— together is done for a very cynical reason. It is done to act as a stimulant to the case of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is not a way in which he should manipulate women's rightful fears. I very much hope that the debate gets very scant recognition. I certainly hope that no women— young or old— who have been or will be involved with termination and breast cancer will be unnecessarily alarmed by the half-baked research that he attributes and quotes and on which he seems reliant. It is very dangerous, damaging and cynical.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has directed our attention to
346
an interesting and, as it turns out, highly controversial subject. I share his concern about the level of breast cancer— I do not think that any woman could fail to do so— but three points seem clear from the briefs provided to me by the Library. First, some people genuinely thought in the past that there might be a causal connection between early abortion and breast cancer later in life. Secondly, the weight of the most recent, largest and most academically careful research projects, such as the Danish study, now suggests that there is no proven link. Thirdly, some people have used the research to boost their message that abortion is dangerous as well as morally wrong, a matter with which the noble Baroness has just dealt.
I want to say straightaway that I have supported access to induced abortion on the NHS for many years. Indeed, years ago I played a part in determining my own party's policy in the area. On the other hand, I am shocked to learn that, every year in England and Wales, 180,000 women seek that way out of their difficulties and problems. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is very important for schools to provide effective and serious sex and personal-relationship education, starting in primary and continuing into secondary education with teaching to suit the age group. Both boys and girls— I repeat, boys and girls— need to learn how to understand and manage their developing bodies and emotions in ways which minimise both the risk of pregnancy and disease and fear of the unknown.
I shall return to the subject of the debate. Of course we know that there is protection against breast cancer associated with early child-bearing and breast-feeding. That is relatively well-established now, but the opposite— a causal connection between early abortion and additional risk of cancer later in life— is not proven.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, I was particularly interested to read the national evidence-based clinical guidelines on the care of women requesting induced abortion, which were published three years ago. The authors of those guidelines explain that their most robust recommendations must be supported by,
"at least one randomised controlled trial as part of a body of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation".
The evidence has to be well done and relevant. Clearly, the available research did not provide them with that level of certainty about the point of today's debate, because they concluded that,
"available evidence on an association between induced abortion and breast cancer is inconclusive".
That is how they suggest that women should be advised.
That conclusion is reached in response to the guidelines' insistence that professionals who provide abortion services should be able to provide patients with accurate and comprehensive information about

347
the possible complications and consequences of abortion. I entirely concur. Patients should always have access to such advice. I hope that attention to supplying that need would be a sufficient defence against malpractice actions such as those mentioned by the noble Lord. My guess is that such professional advice would be more impartial than some of the highly coloured outpourings of pro-life writers.
Finally, however much we may deplore the number of induced abortions, we should also understand that, sometimes, the continuation of a pregnancy to term can also be fraught with danger— to the woman, to any existing children and to the new baby. Nobody could wish to return to the situation before the legalisation of abortion, where women died, or became infertile or diseased, as a result of back-street abortions.
We should teach young men and women to approach sexual relationships responsibly. We could do worse than to study why the levels of induced abortion among very young girls are so high in the UK and to learn how we can reduce their number. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, indicated that social factors might prove a fruitful area of research. However, to try to scare young women into bearing children against their will on the basis of flawed research into the consequences is not the way to go about it.
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving the House an opportunity to debate the link between breast cancer and abortion. I also congratulate him on his bravery in being the sole noble Lord to speak among so many noble Baronesses.
Noble Lords who have spoken have traded the available scientific evidence on the link between induced abortion and breast cancer and I will not try to add to that. To my untutored eye, the evidence is far from compelling that there is a causal link between abortions and breast cancer. The view of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that there is no proven link carries huge weight. I note the recent findings of the American National Cancer Institute, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, referred. A workshop held this year found no evidence of increased risk. Regrettably, the evidence cited by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, does not seem to stack up.
However, if there is any genuine suspicion of a link between abortion and breast cancer, it is clearly right that it is researched. I welcome the research study being undertaken by Cancer Research UK's epidemiology unit at the University of Oxford and hope that it will report quickly. I was pleased to hear about the progress of the research from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, but the timescale is still in doubt and many women are anxious to see the results as soon as possible.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right, but for such a highly contested issue, it is important that we get the research right. An extensive, international analysis of all the available evidence,
348
some of which is published and some of which is not, takes time. That time has to be used properly and we will then have data on which we can hopefully all agree.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I wish to imply no criticism of Cancer Research UK. I was merely reiterating what I believe most women feel; namely, that the issue has been raised and they would like some more certainty about it as soon as possible.
I want to touch briefly on research. That being carried out by Cancer Research UK is not funded by the Government and we must thank such organisations for undertaking it. I believe that the Government should be providing the bedrock of funding for this kind of important research. I invite the Minister to say how much government money will go into medical research this year and what proportion of the total amount likely to be spent on medical research they will fund. Will she reflect on whether that is the right proportion, given the huge importance of issues such as breast cancer?
The Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raises the question of how much information should be given to women about potential risks. I believe that patients should be given a balanced explanation of the risks associated with any medical intervention. But a line has to be drawn between giving information on the basis on which informed choices can be made and overloading the patient with information. Information should not be given on the basis of unproven hypothesis. It is into that category that abortion and a breast cancer link falls. Indeed, I believe that it would be positively harmful to concentrate on risks that are not proven.
I wish no disrespect to the honestly held views of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Knight, but it is difficult to resist the notion that reducing the incidence of breast cancer is not the key concern of those who are behind the use of the so-called "evidence" of a link between abortion and breast cancer. Their target is the reduction in or the elimination of abortion. As many noble Lords have said, many other factors are associated with the incidence of breast cancer—
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way and I want to intervene only briefly. What she has said could cause great worry. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, but I can say that nothing I have said today or was trying to do today was intended to do what she has described. I merely want all research examined and details when they emerge to be given frankly to women. That is my aim and that is all.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend has said that because I am sure that all noble Lords around the Chamber feel the same way. But many other factors are associated with the incidence of cancer. Family history is an important one, as are controllable issues such as obesity and the

349
decision to take HRT. There are other unproven links through alcohol and even through organo-chlorine insecticides.
However, these are not the targets of the campaigners— and I stress the campaigners outside your Lordships' House— because they have the abolition of abortion in their sights and not the health and well-being of women, which should be our primary concern.
Having taken two interventions, I must be brief. As regards reproductive health in this country, we are fortunate in having contraceptive services and the availability of abortion. There are many issues which we on these Benches do not believe the Government have got right. There are issues about the way in which breast cancer is currently being treated, which we do not believe the Government have got right. Our outcomes are among the worst in Europe; certainly below average. Our waiting times for breast cancer treatment are not improving, even after the reduction in time to first consultant appointment. For example, only 80 per cent then receive treatment within five weeks. And if one wants radiotherapy, one has to be one of the 53 per cent.
We believe that those issues about breast cancer are by far the more important for your Lordships' House to concentrate on, rather than the link between abortion and breast cancer. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
8.29 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for introducing a debate which has sparked such vital exchanges. I am sure that that was absolutely predictable and understandable, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am conscious that we do not have enough time to address all the issues. I wish that we had the rest of the evening.
It is a timely debate for all kinds of reasons, and it provides an opportunity to pay tribute to Breakthrough Breast Cancer and Breast Awareness Week and also to the work of the voluntary societies, including the one in which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, himself is involved— the Forget Me Not Appeal. It is timely because breast cancer is a major preoccupation for every woman and is something that we think about for much of the time. If we have friends or members of the family who have suffered from it, there is always the overshadow of fear that we might get it ourselves. It is the second biggest cause of deaths from cancer among women, with 41,000 new cases each year.
It is absolutely right that we are rigorous and determined in identifying risks and, as my noble friend Lady Massey eloquently said, in providing the essential information that women need both to reduce risks and to make informed choices. But it is vital that we do nothing to raise unfounded fears and anxiety. As many noble Lords said, we know that there is a whole range of known risk factors relating to genetics, the environment, lifestyle, obesity and, as recent research has suggested, high alcohol intake. In
350
addition, there are reproductive and hormonal factors, such as having children at a late age, early puberty or late menopause.
I want to say at the outset that the Government are entirely committed to ensuring that women are as fully aware as possible of the risk factors. If the weight of expert evidence suggested a causal link between abortion and the risk of breast cancer, we would make that information widely available to women as soon as possible. But, as many noble Lords have said— particularly my noble friend Lady Gould— the weight of evidence is not stacking up. That evidence comes not only from the UK but from the US and now, increasingly, from other countries.
I believe we must be alert to some of the issues raised by the research quoted. For example, the Patrick Carroll study was reviewed by the RCOG. That study was not peer-reviewed, and the RCOG concluded that it failed to establish a causal association between abortion and breast cancer. The study by Joel Brind in 2000 was subject to other analyses. Other researchers analysed the literature and reached the opposite conclusion.
However, in this very brief overview of the great deal of evidence that has been made available thus far, I want to be able to show that there is a wealth of international research. Studies have involved many women of different ages and varying reproductive histories. As the noble Baroness Lady Thomas, said and as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said recently, the results of the early studies were slightly inconsistent. But they were difficult to interpret because of methodological considerations— not least the varying patterns of recall of women and self-referral. That explains some of the inconsistency in those studies. However, more recent and more robust studies, whether they were case-controlled through the control group examining what happened to women who did not have cancer or abortions, or cohort— that is, large population— studies, have found no link between abortion and breast cancer.
I turn to what we in the UK, and the RCOG in particular, are doing. In 1999, the RCOG reviewed all the research evidence available at the time. Many noble Baronesses this evening have referred to the RCOG's guidelines produced in August 2000, which, I understand, were inspired by Dr Brind's study and which, indeed, reassured women who have had an abortion or breast cancer that the research evidence on this question to date is inconclusive. A long quotation was read from that set of guidelines.
However, I can tell the House that, after reviewing the most recent and refereed studies, the RCOG is now even more confident than it was in 1999 that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. That should be reflected in new guidelines from the RCOG which are in the process of preparation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before the noble Baroness proceeds. I am grateful to her for giving way. Can she explain why the

351
RCOG also said that that evidence cannot be disregarded? Perhaps she can refer to the successful court action last week based on the same evidence, laid before the British Government, in both the United States and previously in Australia, where women have now won their cases for the right to have information.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I cannot comment on those cases because I am not aware of them. The RCOG guidelines state that professionals involved in abortion care should be equipped to provide women with information on, among other things, the long-term effects of abortion, which are rare or unproven, including breast cancer. So, it is aware of the need for women to be informed even where there is a remote or inconclusive risk. That is part of the whole scope of the information. I think it would be safer if I write to the noble Lord about the Brind study as I do not have the full RCOG report before me, simply the résumé.
We have had additional confirmation from the USA. The November 2003 edition of the International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics includes a committee opinion from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (ACOG) which reviewed the same peer review papers as those recently reviewed by the RCOG with one exception and concluded that there was no evidence in this body of medical research to suggest any causal link.
In addition, and cited in the briefing we had from Cancer Research UK, were cohort studies from Germany and Sweden and of large populations in France, Denmark and China. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, referred to China. I cannot comment on what she said but have in front of me only what was said by the researchers. Those studies, which in one case involved over 1 million women, found either a non-significant increase, no correlation, no increase in risk or even a slight protective effect in some instances where women had had an abortion. I am happy to let noble Lords have that review.
Reference was made to Cancer Research UK's world class review. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayman for her intervention. She knows so much more than I do about such matters. It is a vast and complex study. As she said, it is reviewing not just a potential link between abortion and breast cancer but a whole range of reasons why women contract breast cancer. We are anxious to have the results, but we also recognise that the results must be validated and confident. Therefore, we look forward to them being published as appropriate.
I turn to some of the wider issues raised, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. There is good news about breast cancer research. Research from Cancer Research UK published last year showed that in the past decade British women have had the world's biggest decrease in deaths from breast cancer thanks to better diagnosis and treatment. We want to build on that. It is not good enough and there is a long way to go but we are moving in the right direction and building up a knowledge base. Only last week we announced that the number of patients entering
352
clinical trials has doubled over the past three years. That will have a major impact on helping cancer patients to benefit sooner from new development.
As a Government we spend about £ 190 million on cancer research. Sadly, I cannot tell the noble Baroness what proportion of that goes to breast cancer because it is not broken down by tumour sites. One of our great successes is the expansion of the cancer screening programme. Breast cancer mortality decreased by 21 per cent in 1998. Thirty per cent of that reduction was attributed to breast screening. Quality improvements and the expansion of the programme now to women aged 65 to 70 will make a big difference.
The cancer networks are contributing, as are the cancer collaboratives. We know that there are some problems along the way. Noble Lords did not mention the postcode lottery. Yesterday in another place the Secretary of State addressed that very firmly and stated that the national cancer director has been asked to look at the NHS in every region to ensure that drugs and treatment which have been approved nationally by NICE are available.
The Cancer Plan and the extra £ 570 million for cancer services are major initiatives to ensure that the money gets to where it is needed. Just as we have tracked it now for two years to ensure that it does, so we shall track it again for another year.
On abortion our policy remains as it has been since 1967. Let me make clear that our aim is to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. I am pleased to say that our teenage pregnancy strategy is having an effect. We have had a 10 per cent drop in teenage pregnancies. That is to the great credit of those working in this field.
I must finish. I do so by reiterating that for the vast majority of women who seek to terminate a pregnancy, the decision is not an easy one. Accurate information is absolutely vital, but I cannot state too strongly that ethical and emotional issues should not be compounded by introducing fears about the possible risks of breast cancer in the future on inconclusive evidence. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

Criminal Justice Bill
8.41 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 21[Conditional cautions]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 16, line 43, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 concern Clause 21, the subject of which is conditional cautions. Those empowered to give conditional cautions are listed in subsection (4) as:

"(a) a constable,

(b) an investigating officer, or

(c) a person authorised by a relevant prosecutor for the purposes of this section".

Amendment No. 24 would restrict the list to paragraph (c)—
"a person authorised by a relevant prosecutor".
Amendment No. 25 would increase the flexibility by permitting a police officer, but only one of the rank of chief inspector or above.
The amendments were initially tabled in Committee to prod the Government into explaining how and who would decide whether a conditional caution should be given. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General explained in Committee (at cols. 662 and 663 of the Official Report of 14th July) that this is the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The police officer might propose appropriate conditions, but it will be for the prosecutor, in general for the Crown Prosecution Service, in the words of the noble and learned Lord,
"to confirm those conditions and determine that a conditional caution is appropriate".— [Official Report, 14/7/03; col. 663.]
We are extremely grateful for that explanation of how the process will work. However, we still argue that the wording of the Bill is not as clear as the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord in Committee because Clause 21(1) states:
"An authorised person may give a conditional caution to a person aged 18 or over ('the offender') if each of the five requirements in section 22 is satisfied".
The word "give" on page 16, line 33 gives us difficulty and we think it could be open to misunderstanding. Following from that, under current drafting, a constable could give a conditional caution, but that does not mean that he could, in the words of the noble and learned Lord,
"determine that a conditional caution is appropriate".— [Official Report, 17/7/03; col. 663.]
In Committee, I suggested that the word "administer" in place of "give" would be more accurate and less misleading. That approach did not commend itself to the Government. If therefore they are determined to persist with the word "give" in Clause 21(1) and all that that entails, then they should accept a greater restriction on the list of authorised persons. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I had thought that the position was clear. We intend conditional cautioning to work by making it the prosecutor's decision to give a conditional caution. That is clear from the five requirements set out in Clause 22, the second of which is that a relevant prosecutor decides two things:
"that there is sufficient evidence to charge the offender with the offence, and … that a conditional caution should be given to the offender".
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, that that brooks no ambiguity or misunderstanding. It is for the prosecutor to decide. With respect, I do not agree with him that in those circumstances the meaning of the word "give" in Clause 21 can change. It cannot mean that it is for the constable to decide, when it is clear in the Bill that it is for the prosecutor to decide.
354
The noble Lord proposes a scheme in which the officer who administers the caution must be of the rank of chief inspector or above. As I said in Committee, that cannot be an appropriate use of such a senior officer's time. One of our aims is to have an effective and efficient system for conditional cautions decided on by the prosecutor. I do not resile from my comment in Committee that I would expect that a police officer, having received an admission, would say to the prosecutor, "This looks like an appropriate case for a conditional caution", but it will be for the prosecutor to decide— he may agree or disagree. There will be guidance, as required in the Bill, giving even further help on the sort of case in which a conditional caution should exist.
Given the clarity on the face of the Bill, and that the decision will be the prosecutor's, the Government see no need to involve such a senior officer as the amendment would require. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He used the word "administer" a moment ago. That is where our difficulty arises; that is to say, he rightly drew my attention to Clause 22(2). Paragraph (b) states that,
"a conditional caution should be given to the offender"
The relevant prosecutor decides whether it should be given. But that is different from what happens in Clause 21, which deals with the process whereby, the decision having been taken, the conditional caution is administered to the person in question. If that were not the case, paragraph (c) of subsection (4) would not appear in the same subsection as paragraphs (a) and (b).
We have a situation where the word "give" first in the decision to proceed with a conditional caution and then in the administration of it is being used interchangeably. That is unhelpful and unclear. They are not the same word and they are different functions, as I read Clause 21 from Clause 22. The noble and learned Lord is shaking his head. Does he wish to intervene?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am happy to do so. Under the scheme, the individual will be seen by a police officer. Obviously, that is the first stage, because it is as a result of an admission— that is key— that an offender comes within the scheme at all. It is for a prosecutor to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge and whether a conditional caution should be given. Once the decision has been made that it should be given, someone must "administer" or "give"— in my respectful submission, it matters not which word one uses— the caution. It is a process of explaining to the person the effect of the conditional caution, as set out in Clause 22(4), and ensuring that the document is signed. There will be other things to be done, but that is what "giving" and "administer" mean.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful for that further explanation. In order to explain fully how the process will work, the noble and

355
learned Lord uses the word "administer" to deal with one function as distinct from another. I understand his point about the five requirements and the conditional caution to be given by the prosecutor under Clause 22(2). Once that has been decided, the: process is an administrative one, the decision having been taken. Clarity is very important. If the Government are not prepared to use a word to distinguish the two different functions, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 65.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kingsland, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Attlee, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Avebury, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V.[Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Buscombe, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Noakes, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

Northover, B.

Denham, L.

Roper, L.

Dholakia, L.

Russell, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Dundee, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Fookes, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Stern, B.

Higgins, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Wakeham, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Andrews, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bach, L.

Filkin, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gale, B.

Berkeley, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Billingham, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Blackstone, B.

Goudie, B.

Borrie, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brennan, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Brookman, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Burlison, L.

Hoyle, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hughes of Woodsde, L.

Carter, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hylton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Judd, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Crawley. B.

Kirkhill, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lea of Crondall, L,

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Lockwood, B.

Dixon, L.

Lofthouse of Ponterfract, L.

Dubs, L.

McCarthy, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

356

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mitchell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Turnberg, L.

Palmer, L.

Whitaker, B.

Pendry, L.

Wilkins, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Williamson of Horton. L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Worcester, Bp.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.59 p.m.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved. ]
Clause 22[The five requirements]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 17, line 12, after "offender" insert ", having taken or refused to take legal advice,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26,1 shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. They all relate to Clause 22— dealing with "The five requirements"— which was peripheral to our discussion on the previous amendment. The process of handing out a conditional caution requires that the five requirements be fulfilled. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 would ensure that the offender is given the opportunity to take appropriate legal advice before agreeing to the caution. Amendment No. 28 deletes the subsection which would enable the document of the caution to be used against the offender.
Once again, we discussed this matter in Committee, at col. 668 of the Official Report on 14th July. The Government explained that legal advice would be offered and that the issue would be covered in revised guidelines to the PACE regulations. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General suggested, with honeyed words, that the clause would become unmanageably large if it included everything that was relevant, which was already covered in the PACE codes. One appreciates the force of that argument.
However, the clause introduces an entirely new type of punishment, which has a direct impact on civil liberties. The amendments would increase the length of the clause, but negligibly. However, they increase its clarity on the critical point of the need to be offered legal advice without the complexities of cross-referencing to the PACE regulations.
We do not wish to replicate all the relevant parts of the PACE regulations in the Criminal Justice Bill. The addition of Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 would act as a failsafe and would not leave this fundamental provision open to any doubt. If Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 should be accepted, we would not wish to move Amendment No. 28.1 beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, in support of this amendment, perhaps I may mention a number of points of which the House may not be aware. Even when someone is cautioned, if an issue of

357
character arises in a criminal case, the caution is placed before the jury. Many people do not understand that. Many people imagine that if issues of character are raised, it is only previous convictions that will go before a jury. But a caution, too, goes before a jury if an issue of character is raised. That therefore has serious consequences.
It is for that reason that the issue of having at least the opportunity of access to legal advice could matter. If access to legal advice is not allowed, a person who may be agreeing to a caution should at least be warned that if, on any subsequent occasion, he comes before a court, the caution may be placed before the court as a material feature that might be considered in evaluating evidence. That has serious consequences and it is not a matter without implication. It is for that reason that I raise the matter with the Minister and ask that he might give it some consideration.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall turn immediately to the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of the Shaws. I entirely understand the point that she made about the significance of a caution; one might say, not just for the reason that she gives. Clause 22(4) will require that the person— I hesitate to use the word— giving or administering the caution should explain its effect to the offender and warn him that failure to comply with any of the conditions may result in prosecution. That much is clear.
However, the code of practice proposed under Clause 24 will also contain certain matters. I shall be happy to ensure that consideration is given in that code to whether this is something that should be dealt with. The code of practice must come back to Parliament, so at that stage we shall be able to see how the matter is dealt with. I hope that I have been able to give an assurance to my noble friend that the good point she has made will be considered in that way.
I turn now to the substance of the amendment. The first point I wish to make is that before a suspect can have made the clear admission of guilt, which is a prerequisite for a caution, he or she must have been informed of their right under the PACE code. It is not a question of cross-reference to the PACE code because one simply does not reach this stage without the admission having been made. Because of the requirements of PACE, that will have required the right to independent legal advice having been identified and the person told of it.
Thus, no one can reach the stage of a conditional caution without having had the opportunity to obtain advice. Further, I draw attention to the fact that Clause 22(3) identifies as the third requirement that the offender admits to the authorised person that he committed the offence. So there will have been an interview, the suspect will have been told of his right to legal advice and may well have availed himself of it— that is his or her choice— and all that will happen in any event.
At that stage the advice might cover the pros and cons of a conditional caution, if the matter is raised at that stage. If it is not, then the next question is whether
358
a suspect who returns to the police station on a subsequent occasion and is then offered a conditional caution— it is always an option which can be refused— would have access to legal advice about whether or not to accept it. Under the current arrangements, advice and assistance would be available through the attendance of a solicitor or by telephone. A suspect who had taken the opportunity to seek advice at interview would generally be expected to seek further advice from the same solicitor. Obviously, that would make sense.
It is right to say that, under the proposals being considered, a suspect would not qualify to receive advice from a solicitor attending the police station, but would continue to be able to obtain such advice over the telephone. So the advice will be made available in any event: at the initial interview, with further availability at least by telephone if the suspect returns to the police station and is there offered a conditional caution. That is why the Government do not consider it necessary to put on to the face of the Bill a provision that legal advice is a specific requirement for the issue of a caution because that advice is going to be available in any event.
I turn to Amendment No. 28. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, pointed out that this amendment would not be pursued if Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 were accepted. Of course they are not accepted, so I should deal with this amendment.
The provision set out in Clause 23(2), to which the amendment refers, is that the document referred to in Clause 22(5) is to be admissible as evidence. It is right to distinguish between the two different admissions. There is the admission referred to in Clause 22(3), and there is the admission which is written into the caution. A suspect does not reach the stage of a caution unless he has already admitted the offence. Of course, that particular admission will be admissible because it would have been obtained in circumstances where the PACE codes have been complied with, otherwise one could not reach the stage outlined in Clause 22(2)(a); that is, of the prosecutor being in a position to say that there is "sufficient evidence to charge". The initial investigative process must have been gone through and completed.
Thus a prosecution could not be founded on the caution document itself. It might be founded on an admission made in interview— that is possible— but not on the document itself. The caution document will outline the effects of non-compliance and will state clearly that it might be used in evidence against the person if criminal proceedings were to follow.
There is no need to exclude Clause 23(2). Indeed, that could give rise to problems. It may well be necessary in subsequent proceedings to consider whether or not the terms and conditions had been complied with and the defendant might, for example, say that he had complied with them and that he should not be brought back to court. So the terms of the document itself would need to be admissible in those circumstances.

359
I hope the noble Lord is reassured by the fact that, if it should turn on admissions, the key admission will be the admission that had been made before and not the admission put into the caution document.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has been very clear and explicit about the fact that a suspect will not be able to go through the procedure without obtaining the relevant legal advice, a point which we wanted to have clearly on the record. I understand the points he made about Amendment No. 28 in regard to Clause 23(2). Our preference was to make matters explicit.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for her intervention and for broadening my non-existent legal knowledge. Having said that, the Attorney-General has been very clear about the way the system will operate. We are reassured by that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved. ]
Clause 23 [Failure to comply with conditions]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved. ]
Clause 24 [Code of practice]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 18, line 7. at end insert ", in particular the role of the probation service"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29,I shall speak also to Amendment No. 30. The amendments relate to Clause 24 and the codes of practice relating to conditional cautions.
Amendment No. 29 seeks to include the probation service in the fine-tuning of the conditions that are to be set. We discussed this issue in Committee on 14th July (at col. 678 of the Official Report) when a good deal of concern was expressed. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General explained at that stage that he wished to resist the inclusion of the probation service as a reference point but added:
"I hope that noble Lords will accept that I do not wish to say any more until I am able to give a more detailed and considered answer— [Official Report, 14/7/03; col. 679.]
We have since received a very helpful explanatory letter from the noble and learned Lord, which runs to more than three pages. It goes a long way to answering the concerns raised in Committee. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not consider me too churlish if I make two points about the letter.
The first point concerns its timing. My e-mail in-box shows its receipt as timed at 12.42 p.m. or Wednesday 29th October— that is today, about eight hours ago. It is practically impossible for us to give proper consideration to the points raised in the letter— there are quite a lot of them— and, in particular, to consult with interested outside parties to obtain their comments and reactions. Many noble Lords will regard such discussions as being part of the scrutiny process of the House. It would have been helpful if we
360
had received the letter a little earlier. After all, the Committee stage on this part of the Bill took place on 14th July, three-and-a-half months ago.
Secondly, I draw the noble and learned Lord's attention to a sentence at the bottom of the first page of the letter, which states:
"Three things will be crucial to maintaining the integrity of conditional cautioning. First, there is the detailed guidance on the use of conditional cautions which is in the course of preparation".
This is precisely the point. It was the absence in Committee of the detailed guidance that led to many of the concerns in our debate, and the guidance is still not available.
So many Bills in the current Session and recent Sessions have been what one might call framework Bills. The Licensing Bill is one example. The detail, the flesh and blood of the legislation and its practical application for our society depend on regulations, codes, guidance notes, and so on. I ask the noble and learned Lord if the Government could make a greater effort to ensure that Bills come forward for our scrutiny fully fledged, and not just in outline. Whatever our partisan political viewpoint, we surely can agree that we want legislation that is clear and unambiguous. Such an outcome is best achieved when Bills have been well scrutinised, and we need the detail as well as the framework to achieve this.
Having got that off my chest, I now turn to Amendment No. 30, which would insert a new item into the clause highlighting the consideration that should be made when writing up the codes of practice for those with mental problems. This is rehearsing some of the arguments we had on Amendment No. 20. Amendment No. 30 anticipates the possibility of unfair or unachievable conditions being given to an offender who has mental problems and agrees without fully understanding the consequences.
We are bringing the amendment back at Report because we feel the noble and learned Lord gave unduly short shrift to the arguments in Committee, believing that the amendment would add little to the existing paragraphs. However, despite having read through them carefully, I cannot see anything that deals directly with the character of the offender in any of the existing paragraphs of Clause 24(2). I suppose it could be suggested that subsection (2)(f), which refers to,
"the form which such cautions are to take and the manner in which they are to be given and recorded"
covers someone who has a mental problem, but I find it hardly explicit— in fact, I find it hardly implicit. The inclusion of a further paragraph, drawing specific attention to the importance of proportionality and appropriateness would add an important dimension.
It is in eager anticipation of what the noble and learned Lord will say to us about Amendment No. 31 that I sit down. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will speak to Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 and also to Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal.
We had an important discussion in Committee about how conditional cautioning would work. A lot of work has been done since to put flesh on that. I chaired a meeting and spoke to the head of the probation service about the points which had been raised. That has resulted, as the noble Lord has been good enough to say, in being able to give much more information about how conditional cautioning will work, and I shall shortly put that information on the record.
I entirely accept the noble Lord's point about the information being sent late to him and other noble Lords. I am glad that they have had it; there will of course be an opportunity to discuss much more about this when the code of practice comes to Parliament. Indeed, in the light of the pilots to which I shall refer in a moment, the code may well need to come back to Parliament, so there will be another opportunity. I say that because of the point that the noble Lord very properly makes about the desirability of and need for scrutiny. In any event, he is absolutely right that it would have been better if that letter had been received earlier, and I am sorry that it was not.
That being said, may I say a little more about the way in which the conditional cautioning scheme is proposed to be implemented? I see the scheme as a very valuable addition. It will help to keep people out of criminality and away from having to go to court; it will do something with their offending, help them and, one hopes, help victims too.
There will be scope for geographical variation, which need not be implemented in the same way in every area. It will provide a framework in which the provisions can operate and, particularly, for developing what could turn out to be innovative community justice schemes. The local criminal justice boards that we have established could play an important role.
The intention is to bring the provisions into force next April on the basis that it will then be possible for police and prosecutors to use conditional cautions when it is practicable to do so without special training. They could be used in the sort of relatively straightforward— or very straightforward— case, such as one in which the offender is asked to pay a small and readily ascertainable sum in compensation or attend a self-help group. That would be straightforward. There could be more complicated cases, which I want to deal with separately. However, conditional cautions of that simple kind, which would require little by way of training for the police or the CPS could start to be given nation-wide as soon as the provisions in the Bill are implemented. Therefore, we propose to set up pilots in six areas where we would monitor: the use of conditional cautions and evaluate the effect on the number of prosecutions; the extent of compliance with conditions; enforcement costs; success in terms of reconviction rates; and victim satisfaction.
362
We also believe that conditional cautioning could be used to deliver more sophisticated restorative justice solutions. That is potentially very exciting, as it would involve bringing victims and offenders into direct or indirect contact, where they want that, to discuss the crime and its effects, leading to outcome agreements in which the parties agree what the offender will do in response to the crime. The Government have recently produced a strategy document on that matter. It is a very interesting area that is not without its issues for some people. I have seen it in operation personally and have seen how beneficial it can be, but I also recognise that one must overcome certain hurdles. The outcomes might be compensation, reparation, rehabilitative activities or a formal apology.
The evidence certainly shows that restorative justice can reduce reoffending and improve victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system. Conditional cautioning offers a potential way in which to deal with the problem, but it cannot be done without training. We would clearly have to assess the results before we could recommend the approach on any great scale. We intend to test that use of conditional cautioning in two pilot areas, where we provide funding to train officers in using restorative processes. Those pilots would start when the general scheme is implemented and would be evaluated after a year of operation. That gives more of the flesh on how we would like to proceed.
Those provisions give rise to discussions about the National Probation Service, whose possible role we discussed in Committee. We plainly recognise that conditional cautions need to be properly used and robustly monitored. In the generality of cases, it is unlikely for that to be a priority for the probation service. However, in some cases there is scope for the service to play a useful role in assessing perhaps how suitable certain offenders are for a conditional caution, or in monitoring the performance of certain outcomes. This would depend on local circumstances and on the availability of funding.
I said in Committee that we did not consider the probation service was able to take on that role as its functions presently existed. That is why we have introduced the amendment. At the moment, its powers are limited to cases in which people have been charged with or convicted of an offence. That would not apply to conditional cautions, as it would not be the case as regards the people with whom we are concerned. We want to remove that statutory obstacle, which is the purpose of Amendment No. 31.
The amendment makes clear that the duties of the service extend to giving assistance to authorised persons in determining whether conditional cautions should be given, which conditions should be attached to conditional cautions and the supervision and rehabilitation of persons to whom conditional cautions are given.
I turn to the question of the code of practice. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, thought that I gave short shrift on the last occasion to the point that he made. It is not that I do not agree that in deciding whether cautions should be

363
given in a particular case one has to have regard to whether it is appropriate in that case; of course, that is right. But it seemed to us then— I regret to tell the noble Lord that it seems to us still— unnecessary to add to the list of things to be put into the code of practice a reference to the role of the probation service or a new item about deciding the appropriate conditions. I repeat what I said on the previous amendment; namely, that the code will have to come before Parliament and then one will see— I hope that noble Lords will agree— that it will be helpful and will adequately cover the areas which noble Lords think should be covered.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 32. There is a minor anomaly at the moment that while the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Serious Fraud Office are included in the list of relevant prosecutors who can decide whether a conditional caution should be given, the Attorney-General for some inexplicable reason has been omitted from the list. While I personally doubt that it is a privilege of which I or my successors will wish to avail ourselves, we ought at least to be given the option. That is the reason for putting that measure forward, which I hope will not be controversial.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord on three counts. It was helpful for him to put on the record in some detail the way in which the scheme will operate. I am also grateful that we now have the position of the National Probation Service clarified. I understand fully the point the noble and learned Lord made that previously it was not possible for it to be involved. I am also grateful that there may be a chance for further discussion on the code of practice when it is produced, which will no doubt be very soon.
It is important to consider the position of people with a mental illness regarding conditional cautions due to their particular vulnerability. However, the noble and learned Lord has given a number of clear commitments and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved. ]
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
"ASSISTANCE OF NATIONAL PROBATION SERVICE

(1) Section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (purposes of Chapter 1) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1) there is inserted—

"(1A) This Chapter also has effect for the purposes of providing for—

(a) authorised persons to be given assistance in determining whether conditional cautions should be given and which conditions to attach to conditional cautions, and

(b) the supervision and rehabilitation of persons to whom conditional cautions are given."

(3) After subsection (3) there is inserted—

364

"(4) In this section "authorised person" and "conditional caution" have the same meaning as in Part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. "

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Interpretation of Part 3]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No 32A:
Page 18, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) the Attorney General,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Charging or release of persons in police detention]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 32A:
Page 181, line 23, after "bail" insert "for a period of not longer than 35 days"
The noble Lord said. My Lords, we return to a topic which we raised in Committee. We are dealing with the depths of Schedule 2 to the Bill. We are concerned to put a limitation on the period of time that pre-charge police bail is granted while a case is referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision whether to charge. There is no such limitation at the moment but there is a tendency for the CPS these days to drag its feet over this— as over almost everything else— and it is wrong that a person should have charges hanging over him for an excessive period.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in his response on 14th July told us that the Home Affairs Select Committee had recommended such a limit and that the Government had paid attention to the charging pilots which,
"were suggesting that in most cases a five-week period should be sufficient to enable charges to be brought" —[Official Report, 14/7/ 03, col 684.]
In the amendment that we moved at that time we suggested that 28 days was an appropriate period but at this stage we have adopted the five-week period referred to in the charging pilots, hence this amendment stipulates a 35-day period for police bail before charge.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General also pointed out that it was the Government's view, following the final evaluation report, to have no statutory limit. He suggested that although the period of bail should not be unreasonably long, it would be better for the guidance and instructions to be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Association of Chief Police Officers to stipulate an appropriate period. He also pointed out the power that exists for a person to go to court and ask for conditions of bail to be varied or discharged.
At this stage, we should like to press the Government on what they have in mind. What sort of guidance will there be? How long is it suggested that the period will be before an excessive period is deemed to have occurred? We have come back to the matter to find out whether the Government have made any progress in formulating guidance and instructions on the topic I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in the amendments. They reflect accurately the concerns that my honourable friends in another place expressed in Committee, which were not taken further on Report; as we are aware, Report is a very curtailed matter in another place. I, too, should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could tell the House what further progress had been made on guidance, as it is important to know what period will be considered excessive in such matters.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, chose to make the attack on the Crown Prosecution Service that he did in moving the amendment. I noted him as describing it as having a tendency to drag its feet, in this as in most matters. As the superintending Minister responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, I regard that as an unfair attack on it that ought not to have been made. It does a very important job. Its many professionals up and down the country deal with 1.4 million cases throughout the year, bringing them to the courts, and they deserve rather better than a generalised attack on them in those terms. I have absolutely no hesitation in rejecting that charge.
I shall deal with the length of time for bail. Let the circumstances in which we are referring to bail be understood. We are referring to a system in which the decision to charge will be taken by crown prosecutors in consultation with the police. The circumstances then will be that the custody sergeant will have taken the view that there probably is sufficient evidence to charge the particular individual, and that will then be considered with the prosecutors.
In the large majority of cases, it is very likely that the decision to charge will have been taken within a period of 35 days, the figure referred to in the amendment. However, the Crown Prosecution Service is not the only relevant body; there must be further investigations by the police in certain circumstances. Therefore, there will be cases where the nature of the investigations and the decisions means that a longer time is necessary. I draw attention to the fact that the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, in an important letter that he recently sent to noble Lords, said that,
"any artificial time limit on the proposals is undesirable. Evidence can, of necessity, take time to prepare. If artificial time limits are imposed, when the prosecution have no control over the availability of evidence, they will lead to escalating costs, unnecessary hearings and discharged cases. Instead, each case should be closely monitored".
What would happen under the amendment if the 35-day limit was reached and the police and prosecution were not in a position to charge? There is no provision in the amendment for renewal of bail by the police. What would happen if the person presented himself at the police station? There would be only two choices: either the conditions which the police thought to be
366
necessary and appropriate in the case of that defendant would have to be abandoned, or the defendant would have to be charged there and then. That would reduce the benefits of a scheme in which a considered decision is taken so that cases which should not be in the system are dropped and that others go forward in a well prepared and focused way.
I reiterate that we are discussing bail and not custody. Conditions are attached to it, but the person is still at liberty. However, if he feels that the bail is oppressive and that too much time is being taken, either he can go to the custody officer— who can vary the custody conditions— or, failing that, he can go to the court and ask it to discharge or vary the bail. That would be a more than adequate way of controlling the provision.
I am sorry for having begun on an disagreeable note, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that it is right to make a clear statement about the position of the CPS. For the reasons that I have given, I resist the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I acknowledge the remarks of the Attorney-General about the CPS and I appreciate why he feels that it is necessary to leap to its defence. There is no room for complacency in that service. It is not the moment to debate its faults and failings, but he would find it difficult to answer all the charges that are levelled against it. I heard a lengthy complaint myself only two nights ago and I have personal experience of cases being put back and of comments made by judges about it. However, it is not an appropriate moment to debate that topic. Perhaps it is a matter that I can put down for full debate at another time.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I would welcome that. It would be an opportunity to address the generalised points that the noble Lord has made.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that they are generalised points. I would make them specific if and when we came to them. On the matter before us, I have heard what he has said and reserve my position, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Defence disclosure]:
[Amendment No. 33 not moved. ]
Clause 32 [Notification of intention to call defence witnesses]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved. ]
Clause 33[Notification of names of experts instructed by defendant]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 35:
Leave out Clause 33.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment raises important matters of principle relating to defence disclosure. Many issues arise from the clauses that cover it. I do not believe that a Wednesday night is an appropriate moment to raise the issues. The matter requires a fuller House and we shall come back to it at Third Reading. I shall move the amendment in order to hear what the noble and learned Lord says about it, but shall not take it further. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, the noble Lord indicated that the matter will not pursued tonight, but the whole issue of disclosure seems arcane to those who are not directly involved with it. That the Bill will require the defence to disclose a list of its witnesses to the Crown and the effect that that will have are matters of concern. Those witnesses will be seen by police. Even with the best will, that could be intimidatory to many people whose evidence may be necessary in seeing that justice is done.
If the police are to visit witnesses and see them in advance of the case coming to trial, there is every risk that people will not come forward. That is the concern of many of us. If we are not to proceed with the matter today, I hope that it will be debated fully and dealt with properly at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness was referring to a matter which would have been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, had the noble and learned Lord been here—
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it would have been raised in Amendment No. 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which he did not move. That amendment deals with witnesses, the subject to which my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws referred.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness said; but it is not a matter for debate today. I want to refer to Amendment No. 35; and, at the risk of testing the patience of noble Lords, to look at what was said about the matter in Committee.
In Committee, a number of noble— and noble and learned— Lords suggested that, in one way or another, the clause breached the principle of legal professional privilege. In responding to the debate, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General sought to reassure your Lordships at col. 732 of Hansard of 14th July 2003. I apologise to your Lordships in advance for quoting a number of extracts from what the noble and learned Lord said.
He said three things about the question of legal professional privilege. First, he said:
"It does not require that any unused expert report should be disclosed, precisely because of legal professional privilege, the importance and existence of which the Government and I were well aware before the clause was finalised".
368
The noble and learned Lord went on to say, secondly:
"Equally, legal professional privilege means that it would not be appropriate if an expert was known to have been consulted and was then seen by someone from the prosecution"
So far, so good. The noble and learned Lord then went on to add to that part of his speech:
"It would not be appropriate to probe that expert over the opinion that he had given before".
The noble and learned Lord then went on to say:
"It would be inappropriate to ask for information that would indicate material which had been provided by the accused, for example. If it were a psychiatric report— my noble friend Lady Kennedy gave an example in which the psychiatrist based his opinion on an account given by the defendant of what had taken place— that would be privileged information and ought not to be disclosed".—[Official Report, 14/7/03, col 732.]
However, at the beginning of the following paragraph in col. 733, the noble and learned Lord added:
"There are circumstances in which an expert does not have privileged information and where it would not be inappropriate for one party to consult an expert who had been consulted by another"
Further down the column, the noble and learned Lord explained what he meant by that statement. He said:
"It would be possible under the clause, provided that the expert was not questioned about the work done for the defendant or asked to give any opinion that would disclose in any way legally privileged material that he had had, for such a person to be consulted and employed by the prosecution". — [Official Report, 14/7/03, col. 733.]
But, as I understand it, in those circumstances, such a disclosure is already permitted in law. The noble and learned Lord, himself, said, at the beginning of the preceding paragraph that, in a civil case in which he had been involved in the 1980s, precisely that situation occurred. In response to an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, the Attorney-General said that there is no distinction between criminal and civil law. Therefore, in my submission, if the example that the noble and learned Lord gave of his own civil case is a motive for including this clause in the Bill, it cannot be a proper motive.
The one other reason that the noble and learned Lord gave for including the clause in the Bill was that it is intended to deter shopping around when it is improper. In my submission, that was extremely well dealt with by my noble friend Lady Anelay in her summarising remarks. She asked,
"why should not the defence be allowed to instruct more than one expert and on receipt of that report then decide whether to rely on it without the threat that the prosecution might leave the court to draw an adverse inference on the defence's decision not to use the expert's opinion?".—[Official Report, 14/7/03, col. 736.]
One is inclined to say to your Lordships that that is a very powerful argument. After all, earlier in the Committee stage we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that, in practice, such a provision is unnecessary anyway because 99.9 per cent of criminal cases are financed by legal aid and the rules of the legal aid system will not allow a defendant to seek to instruct more than one expert.

369
But surely the most telling reason why your Lordships should not adopt the provisions set out in the clause is this. There is a very good reason why the rules of disclosure for the prosecution, on the one hand, and the defence, on the other, should differ. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If its experts differ, there is prima facie doubt and the court must know about that. I suggest that it works in entirely the opposite way for the defence. The reason the defence should be entitled to disclose only its best case is that that is the best way to test the prosecution's obligation to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. That has been English law for, dare I say it, hundreds of years. Why on earth should the Government second-guess it now?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I note, first, that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, moved the amendment, although we had debated this issue in Committee and, indeed, divided on it then, although not, I accept, on this precise amendment. However, we divided on an amendment which had substantially the same effect. I do not suggest for a moment that the amendment, as it stands, is not entirely proper and that it could not be the subject of another division. However, we had debated it.
Perhaps I may say, gently, to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that to say that these matters have been put down for Report but that he does not really want to deal with them now but wants to save them for Third Reading turns Third Reading into even more of a Report stage than perhaps some people think is appropriate. I make the comment and no doubt others will consider whether it is worth elaborating on it at some other time.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, dealt with the substance of the amendment. I am happy to be taken back to what I said in Committee. First, the starting point is that normally the prosecution must disclose the identity of any expert it has consulted but does not call, and any unused reports. Secondly, it is said that there is a problem with some defendants shopping around. I made clear that I accepted— if I did not explicitly accept it, certainly I accept it now— that because of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the likely lack of availability of legal aid for publicly funded defendants, the prospects of that happening are at least small. However, there can remain a problem in cases where defendants are privately funded.
Thirdly, I attempted to give a clear and I hope helpful answer not about motive but about where professional privilege created a difficulty. I accepted entirely that although there had been those who wanted there to be disclosure of experts' unused reports, professional privilege in the Government's view meant that that was not appropriate, so that was
370
not a recommendation that found its way into the clause. I also accepted, as a result, that it would not be appropriate for anyone to go and see an expert to try to discover from him what he had been told by the defendant or what he had said to the defendant. I excepted a theoretical possibility— I indicated anecdotally that it happened to me— of someone whose skill was so forensic that it was acceptable for that person then to give evidence for one side rather than the other. I make it plain that that was no part of the motive. I have no reason to believe that that is a way that this provision would be intended to be used.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I should like to correct two points. First, in the kind of cases where psychiatry is used it is very rare for there to be private representation. In serious criminal cases, legal aid is now available across the board because of the nature of the crime. It is only by choice that people might seek to privately instruct, which is rare. The second matter goes to the heart of this.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, this is a question.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would remind the noble Baroness that only points of elucidation are to be raised on Report when the Minister is dealing with questions.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, but it is very important. Normally, what happens is that when a psychiatrist goes to see a patient in preparation for a report, the first thing the psychiatrist says is, "You realise that anything I ask you I may have to disclose if I am required to do so in the case". So, almost invariably a consent has been given for disclosure but the disclosure is very specifically for purposes of the defence. I am concerned that that permission might be used and I want to know whether the Minister will put on the record that such a consent given by a defendant to a psychiatrist, taking information from him, for example, about the events that took place, will still be covered by privilege even where a consent has been given. I hope my noble and learned friend is following the point. I am asking whether he is prepared to say—
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I thought the noble Baroness said she had two questions. I was waiting for the second.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I wanted my noble and learned friend to agree that the example of private representation is so rare that we are really talking about publicly funded work where shopping around is a nonsense. It just does not happen. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that it very rarely happens?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I have just made it clear
that there are a few privately funded cases. The considerable majority of cases are publicly funded. I have made that absolutely plain already. I have said that as a result this is something which none the less can arise in privately funded cases. So I have answered my noble friend's question. She may not like the answer, but I have answered it.
My noble friend's second question was to ask me how to interpret consents which are given to psychiatrists in certain cases. I think that I need notice of the question. I shall certainly consider it and write to my noble friend about it. I do not think that I should answer it simply standing on my feet and being faced with it for the first time.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, will my noble friend put that letter in the Library of the House?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I put all letters that I send to noble Lords arising from debate in the Library. So the answer to that is, of course, yes.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for illustrating better than I possibly ever could the reason why I do not propose to debate the matter at length at this stage. The whole topic of defence disclosure is extremely important. If these provisions go through, they could significantly alter the balance in a criminal trial from that which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland— for whose support I am grateful— indicated has been the law for centuries.
It is entirely wrong that a debate on a subject with principles as significant as these should depend on the vagaries of the timetable— there are 20 minutes to go until 10 o'clock, when we are supposed to cease debating it— and on the presence of a very thin House. The whole legislative process is thrown into disrepute if we try to make decisions simply based upon the vagaries of the timetable when various issues come forward for debate. That is the reason why I have not expanded upon the debate we had in Committee and why I shall reserve my fire on a very important topic for Third Reading.
Furthermore, an influential and major speaker on the topic, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for reasons that we can well understand is not able to be present at this time of night, although he was in the House earlier this evening. These are all very good reasons for this debate to be delayed.
I shall not listen to gentle hints from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on the topic. I think that it is a matter of considerable public importance. That is the reason why I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage but I give notice that we
372
shall have the kind of debate that was stifled— perhaps "stifled" is too strong a word— or not pursued because the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was out of order under some technical rule of this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Further provisions about defence disclosure]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved. ]
Clause 37 [Faults in defence disclosure]:
[Amendment No 37 not moved. ]
Clause 38 [Code of practice for police interviews of witnesses notified by accused]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 27 line 41 alter "officers" insert "and other persons charged with the duty of investigating offences"
The noble and learned Lord said My Lords, in moving Amendment No 38, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
In Committee, we addressed the question of the risk that in the hands of over-zealous or unscrupulous police officers undue pressure might be applied to defence witnesses by amending the Bill to require all interviews conducted by the police under the clause to be governed by a code of practice. That is set out in Clause 38.
The amendments will further strengthen the value of the code of practice as a safeguard. As the enabling powers stand, the code of practice would apply only to interviews conducted by police officers. But it occurs to us that interviews with defence witnesses might be conducted by non-police investigators under circumstances where the considerations may not be that dissimilar- for example, Customs or the Serious Fraud Office.
Amendment No. 38 modifies the enabling powers to apply the code to non-police investigators as well as the police Amendment No. 39 requires non-police investigators to have regard to the code Amendment No 40 provides that a failure to have regard to the code will not in itself expose a non-police investigator to criminal or civil proceedings. In short, therefore, the amendments extend the safeguard that we have already accepted and put into the Bill to non-police investigators I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is a useful and important additional safeguard. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it is indeed useful tinkering with the Bill, and we agree with it. It does not go to the fundamental principles with which this section of the Bill is concerned. We will support the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40:
Page 28, line 11, after "officer" insert "or other person charged with the duty of investigating offences"
Page 28, line 41, leave out "police officer" and insert "person mentioned in subsection (3)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [H.L.]
Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
House adjourned at two minutes past ten o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Nomenclature
  Northern Ireland: Nomenclature
  North/South Ministerial Council: Corporate Governance Seminars
  North/South Ministerial Council: Corporate Governance Seminars
  Northern Ireland: Knockmore to Belfast Railway Service
  Northern Ireland: Knockmore to Belfast Railway Service
  Iran: Nuclear Programme
  Iran: Nuclear Programme
  Property Sales: First-time Buyers
  Property Sales: First-time Buyers
  Bae Systems: Sale of Hawk Jet Trainers
  Bae Systems: Sale of Hawk Jet Trainers
  Mobile Telephone Numbers: Comprehensive Directory
  Mobile Telephone Numbers: Comprehensive Directory
  European Union: Draft Directive on Articles of Precious Metal
  European Union: Draft Directive on Articles of Precious Metal
  Price Marking (Food and Drink Services) Order 2003
  Price Marking (Food and Drink Services) Order 2003
  Wireless Telegraphy (Limitation of Number of Licences) Order 2003
  Wireless Telegraphy (Limitation of Number of Licences) Order 2003
  Fuel and Power Imports
  Fuel and Power Imports
  Public Sector Contracts: Small Businesses
  Public Sector Contracts: Small Businesses
  Employment Service Estate
  Employment Service Estate
  SchlumbergerSema
  SchlumbergerSema
  Schools and Prisons: Cost of Providing Meals
  Schools and Prisons: Cost of Providing Meals
  Education: Specialist Science Teachers
  Education: Specialist Science Teachers
  Income Contingent Student Loan Scheme
  Income Contingent Student Loan Scheme
  Key Workers: Housing Grants
  Key Workers: Housing Grants
  Individual Pension Funds
  Individual Pension Funds
  School Minibuses
  School Minibuses
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  "Jambo": Recovery of Zinc Sulphide Cargo
  "Jambo": Recovery of Zinc Sulphide Cargo
  The Minch: Rights of Passage
  The Minch: Rights of Passage