Sitting of 26 April 2004

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

    Civil Service (Relocation)
    Hugh Bayley: If he will make a statement on how the Lyons review on relocation will affect his Department. [167675]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): Eighty-two per cent. of the Department for Work and Pensions' work force is already located outside London and the south-east, compared with 71 per cent. of the population. Taking account of the Lyons review, we are planning to relocate some 4,000 posts. As the Department substantially reduces its total work force over the next few years, we intend to concentrate activity on a smaller number of sites. Work relocated is likely, therefore, to be moved to existing DWP sites.
    Hugh Bayley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how well York has coped with a number of Government Departments wishing to move additional jobs into the city, including his own Department, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? Is he willing to ask his officials to meet representatives of the York inward investment board—and perhaps some senior managers of Government agencies that have moved to York—and to look at York's feasibility as a location for the redeployment of some of the 4,000 jobs to which he refers?
    Mr. Smith: As the House would expect, my hon. Friend is a persuasive and energetic advocate of the case for inward investment in his constituency. At the risk of setting our officials up for an entire sequence of meetings with similar bodies elsewhere, I am happy to agree to the meeting that he suggests. I do, however, offer one word of caution. As the House will be aware, our Department is scheduled to reduce total staff numbers by some 40,000—a net 30,000—by 2008, so it is likely that there will be staff reductions in a number of parts of the country.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: That is exactly the point. As the Secretary of State
    618
    points out, the Budget that followed the Lyons review announced yearly reductions of 6 per cent. between now and 2008, which will have a very serious effect on staffing throughout the Department and its agencies. The Lyons review asked for a timetable for the implementation of the redeployments proposed before the Budget. When will it be available, and when will he look at the irreducible core of the 2,500 London-based civil servants in his Department?
    Mr. Smith: On the last point, of course, all such matters are a feature of the review of our overall staff numbers. On the timetable, I shall make further information available on overall staff reductions, and on relocations in the light of the Lyons review, following the spending review. The hon. Gentleman and the House will understand that managing change on this scale—it is virtually unprecedented in the white collar public sector—has to involve the most careful planning, and careful consultation and discussion with our staff and trade unions, as well as with the managers who must carry it out.
    Mr. George Osborne: The Secretary of State says that there needs to be careful planning and consultation. Did it take place before he made his announcement?
    Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will know, of the total number of reductions announced, some 18,000 had already been discussed with the trade unions and were being planned by the Department. Of course, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), before any decisions are taken concerning the announcement's implications for individual centres or members of staff, further discussions with the trade unions will take place.

    Carer's Allowance
    Mr. Simon Thomas: If he will make a statement on his policy regarding the interviewing of partners of those in receipt of carer's allowance. [167676]
    The Minister for Work: From April 2004, partners of those receiving prescribed working age benefits—the income-based jobseeker's allowance, income support, incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance—in Jobcentre Plus areas will be asked to attend a work-focused interview when the benefit claim is 26 weeks old.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply, but she must be aware that many carers and their partners are concerned about such interviews. Can she confirm that in order to look after their partner, carers receiving the carer's allowance must be working 35 hours a week, and that their partner must be accepted as severely disabled and in need of frequent or continuous care? In that context—and in the light of Government support for carers and of the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill—what can she say to carers in my constituency and throughout the country to alleviate their distress at the prospect of this series of interviews? Also, can she say

    619
    something about her staff, one of whom told a constituent of mine that "35 hours a week is just a day and a half; you still have five and a half days to work"?
    Jane Kennedy: If distress has been caused, I regret that, but it is worth pointing out that there is no suggestion that people should give up caring in order to work. We recognise the important work that carers do, and we acknowledge the debt that we owe to them.
    Some carers do combine work and caring, and caring responsibilities do come to an end. What we are doing is offering those who want to consider work the opportunity to do so. The benefits of economic growth and record levels of employment have not been shared across households. We put forward these proposals as a result of our intention to help carers who wish to consider their options.
    David Taylor: One of my constituents is the partner of a person receiving one of the benefits that the Minister mentioned. Although she was still working full time, she was asked to attend such an interview. What was the purpose of that, when the original flagged up intention was that interviews would take place only in cases where the partner contributed in some way towards the benefits of the recipient?
    Jane Kennedy: The purpose is to reach all those carers who, in the circumstances I mentioned earlier, would be interested in taking advice on how to obtain work. I believe that it is important for partners of those receiving benefit to have individual support and advice from their own personal adviser through the interviews. It is worth paying tribute to the willingness and enthusiasm of jobcentre staff in embracing the changes that we asked them to undertake and in undergoing the training necessary to equip them for the interviews. I cannot respond to the specific example that my hon. Friend raised, but I point out to him and the House that a system of deferrals and waivers is in place in respect of those for whom the work-focused interviews are inappropriate. All that is necessary is for first contact to be made and for the carers to explain their individual circumstances. There will then be the possibility of the waiver.

    Funded Pension Provision
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What progress he is making towards his target on funded pension provision. [167677]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Our objective is to bolster security and confidence in private pensions so that in the long-term an increasing proportion of retirement incomes derive from private provision. We are doing much to achieve that. There is the Pensions Bill with a pension protection fund and pro-active regulator, which will significantly increase
    620
    the protection offered to pension scheme members. We also have a strategy of informed choice that empowers individuals to take control of their retirement planning.
    Mr. Swayne: What assessment has the Minister made of the proposals of the Adam Smith Institute and others to reduce the unfunded liabilities of the state's own employee occupational schemes?
    Malcolm Wicks: We consider a whole range of ideas. Rather to my surprise, I was invited to speak at a seminar at the Adam Smith Institute some months ago—not bad for a Fabian. We consider all those ideas, but we are convinced that the proposals in the Pensions Bill will bring much greater security back into occupational pensions, which remains a major priority for the Government.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the Minister accept that one of the best ways of boosting his goal of increasing funding provision would be to ensure that all those who have saved towards their retirement get the pension to which they are entitled? The House has effectively provided a guarantee that when the Pensions Bill returns, an amendment will be tabled to provide compensation to those who have already lost their pensions, reclaiming the moneys through unclaimed assets. To what extent has that strengthened the Minister's hand in his crucial negotiations with the Treasury?
    Malcolm Wicks: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful question, but I am not in a position today to add to the statements already made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister last week. They both made it clear that the Government are very concerned about the hardship and injustice faced by this particular group. We are examining the position very carefully and we hope to present any conclusions as soon as possible. It is important, however, even at this stage, not to raise expectations that might prove beyond what it is possible to meet.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister did raise expectations considerably when he spoke in the House last week? Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister clearly said that serious consideration was being given to making the compensation arrangements in the Pensions Bill retrospective?
    Malcolm Wicks: Let us remind ourselves of the context. The Government are legislating to protect the future through a protection fund, which will protect the pension rights of at least 10 million scheme members. That is hugely important. The official Opposition declined to give the Bill a Second Reading, so we should pay attention not so much to what they say, but to what they do about the security of pensions.
    In terms of the group that we are talking about, I cannot add to what I said a few moments ago or to what the Prime Minister has said, but our intentions for the future are clear with the protection fund.
    Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that if assistance is to be

    621
    forthcoming, it will have to extend beyond those who were technically compelled to join occupational pension schemes and to all who have suffered as a result of the crisis?
    Malcolm Wicks: We need to look carefully at the facts. We are doing that and are collaborating with industry to see just how many people have been affected in the terrible way described, and we need to examine the different groups. I must say again, however, that we do not want to do anything to raise expectations beyond what is realisable. We understand the importance of the matter to the House and will bring forward our conclusions as soon as possible.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the Minister accept that a new employee now has only a one in five chance of joining a company that has a final salary scheme still open? Does he accept that the Bill will not encourage a single employer to open a new scheme or to keep one open that is already in existence? Is not the Bill just an elaborate memorial service following the demise of final salary schemes in this country?
    Malcolm Wicks: We have a wide-ranging strategy including tax simplification, simplifying pension schemes wherever possible, the informed choice strategy, the new regulator to stop things going wrong in the first place, and the pension protection fund. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed all that in Committee for rather too long, and for him to dismiss as a fig leaf a Bill that will give security to at least 10 million scheme members in future is a piece of social policy illiteracy.

    Pension Credit
    Ms Sally Keeble: What steps he is taking to provide pensioners with information about pension credit. [167678]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): By the end of this month, ahead of schedule, we will have written to every pensioner household in the country about pension credit. From May, we will make further contact with those households that are most likely to be eligible but that have not responded so far. The campaign will be supported by TV and press advertising as well as local activity in partnership with Help the Aged, Age Concern and Citizens Advice. Thanks to record take-up in March, 2.9 million pensioners are receiving pension credit, with an average household award of £41.34 every week.
    Ms Keeble: I am grateful for that response. May I put a particular point to my right hon. Friend about the need for explanations and information for pensioners to include information about housing benefit? I have raised this question with him before, and the information that he has provided has very much satisfied my constituents. None the less, there is a need to ensure that people possess all the necessary information when they make their applications so that they know exactly where they stand financially.
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. She has indeed raised these matters with me personally
    622
    and in correspondence, and I am pleased to have been able to satisfy her and her constituents. She is absolutely right that it is important for people to have accurate information, including the extent to which thresholds relating to housing benefit and council tax benefit had already been increased to allow for those who would be in receipt of the savings credit.
    Mr. Steve Webb: A pensioner who wants to find out about pension credit might think that ringing the Pension Service was one good strategy. Yet the Minister told me last month in a written answer that in January, the most recent month for which figures are available, 100,000 pensioners abandoned calls to the Pension Service, presumably because they were fed up waiting for someone to answer. Is that not a disgrace, and what will he do about it?
    Mr. Smith: If anyone wants information about eligibility for pension credit, I recommend that they ring the pension credit application line on 0800 991234. That has a record of answering well over 90 per cent. of calls within 30 seconds, hence the record take-up of pension credit in March, which has enabled us to hit our target of 2.4 million pensioner households and 2.91 million individual pensioners gaining from pension credit, which is help that they would not have had from a Conservative Administration or from the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: I shall follow on from the excellent supplementary asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that the biggest barrier is still the complexity of the present scheme? In particular, I have a constituent who has a 41-year-old daughter living with her who pays hardly any money for her keep. As a result, that pensioner continues in poverty and is also unable to claim the money that she really needs. Can my right hon. Friend ensure that the system is simplified so that take-up by people in such positions can be given a following wind?
    Mr. Smith: We have made strenuous efforts to make take-up of pension credit as simple as possible. The most convenient way to do so is through the pension credit application line that I just mentioned. We have had much positive feedback, including independent research, that shows high satisfaction levels with the quality of advice and support that pensioners are given. In addition, we have the local Pension Service, which has now conducted some 400,000 home visits in especially complex cases or if the pensioner involved is frail or very elderly. I commend the home visiting service of the Pension Service, which is doing a great job.
    Mr. David Ruffley: In the context of savings by pensioners, can the Secretary of State explain why the national UK savings ratio has fallen by half since his party came into power?
    Mr. Smith: As I have been pleased to explain to the hon. Gentleman before, the savings ratio reflects people's general confidence in the state of the economy and their expectations of low inflation. That is why the

    623
    ratio has been lower in times of economic stability and confidence, under Governments of both political persuasions, and has been higher when people undertake precautionary saving because they fear inflation. Thankfully people are not fearful of inflation at present and that helps to explain why the ratio is lower. As for pension savings, the measures that we are putting in place through our informed choice strategy—and the measures in the Pensions Bill that my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions has just set out—will build confidence in pension savings, so that a pension promise made will be a pension promise honoured. That is in contrast to the scandalous situation that has arisen from the weaknesses in the Tories' Pensions Act 1995.

    Private Pensions
    Bob Spink: What recent representations he has received on public confidence in private pensions. [167679]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I outlined earlier that the Government believe that the issues of confidence and security are crucial. They determine many of the things that we are doing, including the employers' taskforce, which exists to consider good practice so that more people can benefit from occupational pension schemes. I emphasise again the importance of the Pensions Bill, which will introduce the new regulator and the protection fund.
    Bob Spink: For such an excellent Minister that was an outrageously complacent response. It completely ignored the plight of the 60,000 pensioners who have already lost their pension rights. Last week, the Prime Minister hinted at a change in policy. When will the Government stop hinting, spinning and raising expectations, and actually make an announcement that they will do something to help to compensate those 60,000 people who have already lost their pension rights?
    Malcolm Wicks: The early part of the question was along the right lines, but I dealt with the rest of it earlier. The protection fund will protect, from April next year—we hope—more than 10 million scheme members. We voted for the Second Reading, but the Opposition—presumably not including the hon. Gentleman—voted against it. We are working hard on the terrible situation facing those already affected. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made his statement and the House will have to be patient a little longer.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week, as did the employees of H. H. Robertson, who lost their pension fund in a disgraceful way. I appreciate the difficulties facing my hon. Friend the Minister, but has he made any progress in identifying the number of schemes affected? Is the figure of 60,000, which keeps being bandied about, accurate?
    Malcolm Wicks: We estimate that the figure of 60,000 is about where it is, but we are trying to refine it. That is why we need to do more research. It is a frustrating
    624
    position, but some can just talk about the issue. We have to explore the facts, do the research and talk through some of the issues with industry. We do not want to raise false expectations, and I emphasise that at this stage. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will come to the House just as soon as we can.
    Mr. David Willetts: All we are trying to do is find exactly how far round the U-turn Ministers have got. We want to know some simple facts about today's situation. May I remind the Minister of exactly what the Prime Minister said last week? He said that he was
    "actively considering the position of people who … find that all the money that they hale invested yields absolutely nothing."–[Official Report, 21 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 293.]
    How many people does the Minister believe are in those circumstances?
    Malcolm Wicks: I cannot add to my point that we are looking at all the facts. I have said that the House will just have to be a little more patient; I would have thought that that was very clear. We are not U-turning on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has always said that we are very sympathetic, but that there are no easy options. There are certainly no cost-free options, so we need to determine the facts. That is what we have been doing.
    On the subject of U-turns, I was distressed, as were my colleagues, when the hon. Gentleman advised his colleagues to decline to give the Pensions Bill a Second Reading. I, for one, would welcome a U-turn on that.
    Mr. Willetts: The Prime Minister carried out two U-turns last week and it is hard to judge which was the messier and most incompetently executed. All that we and the tens of thousands of people who are affected by the wind-up of their pension schemes want to know is how much assistance they will get and when they will get it. Why cannot the Minister answer?
    Malcolm Wicks: The protection fund will provide security to at least 10 million scheme members. That is the crucial point. The hon. Gentleman wants to play politics with pensions; we want to look very seriously at the options and bring forward, if we can, pension protection. That is the difference between us.

    Pension Rights
    Shona Mclsaac: What plans he has to help people who work for short periods to build up pension rights. [167680]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): It is important to enable more employees, and particularly those who change jobs frequently, to start building up a private pension when they leave a job before their rights have vested in an occupational pension scheme. We are legislating to help people who work for short periods build up pension rights. The intention is that, when a person leaves an occupational pension scheme after three months but before their rights have vested, they will get the choice of

    625
    a cash transfer sum, which includes employer contributions and tax incentives, or a refund of their contributions.
    Shona Mclsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Is she aware that Cleethorpes constituency has the third highest number of part-time workers in Britain because of the very nature of the work in the area, much of which is seasonal? In addition to this, many workers in the industrial sector are agency workers and, again, that means those people are on short-term contracts. Can she assure me that the new, provisions will assist these two sectors of employment in my constituency?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend shows her usual assiduity in looking after the needs of her constituents and we can only say "Well done" to her for that. Part-time workers now receive equal treatment in pension provisions and the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 transposed the part-time workers directive into law in this country. I can therefore assure her that part-time workers will benefit just as much from these provisions as full-time workers. We expect 30,000 to 50,000 people to benefit by an average of about £1,000 extra to add to their pension savings.
    It is unusual for agency workers to have access to occupational schemes. To the extent that they do, they will be protected similarly. However, agency workers, of course, have the option of putting money into stakeholder pensions.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks about agency workers. In the north-west, as she will realise, companies have made people redundant and then taken them back on as agency workers in order to get out of making pension contributions and supporting pension funds. Will she look at that, and also at the situation of construction workers, who swap companies all the time and may sometimes work abroad, and are therefore unable to build up and benefit from their pensions in the way that others do?
    Maria Eagle: I will of course consider any constituency issue that my hon. Friend wants to draw to my attention. I deplore practices such as those that he mentioned, which are used by businesses intent on fiddling their employees out of pension contributions. That is not the kind of partnership that we want to see. I should add that most companies are not like that. As I said, the small but important improvements in pension legislation should help part-time workers just as much as full-time workers. I undertake to look further at what my hon. Friend has said.

    Child Poverty
    Vera Baird: What assessment he has made of the Government's progress towards eradicating child poverty. [167681]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): As a result of our policies, the poorest families are, on average, £2,900 a year better off, and there are now 600,000 fewer children living on relatively
    626
    low incomes than in 1997. I am confident that the measures that we announced in the Budget, not least the increase of £3.50 a week in the child element of the tax credit, benefiting more than 7 million children, will enable us to make further progress towards halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it by 2020.
    Vera Baird: I am very grateful for that answer. The Work and Pensions Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, recently reported on child poverty, and it seems that congratulations will be due, because almost everyone expects the target of cutting child poverty by a quarter by this year to be met. The Committee thought that it would be harder to meet the target of halving child poverty by 2010, and it suspected—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have asked the hon. and learned Lady before to ask a supplementary question rather than telling us about the Committee.
    Vera Baird: May I do that?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, the hon. and learned Lady may ask a supplementary question.
    Vera Baird: I am grateful for your guidance as ever, Mr. Speaker.
    The Committee thought that £10 a child was probably necessary for the poorest children. Is that the scale of the challenge that we face, and can we meet it?
    Mr. Smith: I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's comments, and those of the Select Committee. I stress that even the target for reducing child poverty by a quarter this year is demanding. We are pretty confident that we will hit it on a before-housing-costs basis; it is more challenging on an after-housing-costs basis. That is why we have taken so many measures, including the child tax credit increases to which I referred, the provision of additional child care and the new deal for lone parents, which raises their employment rate and is an important route through which to help children out of poverty.
    The target for halving child poverty is demanding, but we make no apology to the House or the country for being absolutely determined to progress steadily towards the eradication of child poverty in the UK. It is one of the noblest aspirations of this Government, shared overwhelmingly by the people of this country, and Members on both sides of the House ought to join us in making sure that we achieve it.
    Mr. Mark Field: In trying to eradicate child poverty, will the Secretary of State recognise that there are specific and particular problems in London? Can he say something about the negotiations that he is having with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that some of the problems particular to London, such as child care arrangements, are being tackled so that his admirable goal, with which we would all agree, is achieved by 2010?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, there is a particular challenge in London, not least because of high housing costs and the transport costs associated with working. That is one reason why we will be rolling out across London the

    627
    return to work credit, giving extra money to lone parents returning to work, in recognition of the higher costs that they face. In addition, we are giving help through employment zones and, more widely, our employment programmes. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our dedication to eradicating child poverty applies to London as well as to the rest of the country.
    Miss Anne Begg: A Select Committee report showed that one of the major measures that has helped the Government to be on target to meet their goal is the introduction of the child tax credit, working tax credit and child care tax credit. However, those on income support have not yet migrated on to the new child tax credit. Will the Secretary of State make sure that the IT is working smoothly before that decision is taken?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, we shall. Of course, people get the equivalent amount through existing administrative arrangements, but my hon. Friend makes a good point: it is important that the system is working properly before those people are transferred, because they are the ones who can least afford any interruption to their payment.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: The Secretary of State knows that the Select Committee also said:
    "Using the median income before housing costs figure would mask the true extent of child poverty."
    Will he confirm that that is precisely what the Government have done, that 900,000 children have thereby been removed from the figures at a stroke, and that the End Child Poverty coalition was absolutely right to condemn that fix, saying:
    "Children should be removed from poverty not just removed from the statistics."?
    Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to examine our proposed composite child poverty measure, he would see that that measure, which includes relative low income of 70 per cent. of median income and material deprivation, will take account of the costs and resulting poverty where people face high housing costs. We shall take no lectures from a party under which relative poverty doubled, and which gave the poorest families just £27 a week to help with the cost of a child, whereas the Labour Government are giving £58 a week. The increases in child poverty under the Conservatives made Britain's the worst record in Europe.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: When assessing children in poverty, will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the problems facing families as a result of the Child Support Agency failing to collect maintenance for children and carers? Will he do something to ensure that that sort of poverty is eradicated by the CSA doing its job and collecting maintenance where the assessment has been made?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is clear to the whole House that the performance of the CSA leaves a great deal to be desired, not least because of the failings of the IT system that was introduced. We and the chief executive and staff of the CSA, who are doing a good job in difficult circumstances, are determined to maintain the improvement that has been achieved—for
    628
    example, some 17,000 families now get the child maintenance premium—but the agency needs to do better. We are determined to build on its performance so that, as my hon. Friend advocates, people get the child support they need, which is crucial to combating poverty.
    Ms Karen Buck: The Government are to be warmly congratulated on the progress made towards achieving the child poverty target for 2004, but the fact remains that 54 per cent. of children in inner London live in poverty. Among the principal reasons for that is that there is less part-time employment available and larger cost hurdles face people taking part-time jobs in London. Will he assure me that his officials are carefully considering ways to make part-time work available and to make it pay for families in inner London?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend, as ever, brings extensive knowledge, experience and positive ideas to this crucial debate. As I said, I believe that we are making progress in London, as elsewhere, but, for the reasons that she outlines, the challenges there are greater. I shall continue to look at what we can do to make sure that both part-time and full-time work pay. I mentioned the return to work credit, which has an important role to play.

    Direct Payment
    Mr. James Graff: How many people are still to be contacted about conversion to direct payment of benefits and pensions. [167685]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): The conversion of customers to direct payment is going well. More customers now have their benefits and pensions paid into an account than by order book and are benefiting from the greater choice about where and when they collect their money that direct payment gives them. Of the 10.2 million customers that we have contacted so far, more than 70 per cent. have responded positively, and among pensioners and child benefit customers the proportion is nearer 80 per cent. We shall contact the remaining 4 million over the next few months. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the measure is a major step forward in the Government's fight against financial and social exclusion.
    Mr. Gray: I am grateful for the Minister's response, but it was not entirely clear. He spoke about pensioners responding positively. Does that mean that they said they want their pensions to be paid directly into bank accounts? Is he saying that a total of 80 or 90 per cent. of all benefit payments go directly into bank accounts? If that is the case and if, by his logic, that is a success, does he not have concerns about rural post offices such as the Kington St. Michael post office, which I opened in my constituency recently and which will have little hope for the future?
    Mr. Pond: It is true that pensioners and others are voting with their feet about direct payment. Some 89 per cent. of new pensioners are opting to have their pensions paid into an account, as one might expect. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are committed to the post

    629
    office network, especially in rural areas. That is why we are putting £2 billion into the network, including £450 million to protect rural post offices such as the one that he mentioned in his constituency. We are committed to that and we are doing something about it. What a shame that more post offices closed when the Conservative Government were in office.
    Mr. Michael Weir: Is the Minister aware that later this week there is likely to be a further round of post office closures in Scotland, largely as a result of the transfer to direct payment of benefits? How many more post offices does he expect to close if he is successful in strong-arming the remaining 4 million recipients into direct transfer?
    Mr. Pond: The future of post offices depends on their ability to provide a full range of facilities for the communities that they serve. That includes banking and financial services. In the past year alone, there have been 25 million banking transactions through post offices. It is through the expansion of such services that we will be able to maintain the network, which is so valuable to all of us, and to which we all want to pay tribute. But we cannot hope that the post office network will remain there when people are, as I said, voting with their feet, regardless of what the Government do in terms of promoting direct payment.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. Anthony Steen: How many pensioners have applied for the savings element of pension credit in the last year; and how many of these were eligible. [167687]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I am pleased to report that in March we had the largest ever increase in pensioner households joining pensioner credit—138,000. Now 1.67 million households are receiving the savings element of pension credit, including 623,000 households that were not formerly receiving the minimum income guarantee, so these households are being rewarded for their savings for the first time. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, some 4,760 households are now receiving pension credit, with an average award of just over £39 a week. Of these, 3,490 are receiving the savings credit.
    Mr. Steen: There could be even more pensioners getting pension credit if their modest savings were not preventing them from getting it. Can the Minister explain the Government's hypothetical figure of 10 per cent. interest per annum on pensioners' capital, whereas 4 per cent. is all they could get? They save money and are then charged 10 per cent. by the Government, but they can never get 10 per cent. on their money anywhere else. How do the Government reach the hypothetical figure of 10 per cent., which is preventing more people from getting the credit?
    Malcolm Wicks: Whatever divides us, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is an advance on the old Conservative system of income support, where money was taken off, pound for pound. This Government introduced the savings element. Let us
    630
    remember—we do not want to misinform constituents about this—that the first £6,000 of savings is not taken into account at all in the calculation. That covers the vast majority of pensioners. Some 85 per cent. are covered by the limit on the £6,000. That is a far more generous treatment of interest and savings than under the old system.
    John Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has done and on the £46 a head, on average, that the constituents of Glasgow, Anniesland are receiving in pension credit. What does he intend to do about the mop-up when we get to the end of June and have gone round all the pensioners? What do we do then to catch those who did not apply?
    Malcolm Wicks: At the end of last month 2.4 million pensioner households were receiving pension credit. That represents 2.9 million individuals, so we are where we intended to be in the campaign. We have a target of 3 million by 2006. We now enter a phase in which, through home visits and by working with voluntary organisations and others, we go back to people who have not yet claimed. We all have a role in that. I have previously described my hon. Friend as a mighty champion of older people in his constituency, and he is. One of the dangers that we face, however, are the cynics in the House, not least on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who go round the country stirring up apathy and confusion about pension credit. They get headlines, and that is putting some people off claiming pension credit. That is why we will redouble our efforts to make sure that pension credit becomes a triumph of hope over fear.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: How many pensioners in the country currently receive means-tested benefits?
    Malcolm Wicks: Some 2.4 million people currently benefit from pension credit, and I can write to the hon. Gentleman with the details to give him a fuller answer. When he meets constituents who receive pension credit for the first time and who gain by £10, £20 or £30 extra a week—our local Pension Service sometimes brings extra benefits to the attention of his elderly constituents—does he say to them, "This is terrible. You are a victim of means-testing."?

    Housing Benefit
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: If he will make a statement on the reform of housing benefit. [167688]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): We have already made considerable progress, both in improving administration of housing benefit and towards creating a simpler, fairer system, enhancing work incentives and cutting the risk of fraud and error. In the private rented sector, we have introduced our new local housing allowance, which is a flat rate allowance based on size of family and the area in which people live, and we are

    631
    exploring how we might extend reform to the social sector, although we are mindful of the two sectors' different characteristics.
    Dr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend accept that reform of housing benefit in the private sector was well overdue, with about eight out of 10 recipients of housing benefit in private rented accommodation, including a large number of my constituents, not being able to cover their rent from housing benefit? Have the standard housing allowance arrangements in the pilot areas addressed that problem?
    Mr. Pond: These are early days in which to assess the impact of the local housing allowance in the pathfinder areas, which started moving over to the system between November and February, but the early indications are that the local housing allowance works well. To take account of local circumstances, the housing allowance in each area is based on the local reference rent. To date, the indications from the pathfinders are positive, and the early scare stories about landlords walking away from the system or of tenants absconding without paying have not proved founded.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister confirm that identity cards should be one of the tools in the reform of housing benefit to rule out fraud?
    Mr. Pond: My Department is in favour of the move towards identity cards, which could, in a number of respects, reduce fraud in the system, and that is as true of housing benefit as it is of other benefits. These are early days in the development of those proposals, but we favour the principle.
    Mr. Andrew Love: May I congratulate the Department for Work and Pensions on its success in using housing benefit to reduce the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, especially in Greater London? I understand that it is considering making changes, however, and I ask the Minister carefully and specifically to examine any policy to pay housing benefit directly to tenants, which might lead to the loss of accommodation in London.
    Mr. Pond: We carefully examined whether direct payment to tenants has the effect that my hon. Friend suggests, and we will continue to consider the matter in our examination of the pathfinders. He knows that the reforms have safeguards built into them—for example, once payment is more than eight weeks in arrears, it reverts to the landlord, and vulnerable groups are exempt from the scheme. We have a pathfinder in London, and we will examine its impact especially carefully.

    Jobcentre Plus (Scotland)
    Ann McKechin: If he will make a statement on the operation of Jobcentre Plus in Scotland. [167689]
    The Minister for Work (Jane Kennedy): Every working day, the staff of Jobcentre Plus in Scotland receive around 1,400 vacancies, conduct 3,000 work-
    632
    focused interviews, help nearly 700 people into jobs, and pay around £10 million in working age benefits. The new deal alone has helped more than 100,000 people into work in Scotland. My compliments go to the staff of Jobcentre Plus for their success.
    Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a new employers' forum has been established in Glasgow to tackle the high level of economic inactivity. May I urge her to meet representatives of it as soon as possible to support its work?
    Will my right hon. Friend explain how the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus in Glasgow will benefit the large number of economically inactive people—now estimated to be more than 94,000—to ensure that they can benefit and get into work?
    Jane Kennedy: I will of course take up my hon. Friend's invitation to Scotland to meet the employers' forum. I know that the former Minister for Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), had a date for that in his diary, and as my hon. Friend has personally extended the invitation to me, I shall take it up. I look forward to it.
    Through a combination of economic stability and radical labour market reforms, more than 1.75 million more people are now in work than in 1997, and unemployment is at its lowest for nearly 30 years. We are not complacent, however, because there is a lot more to do. That is why the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus is so important. The new services that are being delivered through the integrated offices of Jobcentre Plus are making a radical difference to the experience of people who are looking for work. I am very impressed by the enthusiasm that is being demonstrated by the staff in the new role that they are embarking on in assisting people to find work through t he personal adviser system. It is a massive investment—
    Mr. Speaker: Ordor. I will try another Member.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: I welcome the Minister to her new remit. Can she confirm that at the very top of her list of responsibilities to be pursued urgently is the creation of a new job centre for Pollok, which is one of the few constituencies that does not have one? Given that it was about to be named the Des Browne memorial job centre, does she agree that if the name were changed, she should visit the site when she goes to Glasgow?
    Jane Kennedy: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for getting carried away with the good news that is at the core of my new brief.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. I am happy to meet him to talk about his suggestions for the location of a new Jobcentre Plus and, if possible, to visit him in his constituency.

    Disability Discrimination (Access to Services)
    Mr. John Lyons: What assessment he has made of the effect that

    633
    changes to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in October will have on disabled people's access to services. [167690]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): 1 October is DDA day for service providers. The new duties will require them to tackle physical barriers to their services. Our research shows that nearly half the disabled people who experienced difficulty in accessing services reported entry to premises as the main problem. The new duties will enable around 10 million disabled customers to benefit from physical adjustments, where those are reasonable. Raising awareness of the barriers faced by disabled people will lead to greater improvements over time as society in general gets better at accommodating their needs.
    Mr. Lyons: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does she accept, however, that greater clarity is still needed on access to buildings? The Times recently ran a report saying that museums, theatres and heritage buildings will be forced to close because of the October changes. Will my hon. Friend help to fight the scaremongering?
    Maria Eagle: I hope that it was not scaremongering, but merely ignorance, which of course one would not expect from The Times. I recommend that people look instead at the access supplement in Disability Now, which was written by the Disability Rights Commission, and in which they can find good information. We are mailing 1 million small businesses to make them aware of their obligations and to give them information about where they can get good-quality free advice about what they need to do to meet their obligations.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Minister confirm that no Government Department will use this Act as an excuse to close premises that are open to the public at the moment?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that it is an important part of the public sector's commitment to service to ensure I hat it has the very best possible standards of access. It is important that we should lead by example. However, the law does not require buildings to close; it requires access to services. If such access is impossible in a particular building, arrangements should be made to make those services accessible in a different way. I want to make it perfectly clear that the law does not require anyone to close a building because it is inaccessible.
    Jim Dobbin: Will the proposed changes to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 force local education authorities to improve access to schools throughout England and Wales for physically Disabled children?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to identify that issue as one of great importance. Of course, the DDA does now apply to schools all the way from nursery schools to higher education, through the provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. My ministerial colleagues in the Department for
    634
    Education and Skills are overseeing a programme, funded by extra resources, to ensure that every local education authority area has schools that are accessible to children with physical disabilities, so that when their parents want them to, they can get their education in mainstream schools.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. Eric Illsley: If he will make a statement on the take-up of pension credit.[167691]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): As we reported earlier, the take-up of pension credit is going well, with 2.9 million individuals now receiving it. This includes some 4,460 pensioner households in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. I very much welcome the pension credit and the take-up in my constituency. However, both he and I know that that take-up could be improved. Two of the issues that have been raised with me in meetings with pensioner organisations in my constituency are the reluctance to undergo means-testing and the idea that many pensioners who have not saved for their retirement are being rewarded as well as those who have. Does my hon. Friend have any proposals to try to overcome this resentment of means-testing?
    Malcolm Wicks: That means that we need to redouble our efforts at communicating, and to point out the savings element involved. We know from our customer satisfaction surveys that the ability to apply over the telephone, for example, is going down very well with customers. This comes back to what I said earlier. Sadly, there are some in the House who say that the pension credit is too complex and confusing—the message being: "Don't claim it"—and those of us who want to tackle pensioner poverty, as we are doing, have to go out there and be positive in every constituency, including Northavon, and to tell people that this is a decent benefit for people who deserve the money.

    Child Support Agency
    Bob Russell: How many fathers have been prosecuted for providing false information to the Child Support Agency in respect of their income in each of the past five years for which figures are available. [167692]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): These offences were introduced in 2001, and the first prosecutions were brought in 2002. Since then, 303 prosecutions have led to 301 convictions; 287 of these were for providing false information.
    Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but does he not agree that that seems to be a relatively small number, bearing in mind the hundreds of thousands of cases that the Child Support Agency deals with? In cases in which the father—usually the father—is self-employed, his declaration of income

    635
    frequently bears no resemblance to his standard of living. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for greater determination by the agency, working with the Inland Revenue, to bring to book those fathers who are cheating the system and cheating genuine law-abiding taxpayers?
    Mr. Pond: May I add that those same non-resident parents are also cheating their children, which is why we must treat this matter very seriously? That is why new powers are now available for the CSA to operate in the same way as the Inland Revenue in investigating such circumstances as the hon. Gentleman describes. Although the number of prosecutions and convictions is relatively small, their main purpose is to ensure that the payments get to the parent with care and to their
    636
    children. That is our main objective, and if the prosecutions act as an incentive for non-resident parents to pay that money, we will have achieved it.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that that category of self-employed father really makes operation of the system quite chaotic? Those fathers seem to make a rude gesture to the CSA, the mother of their children, their children and the legal system. We must ensure that that is ended, because it is not acceptable.
    Mr. Pond: I agree with my hon. Friend, and those non-resident parents who think that they are making a rude gesture to the agency, the parents with care and, indeed, their own children will soon find that, as those powers are increasingly used, there will be not a rude gesture coming in the other direction, but something much more effective.

Orders of the Day
  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 4

      ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR: REPORT
      'The Secretary of State shall, within 6 months of the commencement of the Act, present to Parliament a report setting out legislative proposals to implement anti-social behaviour orders, child curfew orders, parenting orders and provisions for dealing with racially aggravated offences in Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Swayne.]
      Brought up, and read the First time. 3.30 pm
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 26, in title, line 12, after 'services', insert
      'to require the Secretary of State to present to Parliament a report setting out certain legislative proposals relating to criminal justice in Northern Ireland.'.
      Mr. Swayne: I am sure that all Members are familiar with the depressing complaints of constituents about, for example, fireworks being thrown, hoax 999 calls, abusive behaviour on our housing estates, vandalism and low-level disorder. Such behaviour is one of the depressing features of our modern age. With respect to my discussions with members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, they say that they want to augment their armoury, as we have ours, with antisocial behaviour orders, local curfew orders, the power to remove truants to a designated place and specific provisions on racially aggravated crime, which, incidentally, is up some 30 per cent over the last year—so much so that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has decided to launch an inquiry on hate crime.
      Those preoccupations of the police force have an echo in questions that have been tabled over the last year by Northern Ireland Members. Equally, they have an echo in the reports of the Northern Ireland press, which can be easily scrutinised on the internet through that wonderful vehicle, Newshound. Over and above the requirements of the mainland for those orders, there is an added dimension in Northern Ireland in that such provisions would remove the excuse—the sickening veneer of respectability—that some fools attach to so-called punishment beatings, as if that grotesque paramilitary vigilantism is somehow performing a socially useful function.
      I have reservations about the implementation of antisocial behaviour orders, although there are a number of reasons for having the debate. First, we must give voice to the frustration of some Northern Ireland Members, not least the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who serve on Standing Committees of the House and scrutinise in detail legislation to provide for the implementation of those orders here on the mainland, in the knowledge that they are not doing that
      638
      work for the benefit of their own constituencies, or at least not yet. That has given rise to considerable frustration.
      Secondly, there is already a consultation under way. Indeed, I have the Minister's consultation document with me, which requires responses by 1 April. It is a reasonable document in terms of the questions that it sets out. I think, however, that the implementation of antisocial behaviour orders will be controversial for two reasons. The first is our experience of them on the mainland. I am familiar with a number of complaints that they are rather complex and bureaucratic and that, despite being civil orders, they require a standard of proof that could almost apply in a criminal case. They also require lengthy case conferences and the collection of huge amounts of evidence. So, the expectation that implementation of such orders would be a quick and easy process has been dashed.
      On average, it takes 13 weeks to secure an order, but six months is not untypical. Detectives can spend more time on an ASBO application than on a serious criminal investigation. A study conducted by NACRO—the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—stated that 56 per cent. of ASBOs required more than three hearings. It is therefore understandable that their take-up has been well short of the Government's original estimate of some 5,000 a year. Any legislation will therefore be controversial, as Members seek to avoid such pitfalls in the implementation of those orders in Northern Ireland. That will require considerable scrutiny, for which there will be a desire in the House.
      Secondly, implementation will be controversial for another reason: the situation in Northern Ireland differs significantly from that on the mainland. The local government structure is very different, and that seems to be the main thrust of the Minister's consultation document, which explores how the orders will be implemented without the same partners that exist for that purpose on the mainland. Again, that will require considerable scrutiny, for which Members will have an appetite.
      I understand that the Government already have statutory powers that would enable them to implement ASBOs and the related regulations by order—by administrative law. That would be a highly inappropriate way of proceeding, given the amount of scrutiny that will be necessary and the opinions that will be a consequence, first, of the experience on the mainland, and secondly, of the difference in the local government structure in Northern Ireland. It would be monstrous to bring such regulations before the House on a take-it-or-leave it, unamendable basis. Clearly, therefore, primary legislation is required. Of course, there are not many opportunities for primary legislation—this Bill was such an opportunity, and the Government have missed it. It therefore seems proper to include a provision such as new clause 4, which requires the Government to report to the House on their deliberations on the progress of the consultation, to ginger up their response and to make sure that they do not miss another such opportunity.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: I do not intend to delay the House for long, but I want to support my hon. Friend's new clause.

      639
      My only quibble with my hon. Friend's new clause is the length of time that he is prepared to allow the Government to prepare their report. It seems to me that six months is far too long. This is not a new issue—we discussed it in the House in relation to England and Wales in the previous Parliament, and it seems to me that the Government should be fully familiar with the issues that lie behind my hon. Friend's remarks and his new clause. I know that the Minister of State is now well in tune with the social and political climate of Northern Ireland, and he must be only too well aware of the issues in the Province, which to a large extent replicate those in England and Wales, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
      I am only too well aware of the difficulties of low-level misconduct on our streets. I plan to have a conference in my constituency, which I am chairing, on 21 May, to which I am inviting local police leaders, church leaders, school heads, governors and representatives of the relevant local authorities, to discuss once again—it is the second time that I have held such a conference in the past four or five years—low-level misconduct on our streets in a particular area, South Wigston, which is the least well-off part of my constituency.
      As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) kindly mentioned about 12 Queen's Speeches ago, I went to school in Northern Ireland. He once even sent me a copy of the record of my entry to Friends' school, Lisburn. In those days, it was in the constituency of Lord Molyneaux, as he now is. I know from my experience of Northern Ireland at that time, and from subsequent visits, that some urban parts are demographically very similar to South Wigston. If antisocial behaviour orders are relevant to my part of suburban Leicester, they must be hugely relevant to Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to treat the subject seriously, and to get on with it rather than waiting for the six months with which the new clause over-generously provides them. The people of Northern Ireland are as entitled to civilised behaviour' on their streets as those in any other part of the United Kingdom.
      Let me make a constitutional point, which was touched on by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is indeed an assiduous attender of Standing Committees on Bills and statutory instruments. It is also true that it is rather extraordinary that Northern Ireland legislation is always introduced by second-hand means. There are few opportunities for the people of Northern Ireland to see their legislation discussed on the Floor of the House. It is a pity that the Government did not think this up for themselves, and a pity that they did not introduce ASBOs and the other orders mentioned by my hon. Friend at the time of the legislation applying to England and Wales. I am afraid that all too frequently Northern Ireland gets fag-end legislation, which gives the people the impression that they are in a second-class part of the United Kingdom. They are not, and they should not be treated as if they were. In some respects they are given first-class representation in the House, and I think that they are entitled to receive primary legislation far more often.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in trying to amend the Bill's long title, and on hanging the new clause on amendment No. 26. Such action is
      640
      overdue. I hope that the equivalent of local authorities in Northern Ireland will not experience the problems of expense and delay that ASBOs incur so frequently here.
      Mr. David Heath: I too congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on his new clause. I agree with much of its intention, as opposed to its detail. It is fair to say that we have our differences with the Government on the details of some of their antisocial behaviour legislation—as has the hon. Gentleman's party, judging by some of our discussions on substantive legislation in the House. In any event, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that what applies on the mainland also has its place in Northern Ireland. The issues are the same in all parts of the United Kingdom.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar): What is the hon. Gentleman's objection to ASBOs?
      Mr. Heath: The Minister, typically, has immediately elided what I said into a statement that I was against ASBOs. What I said was that I was against some aspects of antisocial behaviour legislation. Some parts I still believe to be unworkable, having seen them theoretically in operation but not actually applied since they were first debated in the House. I hope the Minister will not continue to misrepresent what I said. I think that there is a place for ASBOs, and we have made that view plain here and elsewhere. We see a strong case for applying them in Northern Ireland as well—with the safeguards that we have debated at such length.
      3.45 pm
      We believe other parts of the Government's programme to be entirely redundant and based more on a wish to attract headlines than to deal substantively with the problems, but that is not a matter that we need to discuss today. The crucial issue is whether criminal behaviour in Northern Ireland that is not related to any specific issues associated with the specific problems in Northern Ireland is to be dealt with effectively by the Government. My argument—I share the view of the hon. Member for New Forest, West—is that it should be. I agree with his comment that it must have been very irksome to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who spent many hours in Committee dealing with such matters in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as it now is, to find that they did not apply to the constituency that she represents so ably.
      I had an interesting time in Northern Ireland over Easter with the Royal Marines in Dungannon and along the border. I do not claim that that makes me an expert on the difficulties of policing the Province but I hope that it has given me at least a superficial insight into some of the problems.
      Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) (SDLP): The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that there is an overlay in terms of antisocial behaviour and the type of behaviour that pertains in some areas of the north of Ireland. Can he say who would implement these orders in certain areas and by what mechanism?
      Mr. Heath: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a complicated system within United Kingdom legislation

      641
      on these matters that involves an interplay between local authorities, the police and other agencies. One of the criticisms levelled by the hon. Member for New Forest, West is that that system is over- complicated. I do not agree. I think that the orders have a specific effect, because, in many ways, they are almost a suspended sentence. I do not agree that we should tinker with the standard of proof required, or the inter-relationship between the agencies, but those agencies should be more ready to use the measures that are on the statute book when the occasion is right. I am glad to note that I have seen them used effectively by my own authority.
      I do not want to detain the House. I simply say that there is a need to ensure that authorities in Northern Ireland, particularly the police, have available to them the same tools as those available to authorities on the mainland of Great Britain. We are not discussing matters that are specific to Northern Ireland and therefore one would hope that the Government made quick progress, as has been advocated by many parties in Northern Ireland, at least to implement analogous orders to those in operation on thin. side of the Irish sea.
      Mr. Nigel Dodds: I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on tabling the new clause. I welcome the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who said that all too often Northern Ireland legislation is dealt with other than by primary legislation. It is welcome that these matters are being dealt with on the Floor of the House by way of primary legislation.
      It is important that the Government get a clear message—they should have got it already in this brief debate, which I will not extend any longer than is absolutely necessary. It is clear that, throughout the community in Northern Ireland, there is much concern and fear about the low-level activity that other hon. Members have referred to, and that is characterised as antisocial behaviour. People in Northern Ireland cannot understand why there are provisions such as antisocial behaviour orders for the rest of the country but they are not yet available in Northern Ireland.
      That issue was raised on Second Reading, when a number of hon. Members pointed out that the Bill implemented some of the recommendations of the criminal justice review and contained other tidying-up provisions, as recommended by the Chief Constable and others, and that its passage was an opportunity to introduce antisocial behaviour orders. That is an opportunity that the Government have missed, and we should urge them to do as much as possible, as quickly as possible, to introduce antisocial behaviour legislation in Northern Ireland.
      I understand that the Minister has undertaken a process of consultation on such a proposal, and I am sure that he will not have received many objections, or heard people say that it is a bad idea. He will no doubt have heard the remarks of the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. When I held the position of Minister for Social Development—a responsibility now held by this Minister—I was urged by the chairman of the Housing Executive to consider introducing antisocial behaviour orders as part of legislation under the housing order. However, we were advised that, as antisocial behaviour is a criminal justice issue, it could
      642
      not be the subject of such an order and was not a matter for the devolved legislature. Our disappointment that such a provision has not been included in the Bill is therefore all the greater—especially given the scarcity of parliamentary time.
      Like others, I urge the Minister and the Government to move quickly on this matter to give the police and the authorities the necessary powers to deal with it. One issue that is constantly brought before me as the Member for Belfast, North—an area that has suffered, and continues to suffer, more than its fair share of antisocial behaviour—is that the police are not only under-resourced in manpower but feel that they do not have the necessary powers to tackle the problem. They are very much in favour of the speedy introduction of antisocial behaviour orders.
      The Government should act speedily, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
      Mr. David Trimble: I feel that I should speak, because a number of hon. Members have referred to my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the points that she has repeatedly made on this issue. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to the long time spent debating it under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, during which my hon. Friend repeatedly called for the legislation to be extended to Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will also remember that my hon. Friend received assurances from Ministers that Northern Ireland would be included in that legislation. Those assurances were repeated to her and to me by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so hon. Members will understand our chagrin when those assurances were not honoured or acted on.
      This Minister might preen himself because he is finally taking some action, but his Department has been extremely dilatory—and not only that. I can go further back on the issue—back to 1997, when the then Home Secretary gave me an assurance that the legislation that he was about to introduce on antisocial behaviour would extend to Northern Ireland. Reasons for that not being possible were given—or at least emerged later. The different local government structures have been referred to today. However, the Minister might recall the Adjournment debate on the subject in January, when he said:
      "Although there can be no direct read-across, our suggestion is to involve local councils and the Housing Executive in the first instance."—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Grand Committee, 15 January 2004; c. 45.]
      That is obvious. It was obvious in 1997, and it did not require any great wisdom to see that that was the appropriate way of proceeding, but no action was taken.
      The other excuse offered was the criminal justice review referred to in the Belfast agreement, which commenced in 1998. As published, that review contains no provisions relating to antisocial behaviour, and nor was it ever likely to do so. It was used simply as an excuse for inaction. I hope that the Minister will actually do something about the issue and do it rapidly. When he does, will he bear in mind that he is seven years late? It is a reproach to this Government that they have dragged their feet. They have been very quick on this side of the water because they know how serious the problem is, but they have not bothered with what is an equally serious problem in Northern Ireland.

      643
      I congratulate the Opposition on tabling the new clause, which gives us another opportunity to remind the Government of the way in which they have failed the people of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Spellar: The new clause seemed to me somewhat like a Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflet. We know the idea: find out when the pavements are going to be repaired, put out a leaflet demanding that they be repaired, then put out another one saying, "Thanks to the sterling efforts of your local Liberal Democrat 'Focus' team, the pavements have been repaired."
      The Opposition and others will be aware from the wide range of exchanges in the House that I announced the consultation on antisocial behaviour orders, and that I compressed the consultation period in an effort to meet the target of introducing them before the summer. My difficulty in dealing with the issue in the way suggested—by incorporating it into the Bill—is that even the compressed timetable, which finished on 1 April, would have given us considerable problems. We wanted to introduce the measure at a fairly early stage in the Lords, which, as Members know, is where the legislation started.
      As the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) rightly pointed out, although the submissions were not unanimous, the great majority of them were in favour of our suggestion. In that regard, the response was fairly positive. It is true that we could not introduce a straight read-across from legislation for England and Wales because of the different structure of local government. As I have said several times at the Dispatch Box, I accept that we could have acted more expeditiously, but I can reasonably argue that we have now moved matters along fairly rapidly.
      The suggested course of action of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—bidding for an additional slot in primary legislation—would cause considerable delay compared with dealing with such matters through an Order in Council. The situation on the streets of Northern Ireland demands that early action be taken, so I intend to proceed in the manner described. I hope that we have support for the provision.
      Mention was also made of racially aggravated offences. I recently concluded a consultation on a draft Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 2000. It will make provision for such matters in Northern Ireland, and I intend, subject to parliamentary procedures and timetables, to have the legislation in place by the summer.
      So we do recognise the problem, and we are taking action and moving matters along. In the light of that explanation and reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Swayne: Antisocial behaviour is not crime and it is a mistake to treat it as such. It requires a swift remedy; it cannot await the lengthy proceedings of a conviction. We all abide by certain rules in society, and if I may I shall draw a simple analogy. Those who travel to my constituency along the M27 often encounter an obstruction in the outside lane. We are directed to move our cars into two lanes, so at an early stage we begin to
      644
      do so and to form an orderly queue—but someone always whizzes past on the outside, jumping the queue to get to the front.
      We wait and put up with it, and they continue to whizz past. Then someone immediately behind who is unable to stand it any longer pulls out of the orderly queue and drives past. The driver faces a dilemma: to sit there and abide by the rules, or behave like everyone else and be antisocial. Antisocial behaviour is a cancer; it leads to the complete breakdown of orderly society and causes misery for so many people on estates throughout the country. It is an urgent matter, requiring attention.
      I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on the initiative that he has taken in his constituency. I will reflect on it and perhaps do the same in mine. On reflection, he is right; I have been far too patient in providing in the new clause for a further six-month period. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, the Government's decision is seven years too late. The Minister may well congratulate himself on introducing the measure swiftly, but it is inappropriate to deal with such complex law through a statutory instrument.
      The Bill was the proper vehicle for such a measure: it should have contained provision for antisocial behaviour orders. There is nothing urgent in the Bill—nothing that could not have waited. The only urgent matters are the antisocial behaviour orders and other measures—and they are not in the Bill. The point has been well made. The Minister has missed an opportunity. He could have delayed the passage of the Bill and done the job properly. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION
      Lembit Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 3, leave out from 'Chancellor' to end of line 5.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendinonts:
      No. 5, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'their' and insert 'his'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
      '(1A) At the beginning of subsection 8 of section 3 of the 2002 Act, insert "The lay members should be selected on the basis of the additional value they would bring to the Commission's deliberation, including such qualities as experience of selection processes, the court users' perspective and the ability to assess the personal qualities of candidates".
      (1B) (1) In Schedule 2 to the 2002 Act in paragraph 11 (Delegation) for sub-paragraph (1) leave out from "functions" to end and insert "except the function of selecting a person for appointment, or recommendation for appointment, to an office, to any of its committees".
      (2) In Schedule 2 to the 2002 Act, leave out paragraph 12.'.
      No. 13, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
      (1C) In Schedule 2 to the 2002 Act after paragraph 8 insert—
      "8A (1) A Committee for interviewing for appointment as a High Court Judge shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice or a Lord Justice of appeal acting under section 3(4), a lay member and a judicial member.

      645
      (2) A Committee for interviewing for appointments at deputy resident magistrate and above shall include one member of the judiciary at the tier to which the appointment is to be made.
      (3) A Committee for interviewing for appointments to a tribunal shall include a person with detailed knowledge and experience of the tribunal concerned.'.
      No. 25, in page 2, line 18, leave out clause 3.
      No. 23, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 26 to 40.
      No. 9, in schedule 1, page 12 line 5, at beginning insert
      'in section 1 of the 2002 Act, leave out "of Justice".'.
      4 pm
      Lembit Öpik: Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who has had the pleasure of inspecting every detail of Kirkwall airport on a fog-bound morning. I have decided to blame the Government for the weather, which is clearly a conspiracy, because they are so afraid of the amendments that we have tabled.
      The Bill establishes a judicial appointments commission for Northern Ireland. It will comprise five judges and a member of the Law Society, plus members of the lay community. Under the criminal justice review, lay members of the commission should be representative of the whole community—for an obvious reason: it is sensible to d so. However, the Bill introduces a requirement that all members of the commission should be "reflective of the community".
      My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland made several important pints in Committee. It is apparent that the review recommended that lay membership of the commission bet representative of the community, but it did not recommend that the entire membership should be. The Government proposals go beyond that, making the entire commission representative, which poses a number of theoretical and practical difficulties.
      The amendments would restrict the duty to the Lord Chancellor and restrict the ambit to lay members of the commission so that only the Lord Chancellor could appoint such members. The Government have adopted a different position, but I do not understand what they are trying to achieve that they could not have achieved originally, or how, in a practical sense, they can meet their objectives. We have nothing against the principle that the commission should be representative of the community as a whole. Who could dissent from that? However, we are worried about how that will be achieved in practice.
      The amendments would change the Bill back to the position favoured by the criminal justice review, so that the need to be representative of the community would apply only to lay members, who would be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Our point is that, in practice, it would be impossible statistically for the commission to be representative of the whole community. The census figures—I shall not read them out—make that perfectly obvious.
      Through their comments and actions, the Government repeatedly give the impression that they believe that the community as a whole consists of two large bodies of people—broadly speaking, loyalist Unionists and republican nationalists.
      646
      Is the Minister at long last going to acknowledge what many of us have said a number of times: the Government, to some extent, entrench divisions in the community by talking always about the two communities or the two halves of the community? It would be progress if he at least said that the Government accept that the Northern Ireland community is more diverse than many ministerial comments have implied.
      In order to justify their position, the Government must explain several things. How exactly do they perceive the process of judicial appointments? What pressure would be put on the Law Society and on individuals to ensure that they were representative of a cross-section? An individual will come from a particular background, and unless the Government are suggesting a strange hybrid person who has spent some time in each community and in each social and ethnic background, it is clearly preposterous to think that one person can represent a cross-section. If the Government do not intend to enforce that provision for each of the four groups making appointments, the question remains of what process the Minister expects to be used to ensure that each interest group works with the others so that the commission as a whole is representative. It will not be good enough for the Government simply to speak against the amendments without giving specific and clear explanations of how they will resolve those difficulties. We are talking not about draft legislation or mere ideas, but about specific rules that will be made on the basis of what the House decides.
      Another question is whether the Minister is saying that the requirement to represent a cross-section applies to disabled people, women, young people and so forth.
      I shall be interested to hear what the Minister and other Members have to say. The Minister did not give a plausible explanation on those points in Committee. If he believes that a reflective composition is worth pursuing, he must give us an assurance that the Government have thought through the detail. In the absence of a plausible response, I may have to divide the House.
      Mr. Trimble: I support amendment No. 4. It is right, largely for the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). I can reinforce his main point, which was that the criminal justice review recommended that the lay members should be representative of the community, which is understandable since they are there to represent the community. Judicial members, on the other hand, and those appointed to represent the legal professions, are not appointed to represent the community but are there to represent the judiciary and the legal professions. One might in turn hope that those bodies would bear some resemblance to society at large, but that is not the point. The point is that judges are appointed on merit and the legal professions are formed by persons who enter into them having complied with the necessary requirements and training. They are there to represent their bodies.
      A fundamental mistake underlies the provisions before us. The original legislation was right and the new legislation in the Bill is wrong. I do not want to speak at great length on this point because we debated it in

      647
      Committee, where I raised the particular provisions that the amendment would remove. The Bill lays a "duty" on those responsible for making nominations
      "to make such arrangements … as will, so far as is practicable, secure that the membership of the Commission is reflective".
      They are placed under a statutory duty to make arrangements. I asked the Minister in Committee what arrangements would be made, and I was thinking especially of the Law Society and the Bar. Those organisations can each nominate one person, but how can they make that one person reflective of the community as a whole? How can they enter into arrangements with others to achieve that objective? Some possible arrangements would involve unlawful conduct.
      We asked the Minister to give an indication of what the arrangements might be. In Committee, I asked:
      "Will he also undertake to give either the Committee or the House on Report some indication of what arrangements he has in mind and how they will operate in practice?"
      The Minister responded by saying:
      "I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 March 2004; c. 32.]
      Unless I have missed something, the Minister has not yet given us any indication of what those arrangements might be. I hope that at some stage in this debate the Minister will redeem his promise to me. I do not know whether any sensible or lawful—in the light of anti-discrimination legislation—arrangements can be made, and that is an important point because it means that clause 2 is wholly misconceived. If the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire wishes to press the point to a Division, he will have my support—of course, I act on behalf of my party.
      Amendment No. 11, in my name, also addresses the issue of the lay members. Understandably and rightly, the criminal justice review said that the lay members should be reflective of the community as a whole, but it also added some further comments about who the lay members should be. Amendment No. 11 seeks to add to the Bill these words from the criminal justice review:
      "The lay members should be selected on the basis of the additional value they would bring to the Commission's deliberation, including such qualities as experience of selection processes, the court users' perspective and the ability to assess the personal qualities of candidates."
      It is important that those, or similar, words are inserted into the Bill; otherwise, it might become the practice that the lay persons can be anyone selected to represent an element of the community. That would be a departure from the intention of the criminal justice review. As the Minister knows, I am concerned that the way in which the commission is constituted will result in bringing a wholly unwarranted political influence to judicial appointments. The objective of the amendment is to try to minimise the addition of political influences on judicial appointments. Without the addition of the words of the criminal justice review, there is a danger that the lay members will become political appointees there simply to represent political viewpoints. If the legislation is left unamended, that is certainly what will happen, and that is why I would like the words of the criminal justice review to be written into it.
      648
      Amendment No. 11 would also deal with another serious problem. Great effort is being made to ensure that the commission is representative of the community but, when it comes to how it will operate in practice, we find that, under the schedule to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, the commission can delegate its functions to a committee that could consist of only one member of the commission. What is the point of trying to ensure that the commission reflects the community if it can then delegate its functions to a body that has no such requirements or standards?
      The only safeguard is that at least one member of the commission must be on the committee. We must remember that we are potentially delegating to the committee the power to make judicial appointments, but no safeguards are provided as to the composition of that committee. The idea of delegating the entire function to the committee and enabling the committee appointed by the commission to make the appointments is, in itself, a mistake. If there is to be a committee that includes people other than those on the commission, we should by all means allow the committee to conduct the process of interviewing and deciding whom it feels are the best persons to be appointed, but it should report back to, and have its conclusions confirmed by, the commission. That would be much better practice.
      4.15 pm
      Amendment No. 13 attempts to provide a structure for the commission's committees. The Minister will no doubt recognise the language in the amendment. It would insert a new paragraph into schedule 2 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, and paragraph 8A(1) quotes word for word what the Minister said to me in Committee. I raised the point about the undesirability of delegating to a committee and having no provision about the committee's composition. He triumphantly told me that everything was agreed and that, with regard to the appointment of a High Court judge, the committee would consist of the Lord Chief Justice, a lay member and a judicial member. That is not a bad arrangement, but we would like to rely on something more than a comment made by the Minister in Committee. If he thinks that that is a desirable structure for a committee considering the appointment of a High Court judge, why does he not include such a provision in the Bill? That is precisely what paragraph 8A(1) would do.
      Paragraph 8A(2) is again taken word for word from the criminal justice review, which recommends that, with regard to judicial appointments, a member of the judiciary
      "at the tier to which the appointment is to be made"
      should be on the Committee. It would be appropriate to have an analogous provision for appointments to the tribunal, and that point is covered in paragraph 8A(3), which states:
      "A Committee for interviewing for appointments to a tribunal shall include a person with detailed knowledge and experience of the tribunal concerned."
      That is wholly in line with the spirit of the criminal justice review.
      In the debates on Second Reading and in Committee, the Minister time and time again pointed out that the objective of the Bill was to implement the criminal

      649
      justice review. Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 would do precisely that. The challenge for the Minister is whether the words that he uttered in Committee and on the Floor of the House about implementing the committees to be set up by the commission are genuine. If they are, I expect him to accept the amendments and particularly those that would give effect to what he himself has said.
      I am reminded of the request that I made at the outset that the Minister redeem the promise that he made to provide us with information about the arrangements that will be made to give effect to the Bill. As presently drafted, its provisions for the appointments by the judiciary and the legal professions are not capable of being implemented in practice. However, I shall wait to see what he has to say.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 25 embody arguments that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made in Committee. I supported him then and I do now. If he has it in mind to press them to a Division, he will have the support of the Democratic Unionist party.
      I want to put to the Minister an interesting issue that arises out of amendment No. 11, whose paragraph 8A(1) refers to lay members.
      We know, of course, that devolved government in Northern Ireland has been suspended because one of the main political parties, Sinn Fein, remains inexorably linked to the IRA, and the IRA is one of the terrorist organisations that is continuing violence and refusing to decommission. The concept of being "reflective of the community" logically means that the composition of the commission should reflect Sinn Fein. To put it bluntly, that would be an intolerable state of affairs, especially in light of the recent Independent Monitoring Commission report. It is something that no true democrat could allow. I hope that the Minister will clarify whether his current thinking is that "reflective of the community" includes Sinn Fein representation on the judicial appointments commission.
      I offer highly qualified support to amendments Nos. 4 and 5, and I shall explain why. As I shall argue in greater detail when I come to amendment No. 23, the reason arises from the fact that my hon. Friends and I reject the concept of being "reflective of the community". However, if that concept is to be part of the Bill and become law, it is essential that amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are accepted. Hon. Members have referred to the composite nature of the judicial appointments commission: five members appointed by the Lord Chief Justice; a barrister nominated by the General Council of the Bar; a solicitor named by the Law Society; and five people who were originally to be appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister but who are now to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The point has been powerfully made about how on earth those disparate bodies are to agree nominations that are "reflective of the community". Amendment No. 4 would put that responsibility solely in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, and it is the common-sense, practical way forward. If we are to have the concept of being "reflective of the community" enshrined in the Bill, the Democratic Unionist party supports, with the reservations that I have explained, amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
      650
      The purpose of amendment No. 23 is straightforward and transparent. It addresses what was for many hon. Members, both Unionist and Conservative, a grave concern that we expressed on Second Reading and again in Committee. If the amendment were accepted, the Bill would require that
      "The selection of a person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office … must be made solely on the basis of merit."
      No other consideration would be taken into account. We argue that the well-intentioned concept of being "reflective of the community" is fundamentally flawed and impractical. Only the qualifications and qualities of individuals should be considered when judicial appointments are made. There is a compelling argument to be made not only that proposed new subsections (9) and (10) undermine and weaken the requirement of subsection (8) that appointments should be on the basis of merit, but that, in practice, appointments reflective of the community would ultimately be incompatible with appointments based on merit alone. Nothing that the Government said on Second Reading or in Committee, and nothing that we have heard today, calms our fears on that issue.
      The Minister argued on Second Reading and in Committee that confidence in the judicial system is imperative. No one disagrees with that, but I do not accept that there are any shortfalls of confidence in Northern Ireland's judiciary worthy of merit, or that there is any need for the provisions contained in new subsections (9) and (10). Indeed, those provisions are more likely to undermine confidence in judicial processes and procedures than to promote it. I ask the Minister a simple question: where is the evidence to support the allegation that Northern Ireland's judicial system and the judges who are an integral part of it are unfair or biased? The truth is that there is no lack of public confidence in the judiciary—quite the reverse. The judiciary of Northern Ireland, appointed as it has been by the Lord Chancellor, has justly earned a superb reputation for its fairness and impartiality, to say nothing of its courage and dedication to the rule of law. Members have been appointed solely on merit without creating any significant or telling imbalance. Public confidence in the judiciary has deservedly been very high indeed.
      We know that the concept of being "reflective of the community" has replaced that of being "representative of the community". Perhaps that is a small step in the right direction, but adopting "reflective of the community" is a dangerous move toward the mistaken and utterly fallacious approach of seeking equality of outcome—a 50:50 outcome. Concern about "reflective of the community" is compounded when we recall that the genesis of the Bill lies in the March 2003 Hillsborough declaration—a measure that emerged from wheeling and dealing to re-create the climate that would enable the restoration of devolved government. That is not a sound basis for legislation and it does not command confidence. We should remember also that equality of outcome and approaches designed to secure it were neither sanctioned nor remotely justified by the Belfast agreement. Equality of outcome is not what the Equality Commission is charged to achieve or what is meant when human rights instruments speak of equality. In all those cases, the reference to equality

      651
      means equality of opportunity and the requirement that individuals are treated fairly. That is already the case in judicial appointments and no additional legislation is needed.
      In Committee, I drew attention to the Minister's words in his winding-up speech on Second Reading, when he said:
      "The criminal justice review, which the Bill builds on, is about modernising the system of appointments in line with the changing needs of society."—[Official Report, 10 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1616.]
      Those words encapsulate a fundamental difference in thinking between the Government and Opposition Members. The Minister argues that the judicial system must be modernised to keep in line with the "changing needs of society". Of course society changes constantly and institutions adapt—they evolve with changing circumstances. Our quarrel is with the imposition of change by legislation when changes should be allowed to happen through evolution.
      We feel especially strongly about judicial appointments because we do not fall for the line that the Bill sets out to modernise the appointments system. The Bill politicises appointments. The system of appointments has been dragged into the sphere of politics to serve a political purpose demanded at Hillsborough. We certainly support a system of transparent, open and fair judicial appointments, one that is free from political intervention and politicisation, but we do not believe that that objective can be achieved by new subsections (9) and (10).
      The matter is one on which we feel sufficiently strongly to wish to divide the House. None the less, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Mallon: I shall try briefly to make a rather broad point and to challenge an assumption that I have heard on at least four occasions so far in the debate—that somehow or another, if one has a political view, be it Unionism or nationalism, a Labour view or a Conservative view, one cannot be reflective of the community in which one lives. We should challenge that.
      It was astounding that the entire thesis of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) verged on a quasi-political, quasi-religious definition of a community. A community is not a sectarian football match or two sectarian teams. It is much deeper and much more fundamental than that. There are many more strands to it. Let me put it this way: when I sit on these Benches, I hope I am reflective of the community that I serve. I have no doubt that Members who sit on the other Benches hope that they are reflective of the communities that they serve. Even though many people in the community would not see me as representative of their political views, they might very well see me and others as being reflective of the type of standards that one might require in the whole political process.
      We should challenge the notion that the matter is to be seen in little boxes: there goes the nationalist representative, and there goes the Unionist representative. How do we make room for the
      652
      Democratic Unionist party representative, then get the republican representative in and, just to keep everything right, squeeze an Alliance person in at the end? It is not like that. Those attitudes are not reflective of the community in the north of Ireland. With all its problems, the community is much bigger than that and much wider. That is where we should look carefully.
      There is a second element that we should consider—the extent to which those whom we charge with the protection and implementation of law are aware of what makes people tick in the community in which they live. I pose that question because there is an ivory tower attitude in some parts of the north of Ireland, whatever the political or religious views of those with that attitude. For far too long that ivory tower attitude was preserved in the legal profession. In that community there was a special place—an ivory tower—that was protected and is still being protected by the legal profession.
      I noted the fine speech made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I detected the tones of legal hurt in his speech, almost a confirmation that people have at last had the audacity and, in my view, the good sense to start knocking on the walls of the ivory tower and rattling a few of the cages inside it.
      Lembit Öpik: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's comments not just about the ivory tower, but about compartmentalisation, which he does not consider an appropriate way forward. Surely he recognises that his support for the Government's arrangements causes more compartmentalisation by creating an artificial requirement, beyond the lay members, to achieve the kind of outcome that we all want in principle, although it is hard to see how we can achieve it in practice without more stress and more friction.
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but I do not agree with it. Returning to my original thesis, the reality is that one can be of a community without representing every political or religious view within it. One can bring an ethos that people who do not share one's political or religious views recognise to the legal profession, politics or anything else. That is why it is right to challenge the notion advanced by the hon. Gentleman and others, and to point out that rattling the legal cages was necessary to create a broader approach. If one examines the history of the legal profession in the north of Ireland, one must admit, perhaps grudgingly, that it was the preserve of a very few, whoever they may have been and whoever chose them.
      Mr. Dodds: The hon. Gentleman talks about rattling the legal cage. On judicial appointments, can he indicate where the current appointments to the senior bench in Northern Ireland—the Lord Justices of Appeal and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland—fail to reflect the community?
      Mr. Mallon: I am not saying that those appointments fail to reflect the community; I am saying that there has been great resistant to the change, and that resistance remains within thy, profession. The hon. Gentleman entices me to do what I am arguing against—to label people in political or religious terms—and I will not do

      653
      so. I repeat that one does not have to reflect the political or religious attitudes of all the people within a community in order to represent them.
      In this House, we are all elected, but does that mean that all hon. Members reflect the constituencies that elect them? I do not believe so. There is another part of this Parliament, and it bears examination, too—I do not want to stray into a different debate, but I hope that that matter will be resolved soon. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is delighted, because that issue is an obvious advantage for him and his party, but the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) does not delight in it. Perhaps things will change when appointments do not reflect the community, but deal only with this terrible thing—the danger of the influence of politics in appointments. I leave the matter there.
      Finally, there is a pristine honesty about those who consistently tell us that there should be no political input to judicial appointments, within a system where, as in the Republic of Ireland, judicial appointments are made by the political process.
      I am as keen as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann or anyone else to ensure that political opportunism does not apply to judicial appointments, but let us at least be honest when we consider the arrangements in the Bill. I could make very strongly some points about appointments outside Northern Ireland. I could refer to the two Governments who, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke alleged, proposed this legislation at Hillsborough. I do not intend to stray into making those points, but I say this: I wish to challenge the notion that one cannot be reflective of the community if one does not share the political views of all the people in it.
      In that context, we must reconsider the distinction that has been made between appointments among the legal profession and appointments of lay people. That has a tinge of ivory tower syndrome: it suggests that it is okay to have a certain arrangement for lay people but that we must not, for heaven's saKe, have it for the people who have come within the compass of the ivory tower. It should apply to everybody, because the whole thesis of reflectiveness is such that such a distinction cannot be made.
      Mr. Hunter: I confess that the hon. Gentleman's argument has left me completely bewildered. Is he effectively saying that appointment should be by merit alone, so amendment No. 23 should not be supported?
      Mr. Mallon: I believe that all appointments should be made on the basis of merit that is reflective of the community. I remember—this may be before the hon. Gentleman's time and too far back for many people's memories—when people were appointed to the bench in Northern Ireland who had never been seen in the north of Ireland before: they had been educated and had practised abroad, and all of a sudden they were senior judges in the north of Ireland. That arrangement is not reflective of the community. I thank God that the days are gone when only those within big house Unionism got on to the bench in the north of Ireland, and I should like to think that hon. Members within the Unionist community would support me in that. I notice that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann is getting excited. I shall try to end that situation for him.
      654
      I believe that this measure is needed. We should not give a position of privilege to people in the legal profession, who already have the huge privilege of administering the law that Parliament makes for them. That should be privilege enough, without our copper-fastening it for them.
      Mr. Garnier: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill that became the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, and we had the pleasure of listening to many similar speeches from him. He and I disagreed on the need for the judiciary and the judicial appointments commission to be
      "representative of the community in Northern Ireland",
      as section 3(8) of the 2002 Act states. Although we disagreed about the need to lay that down in statute, I could understand the worries felt by the hon. Gentleman, people like him, people whom he represents, and people whose views he reflects.
      4.45 pm
      I do not happen to believe that justice is capable of being described in the terms that lie behind the 2002 Act and this Bill. However, to use a disgraceful and awful expression, we are where we are. Nonetheless, I am no more convinced of the need for the adjective "reflective" than I was, during the Standing Committee in 2002, of the need for the use of the word "representative". I am provided with some hope, however, when I see the words "of the community" which follow "representative" or "reflective". To me, the concept of community does not include those outside the law or those who wilfully seek to destroy our democratic institutions through terrorism, violence or subversion.
      If the Government are honest to us, to the people of Northern Ireland and to those who wish to be appointed to the judicial appointments commission, they will make it clear that they will not seek to reflect or represent on the commission people who come from the terrorist and anti-democratic organisations. They will also make it clear that they will allow nominations to be put forward only from those groups, of whatever tradition, which are wholly signed up to the institutions of a democratic Northern Ireland and a democratic United Kingdom, and which believe that judges and senior judicial officers will do justice irrespective of their origins and the origins of the people over whom they will give judgment.
      I know that the Government have great faith in the judiciary of Northern Ireland. The Lord Chancellor invited Lord Hutton, one of Northern Ireland's most distinguished judges, to chair the recent inquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelly, and there are many others like Lord Hutton who have served and continue to serve on the Bench of the Northern Ireland judiciary. When these judges try cases, be they criminal or civil cases, they do not say, "Ah, I am now dealing with a case involving an allegation of breach of contract. I will try it in a Protestant way", or "I will try it in a Roman Catholic way", or "I will try it in a Sinn Fein way", or "I will try it in an Ulster Unionist way". They try each case on the facts, and by applying the facts to the law.
      Similarly, I feel sure that, when those judges are dealing with criminal cases, either with a jury or in a Diplock court, they do not treat the defendant in a

      655
      particular way because he is a Protestant or a Catholic. They say, "The Crown has alleged the following, and I must assess the evidence laid against the defendant in support of the charge." If the defendant is convicted either by the jury or by the judge—after the judge has considered the matters before him to the requisite standard of proof—he will then be sentenced according to law. I know that the law in Northern Ireland is—as it is in England, Wales and Scotland—blind to the origins of the person in front of the sentencing judge, save only in relation to studying the pre-sentence report to ensure that a just decision is made in relation to that individual.
      So we do not really need a judiciary—and, still less, a judicial appointments commission—which is reflective or representative of the community in Northern Ireland.
      That is because, it seems to me, the matters of the rule of law and how judges behave are over and above, as well as separate from and not prepared to take account of, the community, except in the special circumstances of a pre-sentencing report.
      I hope the Government can reassure me and the House that when they push through the amendment to the 2002 Act by way of a clause of the Bill, which we are considering through the prism of the amendment—they will do so, as they have the majority in the House—they will ignore wholly in respect of the term "representative" or "reflective" that part of the Northern Ireland population which is distinguished from the Northern Ireland community and which advocates terror and suborning the civilised and democratic institutions and court system in Northern Ireland.
      I want next briefly to discuss the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) in relation to the committee, or subcommittee, of the JAC that could appoint a judge. It looks very worrying. Schedule 2(8) of the 2002 Act says:
      "The Commission may establish committees."
      Schedule 2(3) says:
      "A committee or sub-committee may consist of or include persons who are not members of the Commission."
      That is fine if people are ordering biscuits or furniture for the commission, but if they are appointing judges they are moving into different territory altogether. Up to a point, that is catered for by paragraph 12 of schedule 2, which states:
      "If the function of selecting a person for appointment, or recommendation for appointment, to an office is delegated to a committee or sub-committee, the committee or sub-committee must include a member of the Commission and, unless he is a lay member, a person who is eligible to be a lay member."
      Well, I am not sure that that went far enough to protect the integrity of the judicial appointments system, but this Bill makes me even more concerned and I share the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties.
      Everything we do in the House is tinged with politics. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)—I think he is still my hon. Friend—is a little naïve in thinking that we can pass legislation untouched by politics, even when we are discussing something as apolitical as the judiciary. He is perfectly right, however, to advance the arguments that he and his colleagues have advanced in his attack on the clause that he seeks to amend, because the Government seek not only to
      656
      introduce to the judicial appointments commission and the judicial appointments system a less safe system of appointing judges on merit, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested, but, to go further, to provide for a system for tho appointment of judges that could skew that system against selection purely on merit towards selection of judges on some other either directly or quasi-political basis.
      That concerns me, because as I said at the outset the appointment of our judges and how they behave should be wholly outside the realms of politics. Even in this jurisdiction, for the moment at least, the Lord Chancellor—although he is a politician to some extent, or at least a party political appointee—has selected judges in England and Wales wholly uninhibited by political consideration.
      I say that of the current Lord Chancellor, I was happy to say it of Lord Irvine, the previous Lord Chancellor, and I dare say that it was equally true of their predecessors in Conservative Governments. It seems to me, however, that we should not expect the people of Northern Ireland to have judges of any other quality than the very best, selected for any other reason besides legal and judicial merit. To add into the selection process these extraneous and confusing reasons will lead to trouble.
      I hope that the Government can reassure me on the points that I have raised, because matters related to justice are easily written off as boring, or a lawyer's whinge, when they are so important for the system of democracy in both the jurisdictions of Northern Ireland and England and Wales.
      Mr. Dodds: I find myself in agreement with much of what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has said. In particular, I want to emphasise his point in relation to the interpretation of the phrase "reflective of the community", which should not under any circumstances be taken to mean that appointments to the judicial appointments commission—or any other appointments in this area—should be permitted of those who support the use of violence, intimidation, threats and so on, or who are allied to the republican movement. Especially in the light of the IMC report, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), those sorts of interpretations would be simply unacceptable and totally wrong. The same issues arise in the context of ongoing calls for members of Sinn Fein-IRA to be members of the Policing Board, for instance. If that happened, there would be people in control of the accountability of the Chief Constable and senior police officers who, as we have seen in the IMC report, are still wedded to violence and to carrying out activities on the streets of Northern Ireland through criminality and terrorism. That would simply be unacceptable as far as the people of Northern Ireland are concerned.
      Another issue that concerns me in relation to the phrase "reflective of the community" is what we have seen as regards appointments to other public bodies and organisations in Northern Ireland that are supposed to be reflective of the community or, to use the slightly stronger term, representative of the community. I refer to bodies such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Parades Commission, the old policing authority and others, which do not in any shape or form

      657
      represent or even reflect the viewpoint of the majority community in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be well aware of the complaints and criticisms—
      Mr. Peter Robinson: To strengthen my hon. Friend's point, does he agree that it is total hypocrisy to have an organisation known as the Equality Commission that does not have one member who would reflect the view of the largest party in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Dodds: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right to point to another organisation, which I have not mentioned. As he says, its title implies that it is aimed at the promotion of the concept of equality, yet it, too, has been widely criticised on the grounds of not representing, or having on it those who would reflect or represent, the majority political viewpoint in Northern Ireland. We must therefore be careful when we address such issues in relation to Northern Ireland.
      Judicial appointments should be made on merit alone. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke said in his eloquent contribution, we believe that the Government's proposals would go a long way to undermine the merit principle. We therefore wish to see those elements that would undermine it removed from the Bill today.
      5 pm
      I hope that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will feel able to agree with our amendment. It seems to me that the logical outcome of what he said would be his joining us in ensuring that, when it comes to appointments to the judiciary, merit should he the only consideration. Towards the end of his speech he spoke of big house Unionists' being appointed, and of people returning from abroad to be appointed. I should be interested to Know who he has in mind; I have no idea who on earth he could mean. I note that he did not take an intervention from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on that.
      The Northern Ireland judiciary are held in high esteem there. They act in the best interests of the community as a whole, as has been shown time and again during the most difficult and challenging periods in the history of the Province. The House would be well advised to accept the amendments, and not to introduce an element of political interference which I think will only damage the process and the confidence of people in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Swayne: I agree with the amendments. I want to concentrate on amendment No. 25, which raises the question of whether clause 3 is necessary. On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Mayhew—in terms echoed today by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—said:
      "In five years as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and four years before that as the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, I do not recall any serious lack of public confidence in the judiciary every manifesting itself. I suggest that there was a very good reason for that. Throughout the past 30 years, the judiciary of Northern Ireland, appointed as it his been by the Lord Chancellor, has earned a superb reputation for its fairness and
      658
      impartiality, to say nothing of its courage and dedication to the rule of law."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 1107.]
      What are we trying to fix here?
      The key to making the judiciary reflective of the community is encouraging all sections of the community to produce suitably qualified candidates. That is a laudable objective, and if it succeeds it will follow that over a period the judiciary will come to reflect the community that has produced such candidates. That is happening here on the mainland as the judiciary change to reflect the increasing number of female and ethnic-minority entrants to the profession.
      This is where we part company with the Government: they would turn a natural expectation into a duty. On 25 March, the Minister said:
      "As we are seeing a change in the pool from which appointments are made, do we not expect that change to be reflected in those appointments? We would be surprised if the appointments were not reflective, so it is legitimate to build in a duty for them to be so."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 March 2004; c. 44.]
      I think the Minister is right to expect the appointments to be reflective, but entirely wrong to impose such a duty. Consider that that will inevitably, or at least potentially, compromise the principle of selection on merit alone.
      Suppose that, unfortunately, it turns out that the best qualified candidate for a judicial appointment is from that section of the community that is already on balance over-represented in the judiciary, and that those who make the selection, considering the requirement to abide by the provision and their duty to ensure that the judiciary be reflective of the community, go for another candidate—a competent, qualified candidate but not the best candidate. We will then have crossed the threshold from a perfectly legitimate objective to affirmative action. That will have the opposite effect from what is intended in the clause. Rather than building confidence in the judiciary, it will undermine it.
      Mr. Spellar: I note the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) about the Equality Commission and hope that, as I have recently invited new applications, he will encourage the widest possible pool of applicants for those positions. We look forward to seeing those.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) asked us to look at the wider perspective. It is worth while rehearsing the benefits of seeking reflectiveness in public bodies, principal among which is that they tend to reflect the composition of the community around them, which inspires confidence and ensures that good people are not overlooked when recruiting and promoting. Such an approach speaks of fairness and reflects criticism.
      It is sometimes said in the advertising world that a good way of assessing an advertisement and whether it is working is to hold up a mirror to it and look at its mirror image. On that principle, we should consider whether we would argue that bodies should be unreflective—a position that would clearly be indefensible. With regard to reflectivity, schedule 2 to the 2002 Act requires the commission to report the following information relating to those who applied and were selected for judicial

      659
      office: gender, age, ethnic origin, community background, and that part of Northern Ireland with which they regard themselves as most closely associated. To deal with the query raised by a number of hon. Members, political opinion is not included.
      I appreciate that some hon. Members think—it was clear from the debate—that the Government are overplaying the importance of reflectiveness. Let me put it this way. Many people in Northern Ireland have been prepared to dismiss the important and good work of public bodies and public authorities with unfair criticisms. That undermines the bodies' authority. That is a problem that the Government can do something to address.
      Let us put to one side the positive merits of a reflective judicial appointments commission. Think of the damage done by criticisms of an unreflective commission—however, unfair those criticisms may be. Let us not give anyone cause to reject and undermine the commission's work. The simplest way to do that is by seeking to ensure within the bounds of what is reasonable and practical that the commission is reflective. It does no harm and it does a positive good.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) arrived late as a result of his colleague being held up by fog in Kirkwall and assumed that the Government were responsible. When I was Under-Secretary of State at the MOD and responsible for the Met Office, I carefully claimed credit for good weather at festivals in my constituency. We welcome the hon. Gentleman. He raised the question of the possible arrangements. The Bill is not specific as to what the arrangements may be, but one could envisage that there would have to be meetings or correspondence between those with powers to appoint and to nominate. Almost inevitably, there would need to be some collective consideration of the individuals whom persons were minded to appoint or nominate to see whether that could lead to a reflective commission.
      Mr. Trimble: May I go back to what the Minister has just said—that, inevitably, there would have to be some sort of collective consideration. Will he explain how the Law Society and the Bar Council could possibly take part in that collective consideration and how it could override their responsibility individually to make a single appointment?
      Mr. Spellar: On the question of those bodies being overriden, on this matter we are talking throughout about aspiration—about trying to ensure a reflective commission. Those bodies might well want to secure that, and would therefore want to consider their nominations, of course on merit, but also on whether they would be able collectively to meet that aspiration. That is a reasonable argument.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister must try to answer the question. He has again used the word "collectively". We are discussing the appointment of the commission. At present, the Lord Chancellor appoints the laypersons, the judicial persons are then appointed, and then the Bar Council appoints one person and the Law Society one. How do those bodies, which are themselves collective,
      660
      take part in collective decision making with the other bodies—the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary? How does the collective body known as the Law Society do that, especially bearing in mind the fact that the Minister is imposing on it a legal duty to make arrangements? The Minister has an obligation to tell us—indeed, he promised to tell us—what those arrangements might be, but he has not yet done so.
      Mr. Spellar: I beg to differ on that. I have indicated—
      Mr. Trimble: No, the Minister has not.
      Mr. Spellar: Yes, I think I have indicated that we would envisage meetings or correspondence between those with the power to appoint or nominate, and some collective consideration, which means a degree of engagement between those bodies. They will then make their own decisions in the light of those discussions. That is not unreasonable. The right hon. Gentleman might disagree with that, but I believe that it is a perfectly credible way of undertaking that duty.
      Mr. Dodds: Just to tease the issue out a little further, let us suppose that someone was aggrieved at being overlooked for appointment to the judicial appointments commission. Can the Minister tell us who they would take the case against under this arrangement? Would a solicitor take it against the Law Society and a barrister against the Bar Council, or would the case be taken against the Lord Chancellor? If the arrangement were collective, where would the remedy lie?
      Mr. Spellar: I envisage that the individual organisations would make the nomination, but that they would do so in the light of their collective discussion. That is not unprecedented in this world, and maintains the individual organisations' ability to make a decision while allowing them also to consider the impact of their decision on the decisions of others.
      Mr. Trimble: I ant sorry to intervene on the Minister again, but I remind him that the words in his Bill are, "to make … arrangements". An arrangement under the Bill means something more than a telephone call. The Minister hints at some sort of collective approach, but the legislation gives to the General Council of the Bar the power to make an appointment. How can a telephone conversation with the secretary of the Bar Council in any way bind, or have any influence on, what the Bar Council as a whole does? The whole approach is misconceived.
      Mr. Spellar: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the point exactly in referring to binding or having influence. Such a call could well influence the decision, and that secretary might even then have to go back to other people to consider how his organisation could best achieve the objective. The arrangement seems to be a perfectly sensible basis, which enables each individual organisation to make nominations, but in a framework in which they consider how their individual decisions might impact collectively. That is a perfectly reasonable way of doing business.

      661
      Moving on, I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve in amendments Nos. 11 and 13, and I acknowledge that he is doing so in a genuine attempt to build confidence in the system.
      I am not convinced that those amendments are necessary, however, because the appointment of lay members of the commission will be within the purview of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It will be part of her responsibility to ensure that appointments are made for the right reasons, and I have no doubt that the qualities that the right hon. Gentleman lists are of exactly the sort that she will expect the commission to look for. So it is not necessary to make that explicit in the Bill, and I shall rely on the wisdom of those responsible for the administration of the process.
      5.15 pm
      Likewise, prescribing how committees and subcommittees of the commission should be composed is not a matter for the Bill. The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 makes it clear that the commission shall be responsible for the regulation of its own practices and procedures, and I have every confidence that the chairman—the Lord Chief Justice—will oversee its functions with great care. I am not sure that there are compelling reasons to amend the Bill as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. But regarding his specific question on my contribution in Committee, although it is for the commission to decide in each case how it organises its business, the practical arrangements are being worked through with the Lord Chief Justice. However, the Lord Chief Justice has agreed that High Court appointments will be dealt with in the way that I described. I hope that that provides additional reassurance to that offered in Committee.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister's response to my amendment No. 13 was wholly inadequate—as, indeed, was his argument against the earlier amendments—and he has not dealt with my further point about enabling the commission to delegate its entire functions to a committee on which there might be only one or two members of the commission. We are talking about enabling a committee to make an appointment, yet there is no safeguard as to its composition, other than that one commission member be on it. How can the Minister regard that as satisfactory?
      Mr. Spellar: Frankly, it is a matter for the members of the commission, which will deal with more than 1,000 judicial appointments, and for its chairman, the Lord Chief Justice. It seems that I have greater confidence in the Lord Chief Justice and his fellow commissioners than do others. The provision provides the right balance to enable the commission, which will consist of highly eminent persons, to organise its business effectively.
      Mr. Garnier: Is the Minister suggesting that there are 1,000 judicial office holders in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Spellar: I am advised that 1,000 appointments are catered for.
      662
      I realise that some Members are concerned that securing a reflective judiciary will somehow compromise the principle of appointment on merit, but that is not the case: merit and reflectiveness are not mutually exclusive. The 2002 Act makes it clear that individual appointments must be made solely on the basis of merit, but equally, equal opportunities issues may arise that have implications for the judicial appointment process. In most spheres of work, where merit does not lead to a broadly reflective body, it is reasonable to ask why. Sometimes, there are good historical reasons, some of which the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) alluded to, but we would want to know what was preventing the emergence of a reflective body. Barriers, disincentives and other problems that are not obvious might mean that talent is being wasted. All that the provision requires is that the judicial appointments commission analyse and address any such problems, in the expectation that the measures put in place will achieve a broadly reflective judiciary.
      Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister deal with the example that I gave? Would the commission be wrong to consider another candidate—a competent and good one—if the best one was from, let us say, a part of the community that was already over-reflected in the judiciary?
      Mr. Spellar: It is a question not just of what I say, but of the merit principle's not being compromised. It will be no part of the commission's programme to recommend appointments "mainly" on the basis of merit, or to "have regard" to it; rather, it will recommend appointments solely on the basis of merit. I hope that that provides the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
      Mr. Dodds: The Minister referred to the number of judicial appointments in Northern Ireland as being about 1,000. On Second Reading, it was stated that there were only about 900 such appointments a year in England. That matter was also brought up in respect of the size of the commission, which we argued was too big for Northern Ireland. Will the Minister clarify the point? If there were about 1,000 judicial appointments per year in Northern Ireland, that fact would certainly be relevant to the size of the commission.
      Mr. Spellar: The number of appointments incorporates a number of tribunals across the board, which brings it up to about 1,000 appointments in a year. I hope that that clarifies the position. I checked up on it for exactly the same reason as the hon. Gentleman: I had the same concern as him.
      I hope that I have dealt with most of the relevant issues. The Bill makes some references to the Lord Chancellor, which will have to be changed in time, but that is a matter for the Constitutional Reform Bill. Other issues arise elsewhere in Northern Ireland legislation, but they are not central to this Bill.
      Mr. Hunter: Do the Government specifically envisage that Sinn Fein would be reflected on the commission? The Minister said earlier that politics was not an issue, but that is hard to understand in such a highly

      663
      politicised society as Northern Ireland. Will he therefore clarify whether Sinn Fein will be reflected in the commission or not?
      Mr. Spellar: I do not know how I could be clearer than I was earlier when I explained that the relevant criteria for those who applied to be selected for judicial office were gender, age, ethnic origin and community background in the context of Northern Ireland. I thought that I had been very clear and explicit in that regard.
      I have already said that we might consider tabling an amendment to section 1 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 to extend the duty to uphold judicial independence beyond those responsible for the administration of justice. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann raised that important matter, which deserves proper attention, in Committee. However, it has been decided that the point would be better addressed in the context of the Constitutional Reform Bill, so we look forward to dealing with it then. I therefore ask that hon. Members withdraw the amendments.
      Lembit Öpik: My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland has now got out of the fog in Kirkwall and has made it as far as Edinburgh, but I feel more lost in fog than when I first walked into the Chamber. My concern is that the Minister has sought to flannel his way through some questions, particularly those asked by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), without providing any clear mechanism that would allow us to understand how the mandate in the legislation could be brought to pass. The Minister cannot expect us to take his proposal seriously if he cannot explain the mechanism by which it is to be administered or, indeed, explain who would be held responsible if the commission did not turn out to be as representative as it was supposed to be.
      The Lord Chancellor will appoint the lay members, but what process will ensure that his work—together with that of the General Council of the Bar, the Law Society and other judicial bodies—generates a cross-section that is truly representative of the community, as the legislation requires? The Minister cannot simply tell us that it is going to happen or that he hopes various people will make phone calls, have conversations or correspond with each other. He knows as well as I do of the frictions that exist in the north of Ireland that affect these discussions. Simply hoping that when the time comes, those frictions will be put aside—and that the Bar Council, Law Society and others will feel that it is their duty to create a process to fill the vacuum left by the legislation—is not good enough. I understand why the Minister may not want to advance the process. I suspect that it would be very difficult to mandate the organisations into doing so without either appearing draconian or seeming to impose impossible demands on them.
      I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann for saying that he will support amendment No. 4, if it is pressed to a Division. I am also grateful to the hon.
      664
      Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who is allied to the Democratic Unionist party, for his highly qualified support. I understand the qualifications that the Minister has made, which I shall deal with in a few moments, but he has singularly failed to convince any Members other than his hon. Friends that the proposal adds up.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made some interesting points. At one stage, I felt that he was arguing in favour of the amendments and against the Bill as it stands.
      He spoke about compartmentalisation, but the problem is that the Minister is trying to force compartments to work together, which may well increase rather than reduce the very frictions that I am talking about.
      I do not feel it appropriate to talk about the privilege of the legal profession. I am not in the law myself and feel no need to discuss how much privilege that profession has had. I am interested in discussing the practicability of what is proposed, and I differ from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh in that I do not feel that the Minister's proposals are practicable.
      I understand that the hon. Member for Basingstoke intends to divide the House on amendment No. 23. I understand his concerns about reflectivity and representative cross-sections. I have had some personal concerns about positive discrimination: I am vulnerable on that since I have two Estonian parents, which means that the Estonian population of the United Kingdom is over-represented here by a factor of 30. [Interruption.] I can hear someone saying that that is easily remedied, but I believe that that is simple jealousy as we near the Eurovision song contest, which Estonia won recently and in which Britain got "nul points".
      I take a different view from the hon. Member for Basingstoke on the question of reflectivity. I do not feel that I can support amendment No. 23 for reasons that we have discussed at some length in the past.
      The Minister cannot expect us to go along with the Government's procedures when they have not been thought out. He cannot outline in any sensible way—if he can do so at this late stage, he is free to intervene–how he expects to apportion responsibility for an entirely reflective commission. If he cannot tell us how that will happen, he can hardly expect us to support an extension way beyond what was recommended in the report. To do that without cross-party consultation was somewhat irregular. To go further than recommended by experts who have studied the situation in Northern Ireland and to expect us to support that without having gone through any process with all the parties in Northern Ireland is to expect us I o swallow too much. I am not aware that any such procedure has been undertaken; the Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see him getting up so I think that I must be right. In the absence of a plausible defence from the Government of how the proposals will be implemented, I intend to divide the House on amendment No. 4.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
      The House having divided: Ayes 147, Noes 276.

      Division No. 142

      [5:27 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Allan, Richard

      Hunter, Andrew

      Amess, David

      Jack, rh Michael

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Jenkin, Barnard

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Bacon, Richard

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Barker, Gregory

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Bercow, John

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Blunt, Crispin

      Lamb, Norman

      Brady, Graham

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Leigh, Edward

      Brazier, Julian

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Breed, Colin

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lidington, David

      Burnett, John

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Burnside, David

      Mackay. rh Andrew

      Burstow, Paul

      Maclean, rh David

      Burt, Alistair

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Maples, John

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Maude, rh Francis

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Chidgey, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Chope, Christopher

      Conway, Derek

      Moore, Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Cotter, Brian

      Norman, Archie

      Curry, rh David

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Opik, Lembit

      Dodds, Nigel

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Page. Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Fallon, Michael

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Randall, John

      Redwood, rh John

      Flight, Howard

      Rendel, David

      Flook, Adrian

      Robathan, Andrew

      Forth, rh Eric

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Francois, Mark

      Garnier, Edward

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Goodman, Paul

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Grayling, Chris

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Ruffley, David

      Greenway, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gummer, rh John

      Selous, Andrew

      Hague, rh William

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hammond, Philip

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Heald, Oliver

      Spring, Richard

      Heath, David

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Steen, Anthony

      Hendry, Charles

      Streeter, Gary

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Swayne, Desmond

      Holmes, Paul

      Syms, Robert

      666

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Willetts, David

      Trimble, rh David

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Willis, Phil

      Viggers, Peter

      Wilshire, David

      Walter, Robert

      Young, rh Sir George

      Waterson, Nigel

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Watkinson, Angela

      Webb. Steve (Northavon)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Weir, Michael

      Bob Russell and

      Whittingdale, John

      Mr. Don Foster

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cummings, John

      Allen, Graham

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      David, Wayne

      Austin, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Baird, Vera

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Barnes, Harry

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Beard, Nigel

      Denham, rh John

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Best, Harold

      Doran, Frank

      Betts, Clive

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Borrow, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Farrelly, Paul

      Browne, Desmond

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bryant, Chris

      Fisher, Mark

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Flint, Caroline

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, rh Derek

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Casale, Roger

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Caton, Martin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Challen, Colin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clapham, Michael

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clelland, David

      Healey, John

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heppell, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Colman, Tony

      Heyes, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Corston, Jean

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      667

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hutton, rh John

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Organ, Diana

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jamieson, David

      Picking, Anne

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Purchase, Ken

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Rammell, Bill

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Khabra, Piara S.

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

      Kidney, David

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      Lammy, David

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ruddock, Joan

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Lepper, David

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Salter, Martin

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Linton, Martin

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Love, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McFall, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Soley, Clive

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Spellar, rh John

      McKechin, Ann

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      McWalter, Tony

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      McWilliam, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mendelson, rh Peter

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Stringer, Graham

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Taylor, David (NW Leis)

      Martlew, Eric

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Merron, Gillian

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Timms, Stephen

      Miliband, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Miller, Andrew

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Trickett, Jon

      Moffatt, Laura

      Truswell, Paul

      Mole, Chris

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Morley, Elliot

      Tumer, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Mountford, Kali

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Mudie, George

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Ward, Claire

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Watts, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      White, Brian

      668

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Winnick, David

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Woodward, Shaun

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Woolas, Phil

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Worthington, Tony

      Derek Twigg

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 23, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 26 to 40.—[Mr. Hunter.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:— The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 307.

      Division No. 143]

      [5.45 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Amess, David

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Leigh, Edward

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Bacon, Richard

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Barker, Gregory

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Lidington, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Bercow, John

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Maclean, rh David

      Blunt, Crispin

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Brady, Graham

      Malins, Humfrey

      Brazier, Julian

      Maples, John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Maude, rh Francis

      Burns, Simon

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Burnside, David

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Burt, Alistair

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Chope, Christopher

      Norman, Archie

      Collins, Tim

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Conway, Derek

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Curry, rh David

      Page, Richard

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Randall, John

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Redwood, rh John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Fallon, Michael

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Flight, Howard

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Flook, Adrian

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Forth, rh Eric

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Francois, Mark

      Ruffley, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Selous, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regls)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Goodman, Paul

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Grayling, Chris

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Spring, Richard

      Greenway, John

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Gummer, rh John

      Steen, Anthony

      Hague, rh William

      Streeter, Gary

      Hammond, Philip

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Syms, Robert

      Heald, Oliver

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Hendry, Charles

      Trimble, rh David

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Viggers, Peter

      Howard, rh Michael

      Walter, Robert

      Hunter, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Jack, rh Michael

      Watkinson, Angela

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Whittingdale, John

      669

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wiggin, Bill

      Mr. Nigel Dodds and

      Willetts, David

      Mrs. Iris Robinson

      Wilshire, David

      Young, rh Sir George

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Corston, Jean

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cotter, Brian

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cousins, Jim

      Allan, Richard

      Crausby, David

      Allen, Graham

      Cruddas, Jon

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cummings, John

      Austin, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Baird, Vera

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Barnes, Harry

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      David, Wayne

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davidson Ian

      Beard, Nigel

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dawson, Hilton

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bennett, Andrew

      Denham, rh John

      Best, Harold

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Betts, Clive

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Doran, Frank

      Blizzard, Bob

      Doughty, Sue

      Borrow, David

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Breed, Colin

      Edwards, Huw

      Brennan, Kevin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Browne, Desmond

      Farrelly, Paul

      Bryant, Chris

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fisher, Mark

      Burden, Richard

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burgon, Colin

      Flint, Caroline

      Burnett, John

      Foster, rh Derek

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Gerrard. Neil

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Casale, Roger

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caton, Martin

      Goggins, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Challen, Colin

      Grogan, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Chidgey, David

      Hanson, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Harvey, Nick

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Heath, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clelland, David

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Heppell, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heyes, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Hodge, Margaret

      Colman, Tony

      Holmes, Paul

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      670

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mole, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moore, Michael

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morley, Elliot

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hutton, rh John

      Mudie, George

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Mullin, Chris

      Illsley, Eric

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Irrance-Davies, Huw

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Picking, Anne

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Plaskitt, James

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Keetch, Paul

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Purchase, Ken

      Kidney, David

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Knight Jim (S Dorset)

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

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Rendel, David

      Lamb, Norman

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lammy, David

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Rooney, Terry

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lepper, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Salter, Martin

      Linton, Martin

      Sanders, Adrian

      Love, Andrew

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sheerman, Barry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sheridan, Jim

      MacDonald, Calum

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McFall, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Soley, Clive

      McWalter, Tony

      Speller, rh John

      McWilliam, John

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mallon, Seamus

      Stevenson, George

      Mendelson, rh Peter

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stringer, Graham

      Martlew, Eric

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Merron, Gillian

      Stunell, Andrew

      Michael, rh Alun

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Miliband, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Miller, Andrew

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      671

      Timms, Stephen

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Willis, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Winnick, David

      Truswell, Paul

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Woolas, Phil

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Worthington, Tony

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ward, Claire

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Watts, David

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Weir, Michael

      White, Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Derek Twigg

      Question accordingly negatived

    Clause 5

      REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM LISTED JUDICIAL OFFICES
      6 pm
      Mr. Swayne: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 25, leave out clause 5.
      The amendment would preserve the status quo, which requires the Lord Chief Justice's agreement to be sought and obtained before the sacking or suspension of any judge, as set out in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. In the other place, clause 5 proved to be the most controversial clause. It was removed, but it was reinstated in Committee in this House.
      The removal of a judge in England and Wales requires a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Strangely, the Northern Ireland Act 2000 gives no role whatever to the elected Assembly, and places the key decision in the hands of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. In order to provide a proper check and safeguard for that novel constitutional model, the 2002 Act requires the Lord Chief Justice's agreement, which is, in effect, a veto over the process. That provision strikes me as eminently sensible, given our paramount concern for the independence of the judiciary. Now, only two years later, the Minister requests the removal of that veto. His request is based on neither a powerful argument that we got it wrong in 2002 nor experience gained from the system's bedding in. In Committee, he simply said that it is, in his view. "inconceivable" that the veto will ever be used, and that we should therefore take it away.
      The Minister's request prompts two questions. First, if it is inconceivable that the veto will ever be exercised, why table a new clause in Committee to remove it? In Committee, the Minister responded to that question by stating that he favours tidiness in the law, that the veto is unlikely to be used, that it is redundant and that it should therefore be removed. Secondly, if the veto is inconceivable and wholly redundant, why was it given to the Lord Chief Justice only two years ago in the 2002 Act? The Minister replied that he did not know why because he did not serve on the Standing Committee for the 2002 Act.
      The Minister's performance in Committee was so unconvincing that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) speculated that clause 5 might be based on special pleading:
      672
      "I want to put a specific and important question to the Minister: were any representations made to the Government on this change, and if so by whom? Where has this come from?"
      The Minister replied:
      "I will have to get back to the right hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 March 2004; c. 61.]
      I do not know whether special information was imparted.
      Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Minister promised to get back to me, and he treated that promise with the same seriousness that he treated his promise to give us the details of arrangements that we debated in Committee. In other words, he has not kept the promise—at least, not so far—and I would be surprised if he were to say anything more coherent than his previous contributions.
      Mr. Swayne: The matter is remarkably suspicious. Their lordships removed this key clause, which the Government think so important that they brought it back and forced it through Standing Committee. There has been complete silence on the rationale for clause 5, which prompts this obvious question: what are the Government trying to hide?
      The procedure is novel, and I am prepared to admit that such a situation would be rare—it may never happen, and one hopes that it will not. It is admittedly unlikely that the Lord Chief Justice would seek to veto a decision largely based on the work of a commission set up by him, but we are not clairvoyant and cannot read what may or may not happen to that novel constitutional procedure in future. A veto was given to the Lord Chief Justice in the 2002 Act, and if its sudden removal is not based on an argument or experience, the Minister owes us a powerful explanation, which we have certainly not had.
      Lembit Öpik: As the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) rightly said, clause 5 was removed in the House of Lords. The Government have not made an adequate case for changing the procedure, and clause 5 means that the involvement of the Lord Chief Justice in suspending or removing judges in Northern Ireland will be different from the involvement of the Lord Chief Justice in similar circumstances in England and Wales. Why change the system in one place, but not in another?
      More profoundly, if the Minister is so determined to change a provision that was implemented two years ago, why did he not consult all the parties of Northern Ireland to find out what they think? I hope that he can reassure us that there has not been yet another unilateral deal with one side or another. I am sure that the Government are not foolish enough to pursue that path, which has almost always created the most enormous friction and frustrations in the peace process. As the hon. Member for New Forest, West rightly said, the 2002 Act is not yet in force, and we simply do not know whether the arrangements are effective.
      In supporting the hon. Member for New Forest, West, I have two questions. First, what is the rationale for repealing an untried provision that was introduced since the general election and within the term of the current Administration? Secondly, if the Government believe that there is no need for the Lord Chief Justice to have such a veto, how do they explain the powerful rationale advanced for it when it was originally introduced? I am

      673
      concerned, because if the Minister cannot give us a sound, logical explanation for the Government's approach, it unquestionably reduces our confidence in the changes that he makes.
      He must understand that friction and tension will be generated if he proposes for no good reason that the arrangements in Northern Ireland diverge from those in the rest of United Kingdom. I hope that he can reassure us. Certainly, if he provides a powerful rationale for the change with some evidence, albeit circumstantial, I will not oppose it.
      Mr. Swayne: Steady.
      Lembit Öpik: Indeed—we must be steady.
      Should the Minister fail to provide that rationale and the amendment is pressed to a vote, we will have no alternative other than to do the sensible thing by supporting it.
      Mr. Hunter: My hon. Friends and I support the amendment and accept and endorse the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). We believe that it was right that the Lords reinstated the status quo and gave the Lord Chief Justice the power of veto and we share the hon. Gentleman's incredulity that the Government have not explained why they are making this change. It is essential as a safeguard for the whole system that the Lord Chief Justice should have this reserve power to use in the most exceptional circumstances. We strongly support the amendment—to the point of a Division, if needs be.
      Mr. Garnier: We are getting used to this Government changing their mind from time to time. If the Prime Minister can alter over a Sunday lunchtime his view on the necessity of a referendum on the European constitution, we should not criticise too heavily this promising Minister for having changed his mind about the Lord Chief Justice's required agreement to the removal or suspension of a judicial officer. But it strikes me as odd, in the light of the debates on the 2002 Act that took place in Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who has been transmogrified into the Immigration Minister—he has emigrated from Northern Ireland to an English Department, and good luck to him, as he is a Scottish Member—left behind a perfectly understandable piece of legislation in the 2002 Act, which allows the Lord Chief Justice a lock on the removal of judges. I seem to remember that the Government advanced a perfectly good case for the Lord Chief Justice having that reserve power, and I am not sure that anybody thought it sensible to remove it.
      We are now required to accept that the Lord Chief Justice should merely be consulted. The Government have become famous for their ability to consult any number of people while not listening to them. I suspect that, if a judge proved inconvenient to the Northern Ireland Administration, whether under direct rule or devolved rule—in a political climate that perhaps we would not welcome at the moment, but which may come about—the Government would prefer it, politically, if the Lord Chief Justice were merely nodded to rather
      674
      than having his views listened to. The Minister has a lot of explaining to do. If he can explain as well as he can promise, he will make a huge stride in adjusting the legal constitution of not only the United Kingdom, but Northern Ireland.
      The amendment is not just a minor debating point but deals with a matter of acute seriousness. The removal of judges by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister is a matter of some political significance and should not be done lightly. Merely to consult the Lord Chief Justice, which does not import agreement or consent, is an insufficient safeguard to protect the integrity and independence of the judiciary. That is a simple point that was forcefully put by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I hope that the Minister will be able to explain this volte-face, U-turn and change of view, which is a complete reversal of the policy that, barely 18 months ago, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was happy to endorse and which we were prepared to accept on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Dodds: I support what other hon. Members have said about this important matter. It is not a trivial point but goes to the heart of the central issue of the independence of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. We require a cogent explanation of the Government's proposal to remove the power of the Lord Chief Justice to veto the removal of a high court judge, given that they only inserted such a power two years ago. So far, such an explanation has been completely missing from all the debates in another place and in Committee that I have read. The Minister owes the House a clear explanation of why the Government are taking this radical step.
      Clause 5, which is entitled
      "Removal or suspension from listed judicial offices",
      states that
      "In section 7 of the 2002 Act in subsection (5) … 'without the agreement of'
      the Lord Chief Justice is to be replaced by the phrase, "except after consultation with" the Lord Chief Justice. Will the Minister explain what would happen if consultation took place with the Lord Chief Justice and the most senior judge in Northern Ireland made it clear that he was not, for whatever reason, in favour of the removal of the judge in question? Although it is sincerely to be hoped that such a situation would not arise, is it really politically conceivable that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would press ahead regardless?
      The reasoning and logic that lay behind giving this power to the Lord Chief Justice in the first place was right and proper. The problem is not that the Government's argument for the change is flawed, but that they have advanced no argument at all. I look forward to the Minister's response, but if he has nothing cogent to say, my hon. Friends and I will be happy to join the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) in dividing the House on the matter.
      Mr. Spellar: During the preparation of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, every effort was made to ensure that the legislation contained a balance of provisions that built up the criminal justice system. In some instances, we added provisions that were

      675
      supplementary to the recommendations of the criminal justice review. The Government are always being encouraged to check our policies against the recommendations of the review. On reflection, we decided that some of the provisions put in place by the 2002 Act are unnecessary. This is a case in point. As hon. Members have explained, the clause removes the requirement for the Lord Chief Justice's agreement to the removal or suspension of a person from a listed judicial office. The Lord Chief Justice will, however, be consulted on the removal. That change more closely reflects the recommendation of the criminal justice review.
      Mr. Trimble: Can the Minister refer me to the specific part of the criminal justice review—the exact language—that he is relying on? That would be helpful to the House.
      Mr. Spellar: Yes, I will shuffle rapidly through my papers and refer the right hon. Gentleman to that particular section. The criminal justice review recommended that the
      "removal from office of a judge or lay magistrate should only be possible on the basis of the finding of a judicial tribunal constituted under statutory authority and convened by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister or the Lord Chief Justice, that a magistrate or judge was unfit for office by reason of incapacity or misbehaviour."
      It does not, therefore, envisage a subsequent veto on the decision of such a tribunal.
      Hon. Members have rightly pointed out that it would be unlikely that there would be circumstances that would lead to the setting up of such a tribunal. Let us also remember that such a tribunal would include two of the highest judicial office holders in the land. That would also mean that the body had been set up by the Lord Chief Justice, who would have agreed to the procedure to be followed by the tribunal.
      Mr. Trimble: I hope that the Minister is not trying to mislead the House by saying that the tribunal would be set up by the Lord Chief Justice. The 2002 Act provides that it might be set up by him, but it also provides that such a tribunal could be set up by the First Minister or Deputy First Minister, after consulting the Lord Chief Justice. It does not follow, therefore, that the Lord Chief Justice would set up the tribunal in all cases. Nor does it follow, as the Minister said earlier, that the tribunal would consist of persons holding high judicial office. The Act provides that it can consist of
      "a person who holds, or has held"
      such office. That includes persons who might now be retired. The Minister needs to be more precise about this.
      Mr. Spellar: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. A Lord of Appeal in ordinary, the Lord Chief Justice or another senior judge would chair such a tribunal. There would also be a senior judicial member as well as a lay member. As I said earlier, the Lord Chief Justice would also determine the procedure of these removal tribunals. In those circumstances, there would
      676
      be considerable involvement by senior members of the judiciary. As my colleague, Lord Filkin, said in another place:
      "Can we conceive al a situation where the Lord Chief Justice would consider it right to say in that circumstance, 'No, I will have my way. The decision of that tribunal should not carry'?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 2004; Vol. 657, c. 600.]
      It is, therefore, legitimate to say that, in the difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland, no single person, however high or low, can appoint a judge, and that no single person can veto the removal of a judge.
      Mr. Garnier: if those arguments are so stunning and unarguable, why did the Government not advance them during our deliberations on the 2002 Act? The Minister is in danger of making up constitutional policy on the hoof.
      Mr. Spellar: Following the passage of that Act, we have reflected on the situation to see—as we are often pressed to do—whether matters are in accord with the criminal justice review and to examine whether the measures are appropriate. Here we have a situation in which senior members of the judiciary would be involved every inch of the way. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that we are dealing with a very unlikely set of circumstances. Given that that is the case, we are dealing with a situation in which the senior judiciary is involved right the way through the procedure. Would we therefore want to put the Lord Chief Justice in a position in which he effectively had a veto over the decisions of a tribunal in which he and the senior judiciary had been so involved? To some extent, the onus is on the hon. and learned Gentleman to argue why a single person as eminent as the Lord Chief Justice—any Lord Chief Justice—should have such a unilateral right of veto in those circumstances.
      Mr. Garnier: I used the opportunities provided by our deliberations on the 2002 Act to do a lot of arguing, much of which was against the Government's proposals. The Minister has already been exposed for placing false reliance on what he thought was in the criminal justice review and what he thought was in the 2002 Act. We are all entitled to know on what factors he has based this decision. It is no good simply saying, "It's unlikely", or "It's unthinkable." He has presumably applied his mind to the drafting of the Bill and has some cogent reason, which we would like to hear, for entertaining this volte-face.
      Mr. Spellar: I resent the hon. Gentleman's implication. I draw his attention to recommendation 104 in paragraph 6.136 of the review, which states:
      "We recommend that removal from office of a judge or lay magistrate should only be possible on the basis of the finding of a judicial tribunal constituted under statutory authority and convened by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister"—
      as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) pointed out—
      "or the Lord Chief Justice, that a magistrate or judge was unfit for office by reason of incapacity or misbehaviour."
      There is nothing in that to imply or state that there should be a veto by the Lord Chief Justice within that procedure. There is no mention of a veto.
      Mr. Swayne: Of course, that recommendation is perfectly satisfied by the 2002 Act as it stands. The

      677
      recommendation says nothing about such a decision not being revoked subject to the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. Recommendation 104 has already been satisfied by the existing legislation.
      Mr. Spellar: I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman that the recommendation states that the
      "removal of a judge or lay magistrate from office should only be possible on the basis of the finding of a judicial tribunal constituted under statutory authority",
      et cetera. Nowhere does the recommendation state that there should be a subsequent veto by the Lord Chief Justice. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the 2002 Act introduced such a veto, but that is not sustained by the criminal justice review. I therefore fully accept the argument that we have changed our mind on this matter, but equally I can refer back to the review in saying that perhaps we were wrong in the first place.
      Mr. Trimble: The provision that the Minister is quoting does not assist him at all. In fact, if we look not only at the summary of the conclusions but at the paragraph from which the summary is drawn, we see that that paragraph does not go into the detail of the procedure at all. All that it says is that the removal should be possible only on the basis of the finding of a tribunal. That merely sets the initia1 basis on which to proceed. The review is entirely silent on the procedure thereafter. As the 2002 Act was enacted, it was entirely consistent with the recommendation, and the Minister has not given any explanation for this change. He cannot rely on this recommendation, because it contains nothing that has any bearing on this point.
      Mr. Spellar: I would never accuse my colleagues of having introduced inconsistent legislation. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the recommendation is silent in that regard, but, equally, the recommendations state that
      "removal … should only be possible on the basis of the finding of a judicial tribunal".
      That does not imply that there should then be a veto by another party who would therefore be able to override a tribunal that either a fellow Lord of Appeal or the Lord Chief Justice himself could have participated in or chaired.
      Mr. Hunter rose—
      Lembit Öpik rose—
      Mr. Spellar: I give way first to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I will come back to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Hunter: That is very kind of the Minister, but I have forgotten what I was going to say.
      Mr. Spellar: I give way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.
      Lembit Öpik: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was going to ask the Minister a question, which is this: if his defence is that no veto is implied, why does
      678
      he think that that is a reason to take a power from the Lord Chief Justice? Why does he not equally accept that it is not implied that there should be no veto? It is an extremely weak argument to say that, because it is not necessarily stated that there should be a veto, he should remove the power. If that is what he is saying, is that the strategy that the Government will henceforth adopt for reviews—taking things out that are not explicitly included?
      Mr. Spellar: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman has now taken up mind reading, along with asteroid watching, as one of his occupations. We would of course be interested if his skills in mind reading had allowed him to read the mind of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of his party, as to whether he will remain as party leader. We would welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution on that.
      Lembit Öpik: Clearly the gentleman is not for turning. Indeed, after hearing of injustices of the kind that the Minister is putting forward today, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will fight for as long as it takes to get us on to the Treasury Bench and to enable me, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to right the many wrongs that we are observing this afternoon.
      Mr. Spellar: If the hon. Gentleman's leader is going to do that he will have to raise his game, compared with recent performances. We should return to the point, very substantially.
      Mr. Mallon: No doubt when the Minister was considering the change that the Government want to make he looked back at precedent, and no doubt he is aware of the precedent in this matter. To narrow things down, over the last 40 years, say, how many instances have there been of a judge being removed for either of the two reasons specified and what method was used?
      Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which of course reinforces the point that I made earlier: these are circumstances that are almost inconceivable or very unlikely in respect of there being a need to remove a judge. If we had reached those circumstances and had gone through the procedure as outlined by the criminal justice review—
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the Minister for giving way. I can well understand that nobody has the information as to how often this has happened, but surely the crucial thing is, if it happened how was it done? Surely that was part of the research that coloured the Government's mind when they were drawing up the original Act and this amendment to it. Can he say how these things were done previously? Only when we know that will we be able quantifiably to assess whether the proposal is an improvement.
      Mr. Spellar: Previous provisions have of course required resolutions of the House.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister will want to remember that we are not talking about the removal of a High Court judge, a lord justice of appeal or the Lord Chief Justice.

      679
      The procedures for those are different, but tonight we are debating the particular procedure that deals with people holding, lesser judicial offices right down through what the Minister claims to be nearly 1,000 minor appointments. While the removal of the Lord Chief Justice, a lord justice or a judge of the High Court is done wholly differently and has arisen only in most exceptional circumstances, I am sure that we could find examples where people have been removed from the minor appointments.
      Mr. Mark Francois: The Minister's brief says, "Cut your losses and sit down."
      Mr. Spellar: Not at all. We have been through a number of these areas, examining the circumstances of the review and also the—
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the Minister for giving way, because it is essential that we know what the procedure was before. If we do not, we will have no way of measuring what is proposed against that procedure. I would have thought that, having introduced two criminal justice Acts, the information on how the matter was dealt with previously and through what procedure would be readily to hand.
      Mr. Spellar: I hope that I can enlighten my hon. Friend. The current grounds and statutory provisions for removal are as follows. The Lord Chief Justice, every lord justice of appeal and every judge of the High Court hold office during good behaviour, subject, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said, to a power of removal by Her Majesty on an address presented to Her Majesty by both Houses of Parliament. That is under the powers of section 13(1) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978.
      County court judges and resident magistrates may be removed by the Lord Chancellor on grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour under section 105 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 and section 11 of the Magistrates Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 respectively.
      Statutory officers—masters and district judges—hold office during good behaviour and may be removed by the Lord Chancellor on account of misbehaviour or inability to perform the duties of office. That is under sections 71(1) and 71(2) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978.
      Members of the deputy judiciary may be removed by the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and following an investigation conducted by a judge nominated by him, on the following grounds: misbehaviour, incapacity and failure to sit, attend training events or observe standards. Those are the procedures.
      Mr. Mallon: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Does he agree that in each of those instances, until now, the people of the north of Ireland have had no say whatever in relation to this part of the legislation? Is not that the type of imbalance that the Bill is trying to redress?
      Mr. Spellar: That is partly the case, but of course it is also the case that the changes introduced under the 2002
      680
      Act involved more—the people of Northern Ireland and the judicial representatives in Northern Ireland. The real question that is being addressed here between the 2002 Act and clause 5 is how that balance is struck between those various individuals. As I said earlier, there is also a feeling that it is wrong for a single individual to have the right of appointment, or indeed of veto, over a dismissal within the system.
      Mr. Trimble: We are beginning to get closer to the heart of the matter. The current arrangements are that removal from the posts we are talking about is done by the Lord Chancellor on certain grounds. Of course, in such a situation the Lord Chancellor would be acting judicially, not politically. The provisions that the Government are including take the balance away from the judicial equivalent, which would be the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and towards the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. What hitherto has been a power resting in someone who would be acting judicially is being balanced towards people who would be acting politically. That again reinforces other aspects of the Bill, whereby the Government are foolishly opening the door to political influence over, first, the appointment and now the removal of judges.
      Mr. Spellar: I am sorry, but I cannot accept that argument from the right hon. Gentleman because the decisions on the removal or otherwise of a judge would be taken by a tribunal, which would involve senior members of the judiciary.
      Mr. Trimble: That tribunal would be appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
      Mr. Spellar: I am slightly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is therefore impugning the integrity of members of the judiciary who would be sitting as a tribunal, who would probably include one of the lords justices of appeal, and who could include the Lord Chief Justice. Whether those are appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, or by the Lord Chief Justice, I hope that he was not impugning the integrity of those individual judges in taking a proper, fair and impartial decision, irrespective of who had appointed them to chair the tribunal.
      Mr. Trimble: The tribunal will be appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Of the three persons involved, there is only an absolute requirement that one of them should hold a judicial office.
      Mr. Spellar: Certainly, however, they would have enormous influence. It is really a question of whether their decision as members of the tribunal should stand, or whether the Lord Chief Justice should have a veto. That reflects nothing about the Lord Chief Justice. The issue is merely whether, within the system, one individual should have the right either to appoint unilaterally or indeed to prevent the dismissal unilaterally. That is the key question.
      Mr. Trimble: In view of the fact that there will be political influence in the appointment of the tribunal, and there is only a guarantee that one out of the three persons on that tribunal will be a person who holds

      681
      judicial office, that was no doubt part of the reason why the Government in 2002 thought that it would be a useful safeguard to ensure that the Lord Chief Justice would have a power to look again at the matter. The decision of the Government to withdraw that safeguard is a matter of concern and we saw what view was taken of that in the other place.
      Mr. Spellar: We do not regard it as a safeguard in that sense but as a veto by one individual over the decision of a properly constituted tribunal in the extremely unlikely circumstances of such a tribunal being required. The right hon. Gentleman is right that teat is the nub of the issue as to whether the House regards this as a necessary safeguard or as an unnecessary veto, and that due process would therefore require a properly appointed tribunal to undertake that decision, and for that decision not to be subject to an override by an individual, however eminent and just.
      Mr. Mallon: The Minister has obviously thought deeply about this matter. Can he give me one good reason why a judicial person should have a veto over the decision of others including the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the north of Ireland? Secondly, can he give me another good reason as to why the judgment of a legal person should be better and more pristine than the judgment of political people, because the implication of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is that that which is judicial is good and that that which is political is questionable?
      Mr. Spellar: I am not sure that I go along all the way with the argument that my hon. Friend advances in this regard. What I am saying is that the appointment of a tribunal with the involvement of the, senior judiciary, in order to investigate and adjudicate on the question of whether a judge or magistrate is a right and proper person to be holding that office, must properly be made under judicial procedures and with the involvement of the senior judiciary. Once that tribunal has been appointed, either by the Lord Chief Justice or by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, external or even internal political influence on the operations of that tribunal would be quite improper. That tribunal should come to its decision. That is not what we are deciding today, however; what we are deciding is whether that tribunal, when it has come to a decision, should be subject to a veto by the Lord Chief Justice. As I stress again, that in no way impugns this or any other Lord Chief Justice. I am talking about the basic principle.
      Mr. Swayne: For the Opposition, the occasion of a Government U-turn is always joyful. This afternoon has almost been as jolly an experience as last week's great Government U-turn, as we have watched the Minister squirm and try to find an explanation. He says that recommendation 104 requires that it will be possible for a judge to be removed only on the basis of the finding of a tribunal. That is true, and it is true now—it is only possible on the basis of a tribunal, as the procedure sets out in the 2002 Act. The Minister is being falsely pedantic in thinking that simply because that is a necessary condition, which it is, it rules out any other possibility. It is strange that he should be so coy about going beyond the provisions of the criminal justice
      682
      review, in saying that the Government cannot take one step further than anything that is in black and white in that review. That was not the line that he took with respect to clauses 2 and 3, in which they have gone well beyond that.
      I sense that the mood of the House is that we will not get much further on this issue tonight. I therefore wish to press the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 266.

      Division No. 144]

      [6:47 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Harvey, Nick

      Allan, Richard

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Amess, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Heath, David

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hendry, Charles

      Bacon, Richard

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Barker, Gregory

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Howard, rh Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bercow, John

      Jack, rh Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Brady, Graham

      Keetch, Paul

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Brazier, Julian

      Breed, Colin

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burnett, John

      Lamb, Norman

      Burns, Simon

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Burnside, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Burstow, Paul

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Burt, Alistair

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Lidington, David

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Loughton, Tim

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Cash, William

      Maclean, rh David

      Chope, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Collins, Tim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Conway, Derek

      Maples, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Maude, rh Francis

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Dodds, Nigel

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Moore, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Norman, Archie

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Flight Howard

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Flook, Adrian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Forth, rh Eric

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Page, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Randall, John

      Goodman, Paul

      Redwood, rh John

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Rendel, David

      Grayling, Chris

      Robathan, Andrew

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Greenway, John

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Gummer, rh John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hague, rh William

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hammond, Philip

      Rosindell, Andrew

      683

      Ruffley, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sanders, Adrian

      Viggers, Peter

      Selous, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Watkinson, Angela

      Simmonds, Mark

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Whittingdale, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wiggin, Bill

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Willetts, David

      Spring Richard

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Willis, Phil

      Steen, Anthony

      Wilshire, David

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Streeter, Gary

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Young, rh Sir George

      Syms, Robert

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tredinnick, David

      Hugh Robertson and

      Trimble, rh David

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Allen, Graham

      Corston, Jean

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Crausby, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cruddas, Jon

      Austin, John

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Baird, Vera

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cummings, John

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      David, Wayne

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Davidson, Ian

      Bennett, Andrew

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Best, Harold

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Betts, Clive

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blackman, Liz

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blizzard, Bob

      Denham, rh John

      Borrow, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Browne, Desmond

      Doran, Frank

      Bryant, Chris

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Burden, Richard

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burgon, Colin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Edwards, Huw

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Casale, Roger

      Fisher, Mark

      Caton, Martin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Challen, Colin

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Chaytor, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Clapham, Michael

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clelland, David

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Coaker, Vernon

      Goggins, Paul

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cohen, Harry

      Grogan, John

      Coleman, lain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Colman, Tony

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hanson, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      684

      Healey, John

      Miliband, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mole, Chris

      Heppell, John

      Morley, Elliot

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mountford, Kali

      Heyes, David

      Mudie, George

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Olner, Bill

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Organ, Diana

      Hutton, rh John

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Illsley, Eric

      Picking, Anne

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jamieson, David

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Rammell, Bill

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

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

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Rooney, Terry

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kidney, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Salter, Martin

      Lammy, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Lepper, David

      Sheridan, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Short, rh Clare

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Linton, Martin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      McCabe, Stephen

      Soley, Clive

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Spellar, rh John

      MacDonald, Calum

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      McFall, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Stevenson, George

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      McKechin, Ann

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      MacShane, Denis

      Straw, rh Jack

      McWalter, Tony

      Stringer, Graham

      McWilliam, John

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mallon, Seamus

      Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Trickett, Jon

      Martlew, Eric

      Truswell, Paul

      Michael, rh Alun

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      685

      Tumer, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ward, Claire

      Woolas, Phil

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmoirth)

      Watts, David

      Weir, Michael

      Wright, David (Telford)

      White, Brian

      Wright Tony(Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Paul Clark and

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Gillian Merron

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 6

      DUTY OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS TO REFER CERTAIN MATTERS TO POLICE OMBUDSMAN
      Mr. Hunter: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 38, after 'shall', insert 'within his discretion'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 17, in page 4, line 2, at end insert—
      '(4AA) The Director shall refer to the Ombudsman any allegation coming to his attention that a police officer—

      (a) may have committed a criminal offence; or

      (b) may, in the course of a criminal investigation, have behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings,

      which is not the subject of a complaint, unless it appears to the Director that the Ombudsman is already aware of the allegation.'.
      No. 18, in page 4, line 3, after '(4A)', insert 'and (4AA).'.
      No. 19, in page 4, line 6, leave out from 'insert', and insert ',(4A), or (4AA),'.
      No. 20, in page 4, line 11, leave out from 'substitute' to end and insert ', (4), (4A) or (4AA).'.
      7 pm
      Mr. Hunter: I think that the Minister's reply on the amendment will be interesting. He spent 40 minutes or so arguing against an amendment on the ground that it was inconsistent with the criminal justice review. Now he will have to stand on his head and argue against an amendment that seeks to make the Bill consistent with the criminal justice review. He will argue, I anticipate, unless I convince him by the power of my arguments, for a clause that is inconsistent with the review.
      The aim of amendment No. 22 is self-explanatory. It is to give the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland discretion as to whether to submit certain matters to the police ombudsman. Interestingly, the amendment is linked with two amendments that were tabled by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—I presume that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will argue for them—that seek to do precisely the opposite. If I understand the Social Democratic and Labour party amendments correctly, they, as it were, firm up the obligation of the DPP to refer to the ombudsman.
      The essence of the argument for amendment No. 22 is that the Bill—the same applies to the hon. Gentleman's amendments—is inconsistent with i he criminal justice
      686
      review. That review did not demand, or even remotely suggest, that the DPP should be obliged to refer to the police ombudsman any matter that appeared to him to indicate that a police officer may have committed a criminal offence, or may in the course of a criminal investigation have behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings.
      Paragraph 4.132 of the review states that article 6(3) of the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 should
      "be supplemented with a provision enabling"—
      "enabling" is the key word, not "compelling"—
      "the prosecutor to refer a case to the Police Ombudsman for investigation where he or she is not satisfied with an Article 6(3) response."
      The review recommended not that the DPP should be required under an obligation to refer certain matters to the ombudsman, but that he or she should be able to do so in circumstances that are carefully defined: where he or she is dissatisfied with the reply received under article 63). That in itself prompts the question: what did the review conclude about article 6(3)? Paragraph 4.131 states:
      "We recommend that the powers contained in Article 6(3) be retained and that the head of the prosecution service"—
      I emphasise that: the head of prosecution, not the police ombudsman—
      "should make clear publicly the service's ability and determination to prompt an investigation by the police of facts that come into its possession, if these appear to constitute allegations of the commission of a criminal offence, and to request further information from the police to assist it in coming to a decision on whether or not to prosecute."
      In other words, article 6(3) clearly states that primacy lies with the DPP, not with the police ombudsman. The Bill, to be reinforced by the SDLP amendments, contradicts utterly the conclusions of the criminal justice review, and therefore, according to the arguments recently advanced by the Minister, is unacceptable.
      In essence, the review gives the DPP, not the ombudsman, primacy in investigating matters to which clause 6 refers. The review recommended that the powers of article 6(3), which give primacy to the DPP, should be retained. The only duty that the review recommended should be imposed on the DPP was a duty to ensure that any allegations of malpractice by the police are fully investigated. The Bill, therefore, goes appreciably further than the review.
      In Committee, the Minister said:
      "Recommendations were made that the prosecutor and the police should operate effectively together, with the prosecutor being involved in a case early",
      but I think that we are entitled to be cynical about the Minister's words. It seems that spin is at work. That is not what the review recommended. It recommended retaining the powers of article 6(3), which give primacy to the DPP's investigative and prosecutory role, and recommended that the police ombudsman should become involved only if the DPP were dissatisfied with an article 6(3) response. The SDLP amendments, like the Bill, try to turn the criminal justice review on its head.
      In Committee, the Minister said:

      687
      "The clause was therefore drafted to ensure that the discretion lies with the ombudsman, as is right in cases of potential police misconduct",
      but that is not what the review says and it is not the situation that should prevail. Minor police misconduct should be resolved by internal disciplinary processes. Other police misconduct, like all misconduct, should be subject to prosecution if the DPP believes that there is a case to be answered that is substantiated by evidence that will stand up in court. The external assistance of the ombudsman should be sought only if the DPP believes that the police have not fully investigated, or are not fully investigating allegations. That should be a matter for the DPP alone to decide, just as the criminal justice review recommended.
      The Bill as it stands allows the DPP no discretion. Under the Bill, if any matter appears to the DPP to indicate that an offence has been committed, he is obliged to refer it to the ombudsman. He cannot exercise any discretion, entirely contrary to the criminal justice review.
      The Minister said that
      "the current terms of the clause are no reflection whatever on the professionalism of the Director of Public Prosecutions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 March 2004; c. 68—69.]
      That opinion can be disputed, but we can be certain that the clause undermines the role of the DPP and advances the role of the ombudsman, in contradiction of the criminal justice review. The reason for that is clear. The explanatory notes explain it. They state that the change is in line with the undertaking of the Government in the joint declaration published in May 2003 and referred to at page 33 of the updated implementation plan. The amendment serves the simple purpose of moving away from the wheeling and dealing that resulted in the Hillsborough joint declaration, and makes the Bill consistent with the criminal justice review.
      Mr. Mallon: I wish to speak to amendment No. 17, to which amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 are consequential. I raised the matter on Second Reading. It has also been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). On both occasions, we were advised that the Government would think about it and, to use the vernacular of this evening, come back to us on it.
      I pursue the matter in the interests of seeing where "back" leads to, because I am still not clear about the Government's position.
      The matter is important for two reasons. I consider it even more so, having listened to the analysis of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), which tried to rewrite legislation all in one go and transfer from the office of the ombudsman to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions the ombudsman's entire role in one fell swoop. Of course, that was so transparent that people will realise that very quickly.
      First, in the wording that we have presented:
      "The Director shall refer to the Ombudsman any allegation coming to his attention",
      so that, in effect, the DPP would be able to give an early-warning signal if there were going to be a possible problem. Let us consider some incidents in the past in
      688
      Northern Ireland that are still unresolved. I refer specifically to the Finucane case—the murder of Patrick Finucane. For 15 years, there might have been a resolution had there been an early-warning signal process, but 15 years later, that matter is still not resolved. It is of weighty contention in relation to the report of Judge Corry. Again, action on that is being awaited. Had the Director of Public Prosecutions been able to work in such a way as to give an early-warning signal, and immediately refer
      "to the Ombudsman any allegation coming to his attention",
      many past problems might well have been short-circuited.
      On that basis alone, it would be worth the Government's while to adopt amendment No. 17, but there is a second element to the matter. Primacy does not rest with the Director of Public Prosecutions; primacy on this matter rests with the ombudsman, and the judgment should bo for the ombudsman. The Bill as it stands makes judgment reside with the DPP, referring to a matter that "appears to the Director", rather than saying, as I believe it should, that the DPP should refer any allegation. He should not just use his judgment, but refer any allegation that he is aware of.
      There are those who might say that that is too neat a point to be making in legislation, but given the history of what has happened in Northern Ireland, the difficulties that we have had and the way in which efforts have been made to create a criminal justice system that is ahead of anything in England or Wales, or in the Republic of Ireland, we should be very careful with points of this nature.
      The Government should respond to this matter. They should welcome an early-warning system and not allow in any way primacy to be transferred from the ombudsman to the DPP. For that reason, I recommend amendment No. 17 to the House.
      Lembit Öpik: I was a little agnostic on amendment No. 22, but having listened to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), I do not find it unreasonable to include the words that he outlines. If I had just walked in, having travelled the length of the country—from Kirkwall, for example—and had not known the political affiliation or the status of the hon. Member for Basingstoke, I might have mistaken him for a Minister, from listening to his argument. The argument that he put forward was similar to the kinds of argument that one hears from the Government, in terms of language and rationale.
      Mr. Swayne: That is not a compliment.
      Lembit Öpik: I was making it as a morally neutral statement, in the hope that I would persuade the Minister, in responding, to acknowledge—on a matter of judgment, not of principle—that the argument made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke makes sense.
      I shall also be interested to hear what the Minister says on the position of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and amendment No. 17. Having listened to his argument, I am not entirely clear what the amendment would add to the legislation as it already stands.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Dodds: As the Bill currently stands, clause 6(3) sets a very low threshold indeed. It says:
      "The Director shall refer to the Ombudsman any matter which—

      (a) appears to the Director to indicate that a police officer—

      (i) may have committed a criminal offence; or

      (ii) may, in the course of a criminal investigation, have behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings".

      What the Government propose is already a low threshold in terms of reference by the DPP to the police ombudsman.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) seeks to lower the threshold completely— almost so that there is no threshold at all. The DPP would exercise no discretion whatever under amendment No. 17, by whose terms, as I understand them, any allegation at all—including that a police officer might have committed a criminal offence—would have to be automatically transferred to the police ombudsman. That is not reasonable on any terms. Surely it is entirely reasonable that the DPP should make some sort of assessment of whether the allegation in question is entirely vexatious, spurious or trivial, rather than having to transfer every single allegation, however vexatious or trivial, to the ombudsman.
      Lembit Öpik: That is my understanding, too, of what amendment No. 17 would do. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if that is the correct understanding—and I may have misunderstood—it provides every opportunity to reduce the credibility of the system and to create a moribund environment in which many unproven cases hold up the genuine cases that we would like to see explored?
      Mr. Dodds: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly the danger, and exactly why there needs to be discretion for the DPP. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) set out very cogently the arguments in favour of the DPP's having discretion on this, and I shall not rehearse those arguments except to emphasise that we are dealing with an issue on which the Government's proposals clearly fly in the face of the criminal justice review. The Minister has time and again today prayed in aid the criminal justice review to support his proposals, but on this proposal, which clearly runs counter to the criminal justice review, the Government are proceeding nevertheless. Indeed, that criticism can be doubly applied to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, because he wants to move even further away from the terms of the criminal justice review.
      That brings us back to the fundamental point that we must look at the origins of the Bill the Hillsborough talks that led to the joint declaration.
      As with the amendment that dealt with removing the veto power of the Lord Chief Justice, I should be interested to know from where exactly the pressure has come, what representations have been made and why the Government feel that, on this occasion, it is right to depart from the criminal justice review, given that they have carefully followed its recommendations and claims in respect of other matters.
      Mr. Spellar: I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), on whose
      690
      travels we have had regular bulletins. I am in the interesting position of being pulled in one direction by the Democratic Unionist party and in another by the Social Democratic and Labour party, which might indicate that we have struck the right balance between the two in this clause.
      The DUP amendment would give the Director of Public Prosecutions discretion as to whether he should refer a case of suspected police malpractice to the police ombudsman. I should like to make it absolutely clear at the outset—as the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) pointed out, I said this in Committee—that the current terms of the clause are no reflection whatsoever on the professionalism of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am happy to endorse fully the independence and the impartiality of the DPP, in whom the Government have every confidence.
      Contrary to what the Opposition say, the Government believe that the current clause accurately meets the criminal justice review's recommendation, as stated in paragraph 4.133, that a duty be placed on the DPP to ensure that any allegations of malpractice by the police are fully investigated. How would that work out in practice? Let us say that the DPP is working on a case file from the Police Service of Northern Ireland and is examining it to determine whether the case should be prosecuted. In the course of this process, he comes across something that suggests that a police officer may have acted improperly. I am talking here not about evidence being presented as part of the case, but about uninvestigated evidence: incidental details, inconsistencies, niggling questions, worrying gaps in the evidence or in procedure, or allegations made by witnesses—a point to which I shall return. In such a situation, he passes these matters to the police ombudsman. After all, he does not have the responsibility or the resources to investigate them and to find out whether there is any substance to them; that is the proper role of the police ombudsman. Nor, of course, is it the responsibility of the police to investigate themselves—that is why we have a police ombudsman. It is her responsibility to investigate police wrongdoing.
      The police ombudsman then investigates the matter. It may turn out to be nothing, or a very serious matter indeed. If there is evidence that could lead to prosecution, she will pass the file to the DPP, who will take a decision on prosecution based on the properly collated evidence placed before him. What the provision does not do is to make the police ombudsman investigate suspected police wrongdoing that has already been investigated once, and in respect of which the DPP has been asked to take a decision about prosecution. It is not a circular process and it does not create double jeopardy. The DPP does not need to refer to the ombudsman matters of which she is already aware.
      Nor does the provision allow the DPP to take a decision on the prosecution of a police officer based on a few scraps of evidence that he happens to come across in the course of his work. The fundamental premise on which the provision is based is that the DPP's job is to take decisions about prosecutions on an informed basis, and what we are talking about here are uninvestigated suspicions. I should also make it clear, particularly for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), that this provision does not

      691
      allow the DPP to pick and choose which suspicious matters he passes to the police ombudsman. The DPP does not have discretion over whether he makes a referral; he does, however, have to keep his eyes open and to identify suspicious matters as such.
      Some Members are concerned that that means that the DPP has no discretion. As I have explained, he ought not to be given responsibility for sorting out the wheat from the chaff; that is not his job—I doubt whether he would want it—but the police ombudsman's. He exercises his judgment in identifying matters for referral; he is not an automaton. Conversely, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) complained in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh complained this evening, that the clause as drafted gives the DPP too great a discretion over referrals. Again, that is not the case. The clause is set at a very low threshold, as the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) rightly said. I stress that the DPP must refer to the ombudsman all matters—a clearly comprehensive term—that appear to indicate that a police officer may—
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the Minister for giving way. In fact, the phrase used is
      "any matter which … appears to the Director",
      so the judgment lies with the DPP. That is the difference, and that is why the Minister's analysis is wrong. That phrase allows the judgment to rest with the DPP, which it should not.
      Mr. Spellar: As I said, the DPP refers to the ombudsman matters that indicate that a police officer might have committed a wrongdoing. My hon. Friend should take cognisance of the observation of the hon. Member for Belfast, North that, in fact, that is a very low threshold. Clearly, such matters have to come to the notice of the DPP in order for him to refer them.
      As I was saying, the DPP must refer to the ombudsman all matters that indicate that a police officer might have committed a criminal offence, or might have behaved in the course of a criminal investigation in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings. Frankly, that covers anything and everything suspicious. For the record, it also covers allegations of wrongdoing, which by their very nature indicate that someone might have done something wrong.
      As I said at the outset, I believe that we have struck the right balance and that we are conforming with the criminal justice review. I therefore urge the House to oppose the amendment.
      Mr. Hunter: I listened to the Minister with great interest and although I would like to agree with him, I cannot. He offers an interpretation of the Bill, but it is not a compelling one or the only one. Looking again at proposed new subsection (4A)(a)(i) and (ii), it seems clear that the Bill as it stands will give the DPP no discretion whatsoever. If he believes that the police have committed any criminal offence or wrongdoing, he is obliged to pass matters on to the ombudsman. That is a retrogressive step, so I shall press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 248.

      Division No. 145]

      [7:27 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Amess, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Lamb, Norman

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bacon, Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Barker, Gregory

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Bercow, John

      Lidington, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Loughton, Tim

      Boswell, Tim

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Brady, Graham

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Maclean, rh David

      Brazier, Julian

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Breed, Colin

      Malins, Humfrey

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Maples, John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Burnett, John

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Burns, Simon

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Burnside, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Moore, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Norman, Archie

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Loncd'y)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Page, Richard

      Cash, William

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Chidgey, David

      Randall, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Redwood, rh John

      Collins, Tim

      Rendel, David

      Conway, Derek

      Robathan, Andrew

      Cotter, Brian

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Curry, rh David

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Doughty, Sue

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Fallon, Michael

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Ruffley, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Flight Howard

      Sanders, Adrian

      Flook, Adrian

      Selous, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Francois, Mark

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Garnier, Edward

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Spring, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Steen, Anthony

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Streeter, Gary

      Grayling, Chris

      Stunell, Andrew

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hammond, Philip

      Syms, Robert

      Harvey, Nick

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Heald, Oliver

      Tredinnick, David

      Heath, David

      Trimble, rh David

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Viggers, Peter

      Howard, rh Michael

      Walter, Robert

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Jack, rh Michael

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Whittingdale, John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Keetch, Paul

      Wiggin, Bill

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Willis, Phil

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Wilshire, David

      693

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Younger- Ross, Richard

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mr. Andrew Hunter and

      Young, rh Sir George

      Mr. Nigel Dodds

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Allen, Graham

      Edwards, Huw

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Farrelly, Paul

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Fisher, Mark

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Austin, John

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Baird, Vera

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Barnes, Harry

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Beard, Nigel

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bennett, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Betts, Clive

      Godsiff, Roger

      Blackman, Liz

      Goggins, Paul

      Blizzard, Bob

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Borrow, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Hanson, David

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymiey)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Bryant, Chris

      Healey, John

      Burden, Richard

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Burgon, Colin

      Hendrick, Mark

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Hesford, Stephen

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Heyes, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Casale, Roger

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Caton, Martin

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Challen, Colin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Chaytor, David

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Hutton, rh John

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Illsley, Erc

      Clelland, David

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cohen, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Connarty, Michael

      Jamieson, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Corston, Jean

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Cummings, John

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kemp, Fraser

      David, Wayne

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davidson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kidney, David

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dawson, Hilton

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Denham, rh John

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Lammy, David

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Doran, Frank

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      694

      Lepper, David

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

      Leslie, Christopher

      Levitt Tom (High Peak)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rooney, Terry

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Linton, Martin

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Salter, Martin

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McFall, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Short, rh Clare

      MacShane, Denis

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McWalter, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McWilliam, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Spellar, rh John

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stevenson, George

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Martlew, Eric

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Merron, Gillian

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Michael, rh Alun

      Straw, rh Jack

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Miliband, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Miller, Andrew

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Moffatt, Laura

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mole, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Morley, Elliot

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mountford, Kali

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Mudie, George

      Trickett, Jon

      Mullin, Chris

      Truswell, Paul

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Ward, Claire

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Watts, David

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      White, Brian

      Owen Albert

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Picking, Anne

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Winnick, David

      Pike Peter, (Burnley)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Woolas, Phil

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Purchase, Ken

      Wright Tony (Cannock)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Wyatt, Derek

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Vernon Coaker

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 7

      INFLUENCING A PROSECUTOR
      Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 13, leave out clause 7.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in page 4, line 29, clause 7, leave out
      'a term not exceeding 5 years'
      and insert 'life'.
      No. 15, in page 4, leave out lines 31 and 32.
      Mr. Carmichael: May I say how good it is to be with the House at last? I understand that, courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), the House has been kept well advised of my progress southwards through the country. I do not know whether the problems of travelling to and from the northern isles or the problems of Northern Ireland will be the first to be resolved, but I suspect that neither outcome will be quick. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance at such short notice today. I can at least say that the fog has cleared and I am here. If I were less kind, I might say: I am here, so the fog will now clear.
      Clause 7 was the subject of one of the more interesting parts of our debates in Committee. I have remarked in the past on the tendency of this and other Governments to criminalise conduct that is already criminal. Part of the Minister's justification for the clause, both on Second Reading and in Committee, was that the creation of offences of this sort would send a signal. That is worth considering, and it is worth asking exactly what signal clause 7 is likely to send. As we heard in Committee, the fact is that it signals that an attempt to pervert the course of justice by influencing a prosecutor is somehow a lesser species of the existing common law offence. The common law offence on indictment attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, whereas the offence in the Bill has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, or a fine, or both.
      In Committee, the Minister told us that he had researched the point and that the average sentence for the offence of perverting the course of justice was something in the region of 24 months, as I recall.
      Mr. Spellar: May I clarify that? The average sentence is between four and 24 months.
      Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful. That was about as helpful as the Minister got in Committee, and I hope that he can go a wee bit further tonight.
      The range of four to 24 months where the maximum penalty available to the courts is life imprisonment is an interesting one to consider. If the maximum penalty goes to five years in prison, I would say that there will be downward pressure on the sentences imposed because the penalty will be assessed within the range available to the court. It will be interesting, if the clause is enacted, to revisit it in five or 10 years' time to see what the effect has been on sentencing, and compare that trend against the trend in other respects, my suspicion being that the average length of custodial sentences is increasing.
      The clause appears not properly to appreciate the distinction that exists between the possible and the actual penalties imposed. Most worryingly, it betrays a total lack of understanding of the practicalities of work in the criminal courts. Often it may appear to a prosecutor who is preparing a case that this sort of
      696
      offence is of a lesser seriousness and towards the bottom end of the scale. Only when the witnesses are in court and one can hear the evidence in its totality does it become apparent just how serious an offence may be. To limit the range of sentences available to the court to five years, as the Minister seeks to do, is to limit the range of disposals available to the court, which runs the real risk of miscarriage of justice, in that someone will not receive the full penalty that should be available for them.
      In Committee, we asked the Minister why the Government had felt it necessary to introduce the clause. Is there a particular problem to which attention requires to be drawn? How many prosecutions have there been for attempts to pervert the course of justice by influencing a prosecutor in, say, the past five or 10 years? What problems encountered by the prosecution authorities or the courts in obtaining convictions in those cases mean that we now need a statutory offence? The Minister did not answer those questions in Committee, and I invite him again to tell me how many prosecutions there have been and what problems have been encountered. I suspect that the clause is a window-dressing exercise, a bit of padding to make the Bill be seen to be doing something even if it is something that is not necessarily pressing in any way.
      7.45 pm
      The amendment has been grouped with amendments Nos. 14 and 15, tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). We agree with those. Amendment No. 14 is entirely on all fours with an amendment that I moved in Committee, and the points that I have already made apply to it with equal force.
      From the point of view of the practicality of obtaining prosecutions and convictions, amendment No. 15 makes good sense. In relation to proving a charge under the clause, a hurdle is being put in the way of the prosecutor that does not exist for the common law offence. One can quite easily imagine that a prosecutor working under pressure and trying to meet deadlines will find himself or herself either forgetting initially to obtain the director's consent or, worse still, obtaining it but omitting to make proper reference to it on the indictment and therefore failing properly to specify the charge.
      I have heard nothing on Second Reading or in Committee to justify the clause. Accordingly, I urge the House to delete it from the Bill.
      Mr. Trimble: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who drew this matter to our attention in Committee. I hope that the Minister has reflected on what was said there. All that the hon. Gentleman said was absolutely right. The clause, which the Minister says is intended to highlight a particular matter, in fact sends the signal that that matter is less important. By reducing the sentence and putting a procedural hurdle in the way, the clause will have completely the opposite effect to that which the Minister wants.
      The most elegant solution to the problem would be to agree amendment No. 7 and delete the clause. I know, however, that the Minister is not a free agent and is not able to do that because the Government made promises to people that they would introduce clauses of the

      697
      nature of clause 7, and I tabled amendments Nos. 14 and 15 to remove the limitations being placed on the existing offence and bring the clause into line with the more substantial penalties that already exist. The Government are reducing the penalties available for this form of perversion of the course of justice. I tabled the amendments knowing that the Minister is not a free agent so that he can keep his promises to others without having a perverse effect. I hope that he will do so.
      Mr. Dodds: I support amendment No. 7 and welcome the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for, in spite of his late arrival, proposing a very good amendment. I shall not rehearse the arguments that have been put, but the hon. Gentleman said that the clause was a piece of unnecessary padding added to the Bill, and that prompts the question that I have asked about a number of provisions—whether the Minister can explain exactly why the clause was added.
      What representations have been made to him? Who has pressed him to introduce this superfluous and unnecessary provision? The Bill's origins lie in the Hillsborough discussions and the joint declaration. Is that really the best way to approach the drafting of legislation in such a crucial area?
      Clause 7 is completely unnecessary as it replicates the common law offence. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to divide the House on the issue, he will have the support of my party.
      Mr. Swayne: When, in Committee, I asked the Minister why he was troubling us with a new clause that was designed to remedy a situation that, he admitted, was inconceivable, he told me:
      "I do not think that it is necessarily good practice to retain redundant legislation".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 March 2004; c. 62.]
      Well if it is not good practice to retain it, it is worse practice to create it, but that is exactly what the Minister has done by creating a statutory offence when a perfectly good common law offence exists.
      The Minister's excuse for doing so was given in Committee when he said:
      "We are highlighting the seriousness of such an offence".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 April 2004; c. 90.]
      It is a strange way to highlight the seriousness of an offence to reduce the potential sentence from life to five years. I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will press his amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Spellar: It is right that we gave considerable thought, as I said in Committee, to the appropriate penalty to attach to the offence. It was decided that it should be compared to the offences of intimidating a juror, which carries a penalty of five years following conviction on indictment, and of perjury, which carries a penalty of seven years following conviction on indictment. It is true that the common law offence, like all such offences, attracts a maximum penalty of life. However, it is not a logical conclusion that moving away from that step towards infinity lessens the penalty.
      As I said, case law suggests that the offence has in practice carried a sentence of between four and 24 months. There have been about 11 cases of attempting to pervert the course of justice in the past five years. It is
      698
      not likely that introducing penalties that are significantly higher than those that are being imposed will lead to a reduction in the range of the tariff. In common law cases that carry a maximum sentence of life, it is not the maximum that is the major determinant, but the case law and the standard tariff that is applied by the courts in a particular jurisdiction.
      Mr. Carmichael: Is the Minister really telling the House that he cannot envisage circumstances in which a serious attempt to pervert the course of justice by influencing a prosecutor would not merit a sentence in excess of five years?
      Mr. Spellar: All I can say is that that has not been the experience, and five years is a substantial penalty. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and he could advise me whether a common law case could be mounted if it were felt to be more relevant in the circumstances. The case law shows a substantial gap between the average tariffs imposed and the one that we are suggesting. It is not normally the case that hon. Members suggest that the penalty should be life imprisonment.
      The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that Governments of all persuasions seek to put on statute offences found in the common law. Why have they done so? First, common law offences are by their very nature uncertain, particularly at the edges. Offences therefore may be put on statute for reasons of clarity. The common law is open to interpretation, and that interpretation may change over time.
      Mr. Carmichael: What particular problems, around the edges or otherwise, relating to the common law offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice have been encountered that have led to this provision being introduced?
      Mr. Spellar: It is more a general movement towards rationalising the position. We have considered the offence and the theoretical possibility of a life sentence against the range of sentences that have been imposed, and we will bring the two a little closer together. Secondly, it may be necessary to formalise the range of penalties available for a certain offence. Finally, an offence might be put on statute to ensure that it is fully human rights compatible.
      Turning to the specifics of the offence in clause 7, the Government have decided to put it on statute for the sake of clarity. We want to underline the independence of the director by making it abundantly clear that improperly seeking to influence him or her is illegal. The independence of the DPP and the prosecutors is critical to the functioning of the justice system in Northern Ireland. The current director, and indeed the previous incumbent, brought integrity and independence to the job; and have always made their prosecution decisions impartially, independently and objectively.
      However, a new system of justice is being created for Northern Ireland, and in that new system, after devolution, the DPP will be an explicitly independent officer. At the moment, the DPP is subject to the superintendence of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland. However, when part 2 of the 2002 Act is commenced, his relationship with the Attorney-General

      699
      and the Advocate-General will change and become one of consultation. In those changing circumstances and the circumstances of Northern Ireland, it needs to be made very clear that prosecution decisions will be taken impartially, independently and objectively. The creation of this offence will help further to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice.
      Amendment No. 15 would mean that prosecutions of this offence could be carried out without the consent of the director. The subsection the amendment seeks to remove is there to ensure that a prosecution is brought only when there is sufficient evidence and when the prosecution will be in the public interest. It is an important safeguard to ensure that only cases that should be prosecuted are prosecuted.
      I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Carmichael: In circumstances in which all hon. Members agree that attempting to pervert the course of justice by influencing a prosecutor is a serious matter and requires prosecution with the full array of powers available to the authorities and punishment with the utmost vigour, I find it hard to believe that we will again divide on the issue. But what alternative does the Minister leave us? We have asked him pertinent questions on three occasions. What problems have the prosecuting authorities encountered? How many cases have been lost, and how many have even been mounted? Why is a problem perceived?
      The Minister referred to statistics gathered in the past five years, which have, fortunately, been among the calmer in Northern Ireland's history. What would the story be if we went back 15 or 20 years? is it not possible that we would find instances of attempting to pervert the course of justice by influencing a prosecutor or other people in the criminal justice system that would merit a sentence in excess of five years?
      The Minister has answered none of these questions. When I asked him about cases of attempting to pervert the course of justice in which a sentence of five years or more would be appropriate, he said that they could probably still be liable to the common law offence anyway. Does that not show the futility and nonsense of re-enacting that which is already criminal?
      8 pm
      The Minister told us that the common law can be problematic because it is open to interpretation. The words
      "with the intention of perverting the course of justice"
      are contained in clause 7. If there is a problem with the interpretation of the common law offence, there will be a problem with the statutory offence that he seeks to create. If I am wrong, I hope that he will intervene to point out to me why I am wrong. He stays firmly glued to his seat; I suspect that I am not wrong. Worse than that and most frustrating of all, he knows that I am not wrong.
      Mr. Spellar: I thought I had indicated at some length—although not as much length as I did on a previous clause—why we believe this is a useful
      700
      provision. It has the advantages of clarity, ensures compliance with humman rights and provides a proper scale of penalty that more accurately reflects the tariff in the courts. That may not satisfy or please the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that he can say that I have not responded.
      Mr. Carmichael: I am afraid that I can say that because, yet again, the Minister has failed to answer. He was asked: what are the problems, where has the lack of clarity arisen and what in the Bill will change the situation? He has not answered any of those questions. I shall give him one more chance to respond, but it appears that he will not.
      In these circumstances, the debate on this clause has been one of the biggest wastes of parliamentary time that I have seen since I came here. The fault for that lies fairly and squarely with the Minister and with his refusal to engage in proper debate with the House. Accordingly, I will press the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 254.

      Division No. 146]

      [8.2 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Amess, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Goodman, Paul

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Bacon, Richard

      Grayling, Chris

      Barker, Gregory

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Gummer, rh John

      Barrett, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Bercow, John

      Harvey, Nick

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Heald, Oliver

      Boswell, Tim

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Brady, Graham

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Breed, Colin

      Jack, rh Michael

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Jones. Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Burnett, John

      Keetch, Paul

      Burns, Simon

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Burnside, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burstow, Paul

      Lamb, Norman

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Leigh, Edward

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Lidington, David

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Loughton, Tim

      Chope, Christopher

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Collins, Tim

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Curry, rh David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Maples, John

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Dodds, Nigel

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Doughty, Sue

      Fabricant, Michael

      Moore, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Norman, Archie

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Flight, Howard

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Flook, Adrian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Forth, rh Eric

      Osborne, George (Talton)

      Francois, Mark

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Garnier, Edward

      Pugh, Dr. John

      701

      Randall, John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Redwood, rh John

      Trimble, rh David

      Rendel, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tyrie, Ardrew

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Viggers, Peter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Weir, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Whittingdale, John

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Ruffley, David

      Wiggin, Bill

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Williams Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Selous, Andrew

      Williams Roger (Brecon)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Willis, Phil

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Wilshire, David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spring, Richard

      Streeter, Gary

      Young, rh Sir George

      Stunell, Andrew

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Swayne, Desmond

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Tellers For the Ayes:

      Syms, Robert

      Sir R obert Smith and

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mr. David Heath

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Corston, Jean

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cousins, Jim

      Allen, Graham

      Crausby, David

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cummings, John

      Austin, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Baird, Vera

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Barnes, Harry

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      David, Wayne

      Beard, Nigel

      Davidson, Ian

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bennett, Andrew

      Denham, rh John

      Betts, Clive

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Blackman, Liz

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Borrow, David

      Doran, Frank

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Browne, Desmond

      Edwards, Huw

      Burden, Richard

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burgon, Colin

      Farrelly, Paul

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Casale, Roger

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Caton, Martin

      Foster, rh Derek

      Challen, Colin

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Chaytor, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clelland, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hanson, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Connarty, Michael

      Healey, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hendrick, Mark

      702

      Heppell, John

      Miliband, David

      Hesford, Stephen

      Miller, Andrew

      Heyes, David

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mole, Chris

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Morley, Elliot

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mudie, George

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Owen, Albert

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jamieson, David

      Picking, Anne

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Purchase, Ken

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Rammell, Bill

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Kidney, David

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

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Knight Jim (S Dorset)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Lammy, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Salter, Martin

      Lepper, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Leslie, Christopher

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Sheerman, Barry

      Linton, Martin

      Sheridan, Jim

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Short, rh Clare

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Simon, Siôn (B ham Erdington)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonagh Siobhain

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      MacDonald Calum

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McFall, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Soley, Clive

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Speller, rh John

      McKechin, Ann

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      McNulty, Tony

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      MacShane, Denis

      McWalter, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McWilliam, John

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mallon, Seamus

      Straw, rh Jack

      Mendelson, rh Peter

      Stringer, Graham

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Tipping, Paddy

      Martlew, Eric

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Trickett, Jon

      Michael, rh Alun

      Truswell, Paul

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      703

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ward, Claire

      Woolas, Phil

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Watts, David

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      White, Brian

      Wyatt, Derek

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Gillian Merron and

      Winnick, David

      Charlotte Atkins

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 8

      GUIDANCE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE ORGANISATIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 16. in page 4, line 38, at end insert
      'contained in binding treaties ratified by the United Kingdom.'.
      Under clause 8 the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland is placed under a duty to issue guidance to various criminal justice organisations directing them to exercise their functions in a manner consistent with "international human rights standards", a term that the Bill does not define. Of course, international law covers a multitude of things, and there is a range of international agreements, so various matters could come under that term. There is a sad lack of clarity in this matter.
      In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) the Minister referred to various documents listed in one of the working papers for the criminal justice review. In a revealing phrase, he referred to some of those instruments as containing "soft law". That is a term of art used in international law to describe instruments that are not binding but indicate possible practice and ways of proceeding. Soft law arises out of agreements entered into by just some countries, or from bodies meeting to debate and issue what they call "standards" and so on. I thought that it would be desirable in this situation, particularly as we are dealing with criminal law, to apply a basic principle of criminal law, which is that the law and procedures should be clear. The Attorney-General, in coming to draw up guidance, should know precisely which international standards he should have regard to.
      8.15 pm
      The obvious provision is my amendment, which would define international human rights standards by reference to treaties and agreements that are binding on the UK. It would be improper if the Attorney-General were to base his guidance on provisions that were not binding on the UK, and it would mean giving him discretion to introduce into practice instruments that were not binding on the UK or, therefore, on the bodies concerned. As the guidance will emanate from the Attorney-General, the bodies might feel that they were obliged to follow it, but if it concerned an instrument that was not binding on them, they ought not to be put under that impression.
      In the background is the fact that we should bear in mind: if there is devolution, the Attorney-General will be appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First
      704
      Minister. I repeat what I said earlier: one can be certain that there would be political considerations behind such an appointment, and those considerations might feed into the view about what instruments should be, if not binding, issued as directions to organisations performing criminal justice functions. The object of the Bill ought to be to try to insulate the criminal justice system from political influence, but again and again the Government are removing safeguards and opening the door to political influence, allowing it to seep into the administration of justice.
      I have some idea as to what lies behind this part of the Bill, and it is something very bad indeed. However, I have tabled an amendment that would cure the problem. I would like to think that the Minister would treat the matter on its merits but in light of the way that the debate has been going, we have no expectation of that.
      Mr. Carmichael: I am afraid that, as far as poverty of expectation is concerned, I am very much with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I agree with his amendment; it is certainly possessed of a certain elegant simplicity. He has identified the difficulty—the lack of specification about what is meant by the term
      "international human rights standards relevant to the criminal justice system."
      I commend him for having come up with a solution that makes it clear that the ratification of international treaties is of central importance, because that, quite properly, would mean that the House would be the arbiter on which matters were to be considered.
      I cannot for the life of me imagine why the Government would not want to accept the amendment. I cannot see how they could view it as anything other than an improvement to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has done tonight, as he did in Committee, his duty as a parliamentarian in seeking to improve legislation, and it is quite depressing that we will again, I suspect, be unsuccessful.
      Mr. Spellar: I suspect that part of the reason why the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has tabled the amendment is to gain further clarity on the standards that the Government intend should be included in the guidance. I hope to be able to provide that clarity.
      As an aside, let me say how interested I was in the contribution of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We note his downgrading of non-binding treaties and will pay careful attention to statements made by his Front-Bench colleagues when they try to castigate the Government for not following some non-binding treaties. We shall treasure his comments.
      Mr. Carmichael: The Minister has perhaps been stung by the criticism relating to this amendment and previous ones—his body language is somewhat defensive and telling. He is trying to misrepresent my position. As he well knows, there is a world of difference between treaties that are regarded as non-binding in relation to

      705
      Government actions and the duties placed on individual officers of state. The Minister knows it, and he is mischievous to suggest otherwise.
      Mr. Spellar: Oh yes, I know the difference between binding and non-binding treaties. I am not sure that his colleagues always do. We shall remember what he said when speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats today when his Front-Bench colleagues try to present non-binding treaties as being of equal validity to others.
      Our intention in the present case is quite different. We have referred to international human rights to provide some clarity about what we expect the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland to refer to in his guidance. We do not wish to pre-empt his considered advice, but he is likely to refer to the sort of International human rights instruments listed in the criminal justice review research report No. 14, which listed several binding treaties and several non-binding treaties, which, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann rightly said, are also described as "soft law". The report listed 16 such standards, but there is no reason so suppose that the list is definitive. It includes the European convention on human rights, the conventions on the rights of the child, the European convention on the compensation of victims of violent crimes and the international covenant on civil and political rights.
      To refer only to human rights standards contained in binding treaties ratified by the United Kingdom would mean that the guidance could not include information on important non-binding treaties, such as the UN rules for the protection of juveniles deprived of their liberty and basic principles on the role of lawyers. It is important to state that the Attorney-General's guidance on the application of standards contained in non-binding conventions and treaties will make it clear that those standards are non-binding. However, not referring to them at all would misrepresent the standards to which the UK Government have signed up, and thereby prevent the draftsmen from ensuring that the guidance is as comprehensive as possible. That gives the right degree of scope to the Attorney-General. It makes clear the difference between the two standards.
      I recollect that although the UK has been a party to some international conventions, we have indicated that we would not accept certain parts of them, but did not want to interrupt general progress—for example, the prohibition on the recruitment of children into the military. Such recruitment is a problem in several African countries and elsewhere, but that is entirely different from youngsters joining the UK military with informed consent and the support of their parents. We do not want to obstruct progress elsewhere in the world, but at the same time we have reservations about the prohibition. The arrangements that we have made will enable the Attorney-General to take account of the provisions of international conventions and any reservations expressed by the UK Government, and to indicate which terms are binding and which are not.
      We believe that that covers everything, but I do understand what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann was trying to identify. I hope, although with little expectation of success, that I have been able to explain the Government's position and convince him that the amendment is unnecessary.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister has effortlessly managed to get down to the level of our expectation. What he has said is simply not relevant. He said what the Government expect, and confidently stated that the guidance will make clear what is non-binding and that it will take account of UK Government reservations. How on earth does he know that? When the measure comes into operation, it will not be the Government who give guidance to the Attorney-General; the Attorney-General will be the appointee and the creature of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. How does the right hon. Gentleman know that the guidance will take the form that he describes? Obviously, he does not. It is quite fatuous to talk about what the guidance will do in such circumstances. That is why we are not happy with the provision.
      It is ironic that the Minister referred to various conventions prohibiting the abuse of children through their involvement in military matters, when that is a huge problem in Northern Ireland. There is massive abuse of children, especially those aged between nine and 14, and particularly of young males. Their recruitment to paramilitary organisations is a form of child abuse to which the Government turn a blind eye. It is ironic that the Minister refers to that matter, but turns a blind eye to the huge problem in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Spellar rose—
      Mr. Trimble: If the Minister wants to speak, let him do so.
      Mr. Spellar: We do not turn a blind eye. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was an attempt by some countries to define Northern Ireland as one of those troubled countries—quite separate from any question of recruitment of child soldiers. That would have converted the problem in Northern Ireland from one of law and order to one of a recognised zone of conflict. As he well knows, the British Government opposed that effort successfully. The right hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous.
      Mr. Trimble: The Minister, quite predictably, misses the point. I am not referring to the matters to which he referred. I am referring to what happens in Northern Ireland, where the paramilitary organisations are, to use his phrase, recruiting child soldiers, left, right and centre, and the Government of whom he is part turn a blind eye—they do nothing about it.
      By doing nothing about it, they tacitly come as close to encouraging it as could be. That is why I find it particularly nauseating that the Minister, a member of the Government, turns a blind eye to the problem, and then cites it in a slightly different context with approval. It is quite revolting to see that happen.
      I had no expectation that the Minister would take a sensible line. He has resolutely avoided taking a sensible line throughout the evening, but because of the lateness of the hour and the desire of Members to get on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 3

      COURT SECURITY
      Mr. Spellar: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 18, line 3, at end insert—
      '(aa) a statutory officer (within the meaning of section 70 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978) who is exercising functions in the building,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Spellar: Schedule 3 as presently drafted allows judges, magistrates, coroners, social security commissioners and High Court masters responsible for taxing and for enforcement of judgements to give directions to court security officers, by virtue of the fact that those office holders are defined as "persons in authority" in paragraph 3(6). However, there are other masters of the High Court, for example in bankruptcy, who are not designated as "persons in authority". They would therefore not be able to give directions to court security officers, but might need to do so, for example to direct that a person be removed from a court. Accordingly, amendments Nos. 2 and 3 ensure that all masters and district judges are able to give directions to court security officers.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 18, line 4, leave out', (c), (d) or (e)' and insert 'or (c)'.—[Mr. Spellar.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8.29 pm
      Mr. Spellar: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The criminal justice system in Northern Ireland is undergoing a journey of reform that was started by the criminal justice review, and today's debates represent another important step in that journey. The post-review criminal justice environment in Northern Ireland is characterised by a commitment to reform and modernisation. That can be seen not only in the Bill, but in the range of initiatives being taken elsewhere.
      The new Public Prosecution Service has two pilots up and running—one in Belfast and one in Fermanagh and Tyrone. The Public Prosecution Service will build on the work of the Department of Public Prosecutions to maintain the highest levels of objectivity, professionalism and consistency in prosecution decisions. Under the remit of the Youth Justice Agency, youth conferencing services have been introduced, which are based on the principles of restorative and reparative justice. Youth conferencing will help young offenders take responsibility for their actions and will allow victims a role in that process. At a local level, the community safety unit is working through community safety partnerships to devise and implement local plans for community safety. That includes programmes targeting burglaries and safety for the elderly.
      Given how far we have come since the criminal justice review was published in March 2000, we can be proud of the progress that has been made, but that should not breed complacency. I hope the fact that the Government will bring forward measures to tackle antisocial
      708
      behaviour and hate crime, as we discussed earlier, will reassure hon. Members that we remain committed to providing the responsive, effective and efficient criminal justice system that the people of Northern Ireland deserve and need.
      When I speak of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, I do not only mean that it should have coherent and workable procedures. I refer also to ensuring confidence in the system and providing proper levels of accountability. In particular, as the history of Northern Ireland has shown, to achieve effectiveness the criminal justice system must command the acceptance of all parts of society, from whatever tradition or background. The challenges of the past 35 years have created a degree of professional dedication that is, as was rightly said during the debate, the envy of the world. Moreover, the ciriminal justice system operates in partnership in a way that would be difficult anywhere else. I believe that those factors lie at the heart of the work to improve and develop the system for the benefit of the community as a whole.
      We are fostering a culture of continual improvement. Our goal is to develop a system that serves the people of Northern Ireland with fairness and efficiency. The Government recognise that the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 is not the final word. Although the provisions before us stand on their own merits, the Bill builds on the work that has already begun to enhance the openness, transparency and accountability of the criminal justice system. We addressed a number of important issues in Committee and some today.
      The Bill is built on a number of fundamental beliefs, which I am sure we share with hon. Members. The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitution and one of the principal guarantees of our liberty. It is in turn underpinned by the professional security that judges enjoy. We believe that the provisions set out in the Bill reflect and build on that basic position.
      The issue of securing a reflective judiciary was debated extensively. There was concern that doing so would somehow compromise the principle of appointment on merit. We do not believe that that is the case. Merit and reflectiveness are not mutually exclusive. The 2002 Act makes it clear that individual appointments must be made
      "solely on the basis of merit".
      That said, there may he equal-opportunity issues that have implications for the judicial appointments process. If the Judicial Appointments Commission is successful in addressing these issues, it follows that it should be possible to achieve a more reflective judiciary without compromising the merit principle.
      On senior judicial appointments, we had a debate about the Prime Minister's discretion when making a recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen. Hon. Members raised concerns on both sides of the argument—that the Prime Minister would have too much discretion, and that he would not have enough. We believe that we have got the balance about right.
      I consider the Bill's provisions for promoting the human rights culture within the Northern Ireland criminal justice system to be another step in the right direction, rather than an innovation.

      709
      The Attorney-General's guidance on international human rights standards will provide an invaluable tool for the various criminal justice authorities to which it applies.
      We had an extensive debate on the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer cases of suspected police malpractice to the police ombudsman. Some hon. Members were concerned that the Government are stepping away from what the review intended, but in fact we are implementing recommendation 21, which states:
      "We recommend that a duty be placed on the prosecutor to ensure any allegations of malpractice by the police are fully investigated."
      Besides those clauses, the Bill makes a number of important improvements to bail provisions and other issues that are, perhaps, less challenging. However, we should not lose sight of those improvements: new rules for court security officers; providing barristers with the right to enter contracts; the power to transfer prisoners for the maintenance of good order; extending the protection afforded to prison staff against paramilitary intelligence-gathering; and providing for arrest without warrant for driving while disqualified. Those improvements did not exercise hon. Members much, but they are important, and as such they are welcome, not only in this House, but in the criminal justice community in Northern Ireland and throughout the law-abiding community.
      The principle of recommendations from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister for judicial appointments caused some concern, and it raises the question of prime ministerial discretion. The purpose of the Prime Minister's discretion is not to allow him to disregard either the recommendation, if one is forthcoming, of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, or the Lord Chief Justice's advice. It is difficult to conceive of his not basing his recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen on those recommendations to him. It would be wrong to deprive him of all discretion, however, and that was not envisaged in the review:
      "responsibility … should lie with the Prime Minister",
      who should make recommendations
      "on the basis of recommendations from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister."
      We do not legislate for failure, but we should allow for an unhappy although not impossible situation in which no recommendation were forthcoming from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, for example. It is extremely difficult to anticipate every circumstance and prescribe a process for it in primary legislation.
      I encourage hon. Members to agree that the Bill provides the Northern Ireland criminal justice system with a further improvement on already impressive proposals for reform. The process does not stop here, however, and the criminal justice system must continue to evolve in order to meet the changing needs of society. We will continue to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and the prosecution, and will continue to ensure that the system commands the respect of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland.
      8.38 pm
      Mr. Swayne: I thank the Minister and all the members of the Committee. We debated the Bill extensively, and I extend my thanks to the Clerks, who were helpful during those proceedings.
      710
      We voted against the Bill on Second Reading, since when it has got worse rather than better. We do not oppose the principle of the devolution of criminal justice, but it is premature to proceed when there is no Assembly or functioning Executive. The expedient of devolving the criminal justice system will be achieved by transferring the roles of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to the Lord Chancellor. We know that the Government have plans, which are unclear, for the Lord Chancellor's office, and to proceed with that double uncertainty strikes me as monstrous.
      The Bill is a missed opportunity. It turns the unobjectionable principle of a judiciary that reflects the community into a threat to the principle of appointment on merit.
      The Minister said that that was not so, but we believe that the Bill turns a legitimate expectation into a duty. That compromises the very important principle to which the Minister himself drew attention. When the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Lord Hutton, spoke during the Second Reading of the 2002 Act to which we have so often referred today, he said:
      "It is clearly vital that a judge should be appointed on merit alone and that appointments should not be influenced by political considerations. That is all the more important in the highly charged political atmosphere of Northern Ireland. If judges are not appointed on merit the administration of justice will suffer, as will the public confidence in that administration."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 May 2002; Vol. 634, c. 969.]
      As we explained earlier, the Bill will give rise to instances whereby affirmative action will step beyond the proper bounds and compromise that principle of appointment on merit.
      The Bill compromises the principle of the independence of the judiciary by removing from the Lord Chief Justice his veto over the suspension or sacking of a judge. That veto was given to the Lord Chief Justice only 18 months ago in the 2002 Act. Now the Minister is taking it away—not on the basis of any experience of the system having bedded in and been found wanting, or of some new logic, but merely on the entirely spurious grounds that a judge can be removed only on the basis of the findings of a tribunal. That is already the case. It is a necessary condition, but it might not be a sufficient one.
      Why was the veto given in the first place? The Minister has been silent on that—he has been unable to explain it. We believe that the provisions of the Bill are redolent of some special pleading to which we have not been privy during proceedings in Committee or on Report. The removal of the veto is an unwelcome addition to the Bill that would alone be sufficient grounds for me to ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.
      The Minister said that the Bill does several desirable things, and he listed them. He is right. The prosecution's right of appeal against magistrates granting bail is desirable. The power of the transfer of prisoners for the maintenance of good order is necessary, too, although that is because of the entirely regrettable abandonment of the integrated regime at Maghaberry prison. Making driving while disqualified an arrestable offence is of course desirable.
      But what else might the Bill have done against a whole range of antisocial behaviours? The Minister made the grotesque announcement that in the next few weeks we

      711
      can expect him to bring in antisocial behaviour orders by statutory instrument—that is, on the "take it or leave it" basis of a two-and-a-half hour debate Upstairs. The complexity of the orders, the experience of trying to implement them on the mainland and the different circumstances in Northern Ireland cry out for primary legislation. The Bill was the ideal opportunity, but that chance has been missed. It has been rushed through—and for what? What is so urgent as to require that haste and that missed opportunity?
      Although the Bill does some desirable things, it muddles others. In seeking to reinforce the seriousness of the offence of perverting the course of justice, it creates a statutory offence with a much lower penalty, which achieves an effect that is precisely the reverse of what was intended. It clouds the human rights advice that can inform the criminal justice system with nebulous concepts of infinite elasticity, which are not subject to our scrutiny and agreement, and it provides unwelcome intrusions into the proper role of the public prosecutor.
      In summary, the Bill reeks of concessions to special pleading. It is without any powerful motor, yet it stands to compromise the independence of the judiciary and to undermine confidence in it. I urge all hon. Members to oppose it tonight.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Mallon: It is my intention to vote with the Government on the Bill. I have voted with them on it throughout, for a number of reasons. I am dissatisfied with the issues that I identified earlier, on which there has not been the kind of approach that might have been of benefit further down the road. However, when we look at the context of the Bill, we see that it is the second in two years, and if we include the three policing Bills, it is the fifth broadly to relate to justice in as many years. One can only accept that advances have been made, that enormous steps have been taken and that improvement is distinctly possible.
      Of course there will be differences of opinion. There will always be a debate about the role of the judiciary vis-à-vis the political process. That debate has been going on since both began and it will continue long after this Bill is history. It is part of the body politic and the act of devising the way in which we live together and make laws for ourselves, which we then hand over to others to implement on our behalf. That is what I call the privilege of those involved in the judiciary. It is also a privilege for those involved in the political process to grapple with the problems involved, as we have done on the Floor of the House and in Committee, on this Bill and on others relating to criminal justice.
      However we measure it, this Bill represents a substantial advance, but I want to put it into a broader context. The essence of good justice is that it is available to people. In reality, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) suggested earlier, there are parts of Northern Ireland in which justice is not available, and in which justice of this nature is not an option for people in the community. The justice that is available to them has not been legislated for; it is delivered by a baseball bat, a gun, a brick or whatever implement happens to be at hand at the time.
      712
      The challenge for us is not just to draft legislation but to ensure that good law is available to the entire community, to afford it the protection of the law that we have been drafting tonight and to protect people from the barbarity of the approach that they have to live with and under. It is essential that we create a context in which these elements of legislation—however much we dispute their detail—are not just for the few lucky people who happen to live in certain areas where it will be available to them. It is the responsibility of the political process, net that of the judiciary or the police, to ensure that every single person in the north of Ireland has access to the justice in this legislation and to the protection that that affords each and every individual. Therein lie the difficulties and the problems that we face.
      As politicians, we could—and, in any forum, we often do—get ourselves het up over some of the detail. We have our own pet theories as to who should have what power and how it should be exercised. Ultimately, however, we have to ensure that we do what we can to ensure that every single person in the north of Ireland can avail himself or herself of this law.
      I stress this point, which I cannot stress often or strongly enough: in my constituency, I see people being treated in a way that is abhorrent and blood curdling but they cannot go to the police as the consequences would be even worse. To whom do they turn? What law protects those people in their own homes, townlands and villages? While it is good and right that the changes should be made in the criminal justice process, in policing and in the I road body of law, until we grapple with that question and unless we bring law to the doorstep of people who need it most, there will remain a touch of the academic about that.
      I see these things on a weekly basis in my constituency. The awful thing is that there is nothing that I can do about them because when a paramilitary group has a stranglehold on a community, it determines how people approach the way they have been treated. Perhaps we should have a look at the responsibility not just of the judiciary, but of the political process. There is a remarkable responsibility on us to ensure that, when we draft law, we also make it available to the most vulnerable in our society.
      8.52 pm
      Mr. Carmichael: There is little in the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that we could take exception to, but, having listened to him with care, I have to say that I have some difficulty in marrying his rhetoric with the rather prosaic nature of the widely divergent provisions in the Bill.
      I join the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) in expressing my gratitude, and that of my party, for the efforts of those who made possible what were good Committee proceedings in many ways, in particular the Clerks and the other Officers of the House. I also thank the other members of the Committee, who dealt very well and responsibly with the issues. There was a remarkable lack of filibustering, as is reflected in the fact that we managed to get through the business without reaching the end of the final sitting.
      In that regard, if it is not too much of an embarrassment or a blight on his career, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the

      713
      Government Whip, who deals a lot with Northern Ireland business and does much to facilitate its smooth running. He is always conscientious, in dealing with all the parties that are involved in Northern Ireland business, and his time and trouble are much appreciated. He is an example for a Whip of what a Minister might be. I say no more thin that.
      I also thank my hon..Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who undertook the duties that I had intended to undertake on Report. I have spent the day trying to get here from my constituency; since getting here, I have done little other than regret my success. It is a cliché to say that it is better to travel in hope than to arrive, but when I say that today it is absolutely heartfelt.
      The Liberal Democrats indicated on Second Reading that we would support the Government. I can indicate that we will again support the Government on Third Reading, but that is despite rather than because of the Government's efforts since Second Reading. When the time comes to go through the Lobby, I shall look for a quiet moment, take a deep breath, pinch my nose and run through it. I shall not support the Government with any great enthusiasm. I shall support them because much in this Bill is important and because the Liberal Democrats are generally supportive of the creation of an independent judicial appointments commission. We see the importance of the provisions on bail, transfer of prisoners, arrest without warrant in relation to disqualified driving and that great new Labour clarion call, the right of barristers to enter into contracts for the provision of their services.
      So much in this Bill could have been done differently and better. The little improvement that had been made in the other place has sadly been reversed. Not only have we not progressed, but in some respects we have gone backwards. We spend a lot of time Upstairs regretting that so much Northern Ireland business is dealt with through secondary legislation and that so much goes through without the proper opportunity for amendment or even full discussion. To that extent, I must agree with the hon. Member for New Forest, West that this Bill could have been much better. There could have been so much more to it and what is in the Bill could yet be so much better. It is merely commitment to the principles behind the important clauses, and general acceptance of the less important clauses, that will cake my right hon. and hon. Friends through the Lobby with the Government tonight.
      8.57 pm
      Mr. Trimble: I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on the conduct of proceedings in Committee and with the compliments that they paid to the Clerks and the Whip. With regard to the Minister, the most optimistic thing that I can say is that I hope that things will get better, as I do not think that they could possibly proceed in the other direction. However, that is either-way.
      We are really considering two Bills—one containing a number of controversial provisions that have been introduced for party political reasons and the other containing a number of modest provisions that are improvements. One can distinguish between the two
      714
      because we have this evening debated amendments to the bad part and no amendments other than the Government's tidying-up amendment have been tabled to the sensible part.
      With regard to the sensible part of the Bill, I agree entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for New Forest, West: this legislative vehicle having been available, why did the Government not make good use of it? There were plenty of things that could have been done. I will not repeat what has been said, but it is a pity that we have not seen more substance in the sensible part of the Bill.
      With regard to the other part of the Bill, I do not want to repeat what has been said, but there are some salient points to emphasise. As I made clear on Second Reading, I have come to the view that the very concept of a judicial appointments commission is bad. The same negative effects might not be seen in Scotland or England and Wales, but it would certainly be bad in Northern Ireland because it opens the door to political influence. Ironically, these provisions remove the important safeguard that existed under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which established devolution and operated in Northern Ireland from 1921 through to 1971, whereby the most senior judicial appointments were reserved to the Lord Chancellor, and the devolved body had no power with regard to them.
      That was a very important safeguard for the independence of the judiciary, but it has been swept away. We now have an appointments commission that will constitute a channel via which political influences will start to seep into the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
      The same criticism can be made again and again. All the amendments that the Minister has made to the bad part of the Bill share a tendency to open the door to political influence in the context of appointments to, and operation of, the judiciary. That is why we have opposed those provisions and will continue to oppose them now. I could say more, but we all know where the provisions come from. The Government would not have included them of their own volition. They result from party political pressure and a sordid political fix. They are not in the Bill on their merits, for they have no merits. That was demonstrated abundantly when the Minister found himself flannelling at the Dispatch Box, unable to respond coherently to the points that were being made to him.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) reminded us that this was the fifth occasion on which we had considered legislation dealing with justice matters—in the broad sense—during the last few years. It will not be the last. One of the things that lie behind the Bill, and indeed the criminal justice review, is the hope that justice matters can be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I made clear some time ago my party's belief that there was not a sufficient basis on which we could contemplate devolution of justice matters. I make it clear now that, should such matters arise in future, if my party and I have any say in the matter, we shall insist on significant changes to this and other legislation to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is absolutely clear, that the merit principle in appointments is absolutely clear with no question of political influence and that the criminal law is absolutely clear about the rights of those who appear before the

      715
      courts, particularly those confronted by some of the more novel procedures in the Bill, being adequately safeguarded.
      If these matters are devolved, we shall find ourselves here again. I hope that on that occasion we shall see a better result.
      9.2 pm
      Mr. Hunter: I endorse every word said by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and I understand that that is also the position of the Democratic Unionists.
      As the right hon. Gentleman says, this is a Bill of two parts. The second part, consisting of clauses 8 to 17, is largely unobjectionable. It is uncontroversial and introduces a number of measures that are broadly welcome, and with which we have no quarrel. It is the first seven clauses that inject a strong element of controversy.
      In his winding-up speech, the Minister urged us to see the Bill as a whole and the first seven clauses in particular as a further landmark in the evolution of a judicial system in Northern Ireland. He spoke of the need to reflect a changing society. That does not convince. Cynics—among whom I count myself—will say that the first seven clauses serve a political agenda rather than modernising a judicial system. That agenda emerged, to a considerable extent, from promises and pledges made to various parties at Hillsborough in March 2003.
      The Minister said tonight, as he said in Committee and as Government spokesmen said in another place, that it was important for the Northern Ireland judicial system to command public confidence.
      Frankly, the Government have, by their own criterion of judgment, failed dismally, because the Bill does not command the confidence of the elected representatives of the majority of Northern Ireland. Of course, there is nothing new in that state of affairs. It is another landmark in a process that we have witnessed time and again since 1985.
      Not only does the Bill not command confidence but it undermines existing confidence. There are a number of reasons why it does so. One is that it contains an unacceptable move away from the sound principle of equality of opportunity and embraces the discredited concept of equality of outcome. It also enshrines the concept of being "reflective of the community". I shall not repeat the arguments at this stage because I outlined them in the debate but, in respect of both appointments to the commission and of judicial appointments themselves, the Bill is fundamentally flawed. There should be no room for any consideration other than merit when it comes to either set of appointments.
      We look forward to the day in Northern Ireland when religious affiliation is irrelevant. The Bill yet again institutionalises sectarianism. Just as apartheid in South Africa institutionalised racism, the present Government's policies in Northern Ireland institutionalise sectarianism and that is unacceptable.
      The Bill decreases the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in absolute contradiction of the recommendations of the criminal justice review. It
      716
      advances the powers of the ombudsman at his expense, which is unacceptable. One of the remarkable things about the Bill is the way in which the Government are cherry-picking from the criminal justice review when and as that review furthers their preconceived political agenda, in particular it when it meets and coincides with the demands of the SDLP.
      The Bill devolves the justice system before devolved government has been re-established. We note also the Minister's persistent refusal to give an unambiguous yes or no answer on whether the Government envisage Sinn Fein being "reflected" in the composition of the commission. In all, the Bill marks a further step in the politicisation of Northern Ireland's judicial system. That is why we will vote against it.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 102.

      Division No. 147]

      [9:08 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Allen, Graham

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Connarty, Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Austin, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Baird, Vera

      Corston, Jean

      Barnes, Harry

      Cousins, Jim

      Barrett, John

      Crausby, David

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cruddas, Jon

      Beard, Nigel

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cummings, John

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blizzard, Bob

      David, Wayne

      Borrow, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Dawson, Hilton

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Denham, rh John

      Browne, Desmond

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bryant, Chris

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Burden, Richard

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Burgon, Colin

      Doran, Frank

      Burnett, John

      Doughty, Sue

      Burstow, Paul

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Farrelly, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Caton, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Challen, Colin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Chaytor, David

      Foster, rh Derek

      Clapham, Michael

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Clelland, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      717

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      McNulty, Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWilliam, John

      Hanson, David

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Harvey, Nick

      Mallon, Seamus

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Healey, John

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Heath, David

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Heppell, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hesford, Stephen

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Heyes, David

      Merron, Gillian

      Hinchliffe, David

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Miliband, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Miller, Andrew

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mole, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Moore, Michael

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morley, Elliot

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Mountford, Kali

      Illsley, Eric

      Mudie, George

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jamieson, David

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Owen, Albert

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Picking, Anne

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Plaskitt, James

      Keetch, Paul

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kidney, David

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Purchase, Ken

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Rammell, Bill

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lamb, Norman

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bell shill)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Lepper, David

      Rendel, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Ruddock, Joan

      Linton, Martin

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Salter, Martin

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McDonnell, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McFall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shaw, Jonahan

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKechin, Ann

      Sheridan, Jim

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Short, rh Clare

      718

      Simon, Siô (B ham Erdington)

      Tricked, Jon

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Truswell, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Ward, Claire

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

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watts, David

      Soley, Clive

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Spellar, rh John

      Weir, Michael

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      White, Brian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stevenson, George

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Willis, Phil

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Straw, rh Jack

      Stringer, Graham

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Woolas, Phil

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. Jim Murphy and

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Charlotte Atkins

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Amess, David

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Bacon, Richard

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Barker, Gregory

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Bercow, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Leigh, Edward

      Blunt, Crispin

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Boswell, Tim

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Lidington, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Brady, Graham

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Brazier, Julian

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Burns, Simon

      Maples, John

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Chops, Christopher

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Collins, Tim

      Conway, Derek

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Curry, rh David

      Norman, Archie

      Dodds, Nigel

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Randall, John

      Redwood, rh John

      Flight, Howard

      Robathan, Andrew

      Flook, Adrian

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Garnier, Edward

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Goodman, Paul

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Grayling, Chris

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Ruffley, David

      Gummer, rh John

      Selous, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Heald, Oliver

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      719

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Spring, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Streeter, Gary

      Wiggin, Bill

      Swayne, Desmond

      Wilshire, David

      Syms, Robert

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Trimble, rh David

      Young, rh Sir George

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. Hugo Swire and

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    CRIMINAL LAW
    That the draft Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Travel Notification Requirements) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.
    That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING
    That the draft Merchant Shipping (Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims) (Amendment) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Alternative Notional Amounts) Report (England) 2004–05, which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.
    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulation 2004, which laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.

    VALUE ADDED TAX
    That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 778), dated 17th arch 2004, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    ASYLUM SYSTEMS
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10243/03, Commission Communication: Towards more accessible, equitable and managed asylum systems; welcomes the Commission's endorsement of the United Kingdom's analysis of the problem; and notes that this is only an interim discussion paper pending the submission by the Commission of a more substantive report by June 2004.—[Joan Ryan.]
    Question agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT (MAY)
  Ordered,
  That this House, at its rising on Friday 30th April, do adjourn till Tuesday 4th May 2004.—[Joan Ryan.]

  EUROPEAN SCRUTINY
  Ordered,
  That Tony Cunningham and Mr. Colin Breed be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Sandra Osborne and Nick Harvey be added..—[Joan Ryan.]

  Brain Tumours (Children)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
  9.21 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: There can surely be few more tragic or heartbreaking experiences than for a parent to discover that his or her child has a brain tumour. As the Under-Secretary will doubtless be aware, 16,000 people a year are diagnosed with brain tumours. Of those, no fewer than 350 are children. About 100 children die each year as a result of a brain tumour. Furthermore, the prognosis for children so diagnosed is poor, with only 20 per cent. surviving beyond five years. Research now shows that brain tumours have overtaken leukaemia as the biggest killer of children under the age of 15.
  In the year 2000, six children aged under five from my own county of Buckinghamshire were diagnosed with brain tumours. Without wishing to induce in right hon. and Members statistical fatigue, it needs to be understood that the phenomenon is neither simple to detect nor uniform in type. Rather there are more than 120 different types of brain tumours, which present themselves in a variety of ways.
  I put it to the House that the issue of children with brain tumours is under- debated, under-reported and underfunded. In this Parliament, the issue has attracted minimal—dare I say it, derisory—attention. There has been not one Adjournment debate until now, not one oral parliamentary question, and only two written parliamentary questions, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). However, there is early-day motion 737, which commends—and rightly so—the BBC online reporter Mr. Ivan Noble for his personal and moving website diary of the diagnosis and treatment of a malignant brain tumour. That motion has so far attracted no fewer than 28 signatures.
  While the media have justifiably devoted coverage to other cancers, they have seemingly overlooked the plight of children diagnosed with brain tumours, giving scant coverage to that plight. The apparent low incidence of this type of cancer, by comparison with other forms, has caused the brain tumour community to be poorly supported and funded.
  A score of charities, through a plethora of fund-raising methods, finance research to help child sufferers. Most of them are small, dependent on volunteers and in limited or no contact with each other.
  At the other end of the spectrum, Cancer Research UK is the largest supporter of the UK children's cancer study group, an organisation that treats all children with cancer, ensuring that they receive the most up-to-date treatment. For example, the point has been made to me that many children with brain tumours are given chemotherapy to keep their tumours under control until they are old enough safely to receive radiotherapy. Yet coverage—this is the gravamen of the argument—is not comprehensive, and because the change is recent, its full impact remains unknown.
  In short, there is no ground whatsoever for complacency. In any case, charitable effort can only ever be a supplement to, not a substitute for, public financial
  722
  support. That support is needed, needed on a substantial scale, and needed now. All the charities, countless individual campaigners and many tumour victims could deservedly be mentioned. Time prevents me from doing so. Instead, I shall tell the House candidly that my motivation for seeking this debate was an approach in January from a constituent, Sue Farrington-Smith, a woman of intelligence, courage and unflinching resolution to tackle the horror of brain tumours in general and among children in particular.
  Sue's sister, Julie Phelan, had a daughter, Alison, who died on 7 June 2001, just three weeks before her eighth birthday. After noticing that Alison had developed a squint in her eye, Julie Phelan became concerned that her daughter was unwell. She had two appointments with her general practitioner. The GP referred Alison to an optician. The optician said that the squint was common and that it would correct itself. Julie and her husband, Gary, felt that something was wrong. They went back to the doctor. They then went to another optician. They appealed for someone to listen to them. Julie eventually went to a third optician. That optician advised Julie to take her daughter to accident and emergency with a letter detailing the fact that something was making the muscles in Alison's eye deteriorate. The hospital staff referred the family to a leading eye hospital. The advice was that there was no reason to worry. After a further visit to doctors and a children's hospital unit, Alison's parents were again told not to worry. Eventually, following test after test after test, a visit to hospital led to a scan and a meeting with a specialist and a verdict:
  "There is nothing we can do. The tumour is untreatable."
  That is a summarised version of a human tragedy that no words can adequately describe. Alison underwent intensive radiotherapy, but she suffered a haemorrhage into the tumour and died eight weeks later—10 months after the tumour was first diagnosed. Following her death, appalled by the lack of research funding and horrified that a cure might not be found for years, Alison's family and friends set up the charity Ali's Dream with the objective of raising funds for research into childhood brain tumours, to discover their causes, advance treatments and find a cure.
  UK brain tumour charities are striving for increased funding to improve education, information, specialisation, support and research. I deal first with education. General practitioners and other health professionals need information to be widely available, and they need also to receive training in order to identify the differing symptoms of the various tumours. Often, GPs either do not recognise the symptoms or choose to eliminate other causes first. The reality, of course, is that there is a multiplicity of symptoms. Part of the problem is that those symptoms are the same as those for other illnesses and diseases.
  They include headaches, convulsions, vomiting, nausea, subtle changes in personality or mental ability, blurred or double vision, muscle weakness, stumbling, lack of co-ordination, slurred speech, problems with smelling and hearing, and the inability of eyes to gaze upwards. In the circumstances, a screening programme for individuals who present with such symptoms should be more readily available so that treatment can start earlier rather than later—or sadly, as in many cases at present, too late.

  723
  Secondly, I turn to the issue of information. The empirical evidence that I have adduced thus far testifies that a reliable and up-to-date source of information is necessary, because there is no central repository of information on this cancer, leaving patients, carers and families having to hunt for knowledge. The options and the treatments available should be fully explained, and in layman's terms. For example, if surgery is proposed, what is available? What drugs are available? Better information is also needed on what support—financial, physical and emotional—is available, on the NHS or privately through charities, because that is a vital lifeline in such circumstances.
  Thirdly, I turn to the issue of specialisation. In the UK at present, there are only 17 locations with the facilities to treat brain tumour patients. Eight of the children's cancer hospitals do not have the facilities to treat brain tumour patients. Each hospital that treats brain tumour patients should have a multidisciplinary team, including speech therapists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, epilepsy nurses, nutritionists, social workers, neurologists, oncologists, neurosurgeons and neuro-oncology nurse specialists. Specialised therapy equipment should also be available both in hospitals and at home. Specialised counselling, night-sitters and respite care are also necessary. That is the essential infrastructure without which the lives of those who seek to cope in such circumstances become unimaginably grim and awful.
  Support in its widest sense is also invaluable. Hospitals should provide facilities for families that include overnight facilities, rest rooms and showers. Families who are bereaved should have freely available professional counselling. Funding is desperately needed for families who have to travel to receive treatment and to pay for accommodation. No hon. Member should work on the assumption, consciously or unconsciously, that such costs are insignificant and can be readily borne. That is often simply not true. Additional money is also needed for hidden costs, such as parental leave, new clothes for children on steroids whose clothes no longer fit, and treating patients and siblings to special holidays to ease the pain.
  Research, research and research must be of the essence. Dedicated laboratory-based research on brain tumours is carried out at only 10 centres nation wide and clinical trials are undertaken in only eight hospitals—half the total number of brain tumour hospitals in the UK. An integrated research programme and dedicated brain tumour research centres are required, focusing on types of tumour, genetics and molecular genetics, brain tumour invasion and the effectiveness of treatment.
  It is glaringly obvious that this country still has high hurdles to overcome if the scourge of brain tumours is to be successfully fought. I say that the hurdles are high, but—with effort, skill and focus—they should not be insurmountable.
  Medical science continues to advance, to create new cures and, inevitably, to produce new lists of expectant patients in the process. Yet the research that leads to treatment, that can provide relief and offers the ultimate prospect of a cure demands political will and financial support.
  724
  Members of all political parties and of none, and parents, patients and professionals, look to the Government to give a lead and to make the fight against brain tumours a key priority. I look forward to the contributions that other hon. Members will doubtless make to the debate. I look forward, in particular, with interest, courtesy and respect to the response of the Minister and to the policy of the Government. I think that I can confidently say that tens of thousands across the country will do so too.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: I rise briefly to pay tribute to the work of the Ellie Savage Memorial Trust, a charity based in my constituency and established just last year in memory of Ellie who tragically died of a brain tumour when she was just 14 years old. From what I have been told, her circumstances were similar in many ways to the circumstances of the young lady described by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Ellie first became aware that something was wrong when she suffered an epileptic fit, but she was told not to worry too much. Many youngsters in their teenage years suffer in that way, but Ellie found out some time later that she had a brain tumour that was inoperable. She eventually died about a year after the problems were first brought to the attention of the medical authorities.
  Ellie's family discovered in the course of her illness, as I guess many families have, that there is a shortage of support services; there is not a good network of support and there is a lack of readily available information. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there is a dearth of good, dedicated medical research.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pay particular attention to this aspect of health and of the national health service. In particular, will he consider how best the NHS can work with charitable bodies, such as the Ellie Savage Memorial Trust, to fund more research, to provide proper networks of health advice and information, and to establish better screening facilities? The trust certainly thinks that more children and youngsters now die from brain tumours than from meningitis and possibly leukaemia. My hon. Friend will have the figures for that, but it is clearly a serious problem that demands attention. Can the NHS work closely with bodies such as the Ellie Savage Memorial Trust? Like the charitable trust founded in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, they are determined to do something to help others in memory of the loved ones that they have lost.
  9.38 pm
  Bob Spink: It is always an honour to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) who spoke so passionately and wisely on this important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will know that I have tabled many questions on neurosurgery over the weeks and months that have gone by. I am delighted that we have such an excellent Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)—to respond to the debate. I notice how carefully he is listening to it.
  I declare an interest: my son is a London neurosurgeon and spends some of his time removing nasty things from children's heads. He and surgeons like

  725
  him know how very important this subject is and how painful and serious the outcomes often are for families. No one can imagine how terrible and traumatic it can be for parents and the wider family to lose a child in such circumstances.
  I therefore warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this important debate rind on describing so movingly what happened to a young girl in his constituency.
  I know how important this issue is and, as my hon. Friend said, how crucial it is to get more funds into research in this area. I know, too, how important it is to increase the number of consultants coming into neurosurgery. As the Minister knows, because he is burdened with responding, I have tabled quite a number of questions on that subject over recent weeks. I know also how important, and difficult, diagnosis is. MRI is a good, non-invasive method of diagnosing tumours, but it is not very child friendly: children are often frightened by the noise and paraphernalia that go with it, so spiral CT methods are sometimes much better. However, we need more MRI and spiral CT equipment to diagnose tumours so that when children present with persistent headaches and other symptoms—other hon. Members have described those adequately, so I will not go into them—GPs and even, perhaps, opticians will be able to refer them for investigation more easily, quickly and efficiently.
  One specific area of research which is very important is the timing of surgical intervention for low-grade tumours in children; it is critical to the outcome and to the child's survival. Sometimes in the NHS, in fact too often, surgery is performed too late in the tumour's development, when nothing can be done. We need specific research into how chemical arid other changes in tumours develop so that the critical timing of surgery to remove the tumour can be got right. I know that the Minister is listening very carefully and that he will look at that matter. That would be very helpful to all neurosurgeons practising in this specialised and important area of the NHS.
  Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham on introducing the debate in such warm and moving terms.
  9.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): It it usual practice to congratulate hon. Members on securing Adjournment debates, but on this occasion that sentiment is more deserved than usual. I had not realised that Parliament had so little considered these matters until the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) spoke, and I hope that opportunities can be found further to debate them in coming months because they clearly need to be explored. We need to work together on initiatives to move forward. The debate is timely, given that last month was brain tumour awareness month, when a number of charities throughout the UK organised a host of fund-raising and awareness-raising activities. I have no doubt that Ali's Dream and the Ellie Savage Memorial Trust were involved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) described, in very moving terms, the experience of his constituent, and the hon. Member for
  726
  Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised issues of great interest. I hope that all the Members who spoke will take it as given that I will ensure that officials study all their comments with care, and that their constructive suggestions will be taken on board.
  Before coming to the main part of my speech, let me respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on how individual charities can engage with debates such as this. If a charity is engaged in developing a project that is of national significance and is related to the priorities of the Department of Health, the Department can provide some funding under a scheme called section 64. Any charity that thinks it has an idea of national significance and is interested in taking that route will find the means to make an application on the Department's website. If the charity is engaged in purely local work, it needs to engage with its local primary care trust—PCTs are responsible for commissioning services in their local area. I would encourage all PCTs to have thorough and constructive discussions with reputable charities that have good ideas, even if at the end of those discussions the PCT might say that it has other means of meeting local needs, or it is not especially interested in the charity's idea. Similarly, I would encourage all charities and lobby groups to take that route.
  Cancer in children is mercifully rare: about 1,100 new cases are diagnosed in England each year, of which about one fifth are cancers of the brain and spinal cord. I do not want the hon. Member for Buckingham to take anything I say as being complacent in any way. Of course even one child's death is one too many. However, that said, I should put it on the record that improving the care of children with cancer is one of this country's success stories. I am delighted to be able to say that, according to Cancer Research UK, we now have some of the best children's cancer services in the world. Survival rates for the most common forms of children's cancers match those in the United States, which is regarded as setting the gold standard.
  Since the 1960s, there have been great advances in the treatment of most childhood cancers, which have resulted in markedly higher survival rates. Only last month, the Office for National Statistics published a report on children's health, which detailed that a child diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease in the mid-1960s had a 39 per cent. chance of being alive five years later, whereas a child diagnosed with the same disease in the mid-1990s had a 94 per cent. chance. Similarly, survival rates of children diagnosed with acute lymphoid leukaemia— the most common form of cancer in children—have risen from a mere 4 per cent. in the mid-1960s to 81 per cent. in the mid 1990s.
  Those improvements in survival rates occurred during a period of great technical advances in childhood cancer treatment, but there were also major changes in the patterns of referral. At one time, most children with cancer were treated at local hospitals; there were few clinicians specialising in paediatric oncology and opportunities to participate in collaborative studies of treatment were limited. Treatment has gradually become more centralised and larger numbers of children have been entered in national and international clinical trials or studies. The hon. Member for Buckingham mentioned the relatively limited number of specialised services available in this country. Although it would be wonderful to have services on everyone's doorstep,

  727
  creating centres of excellence requires the creation of specialised services, which, inconvenient though that might be in some cases, has been a major factor in driving up success rates. All hon. Members should take that success into consideration as we debate hospital reconfiguration and concentrating into centres of excellence.
  As a consequence of the improved survival rates, the number of adult survivors of childhood cancer has greatly increased. In 1971, there were about 1,400 adult survivors, compared with almost 15,000 in 2000.
  In 1971 only around 1,000 adult survivors were aged over 30, compared with 7,000 in 2000. Although there is a small risk of very late relapse, the great majority of five-year survivors of childhood cancer do appear to be cured, with only a 10 per cent. risk of death from recurrent tumour or a treatment-related effect during the 10 years after diagnosis
  That said, I am aware that survival rates for children diagnosed with brain tumours are not as impressive, but significant progress has been made none the less. The Office for National Statistics report showed that a child diagnosed with cancer of the brain and central nervous system back in the 1960s would have a 37 per cent. chance of surviving more than five years. Sixty-eight per cent. of children diagnosed with the same disease in the mid-1990s survive longer than five years. I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Buckingham, and I am not entirely sure that the figures he gave correspond with the figures that I have just given. I can assure him that the figures I gave are accurate, according to the Office for National Statistics.
  In the past 30 years the mortality rate for children with brain tumours has been more than halved—18.3 deaths per million in 1971, compared to 8.9 in 2002—but as the hon. Gentleman said, there is no room for complacency. I assure him we are not complacent. We are committed to building on these major improvements. Research, as the hon. Member for Castle Point and others said, is essential if the burden of cancer is to be reduced as quickly as possible.
  Through the National Cancer Research Institute we are changing fundamentally the way cancer research is carried out in the UK. The NCRI draws together major cancer research funding organisations from Government and the charitable and private sectors. For the first time these organisations have come together in a single body to collectively map out research activities and jointly plan for the future.
  The NHS plan announced that the Department of Health would provide an additional £20 million per year to establish a national cancer research network. The National Cancer Research Network and the National Translational Cancer Research Network were established as a result. NCRN and NTRAC are helping to ensure that patients, including children, from all parts of the country benefit sooner from new developments in cancer care. Within the NCRN the Department of Health provides specific funding for a specialised research network on paediatric oncology, led by the UK Children's Cancer Study Group. The brain tumour group of the UKCCSG is currently running eight trials.
  728
  In addition, several other trials are under development and a number of recently closed studies are being analysed.
  The Department of Health also provides funds for the childhood cancer research group at Oxford university, which maintains the national registry of childhood tumours, the largest population-based childhood cancer registry in the world. Sir Paul Nurse, Nobel prize winner and former chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said:
  "In terms of the key successes of cancer research over the last few decades, childhood c ulcer is undoubtedly one of the jewels in our crown."
  One of the key actions in the NHS cancer plan is to ensure that patients with suspected cancer are seen quickly and appropriately. GPs have a crucial role in ensuring that children with suspected cancer are referred for specialist treatment. Referral guidelines for suspected cancer were sent to all GPs in April 2000. The aim of these guidelines, which include a section on children's cancers, is to facilitate appropriate referral between primary and secondary care for patients whom a GP suspects may have cancer. The guidelines should help GPs to identify patients who are most likely to have cancer and will therefore require urgent assessment by a specialist.
  In the case raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham, the GP did not suspect cancer and thought that it might be some sort of optical problem. Off hand, I do not know whether the guidelines issued in 2000 would have helped in those circumstances, but I will ensure that officials study the guidelines to see whether they offer any encouragement for the sort of situation that the hon. Gentleman described, by helping GPs to spot such conditions and refer them for specialist advice more quickly. It is hoped that the guidelines will also help GPs to identify patients who are unlikely to have cancer and who may appropriately be observed in a primary care setting, or who may require non-urgent referral to a hospital.
  In that way, anxiety can be reduced for patients and their families. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently reviewing the guidelines, and its review is due for publication early next year. Again, I shall make sure that NICE gets a copy of the Official Report of this debate.
  Every child with cancer currently receives specialist treatment within one month of their being urgently referred by their GP. Improving patients' experience of care is at the forefront of all our plans for the NHS. To support that aim for cancer care, we have made £6 million available over the next two years for pilots to develop a service delivery model that supports patients as they move between primary, secondary and other specialist care. We envisage that the model will include input from social services, the voluntary sector and patients themselves, and hope that it not only improves patients' experience of care, but reduces avoidable hospital stays.
  The distinct needs of children with cancer have been increasingly recognised over recent years, which is why we commissioned NICE to produce service guidance for the NHS on child and adolescent cancers. The guidance will include recommendations on optimal forms of diagnostic services, treatment, support services and

  729
  palliative care. It will also include advice on research, the transition from paediatric to adult services and specialist follow-up services for patients who suffer long-term effects from treatment.
  Bob Spink: In those sad cases in which the condition is terminal and palliative care is needed, the child may eventually go to a children's hospice. The Minister will know that Government funding for children's hospices is dire. On average, the Government provide only 5 per cent. of funding for children's hospices, and they provide only 1.5 per cent. of the funding, which is far too low, for the Little Haven children's hospice in my constituency. Funding for children's hospices should at least be on a par with that for adult hospices, which receive an average of 18 or 20 per cent. of their funding from the Government. Will the Minister take that message back to his Department, and not give the usual answer that it is up to primary care trusts and strategic health authorities to make those decisions? He should make sure that funds are directed to those important caring services.
  Dr. Ladyman: I accept that those services are important, and wish that I could magically provide a pile of extra money for them. I also wish that I could avoid saying what the hon. Gentleman asks me not to say, but I cannot. Under "Shifting the Balance of Power", the reality is that we give the vast majority of the money for the national health service to local PCTs. We expect PCTs to commission services locally according to the needs of their local populations, which includes palliative services for both adults and children. It is important that those who run children's hospices, as well as those who run adult hospices, engage with their local PCT to ensure that it understands the services that they provide locally and to encourage it to fund them. That said, I am happy to give further thought to the hon. Gentleman's words, but I cannot promise that I will somehow come across a pile of money in the Department of Health to fund palliative services.
  Mr. Bercow: I know that the Minister would not seek to abdicate responsibility for that which properly falls within his bailiwick. First, if he is confident that real and worthwhile progress is being made, there can be no argument against the establishment and promotion of public service agreement targets for what the Government intend to do. Secondly, support for bereaved or affected families is a political matter, not a clinical matter—will he undertake to provide the additional support craved by those affected?
  Dr. Ladyman: We are currently writing a national service framework for children.
  The national service frameworks are the way in which we at the centre set the standards that we expect to be delivered locally. The national service framework for children is the most complex that we have yet written. It is occupying a great deal of my time, because I am determined to have it published as soon as possible. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the comments made in the debate—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  730
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joun Ryan.]
  Dr. Ladyman: I will ensure that all the comments made in the debate are used to inform the final preparation of the national service framework. Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman some comfort by saying that the national service framework is used to help us to create the performance framework for the national health service. In other words, it will be used to identify the factors that we set as the targets against which we expect to measure the NHS in future. Obviously, I cannot predict what the national service framework for children will contain, but it may well be that during the progression of the national service framework, and the creation of the planning frameworks that follows, we will be able to move forward on a lot of what the hon. Gentleman is asking for.
  We expect the NICE guidance that I mentioned to be published in February next year, but a draft version will be available for consultation in July this year and will give the NHS a clear indication of the type of services that NICE thinks should be provided.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and as have charities working in this field, that further work needs to be done on screening programmes to identify brain tumours in children. The National Screening Committee advises the Government about all aspects of screening policy. It assesses proposed new national screening programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria covering the condition, the test, the treatment options, and the effectiveness and acceptability of the programme. Such assessment is intended to ensure that programmes do more good than harm, and at a reasonable cost. Although screening has the potential to save lives and improve quality of life through early diagnosis of serious conditions, it can never be 100 per cent. accurate. It should be seen therefore as a process of risk reduction.
  We can screen only when there is the evidence to do so. There is currently insufficient evidence to support screening for brain tumours. Any screening activity would involve children having an image taken by using computerised tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. It is difficult to ensure that those procedures are carried out satisfactorily for children even where problems are already suspected. As the hon. Member for Castle Point said, such facilities are not necessarily child friendly; they can be rather frightening.
  Even greater problems would be involved in attempting to screen all children—hon. Members did not suggest that, but some charities have—where there is no evidence of problems and no guarantee that we could make an accurate assessment. Such a move would absorb a disproportionate amount of professional expertise and staff time, with little to show for the child. Using computerised tomography would also involve significant radiation exposure. By screening children irrespective of whether they have symptoms, we run the real risk of identifying things that would never have caused a problem, but cause great worry to parents and perhaps even to older children and young people. In addition, many of the children would need to be sedated or given general anaesthetic, with all its associated risks, to ensure a satisfactory image when using those

  731
  technologies. I am sure that those who call for these measures would appreciate the logistical difficulties involved in carrying out this procedure for hundreds of thousands of children.
  In summary, screening for brain tumours would place tremendous pressure on services that are needed for people with already-suspected problems. Not only that, but unnecessary worry may be caused to some parents and there is little, if any, evidence that the programme would have any benefit. However, these issues are always kept under review by the National Screening Committee and should new evidence emerge it would of course reconsider its position. I would certainly want to receive its advice as soon as such evidence was available.
  At this point, I should like to set out my own personal support for the invaluable work and support carried out by the hundreds of charities dedicated not only to children with cancer but to those in the rest of the population who have been diagnosed with the disease. The voluntary sector and patient groups play a crucial role in raising awareness of cancer, and also in providing patients and their families with emotional and physical support. They also facilitate a stronger user voice, improve the experience of care and enable greater choice and responsiveness of the service for users.
  Improving the prevention, detection and treatment of cancer and the care of people with the disease is a key priority for the Government. Through the hard work
  732
  and dedication of staff working in the national health service and voluntary sector, and through record amounts of investment, we have made significant improvements since the NHS cancer plan was published. I know that there is work still to be done to improve services for children with cancer, but we have come a long way. I am confident that we can make even further strides forward in the coming years, and if we receive the same kind of co-operation that has been shown tonight on both sides of the House in future debates and when further initiatives to address this problem are announced, I have no doubt that we shall make rapid strides. I hope that, when the national service framework for children is published, we shall have another opportunity to debate these matters in much greater detail and that, in particular, we shall be able to look at that document to see what benefits it could bring to the children who have been mentioned in tonight's debate.
  Once again, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Buckingham for securing this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and the hon. Member for Castle Point for their valuable contributions. I look forward to having further opportunities to debate this matter in the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) nature and (b) value was of all contracts, consultancies or

  £

  Supplier Name

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Total

  Deloitte and Touche

  0.00

  303,941.96

  814,339.69

  495,575.67

  1,613,857.32

  Cap Gemini UK

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Ernst and Young

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  47,000.00

  47,000.00

  KPMG

  140,341.47

  26,711.66

  0.00

  48,675.67

  215,728.80

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  255,907.97

  308,935.56

  30,207.79

  55,113.63

  650,164.95

  Total

  396,249.44

  639,589.18

  844,547.48

  646,364.97

  2,526,751.07

  Central Lobby Consultants
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the work she has commissioned from Central Lobby Consultants since 1 June 2001. [163975]

  Alun Michael
  No work has been commissioned from the company named by or on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with representatives of the fruit growing industry in respect of Common Agricultural Policy reform. [166446]

  Alun Michael
  Defra officials met a delegation from the National Farmers' Union on 31 March.

  Over-30 Month Scheme
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress in bringing the Over Thirty Month Scheme to an end. [164071]

  Alun Michael
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) review of the Over Thirty Month rule was completed in July 2003 and recommended that it would be acceptable on public health grounds to replace the Over Thirty Month rule with BSE testing of cattle in two stages. Cattle born after August 1996 could be allowed into the food chain, after being tested for BSE, with the possibility of complete replacemen of the rule from July 2005. Health Ministers are still considering the FSA advice, but it has already been decided that, for practical reasons, cattle born before August 1996 will be permanently excluded from the food chain. We are now 718W
  other services placed with the accountancy firms (i) Deloitte & Touche, (ii) Ernst & Young, (iii) KPMG and (iv) PricewaterhouseCoopers since 2000–01 by the Department. [166085]

  Alun Michael
  The information on the nature of all contracts, consultancies or other services placed with the accountancy firms Deloitte and Touche; Ernst and Young (now part of Cap Gemini Ernst and Young); KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers cannot be provided as it is not held centrally.

  The Department is in the process of compiling a central list for the future but this would take some time to complete. The expenditure for core Defra excluding its agencies and NDPBs with each of the firms since 2000–01 is as follows:

  unlikely to see any changes to the OTMS before January 2005, due to the legislative process that must take place once a decision has been reached by Ministers.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what peer-reviewed and published UK studies she has received that have measured actual exposures to pesticides for people living in agricultural areas, including high and lower levels of exposure over both the short and long-term, and including all oral, dermal and inhalation routes of contamination. [166695]

  Alun Michael
  The data that industry is obliged to submit to support applications for approvals of pesticides are not usually published. Such studies follow internationally agreed protocols and are subject to the requirements of Good Laboratory Practice. These data are subject to scientific review by the Pesticide Safety Directorate and the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides and/or other European Union regulatory authorities. Evaluation documents are publicly available.

  Data submitted generally refer to operators, who represent the highest risk category for exposure to plant protection products. Several studies on worker exposure have been published in peer review journals.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what peer-reviewed and published UK studies she has received that have provided direct measurements of pesticide levels in(a) people, (b) wild animals, (c) domestic animals and (d) livestock situated in or near sprayed fields. [166696]

  Alun Michael
  The data that industry is obliged to submit to support applications for approvals of pesticides are not usually published. Such studies follow internationally agreed protocols and are subject to the
  719W
  requirements of Good Laboratory Practice. These data are subject to scientific review by the Pesticide Safety Directorate (PSD) and the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) and/or other European Union regulatory authorities. Evaluation documents are publicly available.

  (a) Regarding measurements in people, studies have focused on spray operators and farm workers as the highest risk category.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has a large study where the exposures of operators applying chlorpyrifos to orchards was monitored. ("Technical Development Survey, Exposure to Chlopyrifos in Orchard Spraying, Health and Safety Executive, Directorate of Science and Technology, Health and Safety Laboratory, and Field Operations Division, 1998".)

  The Pesticides Incidents Appraisal Panel studies, and publishes an annual report on, reported incidents and complaints, including alleged ill-health incidents, involving pesticides investigated by the HSE. The report and details of individual incidents are presented to the ACP to inform the pesticide approvals process.

  The Secretary of State is aware of further work undertaken in the US, which has been published recently.

  (b) Wild animals and (c) domestic animals

  In the UK the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WHS) investigates deaths of terrestrial wildlife and domestic animals, where there is strong evidence that pesticide poisoning may be involved. Annual reports of these investigations are published by the Department and are also available on the Pesticides Safety Directorate website.

  The Wildlife Conservation Research Unit of the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, has recently published a report (funded by the RSPCA) entitled "A Review of the Effects of Pesticides on Wild Terrestrial Mammals in Britain" (Harrington & MacDonald 2002, ISBN 0 9529371 8 2).

  The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) operates the Predatory Bird Monitoring Scheme in which levels of contaminants in livers and eggs of selected species have been monitored. Further information available from the CEH website: www.ceh.ac.uk.

  (d) Livestock in or near sprayed fields

  Monitoring of pesticide residues in meat and meat products is carried out by the independent Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC). The results are published quarterly, via the PRC's website, at: www.prc-uk.org.

  The results are also summarised in an annual report. The most recent report, for 2002, is available free of charge from PSD and is also available on the above website.

  Single Farm Payment
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what 720W
  assessment she has made of the impact of the introduction of the Single Farm Payment on fruit growers; and if she will make a statement; [166024]

  (2) what recent assessment she has made of the impact of her proposed Single Farm Payment proposals on the future viability of orchards and fruit growers. [166448]

  Alun Michael
  Fruit growers were generally not eligible for the subsidies which are to be replaced by the single payment. Our proposals extend eligibility for the single payment to land which is used to grow soft fruit. Single payments cannot be made anywhere in the European Union in respect of land under permanent crops, which include orchards.

  Voluntary Initiative on Pesticides
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to make an evaluation of the success or outcome of the Voluntary Initiative on Pesticides. [166458]

  Alun Michael
  The Government regularly reviews progress with the Voluntary Initiative on pesticides and reports its broad conclusions in the Budget and Pre-Budget Report. In Budget 2004 the Government confirmed its view that, provided the Initiative is fully implemented, it should be the most effective way of reducing the environmental impacts of pesticide use. However, to cover the potential case that the Initiative might fail to deliver the required environmental benefits within a reasonable timescale, the Government continues to keep the options for a tax or economic instrument under review.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made on the introduction of Regulations to deliver the(a) Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and (b) End of Life Vehicles directives. [167889]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is as follows:

  (a)The Government have completed a consultation on their policy proposals for the implementation of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive and recently published on the DTI website an assessment of stakeholders' responses to this. They are currently drafting implementing Regulations and guidance for a final consultation in late spring.

  (b)The End of Life Vehicle Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2635), which came into effect on 3 November 2003, transposed a number of the provisions of the End of Life Vehicles Directive. Some related legislation was introduced shortly afterwards in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Further draft Regulations, to transpose the remaining provisions of the Directive, were the subject of a public consultation, which closed on 30 March 2004. 65 responses were received and these are now being assessed, with a view to finalising the Regulations before presentation to Parliament.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  J. M. W. Turner
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received about the use of the insurance money received by the Tate Gallery following the theft of Turner works on loan to Germany in 1994; and if she will make a statement. [168087]

  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a proposal from Dr Selby Whittingham, Editor of the journal J. M. W. Turner, RA, about the use of the insurance money received by Tate following the theft in 1994 of two works from the Turner Bequest in its collections. These works have since been recovered. Dr. Whittingham proposed that the insurance moneys be used primarily to establish a dedicated Turner Gallery. The use of these insurance moneys is a matter for the Trustees of Tate, in discussion with the Charities Commission.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received about the establishment of a dedicated Turner gallery; which organisations and individuals have made representations; and if she will make a statement. [168088]

  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received representations from Dr. Selby Whittingham, Editor of the journal J. M. W. Turner R. A. about the establishment of a dedicated Turner Gallery.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will take steps to ensure that the works of Turner currently at the Tate and National galleries are(a) placed under the same body of trustees and (b) housed together. [168089]

  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to require the National Gallery or Tate to house the works of Turner together. The housing of the collections of the National Gallery and Tate is a matter for their Trustees under their governing legislation, the Museums and Galleries Act 1992. Under the Act, the two Galleries each appoint one of their Trustees to the Board of the other.

  Table 1: Completed visual arts projects

  Organisation name

  Location

  Approved amount (£)

  ACAVA

  London, Kensington

  972,785

  ACME Housing Association Ltd.

  London, E3

  1,200,857

  Artsway

  Lymington, Hampshire

  398,966

  Bournemouth and Poole College Services Ltd.

  Poole, Dorset

  1,835,756

  Castlefield Gallery/Manchester Artists Studio

  Manchester

  708,235

  Baltic, Sage Gateshead and Live Theatre

  Gateshead

  41,385,000

  Ikon Gallery

  Birmingham

  4,614,047

  Knowsley Arts Centre

  Merseyside

  367,790

  One Church Square

  Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire

  1,024,000

  The Foundation for Art and Creative Technology

  Liverpool

  4,599,990

  Walsall Museum and Art Gallery

  Walsall

  15,750,000

  722W
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will introduce legislation to amend the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 so that it is consistent with the requirement of Turner's will that his finished pictures should be kept together. [168090]

  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to introduce legislation to amend the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 in this respect. After Turner's death in 1851, the dispute over the terms of his will went to Court. In 1856, the Court decreed that 100 finished pictures, 182 unfinished pictures and 19,049 drawings and sketches were to be held in trust by the National Gallery, a decision which took precedence over the provisions in Turner's wills and codicils. The National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 effected the legal separation of the Tate Gallery from the National Gallery and the trusteeship of the Turner Bequest was transferred to the Trustees of the Tate Gallery. The Museums and Galleries Act 1992 established the Tate Gallery as a corporate body and it became Trustee of the Turner Bequest, subject to the conditions of that trust and subject to the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Trustees as established by the 1992 Act.

  Recycling
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she has put in place to ensure that her Department meets the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that all paper for printed publications bought by the Department is 60 per cent. recycled, of which a minimum is 75 per cent. post-consumer waste. [165952]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 April 2004,Official Report, columns 243–44W. DCMS procures 100 per cent. recycled paper for in excess of 60 per cent. of paper for printed publications, but it has not been possible to ascertain the percentage of post consumer waste content.

  Visual Arts Facilities
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many proposed new visual arts facilities her Department has been advised of since 1 January 1998; in which cities and towns they are located; and how much public funding was given in each case. [167286]

  Estelle Morris
  Arts Council England has awarded over £175 million of lottery capital funds to new and existing visual arts projects since 1 January 1998. Details of individual awards are set out in the tables.
  723W

  Table 1: Completed visual arts projects

  Organisation name

  Location

  Approved amount (£)

  Yorkshire ArtSpace Society Ltd.

  Sheffield

  3,776,310

  Lowry

  Salford

  51,000,000

  Spike Island Artspace Ltd.

  Bristol

  935,000

  Tate Gallery Projects Ltd.

  London

  6,200,000

  Table 2: Visual arts projects under construction

  Organisation name

  Location

  Approved amount (£)

  Combined Art Gallery and Craft Centre for Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough

  4,500,000

  Hampshire Arts Centre

  Basingstoke and Havant

  500,000

  Colchester Arts Centre

  Colchester

  5,000,000

  Creative Art House

  Doncaster

  1,000,000

  Derby Playhouse

  Derby

  2,500,000

  Spike Island

  Bristol

  750,000

  Eastbourne Regional Cultural Quarter

  Eastbourne

  2,000,000

  INIVA/Association of Black Photographers

  London

  5,000,000

  Stroud Valley Artspace

  Gloucestershire

  580,000

  Wysing Arts

  Cambridge

  780.000

  Table 3: Visual arts projects not yet to be started

  Organisation name

  Location

  Approved amount (£)

  Turner Centre

  Margate

  4,100,000

  Future Factory and Angel Row

  Nottingham

  5,000,000

  ACME Studios

  London

  2,000,000

  Whitechapel Art Gallery

  London

  500,000

  Waygood Gallery

  Newcastle

  750,000

  Storey Gallery

  Lancaster

  693,600

  Newlyn Art Gallery

  Penzance

  1,200,000

  Sherborne House

  Sherborne

  288,860

  Centre for Creative Arts

  Wakefield

  4,000.000

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she has taken to check projections of visitor number attendances at the new visual arts facilities against the actual figures; and if she will make a statement. [167287]

  Estelle Morris
  Arts Council England rigorously assesses projections of visitor numbers contained in all applications made to it for capital grants. The Arts Council also monitors all regularly funded organisations, including those receiving capital funding, through an annual, covering attendances in the previous financial year and the projected attendances in the current year.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pensions
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the reasons are for the abatement of pensions under Armed Forces Pension Scheme rules; on what grounds those rules are applied for those in full-time reserve when contributions have been paid; and if he will make a statement. [168060]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: Successive Governments have maintained the policy that the pensions of public servants who are re-employed in public service should be abated in certain circumstances: these include where an individual is re-employed by the same employer and where an appointment is made
  724W
  under closed competition. The broad terms of this policy apply to all public service pension schemes, including the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS). Abatement avoids the position where a re-employed member could receive a higher income from public funds, taking account of pay and pension, than a colleague of the same rank, seniority and trade with whom he or she might work. It also provides a safeguard against the potential abuse of re-employment.

  Members of the AFPS make no direct contribution towards the cost of their standard pension benefits. However, as part of is overall review of remuneration, the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) compares the value of benefits provided under the AFPS with those provided by comparator pension schemes in the civilian sector and makes an adjustment to pay to reflect any difference. At present the AFPRB makes a 7 per cent. abatement of comparator pay, and in particular take account of the fact that AFPS benefits accrue faster and are paid earlier than those of civilian comparators. This adjustment takes account of the overall terms of the AFPS which include arrangement, for the abatement of pension on re-employment in public service.

  Army (Self-harm)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 7 April, to question reference 165755, what the reasons are for the delay in collecting and analysing information with regard to incidents of self-harm in the army. [166929]

  Mr. Caplin
  It is notoriously difficult to obtain reliable and consistent data about incidents of self-harm, because of problems of definition and identification, uncertainty about intention, patient confidentiality and the variety and inconsistency of reporting. As I indicated previously, more work is continuing to try to improve the collection of information.

  Defence Bills Agency
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid by the Defence Bills Agency to contractors in 2003–04. [167070]
  725W
  Mr. Ingram
  The value of the bills processed by Defence Bills Agency in 2003–04 is £19,104 million.

  Defence Medical Services
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many consultants were employed in the Defence Medical Services in each of the last five years. [167232]

  Mr. Caplin
  The numbers of consultants employed in the Defence Medical Services in each of the last five years were as follows:

  Number of consultants

  2004

  202

  2003

  185

  2002

  195

  2001

  201

  2000

  199

  First Gulf War
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1)if he will instruct the Medical Assessment Programme to test for(a) squalene anti-bodies and (b) mycroplasmal infection in servicemen who served in the first Gulf War; [167548]

  (2) whether he has discussed testing for (a) squalene anti-bodies and (b) mycroplasmal infection with the combined medical services; [167549]

  (3)for what reasons UK servicemen who served in the first Gulf War have not been tested for (a) squalene anti-bodies and (b) mycroplasma infection; [167550]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the work of Dr. Garth Nicolson of the Institute of Molecular Medicine on the use of a six to 12-month course of antibiotics in treating those with mycroplasmal organisms following service in the first Gulf War. [167554]

  Mr. Caplin
  The work of Dr. Nicholson has been monitored as part of the Ministry of Defence's consideration of research into Gulf veterans' illnesses. In line with its normal approach to issues relating to the health of Gulf veterans, the MOD takes medical and scientific advice from a range of internal and external sources. In this instance, there was no requirement to consult formally with the Defence Medical Services although they are aware of the matter. In the light of trials funded by the US Government based on Dr. Nicolson's work, we have concluded that there is no evidence to support a connection between illness among veterans and mycoplasma infections or that aggressive antibiotic treatment would benefit veterans. Assessments undertaken by the US Armed Forces Epidemiological Board similarly support the view that there is no evidence that ill health is linked to the presence of squalene antibodies. It would be inappropriate to subject veterans to tests for which there is no clinical indication.

  Iraq
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what checks are carried out on private military companies supplying guards to British interests in Iraq. [166134]
  726W
  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) employs two private security companies to provide armed protection for its staff and assets in Iraq. These companies were subject to normal checking procedures for contact with private military and security companies in line with FCO guidelines.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what security checks are carried out on(a) Iraqi nationals, (b) Third Country nationals and (c) international employees of private military companies protecting British interests in Iraq. [166136]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office employs two private security companies in Iraq. One provides armed escorts for its staff when travelling outside secure areas, the other provides static guards at the former embassy and at the British Office in Baghdad. Personnel under these contracts are subject to security vetting prior to deployment, depending on the job they will be doing.

  Journalists (Conflict Areas)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what rules journalists working with British forces abroad in conflict areas must abide; and if he will make a statement. [167072]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Green Book—"Working Arrangements with the Media in times of Emergency, Tension, Conflict or War"—sets out the arrangements for dealings between the media and the Ministry of Defence in times of emergency, tension, conflict or war. This book is currently being reviewed and updated.

  A copy of the current version of the Green Book can be found on the MOD website at: www.mod.uk/news/green_book/index.htm

  Memorial Cemetery (Korea)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make representations to the UN to replace on the Memorial Wall in the UN Memorial Cemetery, Pusan, Korea, and in official documents, the words No Known Grave with the words Buried at Sea at Latitude 36 Degrees, 2 Minutes North, Longitude 129 Degrees, 42 Minutes East, in respect of the Servicemen who were killed on HMS Jamaica on 8 July 1950 and buried at sea; and if he will reply to the hon. Member for Castle Point's constituent Mr. Anthony Legg's letter of 4 March 2004 on this matter. [167274]

  Mr. Caplin
  There are no plans to make representations to the United Nations to change either official documents or the inscription of the central commemorative plaque on the Memorial Wall in the United Nations Memorial Cemetery, Pusan, South Korea. The Memorial is dedicated to all Servicemen who died during the Korean War and are buried at sea. It would be invidious to make changes to cover just those who died on HMS Jamaica.

  Officials replied to the hon. Member's constituent, Mr. Anthony Legg, on 20 April.

  Missile Defence
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement concerning the use by the US Administration of RAF Menwith Hill in the US missile defence system. [167746]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no current plans for any of the facilities at RAF Menwith Hill to be used for United States ballistic missile defence purposes. The position remains that United Kingdom approval would be needed should the US wish to use RAF Menwith Hill for missile defence purposes. No such request has been received.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the purpose is of the latest planning application for another radome at RAF Menwith Hill. [167747]

  Mr. Hoon
  The proposed new radome at RAF Menwith Hill will house an additional antenna that will be used in support of the current mission of the base.

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessments have been made of the dangers of exposure to radiation for MOD personnel. [167999]

  Mr. Caplin
  Heads of Establishments and Commanding Officers have a statutory duty under the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999 to carry out prior risk assessments, and to keep the assessments up to date, to ensure that exposures of the Ministry of Defence personnel are restricted to as low a level as is reasonably practical. In doing this they seek advice from their Radiation Protection Advisers. Due to numerous and varied situations where this duty applies, it is not possible to list each and every recent occasion where such risk assessments have been undertaken.

  The MOD contributes to the National Registry of Radiation Workers database managed by the National Radiological Protection Board. The data are used to undertake epidemiological studies. In their second analysis of the data, published in July 1999, the National Radiological Protection Board concluded that overall death rates among radiation workers are below those in the general population. This is known as the healthy worker effect. This analysis contained 124,743 workers of which about one-third were MOD radiation workers or former radiation workers. The National Radiological Protection Board is intending to undertake the next analysis in 2005–06.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions for medical check-ups are provided for(a) current radiation workers and (b) retired and former radiation workers in his Department. [168000]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence carries out medical surveillance of radiation workers as required by Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999, Regulation 24. These regulations lay down monitoring and medical surveillance requirements for personnel while occupationally exposed to ionising radiation. The main purpose of medical 728W
  surveillance is to determine an individual's fitness or continuing fitness fer the intended work with ionising radiation.

  There is no mandatory requirement for a monitoring programme for retired personnel and no optional health screening is offered to retired personnel. However, the MOD does provide an independent counselling service for radiation workers, former radiation workers and their families who have concerns about their health consequent of their work with radiation. Individuals may request counselling by telephoning the Counselling Telephone line (02392 768098) and leaving their names and addresses or by writing to the MOD Counselling Registry at DSTL Radiological Protection Services, Crescent Road, Alverstoke, Gosport Hants, PO12 2DL. Further details are available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.mod.uk/dsef/hp/rwc.htm

  Suez Medal
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Army Medal Office to complete distribution of the General Service Medal for those who served in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954 who have applied for the medal. [167479]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 22 April 2004]: As at 16 April, the Army Medal Office has received 27,371 applications and distributed 4,113 medals. Work continues to confirm eligibility and distribute medals as soon as practical.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current strength of the Territorial Army is; and what its projected strength is for the next 12 months. [166939]

  Mr. Caplin
  The total strength of the Territorial Army as at 1 March 2004 is 36,900. This includes 2,760 mobilised reservists.

  Forecasts of projected strengths are not available.

  US Bases
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the US bases for each year from 1997 to date where the ministry of Defence Police Agency operates. [167745]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ministry of Defence Police Officers have continuously staffed RAF Hythe, RAF Welford, RAF Fairford, RAF Men with Hill, RAF Alconbury, RAF Lakenheath and US Navy (London) during the years 1997 to date.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  Office Premises (Improper Use)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what representations the Commission has received on improper use of office premises for party purposes since August 2003. [168452]
  729W
  Mr. Viggers
  The Electoral Commission has informed me that since August 2003 it has received no representations on the improper use of office premises for party purposes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manchester, Gorton
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effect of recent trends in investment in renewable energy upon residents of Manchester, Gorton. [167537]

  Mr. Timms
  Recent trends in renewable energy investment have been encouraging. More new capacity has been constructed in the last few years than in the previous decade, and a significant amount is currently in the pipeline. This covers a wide range of technologies including onshore and offshore wind, solar and biomass.

  While this investment has not translated into capacity within Manchester, Gorton itself, Renewables Northwest, a joint venture between the Regional Development Agency and United Utilities, is actively working with local authorities on the development of urban renewables in the area. This is looking to promote the installation of renewable energy systems in new build and urban regeneration projects in the Greater Manchester area. An example of this is the CIS Tower, Manchester, which has been awarded a sizeable grant from the DTI's Major Photovoltaic Demonstration Programme, towards the costs of a large PV cladding installation.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of women in Manchester, Gorton have taken 26 weeks maternity leave since 1997. [167354]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Take-up of maternity leave is not recorded centrally. It is possible to make an estimate of the numbers of women taking maternity leave based on employer returns to Inland Revenue for payment of Statutory Maternity Pay (since 2003 this has covered the first 26 weeks of leave). However, figures for the take-up of SMP are not available on a regional basis.

  In addition, there will be some women who will qualify for maternity leave but not SMP (because they do not meet the earnings criteria) and similarly some who qualify for SMP but not leave (because they are employed earners for the purposes of SMP but not employees in order to qualify for leave).

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effects of the EU Social Chapter on the residents of Manchester, Gorton. [167355]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The residents of Manchester, Gorton have benefited from the EU Social Chapter by having their employment rights extended to include:the right to Parental Leave, which gives parents the right to 13 weeks unpaid leave at the birth or adoption of a child;
  730W
  the entitlement of part-time workers to the same pro rata terms and conditions of employment as full-time workers, thereby removing any discrimination and improving the quality of part-time jobs;
  the provision that once a prima facie case has been made in an employment tribunal claim, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant (usually the employer), who will need to demonstrate that sex discrimination has not occurred;
  rights under the Fixed Term Work Directive that provide equal treatment and prevent abuse of fixed term contracts;
  rights under the European Works Council Directive which requires companies with at least 1,000 employees in total and at least 150 workers in each of the two member states, to establish structures for consulting workers on issues that affect them; and
  in addition, the Information and Consultation of Employees Directive to be implemented in the UK by March 2005, establishes a right to new minimum standards for workforce communication and involvement in large firms.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effects on residents of Manchester, Gorton of new rights for night-shift workers. [167356]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations came into force on 1 October 1998. The Regulations limit working time to 48 hours per week averaged over a 17-week reference period. For night workers the limit is eight hours per day on average, including overtime where it is part of a night worker's normal hours of work. There is no opt-out from the night working time limit.

  Night workers are entitled to 11 hours rest between working days, one day's rest per week, and a 20-minute in work rest break if the working period is longer than six hours.

  All night workers should be offered a free health assessment before they start working night and thereafter at regular intervals for as long as they are working nights. The health assessments should take account of the nature of the work and the restrictions on a worker's working time under the Regulations. Workers who suffer from problems as a result of working at night, should as far as practicable be offered alternative day work.

  All workers are entitled to four weeks paid annual leave. There are no specific data available for night shift workers in Gorton, Manchester.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Manchester, Gorton qualify for paid leave entitlements. [167357]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  All workers resident in Gorton qualify for paid annual leave entitlements; at least four weeks as set out in the Working Time Regulations. While all women are entitled to 26 weeks ordinary maternity leave, only those who meet the eligibility criteria will be able to claim statutory maternity pay for that period.

  All employees in Gorton who are eligible will be entitled to take statutory paternity leave with pay and statutory adoption leave with pay.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Manchester, Gorton have benefited from a reduction of the working week to 48 hours. [167358]
  731W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations provide workers with the right to refuse to work more than 48 hours on average, if they do not want to. Numbers for Manchester, Gorton are not available. However, it has been estimated that around 100,000 workers resident in Greater Manchester stood to benefit from the introduction of the weekly working time limits in 1998.

  State Aid
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 30 March 2004,Official Report, column 1363W, on state aid, what definition she uses of the term block exemption; and how many applications from each region were turned down by the Department of Trade and Industry and not passed on to the European Commission. [167402]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  For state aid purposes a block exemption is a Commission Regulation which allows member states to implement state aid schemes complying with stipulated conditions without obtaining advance approval from the Commission. However, member states are obliged to inform the Commission of such schemes within 20 working days of their coming into force. Block Exemption Regulations exist covering aid to SMEs (recently extended to include research and development), aid for training and aid for employment.

  DTI's role is to advise those contemplating introducing state aid schemes and to help them with the notification process. It forwards all notifications to the European Commission via the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the European Communities, sometimes after amendment in consultation with the aid scheme administrators. The Department does not turn down notifications, although on some occasions an aid scheme administrator may withdraw a notification on advice from DTI that the proposed aid scheme would not comply with the terms of the relevant state aid rules and would not therefore be approved by the Commission.

  Burnley
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effects of the EU Social Chapter on the residents of Burnley. [167897]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The residents of Burnley have benefited from the EU Social Chapter by having their employment rights extended to include:the right to parental leave which gives parents the right to 13 weeks unpaid leave at the birth or adoption of a child;
  the entitlement of part-time workers to the same pro-rata terms and conditions of employment as full time workers, thereby removing any discrimination and improving the quality of part-time jobs;
  the provision that once a prima facie case has been made in an employment tribunal claim, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant (usually the employer), who will need to demonstrate that sex discrimination has not occurred;
  rights under the Fixed Term Work Directive that provide equal treatment and prevent abuse of fixed term contracts;
  rights under the European Works Council Directive which requires companies with at least 1,000 employees in total and at least 150 workers in each of the two member states, to establish structures for consulting workers on issues that affect them and;
  732W
  in addition, the Information and Consultation of Employees Directive to be implemented in the UK by March 2005, establishes a right to new minimum standards for workforce communication and involvement in large firms.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how man) and what percentage of women in Burnley have taken 26 weeks maternity leave since 1997. [167896]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Take-up of maternity leave is not recorded centrally. It is possible to make an estimate of the numbers of women taking maternity leave based on employer returns to Inland Revenue for payment of Statutory Maternity Pay (since 2003 this has covered the first 26 weeks of leave). However, figures for the take-up of SMP are not available on a regional basis.

  In addition, there will be some women who will qualify for maternity leave but not SMP (because they do not meet the earnings criteria) and similarly some who qualify for SMP but not leave (because they are employed earners for the purposes of SMP but not employees in order to qualify for leave).

  Mr. Pike
  To ask he Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the benefits to residents of Burnley of new rights for night-shift workers. [167898]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations came into force on 1 October 1998. The regulations limit working time to 48 hours per week averaged over a 17-week reference period. For night workers the limit is eight hours per day on average, including overtime where it is part of a night worker's normal hours of work. There is no opt-out from the night working time limit.

  Night workers are entitled to 11 hours rest between working days, one day's rest per week, and a 20-minute in work rest break if the working period is longer than six hours.

  All night workers should be offered a free health assessment before they start working nights and thereafter at regular intervals for as long as they are working nights. The health assessments should take account of the nature of the work and the restrictions on a worker's working time under the regulations. Workers who suffer from problems as a result of working at night, should as far as practicable be offered alternative day work.

  All workers are entitled to four weeks paid annual leave. There is no specific data available for night shift workers in Burnley.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Burnley qualify for paid leave entitlements. [167899]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  All workers resident in Burnley qualify for paid annual leave entitlements; at least four weeks as set but in the Working Time Regulations. While all women are entitled to 26 weeks ordinary maternity leave, only those who meet the eligibility criteria will be able to claim statutory maternity pay for that period.

  All employees in Burnley who are eligible will be entitled to take statutory paternity leave with pay and statutory adoption leave with pay.
  733W
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Burnley have benefited from a reduction of the working week to 48 hours. [167900]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations provide workers with the right to refuse to work more than 48 hours on average, if they do not want to. Numbers for Burnley are not available, however it has been estimated that around 300,000 workers resident in the north west stood to benefit from the introduction of the weekly working time limits in 1998.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many new businesses have started up in Burnley since 1997; [167892]

  (2) how many new businesses hay e been established in Burnley since 1997. [167894]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank 's latest survey of business creation includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start-ups in England and Wales, including 2,600 in Lancashire county (which contains the constituency of Burnley), in the fourth quarter of 2003. The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before. There were 10,200 business start-ups in Lancashire county in 2003. Data for counties are not available for before 2003.

  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for Burnley local authority (which covers the same area as the constituency of Burnley) are shown in the table for

  Insolvency proceedings

  Date

  Cammell Laird (Merseyside) Ltd.

  Administrative receivership

  11 April 2001

  Cammell Laird (North East) Ltd.

  Administrative receivership

  11 April 2001

  Cammell Laird (North East) Ltd.

  Voluntary liquidation

  16 July 2003

  Cammell Laird (Shiprepairers) Ltd.

  Voluntary liquidation

  3 February 2003

  Cammell Laird (Teesside) Ltd.

  Administrative receivership

  12 April 2001

  Cammell Laird (Tyneside) Ltd.

  Administrative receivership

  12 April 2001

  Cammell Laird (Wearside) Ltd.

  Administrative receivership

  20 April 2001

  Cammell Laird Holdings plc

  Administration

  19 April 2001

  Cammell Laird plc

  Administrative receivership

  11 April 2001

  Cammell Laird Properties Ltd.

  Voluntary liquidation

  21 May 2001

  Cammell Laird Technical Services Ltd.

  Administrative receivership

  12 April 2001

  The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 imposes a statutory time limit of two years from the date of the first insolvency proceedings, for making an application for a disqualification order. Therefore the companies which failed in 2001 are outside of this time limit.

  The insolvency practitioners appointed as liquidators of the two companies which failed in 2003 have reported to the Secretary of State as they are required to do. On the basis of the information currently provided, no disqualification proceedings are being considered. Should additional information become available this decision will be reviewed to determine whether such proceedings are in the public interest.

  Car Advertisements
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take steps to prevent car 734W
  the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in autumn 2004.

  VAT Registrations: 1997–2002

  Burnley

  1997

  170

  1998

  180

  1999

  180

  2000

  205

  2001

  205

  2002

  205

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002, Small Business Service.

  VAT registrations do not capture all start-up activity. Businesses are unlikely to be registered if they fall below the compulsory VAT threshold, which has risen in each year since 1997. Similarly, businesses that de-register will not necessarily have closed. Only 1.8 million out of 3.8 million enterprises were registered for VAT at the start of 2002.

  Cammell Laird
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she intends to take against directors of Cammell Laird at the point when the company was moved into administration. [167503]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 22 April 2004]: There are a number of Cammell Laird companies which have gone into insolvency proceedings during 2001 and 2003. These are:

  advertisements from referring to maximum speed levels achievable where these are in excess of the national speed limit. [167766]

  Mr. Timms
  The rules under Section 48 of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code already provide such safeguards for motoring advertising.

  Section 48.3 states:
  "Marketers should not portray speed in a way that might encourage motorists to drive irresponsibly or to break the law and should not condone irresponsible driving."
  Section 48.2 states:
  "Marketers should not make speed or acceleration claims the predominant message of their marketing communications. However it is legitimate to give general information about a vehicle's performance such as acceleration and mid-range statistics, braking power, road-holding and top speed."

  Debt
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish research carried out or commissioned by her Department which compares the level of(a) secured and (b) unsecured debt in the UK with other countries. [167267]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The DTI has not carried out or commissioned research which compares the level of secured and unsecured debt in the UK with other countries.

  Comparisons of amounts spent on unsecured debt by the bottom two income deciles in UK, France, Germany and the USA are included in research commissioned by the DTI to look at the way interest rate controls have worked in other countries. This work was announced in the Consumer Credit White Paper (December 2003), and will be published later this spring.

  The DTI commissioned and published research into levels of household debt in the UK from the Personal Finance Research Centre (Kempson, Elaine, "Over-indebtedness in Britain", September 2002, available at http://www.dti.gov. uk/ccp/topicsl/pdfl/moricontents.pdf). In the Consumer Credit White Paper, we committed to monitoring the extent and profile of over-indebtedness in the UK, and will be reporting on our approach in the forthcoming Strategy on Over-indebtedness.

  DTI draws on research carried out by others in its assessment of the level of debt in the UK compared with other countries. For example:

  The Treasury published a comparison of outstanding residential mortgage debt across EU countries in the EMU study 'Housing, consumption and EMU' with the five tests assessment (available at http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/documents/the_euro/assessment/studies/ euro_assess03_studdorset.cfm).

  Sir Andrew Large, Deputy Governor of the BoE, recently gave a speech entitled 'Major puzzles in today's economy: the build-up in household debt' in which he placed the UK experience in the international context and compared household debt levels in the UK with other major industrial countries (March 2004, available at http://www.bankofengland.co.ul/speeches/speech217.pdf).

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya's debts to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, broken down by sector, are; if she will list the top five contracts, by value, on which these debts are based; and if she will make a statement on the Government's intention to recover this debt. [167829]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Libya made a payment of £20 million to ECGD on 29 December 2003 in negotiated settlement of its outstanding debt obligations towards ECGD-insured debt.

  To avoid prejudicing ongoing negotiations with other similar debtors, it is not ECGD's policy to reveal details of the amounts outstanding in respect of which this settlement was made. However, the settlement reached represented a good outcome to negotiations between HMG and the Libyan Government.
  736W
  The debt related to business dating back to the early/mid-1980s. The majority of the business was covered under short-term guarantees, with the balance mainly construction projects and services. We do not have a comprehensive breakdown of the debt on the basis requested.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on the timetable for the Export Credits Guarantee Department becoming a capitalised trading fund; [167265]

  (2) what estimate has been made of the cost of the Export Credits Guarantee Department becoming a capitalised trading fund, broken down by (a) the source of the funding and (b) how the money is to be allocated; and if she will make a statement. [167266]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Ministers are considering the arrangements for ECGD's Trading Fund, and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether an assessment of the effects of fully privatising the Export Credits Guarantee Department was made before the decision that it should become a trading fund was taken. [168650]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Privatisation of ECGD was considered in the Mission and Status Review of ECGD in 1999–2000 (a copy is available on ECGD's website www.ecgd.gov.uk). The Review concluded that privatisation should not be pursued, and that ECGD's risk management systems should be strengthened by the establishment of a Trading Fund.

  Gasified Coal
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage the gasification of coal. [167750]

  Mr. Timms
  We are supporting six R&D projects under the Cleaner Coal Technology Programme. We are also investigating the feasibility of Underground Coal Gasification and plan to produce a report on this in about a month's time.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of power was derived from gasified coal in 2003. [167751]

  Mr. Timms
  Currently in the UK there is no power produced through coal gasification.

  Low Pay Commission
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the terms of reference for the Low Pay Commission's Report of 2004; why the monitoring of enforcement and compliance with regard to the National Minimum Wage was not included as in previous years; and whether such matters will be included in the Low Pay Commission remit in the future. [167301]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Low Pay Commission monitored and evaluated issues connected with minimum wage—including enforcement—in their last full report in 2003.
  737W
  The remit for the Commission s 2004 Report was specifically drawn to cover two issues raised in the 2003 Report: to consider whether any fine-tuning was needed to the proposed October 2004 increases; and to consider the possible advantages and disadvantages of a minimum wage rate for 16–17 year olds.

  Further remits for the Low Pay Commission will be announced to Parliament in the usual way.

  National Minimum Wage
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inspections have been undertaken where no complaint has been made about an employer to ensure that they are complying with the National Minimum Wage provisions in each year since the introduction of the National Minimum Wage; and what level of underpayment was identified as a result of each of these inspections. [165826]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The number of cases completed and arrears identified since the introduction of the minimum wage, where a complaint had not been received, are provided in the following table:

  Number of cases

  Arrears identified (£)

  1999–2000

  2,532

  158,839

  2000–01

  4,742

  1,025,333

  2001–02

  3,655

  1,206,898

  2002–03

  4,284

  1,043,706

  2003–04

  3,655

  1,205,674

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets have been set for the national minimum wage compliance teams with regard to the investigation of complaints; and whether these have been met for each year since the introduction of the minimum wage. [166739]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Our Service Level Agreement with the Inland Revenue requires them to investigate every complaint made to the National Minimum Wage helpline each year and they do so.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason there has been no systematic evaluation of the use and efficacy of the formal powers available to national minimum wage compliance officers in response to the recommendations of the fourth report of the Low Pay Commission. [166740]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The assumption underlying this question is incorrect. The Government are currently reviewing the enforcement powers available to them and will cover this point in future evidence to the Low Pay Commission.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress being made by, and conclusions drawn from, the local enforcement pilot projects for the national minimum wage. [166741]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Following recommendations made in the Low Pay Commission's second report seven local enforcement projects were launched between March 738W
  and September 2001. Three of these met with limited success and it was decided with our partners that they should close.

  Four of the projects are still running; we will be evaluating their effectiveness over the coming months and will cover this issue in future evidence to the Low Pay Commission.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will break down those employees affected by cases of underpayment of the national minimum wage brought to the attention of the Inland Revenue by(a) sex, (b) age group, (c) ethnicity and (d) region for each year since the introduction of the minimum wage. [166742]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following table provides details of the number of workers that were found to be paid below the minimum wage following an Inland Revenue investigation.

  Number of workers

  2001–02

  10,378

  2002–03

  7,373

  2003–04

  9,431

  No information on the number of workers in this category was held prior to 2001–02. The Inland Revenue only holds information relating to workers being underpaid by sex, age group and region in connection with cases that originated with a workers' complaint. This information is set out in the joint DTI/Revenue Annual Reports on the minimum wage; copies of recent reports can be found on www.dti.gov.uk/er/nmw. No information is held in relation to ethnicity of the workers concerned.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will break down by industry the employers found to be not complying with the national minimum wage provisions by industry for each year since the introduction of the minimum wage. [166743]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following table provides details of the number of employers investigated by the Inland Revenue where non-compliance with the minimum wage was found.

  Number of employers

  1999–2000

  1,280

  2000–01

  2,119

  2001–02

  1,937

  2002–03

  1,996

  2003–04

  2,211

  Further information on the breakdown by industry in connection with cases that originated with a worker's complaint is set out in the joint DTI/Revenue Annual Reports.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the prevalence of re-offending in relation to employer non-compliance with the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. [166744]
  739W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  As part of the post evaluation assurance programme, officers re-visit a number of employers to ensure continued compliance with the national minimum wage.

  As part of the first evaluation undertaken in August 2002, 87 cases were selected for revisiting. Of these 71 employers were found to be complying (82 per cent.). As part of a second evaluation undertaken in March 2003, 95 per cent. Where appropriate the Revenue take formal enforcement action at an early stage where an employer has re-offended.

  DTI and Inland Revenue are presently working on a strategy to use the prosecution powers, contained in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to tackle, among others, any employers that are found to repeatedly re-offend.

  Newspaper Distribution
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the newspaper distribution network. [167512]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The arrangements for the distribution of newspapers are a commercial matter for the industry, operating within the relevant legal and regulatory framework.

  Night Shift Workers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the benefits to residents of Birkenhead of new rights for night-shift workers. [166502]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations came into force on 1 October 1998. The regulations limit working time to 48 hours per week averaged over a 17-week reference period. For night workers the limit is eight hours per day on average, including overtime where it is part of a night worker's normal hours of work. There is no opt-out from the night working time limit.

  Night workers are entitled to 11 hours rest between working days, one day's rest per week, and a 20-minute in work rest break if the working period is longer than 6 hours.

  All night workers should be offered a free health assessment before they start working nights and thereafter at regular intervals for as long as they are working nights. The health assessments should take account of the nature of the work and the restrictions on a worker's working time under the regulations. Workers who suffer from problems as a result of working at night should as far as practicable be offered alternative day work.

  All workers are entitled to four weeks paid annual leave. There is no specific data available for night-shift workers in Birkenhead.

  Post Office
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the outcome and lessons learned review of the Post Office Urban Reinvention 740W
  programme following its conclusion will include an examination of the extension of the flexibility currently covering the rural network to urban areas. [166819]

  Mr. Timms
  Government policy for the post office network is guided by the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit report on "Modernising the Post Office Network", published in June 2000. The report identified the different nature of the challenges facing the network in urban and rural areas, and there does not appear to be a case at present for adopting the approach being applied in rural areas to the urban network.

  Rationalisation is necessary in urban areas where there are too many post offices for all of them to survive on the current levels of business available.

  Recognition Ballots
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many allegations of intimidation by(a) trade unions and (b) employers during recognition ballots were made in the last 12 months. [166989]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government are aware of concerns on the part of unions and employers of intimidation during recognition ballots, and sought further evidence in order to gain a better idea of the scale of the problem. Over a dozen allegations have been directly brought to my attention in the last 12 months as a result of this process, the majority of which have alleged intimidation by employers.

  Wind Farms
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many planning applications for wind farms in coastal waters of the United Kingdom have been made in(a) the first round and (b) the second round; and if silt will list the (i) persons and (ii) organisations who have been consulted on each application. [168093]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has received 12 planning applications in relation to English and Welsh waters under the first round of offshore wind farms but none in relation to the second round. Of these six consents have been granted under the Electricity Act for the Scroby Sands, North Hoyle, Rhyl Flats, Barrow, Kentish Flats and Burbo Bank offshore wind farms and a further four have been granted Orders under the Transport and Works Act for the Lynn, Inner Dowsing, Cromer and Gunfleet Sands offshore wind farms. Consent application for the Teesside and Shell Flats offshore wind farms are currently under consideration.

  Depending whether or not the development was in English or Welsh waters either English Nature, the Countryside Agency and English Heritage or the National Assembly for Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales and Cadw Welsh Historic Monuments were consulted. Additional consultees included the Civil Aviation Authority, Crown Estate, Environment Agency, Health and Safety Executive, Ministry of Defence, Radiocommunications Agency, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Chamber of Shipping (but not in the case of Scroby Sands and North Hoyle), Royal Yachting Association (but not in the case of Scroby

  741W
  Sands or North Hoyle), Trinity House Lighthouse Services, National Federation of Fisherman's Organisations, the relevant local authority and sea fisheries committee and the local port or harbour authority where appropriate. Both the Chamber of Shipping and the Royal Yachting Association were added to the consultee list following representations to the Department for Transport and the DTI. In addition to those listed any organisation including members of the public can comment on planning applications as each application is subject to a formal public consultation period and must be advertised in local newspapers. All comments received will be taken into account before any decision is made on a specific proposal.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the risk of obstruction to the Port of London from the London Array wind farm; and what representations she has received on the issue from the maritime industry. [168356]

  Mr. Timms
  The developer of the London Array wind farm in seeking consent for the project must make a thorough assessment of the potential impact of the proposed installation on navigation and ports. The developer must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State in the case of an Order under the Transport and Works Act or the Secretary of State for Transport in the case of a Coast Protection Act 1949 consent that their development, in combination with others in the vicinity, does not present a danger or significant obstruction to navigation. In reaching that decision either Secretary of State take advice from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Port of London Authority. Any other organisation or person who has an interest in the matter may make representations to the relevant Minister which will be taken into account in the decision-making process.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the extent of interference with maritime navigational instruments from wind farms placed in UK territorial waters. [168357]

  Mr. Timms
  It is important that wind farms do not compromise safety by interfering with ship or search and rescue communications systems. The Government have given an assurance in the House of Lords that it will carry out a study on this subject.

  The study will draw on international experience, for instance in Denmark, and we will learn as much as possible from our own installation The offshore wind farm at North Hoyle can be used as a test facility to provide an input into the study. The study is a priority and work will begin as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will require that the costs of any navigational aids required to prevent collision with windmills positioned in UK territorial waters are met by the operators of wind farms. [168358]

  Mr. Timms
  The costs of providing navigational aids to prevent vessels colliding with offshore installations is to be met by the developers. The General Lighthouse Authorities set the standard for such marking and will 742W
  monitor its provisions. Developers may also expect to meet the reasonable costs of altering existing aids to navigation if required as a result of their installations.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations she has(a) undertaken and (b) planned with maritime groups concerned about the impact of offshore wind farms on maritime navigation. [168359]

  Mr. Timms
  I had a useful and productive meeting with representatives of the shipping, port and marine aggregates industries on 16 March this year about the second round of offshore wind farms planned for the Greater Wash, Thames Estuary and North West.

  These industries have had an opportunity to make their views known on the Department's plans for offshore wind farming. In November 2002, the Department issued a consultation paper, Future Offshore: A Strategic framework for the offshore wind industry. As a result, the Department decided that the future allocation of leases for sites for offshore wind farms would take place in a structured series of bidding rounds, following a strategic environmental assessment of the defined areas of the sea selected for potential development.

  In May 2003 the Department consulted on an environmental report which assessed the impact of wind farm development in three strategic areas—the Greater Wash, outer Thames Estuary and the North West (from North Wales to the Solway Firth)—on a range of matters including maritime navigation. Following this consultation the Department asked The Crown Estate to arrange a bidding round for site leases in these three strategic areas, with the exception of a coastal strip of 8 to 13 kms wide, which was excluded because of the particular sensitivity to development of shallow coastal waters. The Crown Estate announced before Christmas last year that it had offered site leases for 15 wind farms.

  The developers of these proposed wind farms must obtain statutory planning consents from Government before they can be built. The Department has already organised one workshop and is planning a series of further meetings to bring together the developers with the main stakeholders, including representatives of the maritime community, who should be consulted in preparing an environmental impact assessment of the project. When a formal planning application for the project is received the Department will consult a range of organisations including those representing shipping and port interests.

TREASURY

  Annuities
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has recently received about the reform of annuities. [167684]

  Ruth Kelly
  Out of the 209 responses only 14 directly addressed the reform of annuities. And about half of these wanted the annuity rules finessed rather than abolished.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total number of live births was in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in each year since 1992. [168159]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to David Willetts, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your request for the number of live births in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland in each year since 1992. (168159)

  The latest year for which figures are available for all four countries is 2002. The information requested is shown in the attached table for the years 1992–2002.

  Provisional 2003 figures are available for Scotland and Northern Ireland. These are also shown in the table. The 2003 figures for England and Wales will be published on 13 May 2004.

  The figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the appropriate national office. They have been extracted from publications produced by the General Register Office for Scotland and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.

  Number of live births in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland 1992–2003

  Northern

  Scotland1

  England2,3

  Wales3,4

  Ireland5

  1992

  65,789

  651,784

  37,523

  25,354

  1993

  63,337

  636,473

  36,578

  24,722

  1994

  61,656

  628,956

  35,366

  24,098

  1995

  60,051

  613,257

  34,477

  23,693

  1996

  59,296

  614,184

  34,894

  24,382

  1997

  59,440

  608,202

  34,520

  24,087

  1998

  57,319

  602.111

  33,438

  23,668

  1999

  55,147

  589,468

  32,111

  22,957

  2000

  53,076

  572,826

  31,304

  21,512

  2001

  52,527

  563,744

  30,616

  21,962

  2002

  51,270

  565,709

  30,205

  21,385

  20036

  52,408

  n/a

  n/a

  21,648

  1 Numbers of live births occurring in Scotland, registered in the year stated.

  2 Numbers of live births occurring anywhere in England and Wales to mothers usually resident in England, in the year stated. A small number of births from the previous year, which were late in being registered are also included.

  3 There are around 200–400 births each year that occur in England and Wales that are to non-residents of England and Wales. These births are excluded from these figures.

  4 Numbers of live births occurring anywhere in England and Wales to mothers usually resident in Wales, in the year stated. A small number of births from the previous year which were late in being registered are also included.

  5 Numbers of live births occurring in N Ireland to resident mothers, registered in the year stated.

  6 Provisional.

  Sources:

  Office for National Statistics

  General Register Office for Scotland

  Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency

  Child Carers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether nannies count as registered child carers for the purposes of the Budget proposal whereby companies'744W
  contributions of up to £50 per week to the cost of a registered child carer are exempt from taxation as a benefit in kind. [168148]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 381W, about nannies employed by parents with disabled children. That answer applies to nannies generally.

  Children (Statistics)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total number of children in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland aged under five years was in each year since 1992; and what forecasts he has made for future years. [168163]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to David Willetts, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the total number of children in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland aged under five years for each year since 1992, and what forecasts have been made for the future. (168163)

  Attached is a table showing mid-year population estimates for 1992–2002 and mid-year population projections for 2003–2012 of children aged 0–4 inclusive for each constituent country of the UK.

  Estimated and projected population of children aged under 5 years 1992–2002 (estimated), 2003–2012 (projected), constituent countries of the UK1

  Thousand

  Year2,3

  England4

  Wales4

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  1992

  3,244.9

  191.1

  325.1

  130.8

  1993

  3,227.8

  188.6

  323.0

  128.8

  1994

  3,218.1

  187.4

  322.2

  126.8

  1995

  3,185.0

  183.8

  318.3

  124.6

  1996

  3,126.7

  179.5

  310.1

  122.9

  1997

  3,086.2

  177.1

  302.7

  121.6

  1998

  3,050.2

  174.7

  296.4

  120.4

  1999

  3,018 4

  172.1

  290.3

  119.2

  2000

  2,978.1

  169.6

  283.2

  117.3

  2001

  2,920.6

  167.2

  276.3

  114.7

  2002

  2,864.0

  162.8

  268.5

  112.5

  2003

  2,843.2

  159.9

  263.4

  110.3

  2004

  2,834.3

  158.0

  258.4

  108.4

  2005

  2,840.2

  157.1

  255.2

  107.3

  2006

  2,860.6

  156.6

  252.3

  106.8

  2007

  2,880.2

  157.6

  249.9

  106.4

  2008

  2,883.4

  158.2

  246.6

  106.0

  2009

  2,885.5

  158.8

  244.1

  105.9

  2010

  2,890.4

  159.3

  242.4

  105.9

  2011

  2,898.2

  159.9

  241.3

  106.1

  2012

  2.908.4

  160.4

  240.9

  106.3

  1 Individual country estimates shown in the table cannot be added to give a UK total, since, rounding errors would occur.

  2 Mid-year population estimates from 1992–2002.

  3 2002-based national population projections from 2003–12.

  4 Interim revised population estimates from 1992–2000 for England and Wales only.

  Sources:

  Office for National Statistics.

  General Register Office for Scotland.

  Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Civil Servants
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the towns and cities which have been assessed by Sir Michael Lyons for possible relocation of civil servants from London which have been short-listed; how many locations will be selected; when he will make an announcement; and if he will make a statement. [167282]

  Mr. Boateng
  In taking forward the Government's relocation programme, choice of locations will be for each department to determine based on a sound business case which aims to secure greater efficiency, improved public service delivery and better value for money for the taxpayer.

  The independent King Sturge research commissioned by Sir Michael Lyons in his review provides an assessment of the attributes and qualities of different locations outside London and the South East. The assessment, details of which may be found in Chapter 8 of his report, is an illustrative guide for departments and public bodies relocating functions or considering dispersal out of the capital and by no means intended to be prescriptive or exhaustive.

  In submitting relocation proposals to Sir Michael Lyons' Review, some departments have indicated an initial preference for certain locations. There are show in Chart 6.1 of Sir Michael's report.

  The Government will come forward with detailed proposals for monitoring and implementing dispersal plans as part of the 2004 Spending Review.

  Council Tax
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for(a) 1997 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available the number of householders paying more in council tax than income tax. [166525]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 26 April 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the number of householders paying more in council tax than income tax in 1997 and currently. I am replying in his absence. (166525)

  Estimates have been produced from the Office for National Statistics' analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income" published on the National Statistics website on October 21st 2003 at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/taxesbenefits.

  Based on information provided by respondents to the survey the number of households in Great Britain prying more in net council tax than in income tax was approximately 4.8 million in 1997/98 and 5.5 million in 2001/02. More recent information is not yet available. Net council tax is defined as gross council tax less reported council tax benefits and discounts. Please note that these figures refer to the total tax paid by households (which may contain more than one person paying income tax) rather than by householders.

  The analysis includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey. This is a sample survey covering about 7,500 households in the UK and, as with any statistical sample survey, estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Sea Bass
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to ensure that sea bass(a) served at functions at which he is the host and (b) used in Treasury catering outlets is sourced from hand-line fishermen rather than pair trawlers. [167545]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury's catering contractor sources foodstuffs with the aim of obtaining best value for the customer.

  Economic Inactivity
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men aged 50 to 64 years and (b) women aged 50 to 59 years were not in employment in each year since 1997. [168155]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment among men and women aged over 50. (168155)

  The attached table gives estimates of the number of men aged 50 to 64 years and women aged 50 to 59 years not in employment for three month periods ending February each year from 1998 to 2004, the most recent periods for which this information is available.

  Estimates are taken from the Office for National Statistics' Labour Force Survey (LFS). As with any statistical sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

  Number of people who are not in employment in the United Kingdom (not seasonally adjusted)—Men aged 50–64 and women aged 50–59, three month periods ending February, 1998–2004

  Thousand

  Not in employment1

  Unemployed

  Economically inactive

  Men aged 50–64 and Women aged 50–59

  1998

  2,855

  273

  2,582

  1999

  2,833

  269

  2,564

  2000

  2,896

  261

  2,635

  2001

  2,842

  226

  2,615

  2002

  2,849

  209

  2,640

  2003

  2,777

  227

  2,550

  2004

  2,715

  198

  2,517

  Men aged 50–64

  1998

  1,532

  200

  1,332

  1999

  1,520

  191

  1,329

  2000

  1,578

  190

  1,388

  2001

  1,526

  166

  1,360

  2002

  1,533

  145

  1,389

  2003

  1,491

  163

  1,327

  2004

  1,448

  135

  1,313

  Women aged 50–59

  1998

  1,323

  73

  1,251

  1999

  1,313

  78

  1,235

  2000

  1,318

  70

  1,247

  2001

  1,316

  61

  1,255

  2002

  1,316

  65

  1,251

  2003

  1,286

  64

  1,222

  2004

  1,268

  63

  1,204

  1 Not in employment includes unemployed and economically inactive

  Source:

  ONS-Labour Force Survey

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the figures for(a) adult and (b) youth long-term unemployment in Liverpool, Walton were in each year between 1997 and 2003. [166973]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment. (166973)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Liverpool, Walton Parliamentary Constituency.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (ISA) for local areas including parliamentary constituencies.

  The attached table gives the annual average number of people claiming ISA for over 12 months, and the annual average number of these claimants aged 18 to 24 years, in the Liverpool, Walton constituency, for each year since 1997. The data are not seasonally adjusted.

  Annual average numbers of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for at least 12 months1—Liverpool, Walton parliamentary constituency, 1997–2003

  All claimants

  Claimants aged 18–24

  1997

  2,229

  472

  1998

  1,814

  323

  1999

  1,398

  114

  2000

  1,060

  32

  2001

  866

  21

  2002

  774

  38

  2003

  660

  38

  1Computerised claims only.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in Liverpool, Walton in each year from 1997 to 2003. [166965]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len cook to Mr. peter Kilfoyle, date 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in Liverpool, Walton parliamentary constituency. [166965]

  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records the numbers of unfilled vacancies in the Liverpool travel-to-work area on average for the years 1997 to 2000 and for the latest available 12-month period, to April 2001, were as follows. These figures represent only a proportion of all the vacancies available, as not all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.
  748W

  Average number of unfilled vacancies recorded at Jobcentres in Liverpool travel-to-work area 1997–2000, and 12 month period ending April 2001

  Number of vacancies

  1997

  4,330

  1998

  5,472

  1999

  5,795

  2000

  5,926

  May 2000 to April 2001

  3,328

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus administrative records.

  Figures are not available for the Liverpool, Walton constituency alone because of the practice of notifying some vacancies centrally, with one Jobcentre taking vacancies for others in the same district.
  Jobcentre vacancy statistics for May 2001 onwards were withdrawn from Nation. Statistics in September 2001 as a result of distortions to the data which occurred following the introduction of new administrative procedures by Jobcentre Plus. Comparable figures for vacancies for later years are therefore unavailable. Results from the ONS Vacancy Survey were released as National Statistics from July 2003, but are not available for local areas.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Liverpool, Walton were registered unemployed in each year between 1997 and 2003. [166966]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment. (166966)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Liverpool, Walton Parliamentary Constituency.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including parliamentary constituencies.

  The table below gives the annual average number of JSA claimants for the Liverpool, Walton constituency for each year since 1997 to 2003.

  Number of claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance in the Liverpool, Walton parliamentary constituency, 1997–2003

  Number of claimants

  1997

  5,260

  1998

  4,745

  1999

  4,242

  2000

  3,858

  2001

  3,538

  2002

  3,328

  2003

  3,077

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in Heywood and Middleton in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [168515]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  749W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Dobbin, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in Heywood and Middleton. (168515)

  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records the number of unfilled vacancies notified to Jobcentres in Heywood and Middleton was 378 on average during 1997. This represents only a proportion of all the vacancies available, as not all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.

  Jobcentre vacancy statistics were withdrawn from National Statistics in September 2001 as a result of distortions to the data, which occurred following the introduction of new administrative procedures by Jobcentre Plus. Comparable figures for vacancies in 2003 are therefore unavailable.

  Results from the ONS Vacancy Survey were released as National Statistics from July 2003, but are not available for local areas.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of unemployment was in each year since 1997 in Heywood and Middleton. [168519]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Dobbin, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment. (168519)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Heywood and Middleton Constituency.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including parliamentary constituencies.

  The table below gives the annual average number of ISA claimants for the Heywood and Middleton constituency for each year since 1997.

  Number of claimants

  1997

  2,772

  1998

  2,393

  1999

  2,077

  2000

  1,804

  2001

  1,680

  2002

  1,640

  2003

  1,462

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the(a) change and (b) percentage change was in full-time permanent jobs in Heywood and Middleton from 1997 to 31 December 2003; [168520]

  (2) how many new jobs have been created in Heywood and Middleton since 1997. [168521]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Dobbin, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about full-time jobs and jobs created in Heywood and Middleton. (168520, 168521)
  750W
  While statistics of new jobs created are not available explicitly, statistics from surveys enable comparisons to be made of net changes, in numbers of jobs, from year to year.

  The following table shows the information requested, relating to all jobs and full-time jobs, in Heywood and Middleton, for 1997 and the latest year available, 2002. No information is available about whether the jobs were permanent.

  Number of full-time employees and total number of employees1 in Heywood and Middleton parliamentary constituency: 1997 and 2002

  Full-Time

  Total

  Number of employees

  1997

  22,600

  31,300

  2002

  23,800

  32,300

  Change from 1997 to 2002

  Absolute

  1,200

  1,000

  Percentage

  5.4%

  3.1%

  1Employee jobs only, not self-employed jobs.

  Source:

  1997; Annual Employment Survey, rescaled 2002; Annual Business Inquiry (ABI).

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in tourism-related jobs in Heywood and Middleton on the latest date for which figures are available. [168522]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Dobbin, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about tourism-related jobs in Heywood and Middleton. (168522)

  The latest available data, from the 2002 Annual Business Inquiry, shows that the total number of jobs in tourism related industries in Heywood and Middleton was 2,700. This total is obtained by combining figures for those working in the following industries, as identified by Standard Industrial Classification 2003:

  hotels

  restaurants

  bars

  activities of travel agencies

  library, archives, museums etc.

  sporting activities

  other recreational activities.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in Stalybridge and Hyde in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [168767]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. James Purnell, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in Stalybridge and Hyde. (168767)

  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records the number of unfilled vacancies notified to Jobcentres in Stalybridge and Hyde was 316 on average during 1997. This represents only a proportion of all the vacancies available, as not all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.
  751W
  Jobcentre vacancy statistics were withdrawn from National Statistics in September 2001 as a result of distortions to the data, which occurred following the introduction of new administrative procedures by Jobcentre Plus. Comparable figures for vacancies in 2003 are therefore unavailable.

  Results from the ONS Vacancy Survey were released as National Statistics from July 2003, but are not available for local areas.

  Full-time Jobs (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the(a) change and (b) percentage change was in full-time permanent jobs in Manchester, Gorton from 1997 to 31 December 2003;[167476]

  (2) how many new jobs have been created in Manchester, Gorton since 1997.[167477]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about full-time jobs and jobs created in Manchester, Gorton.

  While statistics of new jobs created are not available explicitly, statistics from surveys enable comparisons to be made of net changes in numbers of jobs, from year to year.

  The following table shows the annual average numbers of jobs, and full-time jobs, in Manchester, Gorton for 1997 and 2002, the latest year for which information is available. No information is available about whether these jobs were permanent.

  Annual average number of full-time employees and total number of employees1 in Manchester, Gorton Parliamentary Constituency 1997 and 2002

  Full-time

  Total

  Number of employees

  1997

  9,800

  15,100

  2002

  11,300

  17,800

  Change from 1997 to 2002

  Absolute

  1,500

  2,600

  Percentage

  14.7

  17.5

  1Employee jobs only, not self-employed jobs.

  Source:

  1997; Annual Employment Survey, resealed.

  2002; Annual Business Inquiry (ABI).

  Gershon Report
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Gershon Report will be published. [168399]

  Mr. Boateng
  All Departments continue to work closely with Sir Peter Gershon to prepare detailed efficiency proposals for consideration in the 2004 Spending Review. Departments' agreed efficiency programmes will be published in parallel with the Spending Review settlement.

  Gilts
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the value of gilts maturing in each year from now on. [167337]
  752W
  Ruth Kelly
  The UK Debt Management Office publishes the gilt redemptions profile each quarter in its Quarterly Review. The next issue, for first quarter of 2004, will be available in the week beginning 26 April 2004.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in Burnley in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [167904]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Peter Pike, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in Burnley. (167904)

  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records, the number of unfilled vacancies in the Burnley travel-to-work area was 817 on average during 1997. This represents only a proportion of all the vacancies available, as not all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.

  Jobcentre vacancy statistics were withdrawn from National Statistics in September 2001 as a result of distortions to the data, which occurred following the introduction of new administrative procedures by Jobcentre Plus. Comparable figures for vacancies in 2003 are therefore unavailable.

  Results from the ONS Vacancy Survey were released as National Statistics from July 2003, but are not available for local areas.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in Manchester, Gorton in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [167471]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in Manchester Gorton. [167471]

  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records the number of unfilled vacancies in the Manchester travel-to-work area was 9,767 on average during 1997. This represents only a proportion of all the vacancies available, as not all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.

  Figures are not available for Manchester Gorton alone because the vacancies are allocated to local Jobcentres, not according to constituency boundaries, and because of the practice of notifying some vacancies centrally with one Jobcentre taking vacancies for others in the same district.

  Jobcentre vacancy statistics were withdrawn from National Statistics in September 2001 as a result of distortions to the data, which occurred following the introduction of new administrative procedures by Jobcentre Plus. Comparable figures for vacancies in 2003 are therefore unavailable.

  Results from the ONS Vacancy Survey were released as National Statistics from July 2003, but are not available for local areas.

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the life expectancy at age 65 of(a) a man and (b) a woman (i) 30 years ago, (ii) now and (iii) in 30 years' time [167279]
  753W
  Ruth Kelly
  The following table gives actual and projected expectations of life at age 65 for men and women in the United Kingdom for the calendar years 1974, 2002, 2004 and 2034. 2002 is the latest year for which the data required to calculate actual expectations of life are available. Figures for 2004 and 2034 are calculated using projected mortality rates taken from the latest, 2002-based, population projections for the United Kingdom.

  The expectation of life figures shown are based on the mortality rates experienced (or projected) by age and gender in the years stated and are the number of years people would be expected to live from age 65 if they experienced those mortality rates throughout their remaining lifetimes.

  Expectation of life for men and women at age 65 in the year shown United Kingdom

  Based on data for year

  Men

  Women

  1974 (Actual)

  12.3

  16.2

  2002 (Actual)

  16.1

  19.1

  2004 (Projected)

  16.6

  19.4

  2034 (Projected)

  20.3

  23.0

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  London Marathon (Sponsorship)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether charitable and voluntary organisations in receipt of sponsorship money raised by participants in the London Marathon on 18 April 2004 will be required to pay value added tax; and if he will make a statement. [167283]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 19 March 2004,Official Report, column 25W.

  Donations to a charity, for which nothing is received in return, are VAT-free, even if a charity asks individuals to 'pledge' or 'commit' to raise a certain amount of sponsorship.

  Some charities insist that their runners in the London Marathon pay a registration fee or a minimum amount of sponsorship, before they take part in the race. These charities are, in effect, selling places in the race, so VAT is due, but only on any registration fee or the minimum amount runners have to pay. Any money raised above the minimum amount or registration fee will be free from VAT.

  So, as they have always been able to do, charities can choose whether to organise their activities in this manner, enabling them to recover some of the VAT on the costs associated with the race, or in such a way that no VAT is due on the amount paid to them by runners.

  National Minimum Wage
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many workers in Heywood and Middleton have benefited from the national minimum wage. [168528]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  754W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Dobbin, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of workers in Heywood and Middleton who have benefited from the national minimum wage (NMW). [168528]

  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies are not available.

  However, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) calculates estimates of the number of jobs paid less than NMW rates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions. A guide to measuring low pay and associated articles and data can be found on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=5837&Pos=l&ColRank=l&Rank=272

  Offshore Jobs
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department had with the Department of Trade and Industry concerning off-shoring of UK jobs. [166856]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 21 April 2004]Discussions have been held at Cabinet level and between DTI and Treasury officials. DTI will publish a White Paper on Trade and Investment in summer 2004, which will cover the issue of offshoring. The Treasury, along with others, has provided input into the current consultation.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many press officers were employed in his Department in each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04; what the total cost was in each year; and if he will make a statement. [162850]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 1 April 2004,Official Report, column 1682W.

  It is not possible to provide a total cost for staff employed as press officers on a consistent basis since 1990–91.

  The number of press officers has remained broadly constant since 1992 at eight posts increasing to nine posts from 1 April 2003.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Law Society and other solicitors' representative organisations on the introduction of stamp duty land tax with specific reference to the time taken to fill in individual conveyancing forms needed to meet the duties of stamp duty land tax. 168003]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Inland Revenue have been in discussions with the law societies about all aspects of stamp duty land tax since 2002 and have held meetings to discuss the processes. The time taken to complete the forms has been discussed.

  Tax Coding
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) correct and (b) incorrect notices of

  755W
  coding for those on PAYE were issued for the 2004–05 tax year in (i) January, (ii) February and (iii) March. [167588]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The only known error relating to the 2004–05 notices of coding was in respect of car and fuel benefits. The total numbers of coding notices issued were in the region of: (i) 4.3 million (ii) 7.9 million (iii) 1.3 million; and incorrect: (i) 468 thousand (ii) none (iii) none.

  Tourism-related Jobs (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in tourism-related jobs in Manchester, Gorton on the latest date for which figures are available. [167478]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about tourism-related jobs in Manchester, Gorton.

  The latest available data, from the 2002 Annual Business Inquiry, shows that the average number of jobs in tourism-related industries in Manchester, Gorton was 2,200 during that year.

  This total is obtained by combining figures for those working in the following industries, as identified by Standard Industrial Classification 2003:

  hotels

  restaurants

  bars

  activities of travel agencies

  library, archives, museums etc

  sporting activities

  other recreational activities.

  Unclaimed Assets (Charitable Use)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of unclaimed assets he will be able to apply to charitable purposes; and if he will make a statement. [167601]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: There is currently no official estimate of the number of unclaimed assets or their total value.

  Unemployment
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) percentage and (b) actual change in unemployment was since 1997 in each constituency listed in descending order according to percentage drop and grouped by region. [166678]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  756W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician. I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment. (166678)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment by Parliamentary Constituency.

  However, ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including parliamentary constituencies.

  A table showing the change in the number of JSA claimants in each Parliamentary Constituency from 1997 to 2003 has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the level of unemployment was in Burnley in each year since 1997;[167908]

  (2) what the level of long-term (a) adult and (b) youth employment in Burnley was in each of the last seven years. [168320]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Peter Pike, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about unemployment. (168320, 167908)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Burnley Parliamentary Constituency.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including parliamentary constituencies.

  The attached table gives the annual average number of people claiming JSA for over 12 months, and the annual average number of these claimants aged 18 to 24 years, in the Burnley constituency, for each year since 1997. The table also shows the annual average total number of JSA claimants in the constituency for these years.

  Annual average number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), and number claiming for at least twelve months: Burnley parliamentary constituency, 1997–2003

  claimants for at least 12 months1

  All claimans

  All ages

  Aged 18–24

  1997

  1,531

  220

  23

  1998

  1,413

  153

  12

  1999

  1,538

  163

  6

  2000

  1,301

  122

  2—

  2001

  1,187

  87

  2—

  2002

  1,168

  84

  2—

  2003

  1,091

  74

  2—

  1 Computerised claims only.

  2 Value between 1 and 5, withheld to prevent disclosure.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of unemployment was in each year since 1997 in Manchester Gorton. [167475]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  757W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment in Manchester, Gorton.

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Manchester, Gorton Parliamentary Constituency.

  However, ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (ISA) for local areas including parliamentary constituencies. The table below gives the annual average number of JSA claimants for the Manchester, Gorton constituency for each year since 1997.

  Number of claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance in the Manchester, Gorton parliamentary constituency, 1997–2003

  Number

  1997

  4,688

  1998

  3,963

  1999

  3,602

  2000

  3,224

  2001

  3,017

  2002

  3,099

  2003

  3,137

  The Shadow Economy
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of how much revenue has been lost by the Exchequer as a result of the shadow economy in each year since 1997. [167511]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no reliable overall estimate of the revenue lost as a result of the shadow economy. Lord Grabiner in his review of the hidden economy and the OECD's Centre for Tax Policy and Administration have both concluded that it is a concept difficult if not impossible to measure. The Revenue continues to monitor new developments in this area.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Adventure Capital Fund
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Adventure Capital Fund. [165884]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Adventure Capital Fund was launched in December 2002 to pioneer a new form of long-term investment in community enterprises. The Fund represents a unique partnership between the Government Departments (the Home Office, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Trade and Industry), and several Regional Development Agencies, as funders, and four leading voluntary organisations in the field of social and economic regeneration, as delivery partners. The delivery partners are the Development Trusts Association, the Scarman Trust, the New Economics Foundation and the Local Investment Fund which is the accountable body for the fund.

  The aim of the fund is to demonstrate an effective way of providing 'patient capital' to fill the investment gap faced by community organisations wishing to move
  758W
  from grant dependency to sustainability through developing enterprise. This gap was clearly identified in the Social Investment Task Force report (October 2001) and the more recent Bank of England Report on Finance for Social Enterprise (May 2003).

  In 2003, Home Office Funding totalling £2 million was invested in 10 community enterprises, with a further £375,000 being awarded to 25 organisations in pre-investment business development grants with funding from four Regional Development Agencies (Yorkshire and Humber), East Midlands, East of England and London). In 2004, a total of £4.5 million is available from Home Office assets recovery and the DTI Phoenix Fund, plus some further allocations from RDAs for business development grants. All grant and investment recipients receive one-to-one organisational development support. The cost of this support, of management of the Fund and evaluation of the programme has been met by ODPM's Neighbourhood Renewal Unit.

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a delay to the date for an appeal hearing with the Immigration Service can be granted if a claimant has not received a decision letter on time from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and if he will make a statement. [164214]

  Mr. Browne
  Timeous receipt of the decision letter by the applicant is of no relevance to whether a delay to the date for an appeal hearing may be granted. No appeal hearing can be fixed until an appeal has been lodged. Receipt of a decision determines the start of the time limits that apply to lodging an appeal as set out in my answer to the hon. Member on 13 April 2004,Official Report, 420 column 86W.

  The date of appeal hearings are not the responsibility of the Immigration Service or any other part of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. They are the responsibility of the independent Immigration Appellate Authority. The appeal would not be listed for hearing until it has been received by the Immigration Appellate Authority. A party to the appeal can request an adjournment of the hearing to a later date, but only if they can show good reason why an adjournment is necessary, and have satisfied the adjudicator or Tribunal that the appeal cannot otherwise be justly determined.

  Capacity Building
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he defines the term, capacity building. [165883]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  When dealing with the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS), Capacity Building is about ensuring that Voluntary and Community Organisations (VCOs) have the skills, knowledge, structures and resources to realise their full potential. Capacity building supports and develops VCS infrastructure through the provision of developmental assistance and advice, enabling VCOs to achieve their objectives. It is as much about releasing existing capacity as about developing new capacity.
  759W
  The Government's recent review of community capacity building examined the support needed, particularly at neighbourhood or community level, to increase active citizenship and build strong communities, as key contributors to our broader goal of civil renewal. The resulting consultation paper defined community capacity building as "the activities, resources and support that strengthen the skills and abilities of people and community groups to take effective action and leading roles in the development of their communities". The review findings also recognised the importance of organisational development and culture change within public bodies, to ensure public servants are equipped to engage effectively with communities and the voluntary and community sector.

  Child Sex Offences
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for(a) sexual offences involving minors, (b) prostitution and trafficking involving children and (c) possession of child pornography there were in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [152236]

  Paul Goggins
  The available information is contained in the table. Offences connected with prostitution and trafficking involving children cannot be separately identified in the statistics collected centrally.

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts for sexual offences1 etc. against minors where the age of the victim is identified by the offence, 2000–02—England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Offences

  22000

  2001

  2002

  Sexual offences involving minors

  3,442

  4,095

  4,422

  Child pornography offences

  413

  486

  621

  1Principal offence basis.

  2Excluding Staffordshire.

  Closure Orders
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions Merseyside Courts issued a closure order in the past four months. [165915]

  Paul Goggins
  Merseyside police records show that no closure orders have been issued in Merseyside, although a case is pending under Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.

  Crime (Wirral, South)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in full-time police officers in Wirral, South has been since 1997. [166634]

  Ms Blears
  Information on strength at Basic Command Unit (BCU) level is collected annually and reflects the position at the end of March. Information on BCU strength is only available from 2002.
  760W
  Wirral, South is part of the Wirral Basic Command Unit (BCU). Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the Wirral BCU decreased by 0.9 per cent. (from 515 to 510). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable and within the Wirral BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  Futurebuilders Programme
  Harry Cohen
  Tc ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the timescale for the implementation of the proposed Futurebuilders investment programme; what the mechanism is by which voluntary sector organisations may bid for allocations from this fund; who else will be eligible to bid; and if he will make a statement. [166848]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Futurebuilders Fund is an innovative undertaking, designed to enable voluntary and community organisations to modernise and enhance their capacity to deliver first class public services, particularly to individuals who are not well served by current state or market provision.

  The implementation of the £125 million investment fund will be managed by Futurebuilders England Ltd., a consortium of organisations with experience of funding voluntary and community organisations. The Fund will provide finance to assist voluntary and community organisations, and social enterprises, in their public service work to acquire capital assets through a range of funding solutions, including grants and various forms of loans.

  Futurebuilders England aim to begin their first round of investments this summer. Information about designing the process, the mechanism for bids to the Fund, including investment priorities, the eligibility criteria and application process, is to be made available by Futurebuilders England at an information event they are holding for mainly voluntary and community organisations on Wednesday 5 May.

  Offenders (Supervision)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of whether multi-agency public protection panels have sufficient resources to ensure that those offenders deemed in the high or very high risk categories are properly supervised or under appropriate surveillance. [165184]

  Paul Goggins
  The multi-agency public protection panels are funded as part of the core business of the police and probation services. The two sets of annual reports published so far indicate that arrangements are working well.

  Two pieces of research are currently being conducted into the multi-agency public protection arrangements. We expect to have the findings of both in the autumn. They will help to indicate, among other things, whether existing resources are being best used.

  Paedophilia
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding has been made available for the(a) monitoring and (b) treatment of paedophiles leaving jail. [164046]
  761W
  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 26 March 2004]: The protection of the public from the risks posed by sexual offenders has been strengthened by a number of legislative measures and funding decisions the government has taken. The monitoring and treatment of sexual offenders comprise a range of activities, which the police and probation services co-ordinate through the multi-agency public protection arrangements (the MAPPA). It is not possible to breakdown the costs of each MAPPA activity because they will vary according to the level of risk posed by each offender and their circumstances.

  The multi-agency public protection panels are funded as part of the core business of the police and probation services. The two sets of annual reports published so far indicate that arrangements are working well.

  Pardons
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in policy have taken place since 1997 on the use of free pardons. [166988]

  Paul Goggins
  The Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (which resulted in the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1997) provided those wrongfully convicted who had previously only been able to seek a free pardon with an alternative route of redress. In consequence no free pardons have been issued since 1997 and no changes in policy have been necessary.

  Parole Board
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons were for the increase of £6.5 million in the grant to the Parole Board in the Spring Supplementary Estimates. [165874]

  Paul Goggins
  The Parole Board's grant in aid for 2004–05 is currently £4.215 million and there are no proposals to increase it.

  The higher figure referred to in the Question, includes a notional additional provision shown against the Parole Board. This provision was agreed by the Treasury and is in line with Parliamentary Rules.

  Police
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in full-time police officers in Birkenhead has been since 1997. [166484]

  Ms Blears
  Information on strength at Basic Command Unit (BCU) level is collected annually and reflects the position at the end of March. Information on BCU strength is only available from 2002.

  Birkenhead is part of the Wirral. Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the Wirral BCU decreased by 0.9 per cent. (from 515 to 510). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable and within the Wirral BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  Prisons
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the work of the Sentencing Guidelines Council will contribute to the stabilisation of the prison population. [167365]
  762W
  Paul Goggins
  The work of the Sentencing Guidelines will lead to a greater consistency in sentencing. It will in due course consider guidelines in respect of all criminal offences, which will apply to all courts. The Government have made it clear that prison should only be used for the most serious, dangerous and persistent offenders, and that others are better punished in the community.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were released on 10 March. [161629]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 15 March 2004]: Information on the number of prisoners who were released on 10 March 2004 is not yet available.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisoner rehabilitation programmes; and at whom each is aimed. [157377]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service provide the following offending behaviour programmes which have been accredited by the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel and are aimed at assisting in the rehabilitation process:Enhanced Thinking Skills—A Cognitive Behavioural Programme for male and female, and can be sequenced with another programme.
  Reasoning and Rehabilitation—A Cognitive Behavioural Programme for male and female medium to medium-high risk offenders.
  Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage it—This programme is for medium-risk male offenders convicted of assault, public order or criminal damage.
  Cognitive Self-Change Programme—It is for adult men aged between 24 and 50. They will be high-risk offenders convicted of at least two violent offences.
  Cognitive Skills Booster Programme—A programme for male and female offenders who have already completed a general offending programme.
  Healthy Relationships—A programme for prisoners convicted of domestic violence offences or who have a pattern of relationship problems.

  Sex Offender Treatment Programmes
  Core—The programme is for male medium and high-risk sex offenders.
  Extended—It is for male high and very high-risk sex offenders.
  Adapted—Designed to suit learning-disabled sex offenders across all risk levels.
  Rolling—Programme for male low and medium risk sex offenders, and sex offenders who have completed primary treatment programmes and who are serving long sentences can attend to reinforce learning.
  Booster—Programme for male sex offenders to reinforce learning.

  Drug Treatment Programmes
  Prison Addressing Substance Related Offending (P-ASRO)—Cognitive Behavioural Programme for adult men and young male offenders with low/medium drug dependence and risk of re-offending.
  RAPt—Abstinence based 12 Step programme for adult men, women and young offenders with medium to high drug dependence and risk of re-offending.
  Prison 12 Step programme—For adult men, women and young offenders with medium to high drug dependence and risk of re-offending.
  Substance Treatment Offender Programme (STOP)—Cognitive Behavioural Programme for adult male offenders with medium/high drug dependence and risk of re-offending.

  763W
  Action on Drugs—Cognitive Behavioural Programme for adult men and young male offenders with medium/high drug dependence and risk of re-offending.
  FOCUS—Cognitive Behavioural Programme for adult male offenders with medium/high drug dependence and risk of re-offending.
  Ley Prison Programme—Cognitive Behavioural Programme set in a therapeutic milieu for adult male offenders with medium/high drug dependence and risk of re-offending.
  North West Therapeutic Community—Therapeutic community for adult male offenders with medium/high drug dependence and risk of re-offending.

  In addition the Prison Service provides a range of education programmes and other activities aimed at rehabilitation and increasing the opportunity for prisoners to find employment and accommodation on release.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 721W, on prison education, if he will make a statement on increased partnership working to improve opportunities for learning and skills across the range of prison activities. [162355]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government is investigating the scope for a delivery partnership between the Learning and Skills Council and the Prison Service (and in time the National Offender Management Service)—together with other key players such as Jobcentre Plus-to provide a more flexible, individually focused learning and skills service. The Government is planning to try out new models of partnership and delivery, beginning in the autumn with a small number of pathfinders. Meanwhile, the Government is looking to newly appointed Heads of Learning and Skills to maintain a focus on learning at senior level within each establishment, to help overcome obstacles to communication and joint working across regimes, and to develop imaginative partnerships with organisations, including voluntary organisations, beyond the prison walls which can enhance prisoners' resettlement prospects.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on local strategies and initiatives developed by prisons for older prisoners. [164429]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service does not have a separate national Strategy for older prisoners but seeks to meet the needs of older prisoners through individual circumstances.

  Some local initiatives have been developed, including remedial fitness programmes for older prisoners, at a number of establishments. One establishment has set up an occupational therapy group, which provides prisoners of retirement age with the opportunity to work, do gardening, clean windows or tidy the prison grounds. At least one establishment has installed an activities day room for older prisoners and have developed links with the Salvation Army who run a club for the over 60's. An elderly life sentence prisoner unit designed to accommodate 15 elderly prisoners is scheduled to open in late June 2004 at HMP/YO1 Norwich.
  764W
  Following concerns expressed about the care of elderly prisoners, I have commissioned the Chief Inspector of Prisons to undertake an independent thematic inspection of older prisoners. The report of this inspection is expected to be published in the Summer.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the capital reductions costs for the private finance initiative prison contract became overstated; and what measures will be implemented to prevent a recurrence of overstated capital reduction costs for the contract. [165875]

  Paul Goggins
  There are no capital reductions costs for Private Finance Initiative prisons.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of prisoners were sharing cells designed for single occupancy in each of the last 10 years. [166796]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of prisoners sharing cells designed for one person and the percentage, expressed as a proportion of the average prisoner population, is given in the table. Validated figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.

  Percentage doubling

  Number doubled

  2002–03

  20.4

  14,586

  2001–02

  17.0

  11,440

  2000–01

  17.2

  11,292

  1999–2000

  18.9

  12,222

  1998–99

  18.4

  12,024

  1997–98

  18.2

  11,548

  1996–97

  16.8

  9,498

  1995–96

  16.5

  8,506

  1994–95

  17.1

  8,426

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to transfer the Foundation training Company resettlement programme following the re-rolling of Edmunds Hill Prison. [166867]

  Paul Goggins
  An appraisal of Edmunds Hill is currently taking place following the decision to re-role this establishment. The future of the Foundation Training Company (FTC) resettlement programme at Edmunds Hill is one of the issues under consideration; it is envisaged that the FTC will remain at Edmunds Hill, subject to appropriate funding.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department What the annual average population of(a) HMP Liverpool and (b) HMP Altcourse was in each of the last six years; and what the present population is of each. [166987]

  Paul Goggins
  The population on 31 March 2004 and annual average population in each of the last six years of(a) HMP Liverpool and (b) HMP Altcourse is given in the table.
  765W

  Current and annual average population of Liverpool and Altcourse

  Liverpool

  Altcourse

  31 March 2004

  1,449

  988

  2003

  1,434

  995

  2002

  1,448

  955

  2001

  1,297

  800

  2000

  1,274

  818

  1999

  1,432

  751

  1998

  1,451

  630

  Suicide (Websites)
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will proscribe websites which promote suicide; [161078]

  (2) what discussions he has had with internet service providers concerning suicide websites and chatrooms. [161079]

  Paul Goggins
  We understand the concern that has been expressed about such websites.

  Where they are hosted in the UK, those producing them may be committing an offence under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, which makes it an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure another to commit suicide, or attempt to do so and be liable to prosecution. However the courts have held that simply providing information about committing suicide does not necessarily constitute such an offence.

  More generally, we are in the process of opening up discussion internationally on wider issues of illegal content on the internet. In addition, as part of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England, the Department of Health is working to promote the responsible representation of suicidal behaviour in the media. More generally, we are in the process of opening up discussion internationally on wider issues of illegal content on the internet. In addition, as part of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England, the Department of Health is working to promote the responsible representation of suicidal behaviour in the media.

  Vehicle Data Recorders
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road traffic prosecutions used evidence based on black box vehicle data recorders to indicate the speed of the vehicles involved in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [164532]

  Caroline Flint
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Women in Jail
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were in jail on the latest date for which figures are available. [147363]

  Paul Goggins
  On Friday 16 April 2004 there were 4,625 females in Prison in England and Wales.

  Wormwood Scrubs
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expenditure has been incurred to date 766W
  by the Home Office as a result of (a) injuries, (b) legal costs and (c) damages arising from claims made by prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs during the period November 1992 to October 2001; to how many prisoners damages have been paid; and how many cases remain unresolved. [162632]

  Paul Goggins
  Payments to prisoners and former prisoners arising from claims made between November 1992 and October 2001 at Wormwood Scrubs total £1,275,810. These payments have been made to 56 prisoners, one remains unresolved. The payments are global settlements for injuries and damages. For the same period, the Home Office has paid £289,533 for its legal costs in relation to these claims

  Youth Offending Teams
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the statistical base is for the allocation of resources to youth offending teams for(a) drug and (b) alcohol programmes. [162613]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 22 March 2004]: The Youth Justice Board provide grant funding to Youth Offending Teams for substance misuse work which includes drugs and alcohol. They use a national formula which takes into account each Youth Offending Team area's 10 to 17-year-old population, levels of deprivation based on indices supplied by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and geographical size.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Contraception (Africa)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department is taking through(a) bilateral programmes, (b) EU development assistance programmes and (c) other programmes to increase the percentage of women of reproductive age in Africa who use contraceptives. [167209]

  Hilary Benn
  Over one third of maternal deaths could be avoided if effective family planning services to avoid unwanted pregnancies were available and accessible. The Department for International Development therefore attaches particular importance to increasing women's access to reproductive health (RH) services including family planning. DFID champions reproductive health through our bilateral country programmes either through direct support to the health sector or through general budget support. Under DFID's bilateral programmes, contraceptives are normally provided as an integral part of broader programmes to promote sexual and reproductive health and prevent HIV/AIDS. DFID also supports the strengthening of national systems and capacity to plan, use and monitor supplies of medicines and commodities including for reproductive health. Since 1997 DFID has committed over £1.5 billion to health systems globally.

  DFID spent over £270 million globally on reproductive health and HIV/AIDS programmes in 2002–03, (about two thirds of this support was targeted at sub-Saharan Africa), and is one of the leading bilateral providers of condoms (for men and women) and other forms of contraception to developing countries. Many

  767W
  of DFID's HIV/AIDS programmes include large components for social marketing of condoms. In Nigeria we have committed £52.8 million for a condom social marketing programme that combines procurement and distribution with encouraging behaviour change, communication and capacity building.

  The UK's significant contributions to the European Commission Development Budget and the European Development Fund cannot be tracked back specifically for use on Reproductive Healthcare in Africa. Most EC resources are allocated by region or country in response to country government's own priorities, and details of the proportion of UK support for reproductive health are not available centrally. However, the UK has been working hard within the EU to protect the principles agreed at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo in 1994. The Cairo Agenda redefined sexual and reproductive health and rights. DFID and our EU partners are pushing to generate more political commitment for reproductive health and reproduction health rights, in for as such as the World Health Assembly and the UN Commission for Population, and Development to protect the gains made in Cairo which are now under pressure. The Netherlands are planning to highlight reproductive health and the need to have contraception readily available in their forthcoming EU Presidency. The UK has been in discussions with the Netherlands about how to maintain the momentum around this subject during the UK's Presidency of the EU in 2005.

  DFID is a major donor to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and supports the Fund's work to provide the widest achievable range of safe and effective family planning and contraceptive methods. DFID also provides support to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which is the world's largest voluntary reproductive health organisation.

  EU Development Assistance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if he will list the non-governmental organisations involved in the delivery of 2002 EU Development Assistance projects in(a) Benin, (b) Burkina Faso, (c) Cape Verde, (d) Cote d'lvoire, (e) Guinea, (f) Guinea Bissau, (g) Liberia, (h) Mali, (i) Mauritania, (j) Niger, (k) Nigeria, (l) Senegal, (m) Sierra Leone, (n) the Gambia and (o) Togo; [167192]

  (2) if he will list the non-governmental organisations involved in the delivery of the 2002 EU development assistance projects to (a) Cameroon, (b) the Central African Republic, (c) Chad and (d) Sao Tomé and Principe. [167215]

  Hilary Benn
  The participation of NGOs in the implementation of the European Union's (EU) efforts to eradicate poverty is vital. A substantial proportion of EU development expenditure goes to NGO's whether through co-financing arrangements, thematic and geographic budget lines or the European Development Fund.

  I have listed the European NGOs, which received a grant from the EU budgetary line for NGO co-financing for operations in the countries you requested to. This does not include information about NGOs who received funding
  768W
  from other budget lines, such as EDF and Food Security. The EU does not collate this information centrally and it would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  European NGOs involved in co-financing operations
  Agir-Association Generale Des Intervenants Retraites
  Aide Odontologique Internationale—AOI
  Amitie Embrun Tiers Monde (Ex Amitie Embrunais Bilbalogo)
  Assoc. Amici Stato Brasiliano Espirito Santo—Centro Dl Collabora—Zione Comunitaria
  Auteuil International
  Centro De Informacao E Documentacao Amilcar Cabral
  Centro Regionale D'Intervento Per La Cooperazione
  Chretiens Pour Le Sahel
  Comite Catholique Contre La Faim Et Pour Le Developpement
  Comunita' Impegno Servizio Volontariato
  Cooperazione Internazionale
  Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevoelkerung
  Deutsche Welthungerhilfe Ev
  Ente Nazionale Giuseppini Del Murialdo (Engim)
  Espoir Sans Frontieres Espoir Lutte Contre Uinfanticide (Elib)
  Essor
  Gruppo Laici Terzo Tondo
  Handicap International (Fr)
  Handicap International (Be)
  Institut Europeen De Cooperation Et De Developpement
  Intermon Oxfam
  Movimento Laici America Latina
  Pharmaciens Sans Frontieres—Comite International
  Protos—Projectgroep Voor Technische
  Ontwikkelingssamenwerking
  Rongead—Reseau Des Ong Europeennes Sur Les Questions Agro-Alimentaires
  Et Le Developpement
  Sante Sud
  Sight Savers International
  Stichting Cordaid
  Verein Zur F. Staedtepartnerschaft Freiburg—Wiwili
  Veterinaires Sans Frontieres
  Voluntary Services Overseas
  Vredeseilanden—Coopibo
  Welthaus Bielefeld E. V

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the delivery of aid to(a) Falluja and (b) Najaf in Iraq in April. [167373]

  Hilary Benn
  Iraqi Ministries, United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, NGOs and Iraqi citizens have been working together to assist people affected by conflict in Falluja. For example: the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have provided blankets, mattresses, food, water, stoves, plastic sheets and emergency health kits for Fallujans outside the city; the Iraqi Ministry of Health, together with the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Red Cross and Red Crescent and NGOs, have been working to ensure that sufficient medical supplies and assistance reach hospitals and clinics inside Falluja; and NGOs
  769W
  and local groups have distributed items including cooking gas, sanitation kits and hygiene buckets. The British office in Baghdad is in contact with a local NGO about providing DFID funding for urgent humanitarian supplies.

  Iraqi Ministries, UN agencies, the ICRC and others have made preparations for the provision of emergency humanitarian assistance, if required in other Iraqi cities including Najaf. For example, 1.5 tonnes of medical and surgical supplies were distributed early April to the Najaf health directorate.

  An emergency coordination group has been established to ensure the effective coordination of emergency assistance in Iraq. Its membership includes UN agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and NGOs.

  Kenya
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the recent flooding in Western Kenya. [167817]

  Hilary Benn
  Recent heavy rains have led to flooding in Western Kenya as in other parts of the country. It is estimated that approximately 14,000 people are affected in western Kenya. The response is being managed by the Government, with assistance from the Kenya Red Cross Society (KRCS). The Government ire distributing food to seven districts, and KRCS is distributing non-food items. Neither are currently asking for additional assistance from the international community. The Kenya Meteorological Office is predicting that average to above average rains will continue in parts of western Kenya. The Rapid Onset Disaster Committee is planning for a potential figure of 60,000 affected, should the heavy rains continue into May. If this were to happen, then the Government of Kenya may ask the World Food Programme and others for assistance. DFID Kenya will continue to in monitor the situation closely.

  Millennium Development Goals
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the number of new jobs that need to be created annually in the developing world if the Millennium Development Goal to eradicate extreme poverty is to be achieved. [167210]

  Hilary Benn
  The MDG for income poverty targets a reduction by 50 per cent. of the proportion of the population living in extreme poverty (defined as an income of less than US$1 per capita per day in purchasing power parity terms) between 1990 and 2015. The World Bank's1 latest estimates indicate that about 1.1 billion people worldwide live in extreme poverty. If projected growth remains on track global poverty rates will fall to 13 per cent.—less than half the 1990 level.

  Reliable estimates of the number of new jobs required to eliminate extreme poverty do not exist. The majority of poor people in developing countries are outside formal employment, and progress, towards the MDG can be achieved by improving opportunities in subsistence agriculture and the informal economy as well as by creating more formal sector jobs. Thus
  770W
  poverty can be reduced without necessarily involving the creation of additional formal sector jobs—for example, India has witnessed a sharp fall in poverty with little expansion of the formal sector job market. While a well-paid job can lift an entire household out of poverty, a poorly paid job may not lift anyone out of poverty. The International Labour Organisation (ILO)'s 'Decent Work' agenda2 emphasises that the quality as well as the quantity of jobs is important. The rate of economic growth is the most critical factor in determining the attainment of this MDG.
  1 World Bank, "Global Economic Prospects 2004", Chapter 1 page 45.
  2 ILO, "Working Out Of Poverty", 2003.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of progress towards the Millennium Development Goal of reducing maternal mortality by 75 per cent. by 2015. [167212]

  Hilary Benn
  The Millennium Development Goal of improving maternal health has a target to reduce the maternal mortality ratio (the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births) by three-quarters between 1990 and 2015. This is equivalent to an annual reduction of 5.4 per cent. Approximately 529,000 women die annually from complications of pregnancy and childbirth.

  Trends in maternal mortality are difficult to measure, but available data suggest that progress in reducing the maternal mortality ratio has been slow in recent years. With an average annual decline of 3.2 per cent. in the 1990s, the developing world as a whole is off target. While some countries have reduced maternal mortality, data suggest that some parts of Africa have seen an increase. A recent World Bank analysis suggests that only 17 per cent. of developing countries, containing 32 per cent. of the world's population, are on track to achieve the target.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of progress towards the Millennium Development Goal of reducing infant mortality by 66 per cent. by 2015. [167214]

  Hilary Benn
  The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) for child health is to reduce the rate of mortality in children under five by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. The indicator that measures progress against this target directly is the under-five mortality rate. Infant mortality (deaths of children under one year old) and the proportion of one-year old children immunised against measles are used as intermediate indicators of progress.

  Globally child mortality is declining, and between 1990 and 2000 the under-five mortality rate was reduced from 92 to 82 deaths per 1,000 live births. The infant mortality rate declined from 64 to 57 deaths per 1,000 live births in the same period. There is, however, considerable regional variation in the rates of progress being made. Latin America is expected to meet the MDG target, but there has been much slower progress in South Asia, and slowest progress in sub-Saharan Africa, which accounts for over half of all under-five

  771W
  deaths. Recent World Bank analysis suggests that only 16 per cent. of developing countries are on track to achieve the target.

  Rwanda
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance is being given to help women who were raped during the genocide in Rwanda and who now suffer from HIV/AIDS. [167826]

  Hilary Benn
  HIV/AIDS is a serious problem in Rwanda. Rwanda does not yet have the health infrastructure required to effectively deliver anti-retroviral therapy (ART) countrywide. But the Government have produced a comprehensive "Strategic Framework for HIV/AIDS Control" and all the major donors, including the Clinton Foundation, the Global Fund and the World Bank, have committed to support it. This framework includes the progressive provision of ART to all who need it, through a network of health centres. Through a partnership between UNAIDS and five of the leading multinational pharmaceutical companies (the Accelerating Access to HIV/AIDS Care, Treatment And Support Initiative), Rwanda is one of the countries that have reached agreement with manufacturers on significantly reduced drug prices in the context of its national HIV care and treatment plans.

  The UK has committed £25 million through the International Partnership Against AIDS in Africa Programme (IPAA) to increase capacity in certain National HIV/AIDS Commissions, including Rwanda. DFID is currently considering whether we can build on this engagement, to ensure that Rwanda has the capacity to manage and direct the various programmes of support.

  DFIF is also providing direct assistance to the survivors of the genocide through the Government's Survivors Fund (FARG). This assistance is currently running at some £200,000 per annum, and planned additional support up to £850,000 will enable FARG to broaden the services it provides to include advice and counselling on issues around HIV/AIDS.

  I have a specific concern over the inequity in access to Anti-Retroviral Treatment between the defendants and the witnesses at the International Criminal Tribunal (ICTR) for Rwanda, which is considering crimes committed during the genocide. While defendants have access to health care including ART, witnesses generally do not. I wrote to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, asking how the United Nations and the international community could work to resolve this inequity. The UN Secretary General replied, reporting that UNAIDS/WHO were identifying suitable health care providers, but seeking assistance from the UK to fund ART treatment for witnesses. I have responded positively and offered DFID assistance up to £200,000 for ICTR witnesses and others called by the Tribunal to receive healthcare, including ART, from a centre in Kigali.

SCOTLAND

  Boundary Commission for Scotland
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for Scotland to be implemented. [165982]

  Mr. Darling
  The Boundary Commission for Scotland must report to me on its current review before December 2006. As I have said before, it is a matter entirely for the Commission when, within that timescale, it does so. I am required to lay the report before Parliament as soon as may be after its receipt, together with an Order giving effect to its recommendations.

  Commission on the Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on the remit of his Commission on the Scottish Parliament. [165983]

  Mr. Darling
  The remit for the commission on boundary differences and voting systems was discussed with the First Minister before it was finalised.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what budget has been set for the operating costs of his Commission on the Scottish Parliament. [165984]

  Mr. Darling
  budget for the commission on boundary differences and voting systems will be set during the course of this year. The financial provision will come from within current Scotland Office resources.

  Departmental Computers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to update computer(a) hardware and (b) software standard packages used in his Department. [166366]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office shares an information technology system with the Scottish Executive, which is responsible for the administration and maintenance or the system. The Executive has recently completed an upgrade of both computer hardware and standard software packages, including IT equipment used in the Scotland Office.

  Whisky Duties
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Treasury on the proposed introduction of the whisky strip stamp. [166019]

  Mr. Darling
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a range of issues affecting Scotland.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Colombia
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Colombia on tackling organised crime. [167593]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are in regular discussion with the Colombian Government over tackling organised crime, particularly the drugs trade, not least because so much of the cocaine from Colombia finds its way onto our streets with devastating consequences. The drugs trade fuels the armed conflict in Colombia and seriously distorts the country's productive capacity. We will continue to work with the Colombian Government and other countries to end the global scourge of organised crime.

  England Cricket Tour (Zimbabwe)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives from(a) the England and Wales Cricket Board and (b) the International Cricket Council to discuss the proposed cricket tour by the England team to Zimbabwe later this year. [167185]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) officials have been in regular contact with the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB). At the ECB's request my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport and I will be having a meeting with the ECB on 4 May. The FCO has had no meetings with the International Cricket Council on this matter. We would be ready to do so if requested by the ECB.

  EU, Latin America and Caribbean Summit
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will press for the issue of human rights defenders to be on the agenda of the EU-Latin America and Caribbean summit in May. [168818]

  Mr. Rammell
  Preparations for the Summit are well under way, both within the EU and with our Latin American and Caribbean partners. Discussions at the Summit will cover the many shared interests and values of our two regions, including respect for human rights.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the coalition's strategy for replacing soldiers with Iraqi police for law enforcement duties, with reference to(a) provision of appropriate equipment and training and (b) ensuring appropriate knowledge of international standards for law enforcement. [166994]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are now more than 75,000 Iraqi police working around the country. There is an extensive programme to train, equip and mentor both existing and newly recruited police officers in Iraq, in which over 100 British police trainers are involved. While significant progress has been made in many areas in building the capacity of the Iraqi police and ensuring 774W
  that police take the leading role in law and order, the current security challenges mean that there is a continuing need for support from the coalition and Iraqi Civil Defence Force. The Coalition's objective is to hand responsibility for security in Iraq to the Iraq police and other security forces as soon as their capability and security conditions allows.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of President Gayoom's support for the Ba'athist Party of Iraq. [167277]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are aware that President Gayoom has met Saddam Hussein in the past, but have no reason to interpret this as support for the Ba'athist Party of Iraq.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the second source referred to in Paragraph 93 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's report, "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessments", September 2003, was the intelligence based on documentary evidence referred to in Paragraph 89 of the report; and when this second source first reported to the Secret Intelligence Service. [168301]

  Mr. Straw
  The Intelligence and Security Committee's report made clear that the Secret Intelligence Service's judgment about its second source was not affected by doubts about the authenticity of some of the documentary evidence received by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The report also made clear that the second source reported in September 2002.

  Irish Waters (Navigational Aids)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with the Irish Government regarding the cessation of payments from the UK General Lighthouse Fund for the provision of navigational aids in Irish territorial waters; [168259]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) the Department for Transport and (b) the Northern Ireland Office regarding the cessation of payments from the UK General Lighthouse Fund for the provision of navigational aids in Irish territorial waters. [168260]

  Mr. Rammell
  Discussions are on-going between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Transport at official level regarding the cessation of payments from the UK General Lighthouse Fund for the provision of navigational aids in Irish territorial waters. It has been agreed that the Department for Transport should take forward negotiations with the Irish Government. A meeting with the Irish Government is scheduled shortly.

  Latin America
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with the Government of(a) Guatemala, (b) Mexico, (c) Peru and (d) Chile; and if he will make a statement. [167880]
  775W
  Mr. Rammell
  The United Kingdom enjoys good relations, and has regular discussions on a broad range of bilateral and multilateral issues, with the Governments of Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Chile. I myself visited Mexico in October 2003, Chile in December 2003, and Guatemala in January 2004. I hope that I will be able to visit Peru later this year.

  Middle East
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Israeli Government in respect of concluding arrangements for the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes. [167374]

  Mr. Rammell
  We regularly discuss with the Israeli Government issues relating to the Middle East Peace Process. However, the return of refugees is a final status issue and as such must be agreed by negotiation between the two parties. We continue to urge both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to implement their commitments under Phase One of the Roadmap as the best way to get to a negotiated settlement, and to the discussion of such issues which will take place in Phase Three.

  Nepal
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 31 March 2004,Official Report, column 1449W, on the gifting of military equipment to Nepal, what the agreed lines were relating to the planned supply of short take-off and landing aircraft to Nepal; and if he will make a statement. [168175]

  Mr. Straw
  1 refer the right hon. Gentlemen to the reply I gave on 31 March 2004,Official Report, column 1449W. I expect to make a full statement on the supply of two unarmed STOL aircraft once a final decision is made. A departmental minute is to be laid before the House in the near future.

  The agreed lines used by the embassy in Kathmandu in responding to press queries in December 2003 were as follows:
  "The UK Government is committed to supporting the Government of Nepal and working to end the suffering of the Nepalese people. One strand of this support is assistance to the Nepalese Security Forces, including the Royal Nepalese Army, in their efforts to combat Maoist aggression. Our non-lethal support aims to enhance RNA capability across a range of military activities.
  As part of this support the UK plans to provide two Short Take Off and Landing aircraft to the RNA in 2004. There is still some way to go on this process, which will go through the appropriate Parliamentary channels".

  Official Residences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the(a) cost of and (b) charge for an overnight stay is at each ambassador's and high commissioner's official residence; and what rules and protocols govern the calculation of charges to users. [167243]
  776W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 22 April 2004]: We have no record of official guests being charged to stay at residences overseas, although they may be invited to leave a small gratuity for the domestic staff. Costs to the Government would be limited to providing meals for the guests and costs such as utilities, laundry, and subsistence where applicable.

  Seasonal Agricultural Workers
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many seasonal agricultural worker scheme students are awaiting visa processing from(a) Romania and (b) Bulgaria. [168378]

  Mr. Mullin
  The figures for the number of entry clearance applications submitted under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme which still await processing in Romania and Bulgaria are:

  (a) Romania: 0

  (b) Bulgaria: 228

  The consideration of all applications under this scheme has been temporarily suspended at our embassies in Bucharest and Sofia since 30 March.

  Sudan
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Darfur region and the allegations of acts of genocide committed by the Sudanese Government; and what discussions his Department has held with the(a) Sudanese Government, (b) United Nations and (c) EU on the situation. [166995]

  Mr. Mullin
  The reports of systematic attacks on civilians, including rape, pillage and destruction of livelihoods in Darfur are alarming. We have for some time been urging the parties to the conflict to ensure the protection of civilians and to respect the principles set down in International Humanitarian Law. We, and the UN, are agreed that what is happening in Darfur cannot, however, be described as genocide.

  We have lobbied at the highest levels in Khartoum on Darfur, and are it almost daily contact with the Government of Sudan and the Darfur groups. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) spoke to the Sudanese Foreign Minister about Darfur on 24 March, and since then our ambassador in Khartoum has had a number of discussions with him.

  The UN Secretary General and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed Darfur when they met on 15 April. We are in close contact with the UN, both in New York and in Sudan, on Darfur, and the Department for International Development have provided key personnel to support the UN co-ordination there. We are also working closely with the European Commission and our EU partners on this issue.

  A humanitarian ceasefire agreement was signed on 8 April. This is an important step forward in resolving the crisis in Darfur. Work continues on implementation arrangements.

  The Maldives
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet representatives of the Maldivian Democratic Party. [167275]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary has no current plans to meet with the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). However, officials in London and at our High Commission in Colombo (accredited to the Maldives) have met representatives of the MDP several times, most recently on 24 March.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Maldivian nationals are being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. [167276]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This is a matter for the US Government.

  United States Entry Rules
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice is available to UK citizens wishing to travel to the US on the requirements of the US Administration for(a) confidential financial information, (b) availability of visas and (c) grounds for possible deportation. [168251]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All information about US visa and immigration procedures is available from the US authorities through their London Embassy website: www.usembassy.org.uk or by telephone to their Visa Information Service, details of which are available on the website. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) travel advice for the United States also gives information about some aspects of US immigration procedures of which British citizens should be aware when planning a trip to the US. FCO travel advice is available on the FCO's website: www.fco.gov.uk

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to protect the interests of UK citizens wishing to travel to America, with particular reference to visa requirements. [168256]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has expressed his concerns to US Secretary of State Colin Powell about changes to the US Visa Waiver Programme that are due to came into effect on 26 October 2004. As US legislation stands, all British passports issued after 26 October 2004 will require a biometric for the holder to visit the US visa-free after that date. The UK is committed to introducing biometric passports, but not until end-2005. UK Government officials are also in discussions with the relevant US authorities on this issue. We hope that an extension will be granted to the 26 October 2004 deadline, which would minimise disruption to travellers. It is too early to be able to predict the outcome of these discussions. In the interim, some 400,000 UK citizens planning to visit the US would need visas. Those holding passports issued prior to 26 October 2004, provided that they were machine readable, would continue to be able to travel to the US under the Visa Waiver Programme.

TRANSPORT

  Bus Lanes (Burnley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of priority bus lanes have been created in Burnley since 1997. [167884]

  Mr. McNulty
  Four stretches of priority bus lane have been created in Burnley since 1997, on St. James street, Church street, Westway and Padiham road, with a total length of 1.2 km.

  Civil Servants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each civil service grade within his(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies, the total number of staff employed, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) ethnic group (iii) registered disabled and (iv) age group; and how many are registered disabled. [166392]

  Mr. McNulty
  Data on staffing levels in the Civil Service is collected by the Cabinet Office and published in Civil Service Statistics. A copy of Civil Service Statistics, 2002 is available in the Library, and at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics. The 2003 edition will be published in summer 2004.

  Cycle Lanes (Burnley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new cycle lanes have been provided using public funds in Burnley since 1997. [167882]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is not available in the form requested. There are currently 1.3 km of on-road cycle lanes, 6.7 km of off-road cycle paths, and 7.8 km of improved canal towpaths where cycling is allowed, in Burnley. The majority of these have been provided since 1997.

  Cycling (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to encourage cycling in(a) the City of Gloucester and (b) the rest of Gloucestershire. [167596]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department does not hold information for the City of Gloucester specifically, but by the end of the period 2000–01 to 2005–06, Gloucestershire county council and South Gloucestershire council project that they will have spent £4.5 million of Local Transport Plan funding on cycling schemes.

  Both authorities have now drawn up action plans to improve their performance on cycling, building on a review of promotion and provision carried out by the English Regions Cycling Development Team.

  Green Transport Schemes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made on the Department's strategy towards the implementation of green transport schemes. [167974]
  779W
  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: The main focus of the Department's work to promote sustainable travel is by supporting the development and implementation of school and workplace travel plans. However, the Department also promotes and supports other sustainable travel measures such as car clubs and car sharing.

  On 17 September last year, the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Education and Skills published "Travelling to School: An Action Plan" and announced £50 million funding over the next two years to support this. The Action Plan asks schools and local authorities to work together to develop and implement travel plans for all schools before the end of the decade.

  We have also announced the continuation of our £500,000 a year programme of free Site Specific Advice to help organisations develop workplace, tourism and leisure site travel plans.

  Motorcycle Diesel Spillage
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many(a) accidents and (b) fatal accidents involving motorcycles diesel spillage has been found to be a cause or a contributory factor in each of the last three years. [168625]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information does not indicate whether diesel spillage was a cause or contributory factor in accidents. However the following table shows the number of accidents where at least one two wheeled motor vehicle was involved and where oil or diesel was present.

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  2002

  0

  35

  166

  201

  2001

  1

  32

  168

  201

  2000

  1

  37

  178

  216

  Rail Review
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make a report on the current rail review. [168072]

  Mr. McNulty
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, said in his Statement to the House on 19 January, the review's conclusions will be published in the summer.

  Railways
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many peak-time train services serving(a) Chelsfield, (b) Knockholt and (c) Dunton Green (i) there are at present and (ii) are proposed by the Strategic Rail Authority in the Integrated Kent Franchise. [167651]
  780W
  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: The numbers of peak trains (arriving at the London terminus between 0700 and 0959) are:

  present

  proposed

  Chelsfield

  12

  6

  Knockholt

  7

  3

  Dunton Green

  7

  3

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the passenger usage data for(a) Chelsfield, (b) Knockholt and (c) Dunton Green that the Strategic Rail Authority used in their consultation document on the Integrated Kent Franchise, broken down by (i) passengers buying season tickets and those rot and (ii) passengers taking fast peak-hour trains to London and those taking slow, stopping trains in the peak period. [167652]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: This information is not available in the format requested. Ticket information for the year 2002–03 suggests that the average number of passenger journeys to and from these stations per day was:

  Season

  Ordinary

  Total

  Chelsfield

  1,700

  350

  2,050

  Knockholt

  180

  130

  310

  Dunton Green

  110

  40

  150

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assumptions were made by the Strategic Rail Authority in the Integrated Kent Franchise document about(a) current and (b) future capacity in the peak-hour train services between Chelsfield, Knockholt, Dunton Green and London. [167653]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: Based on current rolling stock diagrams, and assumed train formations under IKF, the total number of seats on trains that stop at these stations in the morning peak period will be as follows:

  Current

  Proposed

  Chelsfield

  8,200

  4,620

  Knockholt

  5,300

  2,310

  Dunton Green

  5,300

  2310

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assumptions were made by the Strategic Rail Authority in the Integrated Kent Franchise about the number of peak-time passengers who will be diverted from(a) Chelsfield, (b) Knockholt and (c) Dunton Green to other stations because of the reduction in services; and what plans there are to (i) identify and (ii) address the consequences of diversion of passengers for (A) car parking and (B) disabled access. [167654]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: The modelling work undertaken to date has been at a strategic level. Bidders for the Integrated Kent

  781W
  Franchise will be expected to tailor train capacity and local infrastructure based on their own demand forecasts.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Rail Review is expected to be completed; and when he plans to make a statement. [167973]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, said in his Statement to the House on 19 January, the review's conclusions will be published in the summer.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the owners or rolling stock leased by train operators. [168181]

  Mr. McNulty
  Virtually all the rolling stock leased by passenger train operating companies is owned by either Porterbrook Leasing, HSBC, Angel Trains or Halifax Asset Financing.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement or the progress being made in improving disabled access to trains; [168659]

  (2) if he will bring forward the end date for inaccessible trains to 2020. [168662]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations into force in 1999, hundreds of new trains, which comply with the high standards of access for disabled people required by the regulations, have been introduced. These include 1,400 new carriages which have come into service in the last 2½ years. Another 1,000 are due in the next 18 months. In addition, many older trains, while not meeting full RVAR standards already have wheelchair accommodation and other features to assist disabled passengers.

  We have recently consulted on a number of proposals to amend the rail provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. These include setting an 'end date' by which time all rail vehicles would have to comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations. We have not yet taken a final decision on the best date to set. We are currently analysing the consultation responses and looking carefully at the costs and benefits of a range of options, including 2020. We will consult on the draft regulations needed to implement our proposals when the required new primary legislation is introduced in the form of the Disability Discrimination Bill.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rural bus services in Burnley are supported by rural bus grants. [167883]
  Mr. McNulty
  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) is paid to local transport authorities; in the case of Burnley this is Lancashire County Council. It is for the authority to decide which services should by supported with the grant. We understand from the County Council that 2 rural bus services serving Burnley are provided by RBSG. There are a further 7 rural bus services serving Burnley provided through Revenue Support Grant funding.
  782W
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the secretary of state for Transport how many rural bus service in Heywood and Middleton are supported by rural bus grants [168548]

  Mr. McMulty: Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) is paid to local transport authorities, in the case of Heywood and Middleton this is the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (PTE). It is for the with the grant. We understand from the PTE that no bus service in Heywood and Middleton are provided by RBSG as this area is predominantly urban.

  Shipping
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason the Government has not yet complied with the EU Directive on vessel traffic monitoring and information systems. [167634]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The United Kingdom already implements much of what the directive requires. My Department's Maritime and Coastguard Agency held a consultation on draft regulations to implement the remaining requirements, which ended on 23 April. Analysis of responses and introduction of those regulations, amended as necessary, will proceed without delay.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the UK Government will take against ships entering UK ports without International Ship and Port Security Code certification after 1 July. [167635]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport is the Designated Authority to oversee the implementation and compliance of the International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) Code in the United Kingdom.

  Post 1 July implementation deadline, compliance with the ISPS Code will be required to guarantee entry into UK ports. Ships that do not provide evidence of having an International Ship Security Plan will be liable to control measures, which may include denial of entry, detention of a vessel or its expulsion from a port.

  Taxis (Regulation)
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will respond to the Transport Committee's Report on the Regulation of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicle Services in the UK. [168587]

  Mr. McNulty
  We shall respond shortly.

  Unmanned Railway Crossings
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were killed on unmanned(a) pedestrian and (b) vehicular railway crossings in each of the last five years. [167225]

  Mr. McNulty
  Details on the number of people killed on unmanned pedestrian and vehicular railway crossings in the five years 1999–2000 to 2003–04, provided by the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate, are set out in the following table.
  783W

  Unmanned pedestrian level crossings

  Unmanned vehicle level crossings

  1999–2000

  4

  3

  2000–01

  3

  1

  2001–02

  0

  1

  2002–03

  2

  7

  2003–04 (Provisional)

  3

  5

  Further details on accidents at level crossings are contained in the Health and Safety Executive's Annual Reports on Railway Safety, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  US (Visitor Visas)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to publicise the requirements of the US Administration for visitor visas for UK citizens. [168257]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is primarily the responsibility of the US authorities to provide information on their immigration and visa requirements for British citizens. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office gives information through its Travel Advice about certain aspects of US immigration procedures which may be of particular interest to British travellers. This is regularly updated to reflect the latest position and is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website at www.fco.gov.uk.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the upgrading of the Liverpool spur of the West Coast Main Line. [166978]

  Mr. McNulty
  As part of West Coast Route Modernisation, it is planned to upgrade the line progressively between Weaver Junction and Liverpool, with the benefits being delivered from June 2005 onwards. These changes, along with improvements to other sections of the West Coast route, will provide for faster services between Liverpool, London and other key destinations.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total estimated cost is of the West Coast Main Line upgrade; and what proportion of this cost is accounted for by(a) construction, (b) consultants and (c) compensation to train operating companies. [166007]

  Mr. McNulty
  The total estimated cost of the West Coast Main Line project is forecast to be £7.6 billion. The upgrade comprises a large number of individual contracts whose composition is a matter for the contracting parties.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his response to the consultation into the implementation of the Working Time Directive for mobile workers in the transport sector. [165973]
  784W
  Mr. Jamieson
  An announcement on this issue will be made very shortly.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Pension Scheme
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his proposed changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme. [168049]

  Phil Hope
  Draft regulations designed to ensure that the Local Government Pension Scheme in England and Wales remains affordable to employers, members and taxpayers were circulated to interested parties for their comments on 31 March. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, the new provisions will come into force on 1 April 2005. The proposals reflect the policies set out in our June 2003 White Paper "Simplicity, security and choice; working and saving for retirement" (Cm 5835) and are part of a programme of changes to the scheme announced on 23 July 2003. Further measures to modernise the scheme and to ensure its sustainability for the longer term will be circulated later this year.

  Balance of Funding Review
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether interim financial measures will be put in place pending the outcome of the Balance of Funding Review. [168585]

  Phil Hope
  No. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister awaits the report of the Review which is due in the summer. We shall then consider what action is appropriate.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with National Assembly for Wales Government on the(a) Balance of Funding Review and (b) the parallel exercise in Wales. [168586]

  Phil Hope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 29 March 2004,Official Report, column 1256W. The Office Of the Deputy Prime Minister will consult the Welsh Assembly Government before making any changes as a result of the Review.

  Diesel Spillages
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost has been to each fire brigade to clean up diesel spillage in each of the last three years. [168627]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The costs to fire brigades of cleaning up diesel spillages, or other hazardous chemicals, are not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the Government intend to allocate the council tax received from empty homes. [168374]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A dwelling, which is unoccupied and substantially unfurnished is exempt from council tax for a period of up to six months. A dwelling which
  785W
  is unoccupied, substantially unfurnished and either requires, is undergoing or has undergone within the last six months major repair work to make it habitable or is undergoing or has undergone within the last six months major repair work or structural alteration is exempt for a period of up to 12 months. After the exempt period, council tax is payable. Until 31 March 2004, a 50 per cent. discount applied but now local billing authorities may choose to reduce or remove this discount. The additional council tax raised from reducing or removing the discount on long term empty homes will be taken into account in the calculation of formula grant in due course. The Government have no role in the allocation of council tax received from empty homes.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of a Public Service Comparator solution to the Ministry of Defence Airfield Support Services Project on the commercial viability of the Fire Service College at Moreton in Marsh; and if he will make a statement. [167252]

  Phil Hope
  The Fire Service College is a service provider for the consortia bidding for firefighter training under the Airfield Support Services Project. The college welcomes the possibility of joint working with the Ministry of Defence. It has made provision in its business plan to do so but the College's planning remains flexible.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what work his Department's Green Minister has undertaken in that capacity in the last three months. [165649]

  Phil Hope
  As the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Green Minister I have considered issues surrounding the Sustainable Development Task Force and the Sustainable Energy Policy Network (SEPN) of which I am a member. I am also lead Minister on the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what meetings his Department's Green Minister has attended in that capacity in the last 12 months. [165650]

  Phil Hope
  As the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Green Minister I am a member of the Sustainable Development Task Force, the Sustainable Energy Policy Network and ENV(G). I have also attended meetings of the ad hoc Ministerial Group on Climate Change and the Sustainable Building Task Group. However, it has been established practice under successive Governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. This practice is now formalised by Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the meetings at which a representative of his Department was present regarding the delivery of sustainable development across Government, as co-ordinated by the Ministerial Sub-committee of Green Ministers. [165651]
  786W
  Phil Hope
  As the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Green Minister I am a member of the Environmental Sub-Committee, ENV (G). However it has been established practice under successive Governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. This practice is now formalised by Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Gypsies/Travellers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the costs to Chelmsford local authority of the eviction of Gypsies and Travellers in the last six months. [164094]

  Yvette Cooper
  No estimate has been made by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of the costs to Chelmsford local authority of the eviction of Gypsies and Travellers in the last six months.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many people are registered as homeless in North Tyneside; [165354]

  (2) what recent steps his Department has taken to tackle homelessness in North Tyneside. [165363]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on homelessness collected by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is in respect of applicant households, rather than persons. In the 12 months to the end of September 2003—the most recent period for which the authority provided information—North Tyneside reported 1,066 households accepted as eligible, unintentionally homeless and in priority need. As at 30 September 2003, 69 households were in temporary accommodation provided by the authority. Of these, 24 were housed pending completion of inquiries or a review; the remaining 45, along with a further 331 classified as "homeless at home", continued to be owed a main homelessness duty.

  The latest local authority Housing Investment Programme returns for spring 2003 show that North Tyneside submitted a 0–10 estimate on rough sleeping.

  In the quarter to the end of September 2003, the most recent period for which the authority provided information, North Tyneside reported that 14 households were in bed and breakfast accommodation provided by the authority.

  The Homelessness and Housing Support Directorate within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has provided North Tyneside Metropolitan District Council with funding of £79,593 in 2003–04 and allocated £92,000 for 2004–05. This funding will support the authority in their continued implementation of their homelessness strategy which they had to publish for the first time last year.

  The Government's approach to tackling homelessness focuses on the problems homeless people face as well as places they live. This approach was set out in our March 2002 publication, "More than a roof".

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are investing significant resources into tackling homelessness—£260 million over three years (2003–04 to 2005–06)—

  787W
  double previous spending plans, together with changes to housing benefit subsidies, which are helping local authorities to meet the Government's commitment that by March 2004 there should be no homeless families with children living in B&B accommodation for longer than six weeks, and to sustain low levels of rough sleeping. It will also support new approaches that help people tackle the problems that are making and keeping them homeless—helping them rebuild relationships with their family, access training or employment, overcome debt or tackle drug addiction.

  Housing (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect of the change in the level of council funding for housing on the residents of Manchester, Gorton since 1997. [167463]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since 1997 allocations of capital funding to local authorities for housing purposes have risen consistently by about 15 per cent. per annum on average. This includes the Major Repairs Allowance we introduced in 2001–02 specifically for the improvement of local authority stock alongside the Decent Homes standard which sets out minimum standards to be met by 2010. Manchester's allocations in the period 1997 to 2003–04 have risen by over 200 per cent. and have been supplemented by the announcement of £125 million to be made available to the Manchester/Salford Housing Market Renewal pathfinder project between 2003–04 and 2005–06. In addition to this welcome increase there is support through the Community Housing Task Force and Government Office for the North West to help the local authority and its tenants to choose the best strategy for long term improvement.

  Local Authority Confidentiality Rules
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities had complaints upheld against them for the breach of rules on confidentiality in 2003–04. [167595]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 ethical standards officers of the Standards Board for England completed 52 investigations (in respect of 34 authorities) relating to allegations of failure to comply with paragraph 3(a) of the code of conduct for local authority members. This provision requires that the member must not disclose information given to him in confidence or which he believes is of a confidential nature without the consent of a person authorised to give it, or unless he is required to do so by law. Of the total number of investigations, 11 were referred for decisions on action either by the Adjudication Panel for England or the standards committee of the relevant authority. Sanctions were imposed in five of the cases, and in two cases it was decided that there was no failure to comply with the code. Decisions on the other four cases are still to be taken.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which authorities receive area cost adjustment; on what basis it is calculated; how much each receives; and what plans he has to review it. [166926]
  788W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The area cost adjustment is the element of the funding formula which directs extra resources to local authorities with higher wage and rates costs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister calculates an area cost adjustment (ACA) for every authority in England and it acts as a multiplier on formula spending share (FSS) formulae. Where local wages are low the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister raised the ACA value of that area to one, to ensure that low pay local authority areas do not lose out. Where wages and rates costs are higher, the authority receives a positive ACA top-up.

  It is possible to present the FSS figures for each authority in terms of a basic amount plus top-ups, one of which is the ACA. The figures provided in the table, which have been made available in the Library of the House, detail which authorities receive an ACA top-up and how much each authority receives split by FSS sub-block. These figures are consistent with the 'Simple Presentation' guide to the funding formulae, which is available on the internet at; http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0405/simppress/index.htm.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister calculates the ACA using the best available evidence on wage and business rate costs. The calculation is set out in the area cost adjustment methodology guide. This document is on the Internet at http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0405/acamethods.pdf and can be made available in the Library of the House.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced in the 2001 white paper 'strong local leadership—quality public services' (CM5237) that following the anticipated reforms in 2003–04 the funding formulae will be frozen for at least 2004–05 and 2005–06. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not intend to change the way that the ACA is calculated during this period. If it is decided that changes to the formulae should be made for 2006–07, a full consultation on options for change would take place prior to the normal settlement round for that year.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Department includes fire authority, police authority and parish council precepts in calculations determining the level of increase in council tax bills; and if he will make a statement. [167294]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The published figures for council tax bills in each billing authority area include all precepts. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has always published figures for the level of, and increase in, police and fire authorities' precepts as well as the billing authority's council tax including parish precepts and the total council tax bill payable in a billing authority's area. For 2004–05, information on levels of, and increases in, billing authority council tax with and without parish precepts, were published on 25 March and are available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website: www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/ctax/ctax045.htm.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average council tax bill for a Band D property in Herefordshire was last year; what it is expected to be in the forthcoming year; what percentage change this represents; and if he will make a statement. [167295]
  789W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The average council tax bill for a Band D property in Herefordshire was £1,071 for 2003–04 and is £1,185 for 2004–05. This represents an increase of 10.7 per cent. if the underlying figures are rounded to the nearest penny.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with stakeholders on potential arrangements for local government re-organisation. [167340]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As stated in the House on 10 March 2004,Official Report, column 1524W, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has established a working group to look at the practical implications of reorganisation, the first meeting of which took place on 9 March. Two sub-group meetings have also been held to discuss issues relating to continuity of functions and transfer of assets and liabilities. Meetings of sub-groups to discuss finance and staffing issues are to be held in early May.

  Operation Fresco
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what costs of the Defence Fire Service, incurred during Operation Fresco, were charged to his office's budget. [168077]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has agreed to meet the additional costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence in providing emergency fire cover during the firefighters pay dispute, through Operation Fresco. As at 26 March 2004, the Ministry of Defence had informed the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the likely total bill for this service would be in the region of £80 million. The Defence Fire Service's costs will fall within that total, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) made clear in his answer of 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 8W, these could be provided only as a discrete figure at disproportionate cost.

  Torbay Council
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will cap Torbay council in the year 2004–05. [167495]

  Mr. Raynsford
  When the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced the council tax increases for 2004–05 on 25 March, we confirmed that we were ready to use our targeted capping powers if necessary and that we aimed to notify any authorities which might be in line for capping by the end of April. I cannot say in advance which authorities these may be.

  Traveller Pitches
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what guidance he has issued to(a) planning authorities and (b) the Planning Inspectorate regarding the number of traveller pitches which should be permitted in any specific location; [168453]

  (2) what discussions he has had with representatives of gypsies and travellers regarding (a) the size of traveller camps and (b) agreed limits on the maximum number of pitches in any location. [168454]
  790W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has issued no specific guidance relating to the size of caravan sites, nor have we had discussions with Gypsies or travellers regarding the size of caravan sites. Planning Policy Guidance note 3 on housing requires local planning authorities to assess the local needs of specific groups across all tenures in their area. Development plans should wherever possible identify locations suitable for Gypsy sites and local authorities must decide planning applications in accordance with development plans unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

CABINET OFFICE

  Buckingham Palace Garden Parties
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office for what reason the nomination form for garden parties at Buckingham palace excludes Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK from being nominated; and if he will make a statement. [168814]

  Mr. Alexander
  Different procedures are in place for extending invitations to Commonwealth citizens. Commonwealth citizens who are either visiting or resident in the UK may apply to their respective High Commissions in London who may nominate them for an invitation.

  Contingency Planning
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent representations he has received on funding for contingency planning. [166533]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office continues to be in discussion with representatives of local responder bodies on the funding of their civil protection work. The public consultation on the draft Civil Contingencies Bill specifically asked about funding to support the Bill. The results of the public consultation exercise were published in January 2004 and copies are available in the Library.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the(a) nature and (b) value was of all contracts, consultancies or other services placed with the accountancy firms (i) Deloitte and Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iii) KPMG and (iv) PricewaterhouseCoopers since 2000–01 by the Department and its agencies. [166089]

  Mr. Leslie
  From 1 January 2000 until 31 March 2004, my Department has let contracts for consultancies and other services with these accountancy firms on a number of occasions for a variety of reasons.

  Our net expenditure with these companies, for the period in question, together with examples of the type of services they provided and the projects they supported are set out.
  791W

  Service provider

  Net spend 1 January 2004

  Examples of services provided

  to 31 March 2004 (£)

  Deloitte and Touche

  535,000

  Consultancy support on the Tribunals for Users Programme and the IT Shared

  Services Project. Risk management training

  Ernst and Young

  760,000

  Consultancy support on the Courts and Tribunals Modernisation Programme.

  Financial advice linked with the Libra project and the Queen Anne's Gate Project.

  Financial advice on major construction schemes.

  KPMG

  361,000

  Consultancy support connected with the Untied Courts Administration Programme.

  Support in connection with work to develop leadership capability. Financial advice

  on major construction schemes.

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  3,900,000

  Consultancy support on the Consumer Strategy Project. Risk management advice

  and the provision of Interim Managers. Financial advice on major construction

  schemes.

  This expenditure reflects the wide-ranging and fast-paced programme to modernise the Department's work, to increase efficiency, provide better customer service, and value for money for the taxpayer.

  Debt Recovery
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) state-employed bailiffs and (b) enforcement agents are employed by county and magistrates courts for the enforcement of debts; and how many of them have been certificated through a court procedure. [166804]

  Mr. Leslie
  609 bailiffs are employed in the county courts. County court bailiffs do not require certification as this is only necessary for certificated bailiffs who, among other things, levy distress for rent under the Distress for Rent Rules 1988; this is not an activity undertaken by county court bailiffs. No other enforcement agents are employed by the county courts, and no enforcement agents are employed by the magistrates courts for the enforcement of debts.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the bailiff firms and enforcement agencies each magistrates court uses; and what fees and charges agreement each court has in place with the relevant firms. [166805]

  Mr. Leslie
  Responsibility for the employment of bailiffs and other enforcement agencies in the magistrates court system lies with individual Magistrates Court Committees (MCC), of which there are 42 in England and Wales. A list of the bailiff firms or other enforcement agencies used in each MCC area is set out in the following table. Fees and charges for the employment of bailiffs and enforcement agencies is a matter for each individual MCC and is therefore commercial in confidence.

  Bailiff or enforcement agencies used

  MCC name

  Name

  Avon and Somerset

  Drakes Group Ltd. Police Police

  Bedfordshire

  Drakes Group Ltd.

  Cambridgeshire

  Drakes Group Ltd.

  Cheshire

  IPL International Ltd.

  Cleveland

  AS Gent and Associates Equita Ltd.

  Cumbria

  Police

  792W

  Bailiff or enforcement agencies used

  MCC name

  Name

  Derbyshire

  MA Julious and Co XMS Warrants Loss Control Solutions Ltd.

  Devon and Cornwall

  Churchill DC Ltd. Drakes Group Ltd. Police

  Dorset

  CCS Enforcement Services Ltd.

  Durham

  Trans National Corporation (TNC) Plc

  Dyfed Powys

  Menai Collect Ltd.

  Essex

  Police

  Gloucestershire

  Drakes Group Ltd Trans National Corporation (TNC) Plc Police

  GLMCA

  CCS Enforcement Services Ltd. Drakes Group Ltd. Equita

  Greater Manchester

  National Bailiff Services Equita Ltd. AS Gent and Associated

  Gwent

  Swift Credit Services Ltd.

  Hampshire and IOW

  CCS Enforcement Services Ltd.

  Hertfordshire

  Drakes Group Ltd.

  Humberside

  Jacobs Wigglesworth and Co (Northern) Ltd.

  Kent

  Trans National Corporation (TNC) plc

  Lancashire

  Birchalls Ltd.

  Leicestershire

  —

  Lincolnshire

  Drakes Group Ltd. Loss Control Solutions Police

  Merseyside

  IPL International Ltd. Howard Roberts Ltd. Reliance Security Group

  Norfolk

  Drakes Group Ltd.

  North Wales

  Menai Collect Ltd. North West Commercial Services

  North Yorkshire

  Phillips Collection Services

  793W

  Bailiff or enforcement agencies used

  MCC name

  Name

  Northamptonshire

  Rossendales Ltd.

  Northumbria

  Regional Collection Services

  Nottinghamshire

  Bristow mid Sutor Police

  South Wales

  Swift Credit Services Ltd.

  South Yorkshire

  MA Julious and Co Rossendales Ltd. Equita Ltd.

  Staffordshire

  Bristow and Sutor CCS Enforcement Services Ltd.

  Suffolk

  Drakes Group Ltd.

  Surrey

  Drakes Group Ltd. Chandlers Ltd. Police

  Sussex

  Chandlers Ltd. Police

  Thames Valley

  Equita Ltd Drakes Group Ltd.

  Warwickshire

  Professional Recovery Services Ltd.

  West Mercia

  Bristow and Sutor Loss Control Solutions Ltd.

  West Midlands

  CCS Enforcement Services Ltd. Equita Ltd.

  West Yorkshire

  AS Gent and Associates IPL International Ltd. Police

  Wiltshire

  Drakes Group Ltd

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  British National Party
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether British National Party members have become school governors. [168286]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect details of individual governor appointments or the political affiliations of governors. The British National Party is not a proscribed organisation and, therefore, its members are free to stand for election or appointment to school's governing bodies. Once elected or appointed all school governors must comply with the laws including the legislation on race discrimination. Governing bodies have a specific duty to promote equality of opportunity and to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups.

  Capita
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools Capita has entered as part of the Fresh Start scheme in each year since 1997; and how much funding they received for this. [167562]
  794W
  Mr. Miliband
  Capita has not entered any schools for the Fresh Start scheme. It is for local education authorities to propose schools for this scheme to the Department.

  Child Care
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) free nursery and (b) pre-school places were available for (i) three and (ii) four year olds in Manchester Gorton in each of the last seven years. [167450]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. Figures on the number of free nursery education places taken up by three and four year olds in Manchester local education authority area are shown in the table. The latest figures on provision for three and four year olds in England were published in a Statistical Bulletin 'Provision for children under five years of age in England—January 2003' which is available on the Department's website www.dfes.aov.uk/rsaatewav/.

  From April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all three year olds in England whose parents want one, will have access to a free, part-time early education place.

  Number of free nursery education places1,2 taken up by three and four year old children in maintained nursery and primary schools and private, voluntary and independent providers Manchester Local Education Authority area 1997–2003 Position in January each year

  Three year olds

  Four year olds

  1997

  3,700

  6,000

  1998

  4,400

  5,600

  1999

  4,200

  5,500

  2000

  4,600

  5,400

  2001

  4,600

  5.400

  2002

  4,600

  5,300

  2003

  4,600

  5,200

  1Part-time equivalent number of free nursery education places taken up by three and four year old children.

  2A free nursery education place comprises five two and a half hour sessions of early years education per week, for thirty-three weeks of the year, usually three terms of eleven weeks.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places providing wraparound care linked to early education have been provided since 2000. [167555]

  Margaret Hodge
  We had created, at December 2003, over 50,000 new wraparound care places linked to early education since 2001, and expect continued progress.

  In addition, we have now adopted a significant new approach to encouraging the integration of early years services. Since this manifesto commitment was made, the Children's Centres initiative has been launched and is now our key contributor to the growth of integrated early learning and childcare provision. Our intention is that 43,000 new integrated places will be created in Children's Centres by 2006. By 2008 we are committed to having Children's Centres in the most disadvantaged areas in England. Our long term aim is to have a Children's Centre in every community.
  795W
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many child care places have been created in Manchester, Gorton since 1997; [167436]

  (2) how many children in Manchester, Gorton have benefited from the National Childcare Strategy. [167453]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department is unable to provide details of child care places for Manchester, Gorton. However, from April 1999 to December 2003 Manchester local authority created 6,115 new child care places helping some 11,153 children. This shows an increase in stock of child care places, taking into account turnover, of 3,629 helping some 6,772 children.

  Children's Centres
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what mechanisms he will put in place to ensure that the additional £669 million to fund one children's centre in each of the country's 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards by 2008, will be used specifically for that purpose; and if he will make a statement. [167255]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Chancellor announced in the Budget that the overall allocation for Sure Start would be £669 million higher in 2007–08 than in 2004–05. This additional funding will take the Sure Start allocation to £1.167 billion in 2005–06, £1.483 billion in 2006–07 and £1.567 billion in 2007£08.

  This allocation is ring fenced for the full range of Sure Start activities, including the expansion of children's centres. The Chancellor announced a number of new commitments in the Budget that that will need to be met from the allocation, including increasing children's centres towards the goal of a children's centre in every community. We are committed to ensuring that these centres provide services for all children in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards by 2007–08. he funding for children's centres will make up a significant part of the full Sure Start allocation and will be subject to full monitoring and financial controls.

  Children's Commissioner for England
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy that the Children's Commissioner for England should have powers equivalent to those of the Children's Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. [167055]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government are proposing through the Children Bill that the powers of the Children's Commissioner based in England should be in keeping with his responsibilities, which are not identical to those of Commissioners elsewhere in the United Kingdom. His proposed functions will include, among other things, acting as a children's champion and advising the Secretary of State on their views and interests, helping them to achieve the outcomes that children have identified as important investigating the effectiveness of complaints procedures open to them, and reporting annually to Parliament on how well the outcomes children seek are being met.

  Class Sizes
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Greater London were taught in classes of more than(a) 25 and (b) 30 in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [165837]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: The information requested has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Classroom Assistants (Liverpool)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many classroom assistants have been employed in schools in Liverpool, Walton in each year from 1997 10 2003. [166958]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Following table shows the full time equivalent number of teaching assistants in service in maintained schools in the Liverpool, Walton constituency in each year between 1997 and 2003, the latest year for which information is available.

  Liverpool, Walton

  1997

  80

  1998

  90

  1999

  100

  2000

  120

  2001

  180

  2002

  170

  2003

  210

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census.

  Criminal Records Bureau Checks
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received on requiring people coming from abroad to work with children or young people to have checks equivalent to those carried out by the Criminal Records Bureau before they begin work. [165830]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: I have received no representations on this matter.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will require people coming from abroad to have Criminal Records Bureau checks before they can take up positions working with children or young people; and if he will make a statement. [165833]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: The Criminal Records Bureau is not able to obtain details of a person's criminal record from overseas. A limited number of overseas convictions are recorded on the Police National Computer, but the data are not comprehensive.

  My Department's guidance to employers in the education service about pre-appointment checks on teachers and other people whose work will bring them into regular contact with children draws attention to the

  797W
  fact that, if a person who they intend to appoint to work with children or young people has never lived in the UK, no purpose will be served by asking them to apply for a Disclosure when they come to this country as they will neither have a criminal record in this country, nor appear on List 99 or the Protection of Children Act List.

  The Bureau's Overseas Information Service provides advice to employers on the availability of criminal record information from overseas. The service currently covers 17 countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Irish Republic, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Poland, Canada, Jamaica, South Africa, Malaysia, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, Italy (excluding Vatican City) and Finland). The CRB is in discussions with the 10 accession countries to the European Union and aims to provide information through the Overseas Information Service about the criminal record information available from these countries within the next few months.

  Where criminal record information is not available, we recommend that employers take extra care in taking up references and carrying out other checks on a person's background.

  Numbers of day care places1 by type of provider—North Tyneside local education authority area-1997–2003 Position at 31 March each year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Day nurseries2

  3—

  600

  620

  770

  860

  3—

  3—

  Full day care4

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1,600

  Playgroups and pre-schools2

  680

  680

  630

  590

  560

  3—

  3—

  Sessional day care4

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  600

  Child minders

  1,540

  1,430

  1,300

  1,300

  1,100

  3—

  1,300

  Out of school clubs2

  130

  200

  210

  190

  260

  3—

  3—

  Holiday schemes2.5

  140

  190

  2,300

  61,500

  7180

  3—

  3—

  Out of school day care4

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  700

  Crèche day care4

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  200

  1 Figures have been rounded to the neatest 100.

  2 Data Source: Children's Day Care Facilities.

  3 Not available.

  4Data Source: Ofsted.

  5 From 1999, places at holiday schemes were counted once for each school holiday during the year. Prior to 1999, places were counted once only.

  6 Includes schemes which were exempt from registration.

  7 Places may have been counted once only. See footnote 5.

  With the introduction of the National Day Care Standards and the transfer of responsibilities for registration and inspection to Ofsted, child care places are classified according to whether they are full day care, sessional day care, childminder, out of school day care or crèche day care places. Previously, child care places were classified according to whether they were provided by day nurseries, playgroups and pre-schools, childminders, out of school clubs or holiday schemes. Figures for 2003 are not directly comparable with figures for earlier years because they are collected on a different basis. Some playgroups and pre-schools provide full day care and some former playgroups and pre-schools have converted to day nurseries.

  Statistics on the number of childcare places registered in England were published on 19 February 2004 in a report by Ofsted "Registered Childcare Providers and Places in England, 31 December 2003". The report is

  FE Colleges
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the changes he is proposing for the funding of new buildings for further education, with specific reference to altering the match funding criteria. [168361]

  Alan Johnson
  All of the Department's funding for post-16 learning and skills sector capital investment is allocated to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The Council has sole discretion in how it chooses to allocate these funds to further education colleges. This includes decisions about the level of funding that it expects colleges to contribute to capital projects. This is an operational matter for the LSC. Mr. Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member on this matter. A copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many child care places there were in North Tyneside local education authority in each of the last seven years. [164373]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  available on the Ofsted website, www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications.

  Education Finance
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the standard spending assessment funding was per child in(a) England and (b) the North Somerset local education authority in each year since 1997. [167530]

  Mr. Miliband
  There have been changes to the structure of Standard Spending Assessments and their successor from 2003–04, Education Formula Spending, which make them incomparable over time: for example, several large transfers from SSA/EFS to grant funding. Only total funding per pupil (including SSA/EFS and grants) is comparable between years. Also, for 2003–04 and 2004–05, pension transfers to EFS and the Learning and Skills Council are excluded from EFS and total funding figures to enable comparison between years.
  799W

  £

  Funding per pupil aged 3 to 19—Real terms at 2002–03 prices

  North Somerset

  England

  SSA/EFS

  Grants1

  Total funding

  SSA/EFS

  Grants1

  Total funding

  1997–98

  2,510

  110

  2,620

  2,720

  110

  2,830

  1998–99

  2,610

  80

  2,690

  2,820

  60

  2,880

  1999–2000

  2,670

  150

  2,820

  2,880

  130

  3,010

  2000–01

  2,730

  290

  3,020

  2,950

  290

  3,240

  2001–02

  2,740

  360

  3,100

  2,990

  400

  3,390

  2002–03

  2,580

  580

  3,170

  2,880

  610

  3,490

  2003–04

  2,720

  2560

  23,290

  3,010

  2580

  3,590

  2004–05

  2,970

  3—

  3,280

  3—

  1 Grants are all revenue grants in DfES Departmental Expenditure Limits relevant to EFS pupils aged 3–19. Education maintenance allowances (EMAs) and grants not allocated at LEA level are excluded.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Not available.

  Notes:

  1. Per pupil figures are rounded to the nearest £10 so may not sum.

  3. The pupil numbers used are those underlying the SSA/EFS settlement calculations plus Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC) 3-year-old maintained pupils and estimated 3 to 4-year-olds funded through state support maintained and other educational institutions where these are not included in the SSA pupil numbers.

  4. Real terms figures based on GDP deflators as at 26 March 2004 (2002–03 prices).

  Failing Schools
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Burnley deemed to be failing since 1997 have since reached satisfactory standards. [167926]

  Mr. Miliband
  Three schools in Burnley have been classified by Ofsted as needing Special Measures since summer 1997 and have subsequently come out of special measures status.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Manchester, Gorton deemed to be failing since 1997 have since reached satisfactory standards. [167447]

  Mr. Miliband
  Two schools in Manchester Gorton have been placed in special measures since 1997, an infant and a junior school which amalgamated in January 2001 and became one primary school. The resulting school remained in special measures until 2001. It was inspected by Ofsted in November 2003 and was found to be an effective and improving school with good teaching and rising standards.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Preston deemed to be failing since 1997 have since reached satisfactory standards. [168127]

  Mr. Miliband
  Six schools in Preston have been classified by Ofsted as needing Special Measures since summer 1997 and have subsequently been restored to health. Three schools that were already in Special Measures before 1997 have been restored since.

  Educational Attainment
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 15 and 16-year-olds in Manchester, Gorton achieved five or more 800W
  GCSEs at grades A* -C or GNVQ equivalent in each of the last seven years. [167439]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows.

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils1 achieving five or more grades A*-C

  Percentage

  Academic year

  Manchester, Gorton parliamentary constituency

  England

  1997

  19.4

  45.1

  1998

  26.2

  46.3

  1999

  27.9

  47.9

  2000

  29.8

  49.2

  2001

  26.5

  50.0

  2002

  34.9

  51.6

  2003

  36.8

  52.9

  1GCSE/GNVQ results are reported as standard as the results of pupils aged 15 at the start of the academic year ie 31 August and therefore reaching the end of compulsory education at the end of the school year.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of pupils in Manchester, Gorton reached the(a) mathematics and (b) English standard in each of the last seven years. [167448]

  Mr. Miliband
  Th results from the 2003 National Curriculum tests showed that 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds in England reached Level 4 in English and 73 per cent. in mathematics. These results represent a significant improvement in standards—of 12 percentage points in English and 11 percentage points in mathematics—since 1997, reflecting the impact of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies on primary schools. We remain absolutely committed, through our new Primary Strategy, to supporting schools to achieve the ambitious targets we have set for standards of literacy and numeracy.
  801W
  The follow table shows the number and percentage of pupils in Manchester Gorton who have achieved Level 4 or above in the Key Stage 2 English and mathematics tests since 1997. The results for Manchester Gorton are

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  English1

  568

  548

  593

  621

  638

  688

  690

  Mathematics1

  526

  456

  584

  612

  628

  711

  659

  English2

  53

  52

  56

  61

  62

  62

  64

  Mathematics2

  49

  43

  55

  60

  61

  64

  61

  1The number of eligible pupils for the Key Stage 2 tests varies slightly from year to year

  2 Percentage of pupils

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils in England achieved grades A*-C at GCSE in (a) mathematics, (b) English and (c) mathematics and English in each year since 1997. [167568]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving grades A*-C in GCSE (a) mathematics, (b) English and (c) mathematics and English are shown in the following table:

  Percentage

  Mathematics

  English

  Mathematics and English

  2003

  51.1

  60.2

  42.9

  2002

  52.3

  59.9

  43.4

  2001

  50.8

  58.6

  41.9

  2000

  50.0

  58.6

  41.2

  1999

  48.6

  57.8

  39.8

  1998

  47.4

  56.1

  38.1

  1997

  46.8

  54.8

  36.8

  Further Education (Cleethorpes)
  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people attended(a) university and (b) further education from Cleethorpes constituency in each year since 1995. [158116]

  Alan Johnson
  Figures are not available by constituency. The available information is given in the tables.

  Number of 18-year-old applicants, domiciled in North East Lincolnshire LEA1 accepted through UCAS to full time undergraduate HE study, 1995–2002 entry.

  Academic year

  North East Lincolnshire

  Humberside

  1995/96

  —

  1,663

  1996/97

  —

  1,714

  1997/98

  312

  —

  1998/99

  306

  —

  1999/2000

  317

  —

  2000/01

  311

  —

  2001/02

  339

  —

  2002/03

  312

  —

  1Prior to 1997, North East Lincolnshire was contained within Humberside LEA on the UCAS dataset, along with the City of Kingston upon Hull, North Lincolnshire and East Riding of Yorkshire.

  802W
  below the national average but show significant improvements since 1997 in both English and mathematics in line with the improvements nationally.

  Number of 16 and 17-year-olds in North East Lincolnshire LEA1 participating in full-time further education from 1995/96 to 2001/02:

  Academic year

  16-year-olds

  17-year-olds

  16 and 17- year-olds

  1995/96

  7,300

  5,200

  12,500

  1996/97

  1,300

  1,000

  2,400

  1997/98

  1,300

  1,100

  2,400

  1998/99

  1,300

  1,000

  2,300

  1999/2000

  1,400

  1,000

  2,400

  2000/01

  1,400

  1,100

  2,500

  2001/02

  1,600

  1,100

  2,600

  1 Prior to 1996, North East Lincolnshire was contained within Humberside LEA along with the City of Kingston upon Hull, North Lincolnshire and East Riding of Yorkshire. Therefore, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds for the academic 1995/96 is the figure for Humberside LEA since no individual figures for the four LEAs are available.

  Gloucestershire Local Education Authority
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much extra money in net terms is provided to the local education authority in Gloucestershire through the area cost adjustment; and if he will make a statement. [168063]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: In 2004–05 Gloucestershire's Education Formula Spending Share includes provision of £5.345 million through the area cost adjustment.

  GNVQs
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the future of intermediate and foundation GNVQs. [167873]

  Mr. Miliband
  The timetable for the withdrawal of the individual 6-unit (foundation and intermediate) GNVQs was published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority on 27 November 2003. The withdrawal is taking place in three stages from 2005 to 2007, starting with titles with extremely low numbers of candidate entries.

  Graduate Employment
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many graduates left university in each of the last five years; and how many went into full-time employment. [164470]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the number of students graduating, and their first destinations, is published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) in
  803W
  "Students in Higher Education Institutions" and "First Destinations of students leaving HE institutions" respectively. The latest editions cover students graduating in 2001/02; copies of these, and editions for earlier years, are available from the House Library.

  Higher Education
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are in place in the proposed higher education reforms to ensure that students from(a) less advantaged and (b) other family backgrounds can attend the higher education institution of their choice. [165425]

  Alan Johnson
  We remain committed to fair access and believe that all those who have the potential to benefit from higher education should have the opportunity to do so. The social class gap among those entering higher education is unacceptably wide, particularly at the extremes. We are putting in place a range of measures, several of them through the HE Bill (so subject to Parliamentary approval), that support students' prospects of attending the higher education institution (HEI) of their choice.

  (a) For students from less advantaged backgrounds, we will provide help in a number of ways:
  by introducing a new Higher Education Grant, worth up to £1,000 a year, for new students who start courses from this September. Students with a family income of £15,200 or less will receive the full £1,000 grant, and those from families with income from £15,201 to £21,185 will qualify for a partial grant;
  by proposals to raise the maximum rate of the student maintenance loan to match median student expenditure on basic living items as measured by the latest Student Income and Expenditure Survey. The biggest increase will be for those students living independently in London. The loans will continue to be means tested as now for those from higher family income backgrounds. The higher rate of maintenance loans will be available to both new students and those who entered higher education prior to 2006;
  by proposals to introduce a new maintenance grant, for new students starting courses from 2006/07, of up to £2,700. This will benefit students from low income households thereby helping broaden access to higher education. We are proposing that an element of this new grant will be in substitution for the maintenance loan. In addition, students may choose to reduce the level of maintenance loan they apply for still further in the light of this new grant being made available and, in doing so, reduce their outstanding debt;
  by continuing to provide additional targeted financial support for vulnerable students via higher education institutions through the Access to Learning Fund. This will ensure that more of them are able to access and remain in higher education;
  by requiring any institution that wants to charge higher variable fees to give more help to poorer students, in terms of bursaries and other financial support, to do outreach work to encourage a wide range of students to apply to higher education, and to provide clear information on the financial help available to those from the poorest backgrounds. Details will be set out in an access plan, and agreed with the Director of Fair Access; by the operation, from August 2004, of the new integrated Aimhigher programme. This will help to raise young people's levels of educational attainment and aspirations. It will include supporting a range of activities that bring young people into
  804W
  contact with higher education institutions and their students, helping them to better appreciate what higher education involves and the likely benefits of undertaking it.

  (b) For those front all family backgrounds there are a range of other measures that will help prospective students make and pursue their choice of higher education institution:
  provision of support on tuition fees—from 2006, all full-time undergraduate students will be entitled to defer payment of fees until after they graduate and are earning more than £15,000. Repayments will then be made under a generously subsidised, income-contingent repayments system, with no real rate of interest;
  development with the National Union of Students of a new guide which will help students understand and access the range of information available and so make more effective decisions and choices;
  the availability, from 2004/05 onwards, of much more information about the quality and standards of academic provision at institutions. This will be readily accessible to applicants via a Teaching Quality Information (TQI) website, and will ensure that potential students have access to key information about institutions to inform their choice of HE institution and course.

  University Research
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the level of Government funding for university-based research in each of the past 10 years. [152629]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available information, shown in cash terms, is given in the table. Comparable figures for 1993/94 ate not held centrally.

  Research income1 of HEIs in the UK

  £thousand

  1994/95

  2,245,467

  1995/96

  2,356,831

  1996/97

  2,455,930

  1997/98

  2,616,607

  1998/99

  2,846,527

  1999/2000

  3,016,130

  2000/01

  3,277,808

  2001/02

  3,518,439

  2002/03

  3,772,504

  1Covers income from Funding Research Grants, the Office of Science and Technology Research Grants, and Other Research Grants

  Jobs (Burnley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people were employed in tourism-related jobs in Burnley on the latest date for which figures are available. [167911]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Peter Pike, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about tourism-related jobs in Burnley.

  The latest available lata, from the 2002 Annual Business Inquiry, shows that the total number of jobs in tourism related industries in Burnley was 2,700. This total is obtained by

  805W
  combining figures for those working in he following industries, as identified by Standard Industrial Classification 2003:

  hotels

  restaurants

  bars

  activities of travel agencies

  library, archives, museums etc.

  sporting activities

  other recreational activities.

  Learning Disabled Children
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many learning disabled children there are in England. [165538]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is not available centrally at present.

  Information on special educational needs by type of need was collected for the first time in January 2004 and provisional data will be available at the end of April.

  Available information on the number of pupils with special educational needs is given in the table.

  All schools1: number of pupils with special educational needs— January 2003 England

  Number of pupils and percentage

  Number of pupils with a statement of SEN

  250,545

  Percentage of pupils with a statement of SEN

  3.0

  Number of pupils with SEN without a statement

  1,169,780

  Percentage of pupils with SEN without a statement

  14.0

  1Includes maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools, pupil referral units, independent schools, city technology colleges, city academies and non-maintained special schools

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local education authorities have been taken over by an improvement team in each year since 1997. [167576]

  Mr. Miliband
  Following agreement with the local authority in question, we have used various models of intervention to address poor performance in education services depending on the local circumstances. On the occasions where these models include the outsourcing by authorities of various education functions to another body, statutory directions have been used to enable that outsourcing to take place. Directions have been issued to the following nine local education authorities to contract out differing ranges of functions:

  1999—Hackney LEA;

  2000—Islington LEA;

  2001—Bradford, Haringey, Leeds, Southwark, Walsall and Waltham Forest LEAs:

  2002—Hackney1, Swindon and Walsall1 LEAs; and,

  2003—Southwark1 LEA.

  1 second directions.

  Non-outsourcing solutions have frequently been adopted. They have included (sometimes in combination) the restructuring of internal management; partnerships
  806W
  with other local education authorities; partnership boards involving local stakeholders and members with external and independent expertise in the local education authorities' strategic decision making processes; and the establishment of predominantly private sector brokerage alongside a partnership board.

  None of the interventions have resulted in a local education authority being "taken over" by an improvement team or any other body. Whatever the model adopted, the local education authority has retained overall responsibility and accountability for the quality of its education services.

  Mothers with Learning Difficulties
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what level of IQ would as a general rule indicate that a pregnant woman, without a partner, is so severely learning disabled her child should be removed at birth for adoption; whether the support and help of the woman's parents would be a factor in the decision; and if he will make a statement; [165102]

  (2) what his policy is on the care of children whose parent or parents have moderate learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement; [165103]

  (3) what support is offered to mothers with learning difficulties to assist them to retain care of their children; and if he will make a statement; [165104]

  (4 what (a) redress and (b) support is available to pregnant women with learning difficulties who are faced with the forced removal of their child at birth for adoption; and if he will make a statement. [165105]

  Margaret Hodge
  A general duty is placed on local authorities by section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children under 18 who are in need by providing a range of services appropriate to meeting those needs.

  Assessments undertaken by local authorities of children who may be in need focus on the needs of the child, the capacity of the parents and wider environmental factors, rather than solely on the characteristics of the parents. Whether or not any particular child is considered to be in need will depend upon the individual circumstances, taking all relevant factors into consideration.

  The White Paper "Valuing People" (2001) recognises that "social services have a duty to safeguard the welfare of children and in some circumstances a parent with learning disabilities will not be able to meet their child's needs. However, we believe that this should not be the result of agencies not arranging for appropriate and timely support". This means that the removal of children from parents with learning difficulties should be rare, but may be necessary in particular instances.

  Learning disability, whether moderate or severe, does not necessarily indicate that a person will be unable to care for their child, with adequate support where necessary. Factors such as communication skills and social functioning are also important.
  807W
  Later this year there will be a conference on parenting, run by parents with learning disabilities, and supported by the Government and the learning disability voluntary organisation CHANGE.

  National Childcare Strategy
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many children in Birkenhead have gained from the National Childcare Strategy; and if he will make a statement; [166303]

  (2) how many child care places have been created in Birkenhead since 1997. [166334]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department is unable to provide details of child care places for Birkenhead. However, from April 1999 to December 2003 Wirral Local Authority created 5,245 new child care places helping 9,597 children. Taking into account however, the stock of child care places in Wirral increased by 3,158 in this period.

  Between 1999 and December 2003 the Government's National Childcare Strategy has helped 1.67 million children by creating 925,000 child care places nationally.

  Table A: NDS allocations to schools in the Manchester Gorton constituency

  £

  Year

  School

  Project details

  Grant awarded

  1997–98

  St. Peters

  Urgent maintenance works

  1928,000

  Birchfields Primary School

  Improved Security

  11,448,000

  1999–2000

  Stanley Grove Primary School

  Replacement of HORSA unit

  275,000

  Wilbraham Primary School

  Replacement of HORSA unit

  350,000

  Wright Robinson Sports College

  Boiler replacement

  1,001,000

  2000–01

  Wright Robinson Sports College

  Replacement of defective window frames (Phase 1)

  459,200

  Whalley Range 11–18 High School

  Public Private Partnership Project

  1,185,862

  Whalley Range 11–18 High School

  Provision of two additional classrooms and administration offices

  82,344

  Gorton Mount Infant School

  Upgrading of toilets

  195,000

  Heald Place Primary School

  Upgrading of toilets

  195,000

  St. Agnes CofE Primary School

  Roofing

  724,400

  Wright Robinson Sports College

  Various school—upgrading technology rooms

  270,000

  1 For NDS 1 the £928,000 and £1,448,000 grant allocated was for Manchester local education authority (LEA) wide projects, part of which was used for building maintenance work and improved security at each of two schools in the Manchester Gorton constituency. The LEA will be able to say how much was allocated to each school.

  Table B: Capital Allocations to Manchester Local Education Authority

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Voluntary Aided formulaic capital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  111

  629

  799

  Basic Need

  5,944

  3,171

  1,513

  7,013

  9,835

  687

  3,753

  City Learning Centres

  —

  —

  20

  3,445

  2,415

  —

  —

  Class Size initiative

  —

  137

  —

  141

  —

  —

  —

  Condition

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,949

  4,542

  5,877

  Devolved Formula

  —

  —

  —

  3,143

  2,476

  3,753

  5,826

  Early Excellence Centre

  —

  —

  110

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Energy

  —

  138

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modernisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,875

  3,522

  NDS1

  1,448

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS2

  —

  2,827

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS3

  —

  —

  2,056

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS4

  —

  —

  —

  5,726

  —

  —

  —

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  77

  —

  —

  —

  Outside Toilets

  —

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Private Finance Initiative

  —

  3,700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35,000

  School Labs

  —

  —

  —

  221

  221

  —

  —

  School Security

  122

  151

  151

  149

  100

  86

  —

  Schools Access Initiative

  30

  105

  150

  280

  447

  615

  914

  New Deal for Schools
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much funding each school in Manchester, Gorton has received from the New Deal for Schools; [167445]

  (2) how much public funding has been spent on repairing schools in Manchester Gorton in each year since 1997. [167454]

  Mr. Miliband
  Table A shows the schools in the Manchester Gorton constituency that benefited from investment through the New Deal for Schools (NDS) programme, which ran between 1997–98 and 2000–01.

  Since 2001 the majority of capital support has been allocated to schools and local education authorities by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about capital investment at constituency level. Table B sets out the capital support made by the Department to Manchester Local Education Authority since 1997–98, in total and by programme (including all allocations through NDS mentioned in table A)
  809W

  Table B: Capital Allocations to Manchester Local Education Authority

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Seed Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  264

  297

  521

  517

  Specialist Schools

  —

  —

  —

  300

  —

  200

  —

  Staff Workspace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  99

  216

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  250

  771

  1,029

  909

  441

  1,881

  —

  Supplementary NDS for VA Schools

  —

  —

  —

  235

  43

  —

  —

  Targeted Capital Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,140

  —

  Teaching Environments for the future

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  970

  Voluntary Aided School Grant

  1,302

  1,351

  897

  911

  4,002

  4,309

  —

  Total

  9,096

  12,434

  5,986

  22,844

  23,337

  21,337

  57,394

  To date we have allocated £30.3 million capital funding for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Newcastle Children's Fund Partnership
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will set out the sequence of changes in financial allocations to the Newcastle Children's Fund Partnership for 2004–05; whether the clawback of funds in the 2003–04 year has been reversed; what the outline annual planning figures are for the partnership for(a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06; and whether underspending in earlier years can be added to future planning totals. [161949]

  Margaret Hodge
  Newcastle Children's Fund has an allocation of £1,215,059 for 2004–05. This is a small reduction from the original allocation of £1,250,000. The partnership had £65,135 identified as genuine underspend in the 2003–04 mid-year review and this was reallocated by the Department. I am keen to give partnerships as much flexibility as possible within Government Accounting Rules. This means I have restored flexibility to re-profile from one quarter to the next during the year and I am allowing partnerships to carry forward end year underspend.

  We are also giving partnerships more flexibility in delivering their commitment on joint working with local Youth Offending Teams to prevent crime. We have moved away from the rigid menu approach, although we are continuing to emphasise the need to focus on effective projects, such as Youth, Inclusion Support Panels and Junior Youth Inclusion Panels. Where partnerships already have a strong focus on tackling antisocial behaviour and youth crime, they will be able to count those activities towards their collaborative working with Yots.

  The allocation for 2005–06 will be announced by August 2004. However we recognise that partnerships are keen to get some indication of funding levels for 2005–06, in order to help them plan effectively. The Secretary of State has therefore indicated to partnerships at this stage that the budget for 2005–06 will be no less than £110 million. We hope this provides a clear framework for partnerships to plan and maintain Children's Fund activity right through to the end of 2005–06, the end of the current Spending Review period. Beyond that, the Chancellor, in his Budget statement, has signalled a commitment to the Children's Fund until 2008.

  Non-Pathfinder Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional resources will be made available to non-Pathfinder schools after 2005–06 to provide for additional staff to meet the requirement of the workload agreement. [167000]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 22 April 2004]: Our approach in 2004–05 has been to ensure a rigorous analysis of average cost pressures and a guaranteed minimum level of per pupil increase that gives schools headroom above those cost pressures. The details of our approach for 2005–06 will be announced later this summer. The level of resources in school budgets after 2005–06 will be announced in due course and will take account of the spending settlement for the Department for 2006–07 to 2007–08.

  However, workforce reform cannot simply be about the use of additional resources. Schools need to consider how they make best use of their existing resources, for example, by extending the role of support staff, maximising the impact of ICT and reducing reliance on expensive short term supply teachers.

  Pathfinder Children's Trusts
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what basis the contribution from each relevant service to each pathfinder children's trust was determined. [166545]

  Margaret Hodge
  The contribution of resources to a Children's Trust is a matter for local determination between the partners of the Children's Trust board. Integration of services and resources will be based on local needs and circumstances.

  Pre-school Provision (Birkenhead)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) free nursery and (b) pre-school places were available for (i) three and (ii) four-year-olds in Birkenhead in each of the last seven years. [166301]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Figures on the number of free nursery education places taken up by three and four-year-olds in Wirral local education authority area are shown in the table.
  811W

  Number of free nursery education places1,2 taken up by three and four-year-old children in maintained nursery and primary schools and private, voluntary and independent providers Wirral local education authority area—1997–2003

  Position in January each year

  Three-year olds

  Four-year-olds

  1997

  1,600

  3,800

  1998

  1,700

  3,900

  1999

  1,700

  3,900

  2000

  2,900

  3,900

  2001

  3,100

  4,400

  2002

  3,200

  3,000

  2003

  3,200

  3,500

  1 Part-time equivalent number of free nursery education places taken up by three and four-year-old children.

  2 A free nursery education place comprises five two and a half hour sessions of early years education per week, for 33 weeks of the year, usually three terms of 11 weeks.

  The latest figures on provision for three and four-year-olds in England were published in a Statistical Bulletin "Provision for children under five years of age in England-January 2003" which is available on the Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/.

  We have made the commitment that by April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all three-year-olds in England whose parents want one, will have access to a free, part-time early education place.

  Primary Schools (Administrative Staff)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the job evaluation schemes carried out in primary schools for administrative staff. [167980]

  Mr. Miliband
  Most local authorities, including Herefordshire, are party to the national agreement on pay and conditions of local government staff (commonly known as the Single Status Agreement), which was negotiated by the National Joint Council for Local Government Services in 1997. The agreement commits authorities to carrying out job evaluations. My Department does not hold information on the job evaluation schemes either nationally or in individual local authorities.

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils1 achieving five or more grader A*-C

  Percentage

  Local education authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Liverpool

  30.1

  30.9

  32.4

  35.3

  35.2

  39.2

  41.3

  Berkshire

  48.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  45.4

  45.4

  46.6

  49.1

  45.5

  49.2

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  57.2

  57.9

  59.2

  58.8

  56.4

  59.8

  West Berkshire

  —

  54.5

  56.8

  56.0

  56.1

  57.1

  60.6

  Reading

  —

  42.7

  42.9

  45.7

  46.8

  44.3

  45.5

  Slough

  —

  42.9

  48.1

  51.4

  52.4

  50.5

  53.4

  Wokingham

  —

  56.2

  58.2

  59.9

  61.3

  62.6

  62.7

  England

  45.1

  46.3

  47.9

  49.2

  50.0

  51.6

  52.9

  1 GCSE/GNVQ results are reported as standard as the results of pupils aged 15 at the start of the Academic year ie 31 August, and therefore reaching the end of compulsory education at the end of the school year.

  School Meals
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 22 March 2004,Official Report, column 626W, on school meals, how many (a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils live more than three miles away from the school that they attend; and how many of those are eligible for free school meals. [166999]

  Mr. Miliband [holding answer 22 April 2004]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Numbers of pupils living more than three miles1 from the maintained primary and secondary schools2 that they attend— January 2003

  Primary

  Secondary

  Number of pupils travelling more than three miles

  155,187

  583,446

  Percentage of pupils travelling more than three miles (as percentage of all pupils)

  3.7

  17.8

  Number of pupils eligible for free school meals travelling more than three miles

  12,204

  46,596

  Percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals travelling more than three miles (as percentage of all FSM pupils)

  1.7

  9.8

  1 Distances calculated are straight line

  2 Includes middle schools as deemed

  Source:

  Pupil Level Annual Schools' Census

  School Standards (Liverpool and Berkshire)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 15 and 16-year-old pupils in(a) Liverpool and (b) Berkshire achieved five or more GCSEs at Grades A*-C or GNVQ equivalent in each of the last seven years. [166961]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentages of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or mote grades A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ in Liverpool and Berkshire LEAs from 1997 to 2003 are shown in the following table.

  Please note that since 1997 the results of pupils within the county of Berkshire have been reported under the six local education authorities which make up this county following local government re-organisation.

  Schools (Capital Funding)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much capital funding for schools has come from(a) private and (b) public sources in each year since 1997. [167578]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government encourage capital investment from private sources, but do not hold information about total amounts. Recent government programmes which encourage such investment include the Private Finance Initiative, specialist schools, academies and Seed Challenge. This approach will continue in Building Schools for the Future. Local authorities can also secure private investment through agreements with developers.

  The following table shows the Department's support for capital investment, including the Private Finance Initiative, in each year since 1997. Some other departments also provide capital support for schools.

  £ billion

  1997–98

  0.8

  1998–99

  1.1

  1999–2000

  1.4

  2000–01

  2.1

  2001–02

  2.2

  2002–03

  3.0

  2003–04

  3.8

  2004–051

  4.5

  1 Budgeted allocation

  Sexual Abuse
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what requirement there is on head teachers in private schools to report to the police allegations of sexual abuse of pupils by school employees. [165943]

  Margaret Hodge
  Proprietors of independent schools are under the same duty as governing bodies of maintained schools to safeguard and promote the welfare of their pupils. They must comply with DfES Circular 10/95, "Protecting Children from Abuse: The Role of the Education Service". This guidance includes advice about the action to take following allegations of suspected abuse of pupils by a member of staff, including referral to child protection agencies.

  Sure Start
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average full cost per child care place at a children's centre operating under Sure Start is for children aged(a) 0 to six months, (b) six months to two years and (c) two to four years. [166464]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Sure Start Unit does not collect this information. However according to research undertaken by the Daycare Trust the typical weekly cost of a fulltime nursery place for a child under two ranges from £107—£169. For children over two it ranges from £103–£149. Local authorities and childcare providers will decide on fee policies locally. I As may offer free or subsidised places to children in need.
  814W
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the full annual running costs of a typical children's centre operating under the Sure Start scheme. [166466]

  Margaret Hodge
  It is not possible to estimate the typical annual running costs for a children's centre. Children's centres will offer a core programme including childcare integrated with early education, health, family and parenting support. They may offer additional services depending on the needs of the community. Local authorities are being asked to work with partners to reshape existing funded services, such as health visiting. Furthermore children's centres will be developed from a variety of existing provision such as Sure Start local programmes, neighbourhood nurseries, early excellence centres, maintained nursery schools and health centres all of which have wide ranging annual budgets.

  Teachers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new teachers entered full-time teaching in each year since 1990. [167557]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of newly qualified teachers entering full-time service in maintained schools in England in each year from 1989–90 to 2001–02, the latest period for which information is available.

  Number

  1989–90

  12,700

  1990–91

  12,300

  1991–92

  12,700

  1992–93

  13,900

  1993–94

  16,700

  1994–95

  16,600

  1995–96

  16,300

  1996–97

  17,100

  1997–98

  18,000

  1998–99

  16,800

  1999–2000

  17,600

  2000–01

  16,900

  2001–02

  17,700

  Source:

  Database of Teacher Records.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many registered teachers were recorded as working in a non-teaching capacity in each year since 1997; [167563]

  (2) how many registered teachers worked for local education authorities in a non-teaching capacity in each year since 1997. [167564]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people have qualified as(a) teachers and (b) advanced skills teachers in each year since 1997. [167577]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives the numbers of people who successfully completed initial teacher training courses in each academic year between 1996/97 and 2001/02, the latest period for which information is available. The table excludes teachers who gained
  815W
  qualified teacher status through employment based routes because the information was not available until 2001/02. In that year 2,210 teachers gained qualified teacher status by those routes.

  Number

  1996/97

  25,310

  1997/98

  24,040

  1998/99

  24,070

  1999/2000

  21,690

  2000/01

  22,640

  2001/02

  23,280

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency.

  The following table gives the numbers of teachers who have been successfully assessed for advanced skills teacher status in each financial year between 1998–99 and 2003–04. These assessments commenced in July 1998.

  Number

  1998–99

  142

  1999–2000

  480

  2000–01

  120

  2001–02

  865

  2002–03

  1,895

  2003–04

  1,145

  Source:

  Westminster Education Consultants, National Assessment Agency.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in Manchester, Gorton on the latest date for which figures are available; and what steps he is taking to reduce them. [167458]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available in the form requested. In January 2003, there were two advertised vacancies for full-time permanent teachers in maintained schools in the Manchester local education authority area.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is taking to ensure that fully-qualified teachers employed by Social Services have parity of pay and conditions with colleagues in mainstream schools. [168176]

  Mr. Miliband
  None. My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the pay and conditions of service of teachers employed by Social Services.

  Teaching Assistants (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching assistants

  Proportion1 of UK domiciled applicants, accepted through UCAS from each social class, 1994–2001 entry

  Year of entry

  Social Class

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  I—Professional

  16

  16

  16

  15

  15

  15

  14

  14

  II—Intermediate

  44

  43

  44

  44

  44

  44

  44

  44

  IIIn—Skilled non manual

  13

  13

  13

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  IIIm—Skilled manual

  17

  18

  17

  17

  17

  17

  17

  18

  IV—Partly skilled

  8

  8

  8

  9

  9

  9

  9

  8

  V—Unskilled

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Combined groups: IV and V

  10

  10

  10

  11

  11

  11

  11

  10

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 of those of known social class

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service

  816W
  there were in schools in Manchester, Gorton (a) in each of the last seven years and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [167459]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the full time equivalent number of teaching assistants in service in maintained schools in the Manchester, Gorton constituency in each year between 1997 and 2003, the latest year for which information is available.

  Manchester, Gorton

  Number of assistants

  1997

  150

  1998

  150

  1999

  160

  2000

  180

  2001

  260

  2002

  300

  2003

  360

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census.

  Universal Day Care
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the additional cost of offering universal day care for children under five. [165481]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 April 2004]: We have made no such estimate. Child care places, including those for full day care, are offered by a wide range of providers, including private nurseries, childminders, employers, local government and community organisations. The Government make start up grants available to help potential childminders and day care providers set up in business, as well as sustainability funding to help support good quality child care provision in danger of closing in disadvantaged areas.

  University Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of students attending university were from each of the lowest two social classes in each of the last 10 years. [166733]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is taken from the University and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and covers UK-domiciled applicants, accepted to full-time undergraduate courses. The method of calculating social class adopted for social class data for 2002 entry onwards is the National Statistics Socio-Economic Class (NS-SEC). Hence, proportions for 2002 entry and 2003 entry are not directly comparable to earlier years and have been given separately.
  817W

  Proportion1 of UK domiciled applicants, accepted through UCAS, from each social class, 2002–03 entry

  Year of entry

  National Statistics Socio-Economic Class (NS-SEC)

  2002

  2003

  1. Higher managerial and professional occupations

  23

  22

  2. Lower managerial and professional occupations

  31

  31

  3. Intermediate occupations

  16

  15

  4. Small employers and own account workers

  7

  7

  5. Lower supervisory and technical occupations

  5

  5

  6. Semi-routine occupations

  13

  13

  7. Routine occupations

  6

  6

  Total

  100

  100

  1 of those of known social class

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service

  EU domiciles accepted through UCAS to UK institutions, 1994–2003 entry

  Year of entry

  Domicile

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Austria1

  78

  132

  208

  176

  193

  189

  198

  179

  201

  Belgium

  290

  295

  377

  416

  401

  431

  401

  424

  442

  485

  Denmark

  128

  148

  207

  279

  259

  269

  272

  269

  285

  251

  Finland1

  180

  444

  724

  655

  557

  457

  447

  421

  404

  France

  487

  720

  883

  1,288

  1,337

  1,519

  1,690

  1,551

  1,710

  2,029

  Germany

  891

  1,021

  1,102

  1,475

  1,656

  1,624

  1,693

  1,541

  1,609

  1,675

  Gibraltar

  132

  192

  152

  175

  203

  177

  220

  160

  156

  158

  Greece

  2,207

  3,448

  4,947

  5,804

  5,565

  5,046

  4,005

  2,721

  2,081

  1,690

  Irish Republic

  2,984

  4,298

  3,815

  3,878

  2,933

  2,602

  2,273

  2,180

  2,390

  2.874

  Italy

  329

  395

  414

  538

  572

  645

  499

  496

  505

  510

  Luxembourg

  89

  111

  103

  143

  163

  176

  188

  167

  162

  174

  Netherlands

  210

  224

  233

  237

  250

  245

  268

  242

  284

  340

  Portugal

  134

  177

  242

  287

  269

  313

  304

  313

  321

  356

  Spain

  371

  464

  521

  617

  659

  788

  674

  693

  720

  742

  Sweden1

  213

  365

  674

  791

  936

  913

  773

  727

  683

  Total EU

  8,252

  11,964

  13,937

  16,743

  15,889

  15,521

  14,046

  12,175

  11,992

  12,572

  1 Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU in 1995.

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service

  Urban Education Projects
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on Urban Education projects, with particular reference to the St. Cuthbert's Care project in Byker. [166538]

  Margaret Hodge
  There is no policy on Urban Education projects as such. This Department supports education initiatives in a wide range of settings and for diverse client groups, and the Children's Fund supports well over four thousand projects for children and young people. Newcastle Children's Fund Partnership has provided over £85,000 to the St Cuthbert's Urban Education project between 2002–2004. Following a competitive application process against a range of criteria, the Partnership decided not to fund the project in 2004–05.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Academic Selection
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the alternative forms of academic selection to the 11-plus assessed by the Department of Education in the last year. [166713]

  University Students (EU Member States)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many undergraduate students from other EU member states have been accepted at United Kingdom universities in each of the past 10 years. [166736]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is taken from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and cover EU domiciles accepted through UCAS to full-time first degree and HMD courses at UCAS member institutions in the UK. Early figures for 2004 entry show that EU applicants have risen by 14 per cent.

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Post-Primary Review Working Group considered alternative forms of academic selection but concluded that no alternative form of testing, or teacher assessment, would be any less problematical than the current arrangements; that age 11 is too early to commit pupils to particular pathways and that it is unsound to believe that the more able should follow only academic type courses.

  Assembly Elections (Malpractice)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Electoral Office has received complaints about malpractice following the latest Assembly Elections in Northern Ireland. [168300]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Electoral Officer has received one complaint about malpractice following the Assembly Elections in November. However, it could not be fully investigated as no evidence to substantiate the complaint was provided.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has to designate the Home Office under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, with particular reference to functions in relation to asylum seekers and refugees; [165819]
  819W
  (2) what plans he has to (a) designate Work Permits UK under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and (b) provide that the collection and reporting of statistics on work permits be subject to the public equity duty. [165820]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Home Secretary has advised me that in his view designation would have a serious and adverse effect on the work of his department, which includes Work Permits UK, specifically on the work of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. For that reason I accept his view that designation of the Home Office would not be appropriate. Wherever possible the Home Office is working within the spirit of the legislation.

  Autism
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what training student teachers receive on the needs of children with autistic spectrum disorders. [167722]

  Mr. Gardiner
  There is a comprehensive range of core competences to be covered by student teachers during their Initial Teacher Education (ITE) courses when most of a student's time is spent on school placement.

  As such, special educational needs provision mainly covers the recognition of pupils' special needs and focuses on strategies to meet those needs. Current ITE provision is, nevertheless, under review with the intention of developing approaches which match, more closely, the needs of teachers entering the profession.

  Cannabis
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) arrests and (b) cautions there have been in Northern Ireland for (i) the possession of and (ii) the sale of cannabis since its reclassification. [164535]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Chief Constable advises me that PSNI record the number of persons arrested or cautioned for possession or supply of Class C drugs. The following table sets out these figures in respect of all Class C drugs since 29 January when cannabis was reclassified. Statistics relating to Class C drugs are not maintained by the type of drug involved and it is not therefore possible to disaggregate those relating solely to cannabis.

  Persons

  Persons

  arrested

  cautioned

  Possession of a Class C drug

  94

  19

  Trafficking offences involving a Class C drug

  33

  0

  Cross-Border Bodies (Salaries)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the salary of each chief executive of the cross border bodies was in the last financial year; when the salaries were last revised; and what the percentage increase was in each case in comparison with(a) the rate of inflation and (b) the Civil Service pay increase. [163677]
  820W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The salary of each Chief Executive of the North South Implementation Bodies and Tourism Ireland in 2002–03 is set out as follows. (There was no Chief Executive in post in the Ulster Scots Agency in post during that period.) Since bodies with headquarters in Northern Ireland operate for salary purposes on 1 April-31 March financial years, the figures given in the table are those that applied throughout the financial year in question. Those bodies with headquarters in Ireland operate on a calendar year and the figures given are those that applied with effect from 1 October 200.

  The salaries of Chief Executive Officers' (CEOs) of those bodies with headquarters in Northern Ireland were last revised with effect from 1 April 2002, while those for CEOs of bodies with headquarters in Ireland were revised with effect from 1 October 2002, except for the CEO of Foras na Gaeilge whose salary was revised on 1 February 2003. The percentage increases involved in the 2002 revisions are shown in the table. The rate of inflation in the UK in 2002–03 was 3.29 per cent., while that in Ireland in 2002 was 4.6 per cent. The Northern Ireland Civil Service base pay increase for 2002–03 was 4.38 per cent. for the Senior Civil Service and 4.8 per cent. for other grades. The Irish Civil Service pay increase with effect from 1 October 2002 was 4 per cent.

  Body

  CEO salary

  Percentage increase

  Special EU Programme Body

  £66,953

  4.5

  Waterways Ireland

  £70,725

  6.3

  InterTradeIreland

  £57,822

  4.5

  FCILC—Loughs Agency

  £53,511

  5.1

  Tourism Ireland Ltd.

  €126,246

  4

  Foras na Gaeilge

  €92,949

  4

  Food Safety Promotion Board

  €90,651

  4

  Curriculum Classification
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the Department of Education's definition and criteria are for classifying curriculum subjects as(a) vocational and (b) academic in secondary schools in Northern Ireland. [166714]

  Mr. Gardiner
  No decisions have yet been taken on these issues, which will be considered in the context of the proposed Entitlement Framework.

  Housing
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the increase has been in housing executive rents in Northern Ireland over the past five years. [168297]

  Mr. Spellar
  The increase in Housing Executive rents in Northern Ireland over the past five years is as follows:

  Increase in housing executive rents in Northern Ireland

  Percentage

  2000–01

  4.5

  2001–02

  3

  2002–03

  3.5

  2003–04

  3.25

  2004–05

  3

  821W
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland housing industry regarding the possible introduction of home information packs. [168187]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have had no representations from the housing industry regarding the possible introduction of home information packs in Northern Ireland.

  I will, however, continue to monitor developments as regards the home information pack with a view to determining whether there may be merit, at some time in the future, in introducing similar measures in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the total of unpaid housing executive house rents in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [168188]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is not available in the format requested, however, collectable rental income and gross arrears in each of the last five years are as follows:

  £million

  Collectable rent

  Gross arrears at year end

  1999–2000

  286.0

  14.6

  2000–01

  285.5

  17.4

  2001–02

  280 4

  19.0

  2002–03

  273 3

  18.9

  2003–04

  265 5

  19.1

  Notes:

  1. Collectable Rent includes rents of dwellings, garages and district heating charges.

  2. Gross arrears include overpayment of housing benefit arising from tenants failing to correctly advise of thief financial circumstances.

  3. Gross arrears is a rolling figure which includes un-recovered arrears from previous years.

  Invest Northern Ireland
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average financial assistance offered by Invest Northern Ireland was per job retained in each of the last five years. [159746]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The following table shows the number of jobs expected to be retained as a result of projects secured between 1998–99 and 2002–03, and the assistance Invest NI offered to retain those jobs. The information in the table does not reflect all job retention as a result of Invest NI activity, but is restricted to those generally larger indigenous businesses and inward investors for which information on job promotions/retentions are available.

  Assistance offered for retained jobs

  Financial year

  Expected retained jobs

  Assistance offered for expected retained jobs (£)

  Cost per expected retained jobs (£)

  1998–99

  2,931

  17,430,392

  5,947

  1999–2000

  1,796

  14,059,950

  7,828

  2000–01

  1,896

  11,936,019

  6,295

  2001–02

  1,711

  15,351,204

  8,972

  2002–03

  4,175

  26,974,296

  6,461

  Libya
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the quantity of arms and explosives supplied by Libya to the Provisional IRA in the last 30 years. [165221]

  Mr. Pearson
  This information is only available from intelligence sources. In the view of the Government it falls within the terms of Paragraph 4 of Part II (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Accordingly it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment.

  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning has undertaken to provide an inventory of the arms decommissioned to the two governments when its task is completed.

  Motorcar/Motorcycle Racing
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public sector money has been allocated to(a) motorcar racing and (b) motorcycle racing in each of the last five years in Northern Ireland. [167488]

  Angela Smith
  The amount of public sector money allocated to(a) motorcar racing and (b) motorcycle racing in each of the last five years by the Sports Council, the Northern Ireland Events Company and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is as follows:

  (a) Motorcar Racing:

  Public funds (includes Sports Council Exchequer, Sports Council Lottery, Northern Ireland Events Company awards and Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment funding administered through the Northern Ireland Tourist Board).

  Motorcar racing

  £

  1999–2000

  86,300

  2000–01

  14,500

  2001–02

  0

  2002–03

  28,240

  2003–04

  173,000

  Total

  302,040

  (b) Motor Cycle Racing:

  Public funds (includes Sports Council Exchequer, Sports Council Lottery, Northern Ireland Events Company awards and Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment funding administered through the Northern Ireland Tourist Board).

  Motor cycle racing

  £

  1999–2000

  9,700

  2000–01

  56,461

  2001–02

  132,100

  2002–03

  282,268

  2003–04

  320,702

  Total

  801,231

  The following table shows the total amount of Sports Council Exchequer funding allocated to the 2 and 4 Wheel Motorsport Steering Group Ltd. in each of the

  823W
  last five years. It is not possible at this time to break this funding down into separate data for motorcar racing and motorcycle racing.

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland Exchequer funding allocated to the 2 and 4 Wheel Motorsport Steering Group Ltd.

  £

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  0

  2001–02

  0

  2002–03

  15,000

  2003–04

  200,000

  Total

  215,000

  Nitrates Directive
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has been made of the effects of the Nitrates Directive on the(a) pig, (b) poultry and (c) dairy industry in Northern Ireland; and if he will undertake a full consultation before the provisions are adopted. [166828]

  Angela Smith
  Responsibility for ensuring that Northern Ireland meets its obligations under the Nitrates Directive rests jointly with my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The hon. Member for Dudley and I recognise that implementation of the Nitrates Directive will have significant implications for the farming industry. However, we also recognise that agriculture is a major source of water pollution and that measures to minimise the negative impact from agriculture must be introduced if we are to meet the requirements of the Directive. Our officials have been working closely with the industry in developing our proposals for compliance. The first of these, relating to the application of an action programme under the Directive to the whole of Northern Ireland, is currently the subject of a consultation exercise launched on 14 April 2004. Two further consultation exercises, on associated action programme measures and draft regulations, are planned for May 2004 and April 2005 respectively. An Economic Appraisal on the implementation of the Directive has also been carried out.

  The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is currently consulting in parallel on a Farm Waste Management Scheme to provide capital grant support and has allocated funding of £30 million.

  In addition, our officials are also committed to working with the industry to explore innovative and alternative approaches to slurry disposal which will be particularly important in the dairy, pig and poultry sectors.

  Planned Maintenance Work
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the amount of planned maintenance work suspended in each education area in Northern Ireland. [166716]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Responsibility for maintenance work in controlled and maintained schools and other Board property rests with Education and Library Boards, while for voluntary grammar and grant-maintained 824W
  integrated schools the responsibility rests with individual school authorities. Each Education and Library Board has been asked to submit a resource allocation plan for 2004–05 showing how they will allocate their total budgets and indicating the outputs that will be delivered with those budgets. The plans will include the amounts that the Boards propose to spend on maintenance this year. Before giving approval, the Department of Education will be considering the plans to make sure that the y provide a clear picture of how the resources allocated to the Boards will be used and that they reflect the Government's commitment to raise educational standards in Northern Ireland.

  Police Service
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many constables have joined the Police Service of Northern Ireland since the recent change in transfer arrangements from other police forces; how many full-time reservists have been offered the same facility to become regular constables; and what additional training would be required(a) for those transferring from other police services and (b) for full-time reservists transferring. [163713]

  Mr. Pearson
  Following recent changes to the transfer arrangements from other police forces, provided by Section 23 of the Police (NI) Act 2003, PSNI intend to recruit 12 officers at the rank of Detective Constable. Two of this number have already been appointed.

  One officer has joined the PSNI as an experienced Police Trainee with a reduced period of training as allowed by the Police Trainee (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003.

  There have been no full-time reservists offered the same facility to became regular constables as the Police (NI) Act 2003 Section 23 (3)(1) specifically requires the appointment of people with 'specified policing skills' and in respect of the Police Trainee (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 the Chief Constable has deemed an experienced police trainee as a person who has successfully completed a two year probationary period in a UK police service.

  The additional training provided for those transferring to the PSNI is bespoke and based upon the individuals' prior experience and training. However it is at least six weeks in duration and will include the following topics: Police and Community Relationships; Human Rights; Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland; Northern Ireland Specific Legislation; Firearms Training and Tactical Patrolling.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total expenditure on recruitment advertising by the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been in each year since its formation; what form this advertising has taken; and if he will make a statement. [164542]

  Mr. Pearson
  I am advised that the spend on police support staff recruitment advertising in 2002–03 was £432,921 and for 2003–04 was £128,860.

  For police trainee and part time recruitment the costs were as follows: for 2001–02 £1,135,047, for 2002–03 £440,750 and for 2003–04 £402,617.
  825W
  The costs of police trainee recruitment include television production and advertising costs. Television advertisements were shown on a number of channels including Ulster Television, Channel Four and RT

  Newspaper advertisements were also printed in a diverse range of publications in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland.

  Psychiatry Services (Prisoners)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the general psychiatry service to prisoners in the Province. [164912]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Prison Service has contracts with two Health and Social Services Trusts for the provision of psychiatric services. Two Consultant Forensic Psychiatrists provide a total of 12 sessions (1.2 whole-time equivalent). A Specialist Registrar on a post-graduate training programme in forensic psychiatry, partially funded by the Prison Service, supports one of the consultants. A Staff Grade psychiatric registrar supports the second consultant. In addition, a medical officer from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety with a qualification in psychiatry provides two sessions a week at Maghaberry Prison.

  Public Holiday Entitlement
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he plans to abolish the public holidays on(a) 17 March and (b) 12 July in any part of the public service in Northern Ireland. [166131]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have no plans to change the observance of the bank holiday on 17 March and the bank and public holiday on 12 July by civil servants in the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland Administration and the Northern Ireland Office who are located in Northern Ireland. Holidays for other public service workers are a matter for the relevant employer.

  Travellers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to ensure that legal protection of Travellers is enhanced by the EU Race Directive. [165821]

  Mr. Spellar
  Irish Travellers are already covered by the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. The amendments to this Order to give effect to the provisions of the EU Race Directive apply to Irish Travellers and came into effect on 19 July 2003 to meet the deadline for implementation.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in(a) giving legal effect to and (b) promoting a Code of Practice to Promote Racial Equality in Housing and Accommodation under Article 45 of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997; and I what measures he proposes to promote good relations between travellers and settled communities. [165822]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland consulted on a Code of Practice on Housing in September 2001. The Government will begin the process 826W
  of giving legal effect to the Code when it is submitted to it as required by the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.

  Irish Travellers will be covered by a Race Equality Strategy for Northern Ireland, to be published later this year.

  A Promoting Social Inclusion Working group was set up to recommend ways of alleviating the disadvantage faced by Travellers and the Government published its response to the recommendations of this working group on 25 February 2003. A Travellers Sub-Group is being set up within the NI Race Forum to oversee the implementation of the Government's response and have input, through the forum, into the implementation of the Race Equality Strategy.

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the target length of time is between submissions of a request for a tree preservation order and a decision on such a request; and whether there are guidelines on keeping interested parties informed of progress. [166778]

  Angela Smith
  The Planning Service is responsible for processing requests for a Tree Preservation Order. There is no agreed time scale for processing such requests. These requests are processed as quickly as possible and each case is considered on its own merits. Interested parties are informed of Planning Service's decision in these cases.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lyons Report
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Sir Michael Lyons' report's recommendations to set up a Cabinet committee with a lead Minister. [167959]

  The Prime Minister
  I will announce the arrangements for following up Sir Michael Lyons' report at the conclusion of the current Spending Review.

  Phillips Review
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with the Phillips Review of the honours system, and on the methodology being employed. [168850]

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Hayden Phillips, Permanent Secretary at the Department for Constitutional Affairs with special responsibility for the honours system on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, is reviewing current arrangements in the honours system, examining issues of diversity and transparency.

  Information has been collected from those involved in the system and views from members of the public and other interested parties have also been collected via the Cabinet Office website. Recent commentary in the press and by members of the public will be taken into account. It is hoped that Sir Hayden's review will be completed by the summer.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has given to the submission of the Royal Society on the case for a research centre to investigate the dangers from chemical and biological weapons. [168624]

  The Prime Minister
  We have not formally responded to the Royal Society Report. Senior Home Office scientists and the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government have arranged to meet the Chair of the working group, Professor Herbert Huppert, shortly to discuss the group's recommendations.

  The report confirms that the Government's approach to coordinating the scientific response to terrorism is the right one. We are in complete agreement on the desired outcome towards a coordinated, cross-government research programme driven by the unique requirements of civil defence. The Government have put in place the measures needed to deliver this, including a cross-government civil counter terrorism research programme led by the Home Office Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Team.

  Correspondence
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received from members of the public in each year since 1997–98. [168658]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  I receive many items of correspondence including from hon. Members, the general public, various charities and private companies. In the last two years, the total number of items of correspondence has been approximately 1.1 million, an increase from approximately 500,000 in 1999, 2000 and 2001 and 300,000 in 1998.

  The correspondence covers a wide range of issues and my office deals with them efficiently.

  Europe
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral statement of 20 April 2004,Official Report, column 156, what the evidential basis is for his statement that the myths that (a) the EU will be renamed the United States of Europe, (b) the Queen will be replaced as our head of state, (c) Britain will be forced to join the euro, (d) Britain could not mount a Falklands war or an Iraq campaign without permission from Brussels, (e) we would lose our seat on the UN Security Council, (f) Brussels will seize control of our oil supplies, (g) Brussels will have the power to set taxes in Britain, (h) our foreign policy will be decided by the EU and (i) we will surrender control of our borders have been propagated about the proposed European constitutional treaty. [168451]

  The Prime Minister
  All the myths that I quoted in my statement of 20 April 2004,Official Report, columns 155–57 are in the public domain.

  Flooding (Lewes)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit the Lewes constituency to inspect those areas which were subject to flooding in 2000 and where no flood defence works have yet been proposed. [167799]
  828W
  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Planned expenditure by the Environment Agency on flood risk management in 2005–06 will be 80 per cent. higher than in 2000–01. This increase has and will continue to enable greater protection of communities that are vulnerable to flooding. In the case of Lewes, in at least one area, planning permission has recently been granted for this work and construction should begin this year.

  G8 Summit
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations at the G8 summit for funds to be committed to implement the strategic framework by UNAIDS on Orphans and Vulnerable Children. [167612]

  The Prime Minister
  We strongly support the lead role that UNAIDS piays in co-ordinating efforts to tackle the HIV crisis, including the needs of orphans and vulnerable children. We will continue to press G8 members to play their role in tackling this crisis.

  Global Warming
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has accepted the advice of his Chief Scientist that global warning represents as big a threat to the world as terrorism. [167790]

  The Prime Minister
  Terrorism and climate change clearly pose different kinds of threats to the world. Both are an extremely high priority for this Government, and we are doing all we can to tackle each in the way that is the most appropriate.

  HIV/AIDS
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will call for support for children affected by HIV/AIDS to be made a priority at the G8 summit. [167611]

  The Prime Minister
  Tackling HIV/AIDS is a priority for the UK Government. We are concerned about the devastating impact AIDS is have in creating millions of orphans and vulnerable children. We are committed to playing our part is an effective response and this will be reflected in the new government strategy on AIDS, which will be published later this year and in raising it at the G8 summit.

  Iraq
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister when the director of the CIA first advised the British Government not to use the allegation that Iraq could ready weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. [168617]

  The Prime Minister
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters. However, this was not an issue between the US and the UK.

  Meetings
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the environment it groups he has met since 1 January 2003. [167801]
  829W
  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range or organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

  Since January 2003, I have met a number of environmental groups and their workers, ranging from mass membership organisations to local bio-diversity and quality of life organisations.

  Ministerial Visits
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the towns and cities in the UK he visited in 2003, giving in each case the purpose of the visit. [167794]

  The Prime Minister
  In 2003 I undertook the following official visits within the UK:

  Date

  Destination

  2003

  16 January

  Edinburgh

  25 January

  Manchester

  6 February

  Newcastle Darlington

  12 February

  Hillsborough (Northern Ireland)

  13 February

  Sheffield, Bradford, Wakefield, Leeds, Edinburgh Glasgow

  27 February

  Canterbury

  28 February

  Swansea

  3–4 March

  Hillsborough (Northern Ireland)

  3 April

  Aldershot and RAF Lyneham

  7–8 April

  Hillsborough (Northern Ireland)

  11 April

  Sandhurst

  15 April

  Glasgow and RAF Leuchers

  24 April

  Birmingham, Cardiff

  28 April

  Manchester, Dundee

  9 May

  Middleton St. George

  7 June

  Durham

  3–5 July

  Birmingham, Liverpool, Garsten, Broughton

  30 July

  Thames Gateway Ingress Park, Kent

  4 September

  Northampton

  9 September

  Brighton

  18 September

  Bexleyheath

  27 September

  Southampton/Bournemouth

  23–24 October

  Nottingham

  6 November

  Basildon

  17 November

  Birmingham

  27–28 November

  Newport, Gwent, Cardiff, Bristol

  1 December

  Leeds

  19 December

  Darlington

  830W
  I have also visited various areas within London including Croydon, Southwark and St. John's Wood and travel regularly to my constituency.

  My visits covered a range of matters including health, education, criminal justice and visiting the families of Forces serving in the Gulf.

  I travel making the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements. My travel arrangements are in accordance with the arrangements for official travel set out in Chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code, and the accompanying guidance document, "Travel by Ministers".

  National Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what definition of national security is used by the Government. [168789]

  The Prime Minister
  There is no statutory definition of national security. The courts accept that the interpretation of what is national security is, within a wide margin of appreciation, a matter for the Secretary of State to determine on a case-by-case basis.

  Washington Meeting
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in respect of(a) compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and (b) ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change were discussed during his meeting with President Bush on 16 April in Washington. [168775]

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed a wide range of issues with President Bush, including Iraq, the Middle East Peace Process and other international security issues. As with previous Administrations, it is not the practice of this Government to make public all the details of discussions with foreign Governments.

  Yemen
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps the British Government is taking to keep allies informed of developments in the fight against terrorism, with particular reference to the Yemen. [168075]

  The Prime Minister
  We have regular contact with our key international counter terrorism partners including the Yemeni Government.

HEALTH

  Social Services Departments
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that local authority social services departments abide by confidentiality guidelines. [167594]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The protection of privacy and confidentiality by local authority social services is one of the criteria taken into account in the course of the inspection and assessment of performance carried out by the Commission for Social Care Inspection.

  The Department has carried out a range of activities to ensure local authority compliance with confidentiality guidelines. In 2001, the Caldicott principles and processes for the management of confidentiality and access to personal information were extended from the National Health Service into social care. At this time, councils with social services responsibilities (CSSRs) were required to appoint social care Caldicott guardians to take the lead in this within their organisations. The Department has issued guidance on confidentiality issues and is currently preparing an information governance toolkit for social care, which will include further guidance on confidentiality and information sharing.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted to the accident and emergency departments at(a) Weston General Hospital, (b) the Royal United Hospital, Bath and (c) the Frenchay Hospital, Bristol in each of the last five years. [167500]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: Information on the number of attendances at accident and emergency for each National Health Service trust is published and available at http://www.perfornriance. doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Copies of the tables for each quarter from 2001–02 are available in the Library. Prior to this, information was published annually in Outpatient and ward attenders, England, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available for the accident and emergency departments at(a) Weston General Hospital, (b) the Royal United Hospital, Bath and (c) the Frenchay Hospital, Bristol in each of the last five years. [167501]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS spent on agency nurses in each year from 1997–98 to 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [156701]
  832W
  Mr. Hutton
  They national health service does not separately record the cost of employing agency staff. The figures shown in the table include total cost to the NHS of nurses not directly employed by NHS bodies.

  Expenditure by the NHS on non-NHS nurses is shown in the table. The figures include all agency nursing staff and any other staff not directly employed by NHS trusts, primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. Information is not yet available for 2003–04.

  Expenditure by the NHS on non-NHS nurses

  £

  Amount

  1997–98

  216,338,567

  1998–99

  272,225,162

  1999–2000

  361,656,683

  2000–01

  435,431,882

  2001–02

  554,323,821

  2002–03

  627,889,817

  Note:

  2002–03 data remains provisional.

  Source:

  Annual Financial Returns of NHS Trusts 1997–98 to 2002–03.

  Annual Financial Returns of Health Authorities 1997–98 to 2001–02.

  Annual Financial returns of Primary Care Trusts 2000–01 to 2002–03.

  Annual Financial Returns of Strategic Health Authorities 2002–03.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues in relation to the maximum time which ambulances should take in transporting pregnant mothers to hospitals in emergencies. [167486]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 22 April 2004]: All patients requiring urgent hospital treatment should be transported to hospital without delay. There are no maximum transport times which ambulances should take in transporting pregnant mothers to hospitals in emergencies. There are, however, targets for response times. As with all emergency calls to ambulance services, guidance on response times is based on medical need.

  Current ambulance response targets include:
  Category A calls: Presenting conditions which may be immediately life threatening and which should be responded to within eight minutes irrespective of location in 75 per cent. of cases.
  Category B calls: Presenting conditions which though serious are not immediately life threatening and should be responded to within 14 minutes (urban) and 19 minutes (rural) in 95 per cent. of cases.

  Autopsies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to encourage hospitals to carry out autopsies. [166731]
  833W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The decision as to whether to request a hospital post-mortem examination is for the treating clinician and the deceased's family. However, we are aware that in the past the taking and use of organs and tissue without consent at post-mortems has damaged public and professional confidence in the hospital post-mortem examination

  We have issued new guidance to the national health service to help restore that confidence. This takes the form of a code of practice for those involved in communicating with families where a post-mortem may be necessary or desirable. It includes a revision of the consent forms required to be completed by relatives with the aim of helping families understand the procedure and enabling them to grant an informed consent to a post-mortem and the disposal of organs or tissue. This guidance is available on the Deportment's website at: www.dh.gov.uk/tissue Later this year we will be making available to NHS trusts a short video/DVD produced with the support of the Royal College of Pathologists that explains the reasons for, and benefits to be obtained from, a post-mortem and encouraging the consent of families to the procedure.

  We are also taking positive action to change the law to secure further changes to re-establish confidence. The Human Tissue Bill, currently before Parliament, ensures that whatever is done with the human body and its parts after death within the NHS will be done only as part of a transparent process and with appropriate consent. It will also introduce penalties for organ retention without consent as additional reassurance for the integrity of the new procedures.

  CFS/ME
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evidence he has collated to indicate that CFS/ME is a neurological disorder; [166704]

  (2) what has been learned from studies of the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy in patients suffering CFS/ME; and if he will make a statement; [166706]

  (3) what evidence he has collated of (a) cardiovascular and (b) biochemical features in ME/CFS. [166711]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In our present state of knowledge, chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) remains medically unexplained with various associated risk factors, and wits variable symptoms from various systems in the body, including some neurological, immunological, cardiovascular, digestive and psychological symptoms. There are many different views on what causes these symptoms, and some of them are strongly held.

  In its report to the Chief Medical Officer in 2002, the independent working group on CFS/ME noted that there is no cure for CFS/ME but identified three specific strategies as potentially beneficial in modifying the illness: graded exercise, cognitive behavioural therapy, and pacing. Graded exercise focuses on gradual but
  834W
  progressive increases in aerobic exercise, such as walking or swimming. Cognitive behavioural therapy aims to empower patients to identify, understand, and modify their belief systems and behaviours. Pacing is an energy management strategy in which patients are encouraged to achieve an appropriate balance between rest and activity.

  Conception Statistics
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many conceptions there were in Southend-on-Sea in each year since 1997, broken down by month; and if he will make a statement. [166934]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department. However, the information shown in the table has been obtained from the Office of National Statistics.

  All age conceptions for residents of Southend-on-Sea by month of conception, 1997 to 20011

  Number

  Month

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20012

  January

  218

  226

  193

  229

  220

  February

  195

  179

  198

  197

  205

  March

  182

  205

  214

  213

  225

  April

  225

  184

  205

  224

  199

  May

  208

  234

  198

  208

  218

  June

  210

  196

  202

  215

  168

  July

  230

  232

  195

  167

  198

  August

  228

  202

  176

  205

  201

  September

  197

  192

  205

  205

  191

  October

  243

  226

  208

  187

  211

  November

  253

  220

  202

  203

  237

  December

  243

  231

  230

  209

  202

  All

  2,632

  2,527

  2,426

  2,462

  2,475

  1 Latest year available.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Source:

  Office of National Statistics.

  Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultancy posts were filled in the last 12 months with non-British trained specialists in cases where British trained specialists had applied. [167062]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not collected by the Department.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the revised good practice guidance on the appointment of consultants will be published; and if he will make a statement. [166114]

  Mr. Hutton
  We anticipate that the revised version of The national health service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations good practice guidance will be released this summer. The NHS will be informed of the release of the document through entries in the human resources bulletin and the chief executive's bulletin. A copy of the guidance will be made available on the Department's website.

  Delayed Hospital Discharges
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average delayed hospital discharge time was for(a) England and (b) the Weston Area Health NHS Trust in each year since 1997. [167532]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department does not collect data on the average length of delays. However, data is collected on length of delays, broken down into four time bands. Due to reductions in the overall number of delayed discharges and the proportion of delays which exceed 28 days, the number of people who have been delayed for over 28 days is now less than 20 per cent. of the recorded over 2,790 in September 2001 to under 550 in December 2003.

  Percentages

  Quarter/ year

  Delays less than 8 days

  Delays between 8 14 days

  Delays between 14–28 days

  Delays more than 28 days

  2001–02

  Quarter 2

  22.7

  17.9

  19.8

  39.5

  Quarter 3

  24.3

  16.6

  19.2

  39.9

  Quarter 4

  23.9

  19.5

  20.6

  36.0

  2002–03

  Quarter 1

  26.5

  18.1

  20.6

  34.8

  Quarter 2

  27.6

  18.4

  19.8

  34.2

  Quarter 3

  30.0

  18.8

  20.5

  30.7

  Quarter 4

  36.1

  20.2

  17.4

  26.3

  2003–04

  Quarter 1

  37.6

  20.0

  19.2

  23.3

  Quarter 2

  35.5

  18.6

  19.7

  26.3

  Quarter 3

  49.2

  18.0

  15.9

  17.0

  Health Service Ombudsman
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases are being investigated by the Health Service Ombudsman; what the duration of an investigation by the Ombudsman from start to finish has been in the last five years; and what penalties are available to ensure that the ombudsman investigates within a reasonable amount of time and ensures that hospital trusts report back within set time limits. [166693]

  Ms. Rosie Winterton: This is a matter for the Ombudsman, who is completely independent of the Government. The Ombudsman's remit and powers are set out the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 as amended. Ministers have no say in the Ombudsman's decisions or investigation, nor access to the detailed information being requested.

  Hip Replacements (Essex)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times for hip replacements on the NHS are in each hospital in Essex. [167204]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The finished admission episodes, mean and median time waited in days for hip replacements on the national health service within NHS trusts in Essex are shown in the table.
  836W

  Trust name

  Finished in-year admission episodes

  Median waiting time in days

  Mean waiting time in days

  Southend Hospital

  458

  323

  296.8

  Basildon and Thurrock

  University Hospital

  (Foundation) Trust

  369

  178

  194.2

  Essex Rivers Healthcare

  547

  183

  190.3

  Princess Alexandra Hospital

  399

  348

  283.5

  Mid-Essex Hospital Services

  451

  288

  346.6

  Notes:

  1. A finished in-year admission is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant and within one health care provider, excluding admissions beginning before 1 April at the start of the datayear. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  2. The main operation is the first recorded operation in the hospital episode statistics (HES) data set and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode. It is appropriate to use main operation when looking at admission details, e.g. time waited but the figures for "all operations count of episodes" give a more complete count of episodes with an operation.

  3. Time waited statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and time waited for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment on a specific date and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the time waited as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  4. Figures have not beet adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are un-grossed).

  Source:

  HES, Department of Health.

  Hospices
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that(a) adult and (b) children's hospices receive a fixed proportion of public funding. [167229]

  Dr. Ladyman
  No. We believe that decisions on local health care provision should be made locally. Primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible within the national health service for commissioning and funding services for their resident population, including palliative care. PCTs are at the centre of the local planning process, working with voluntary health care providers such as hospices for adults or children who are viewed as important players and partners in the planning, provision and development of these services. The process of discussion leading to NHS funding agreements applies equally to hospices providing support and services to children as it does for those supporting adults in need of palliative care.

  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current arrangements are for funding hospices; what plans there are for changes in these arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [168076]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The level of national health service funding provided for hospices remains a matter for local decision. There are no plans to change these arrangements.
  837W
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible within the national health service for commissioning and funding services for their resident population, including palliative care. Working as part of cancer networks, PCTs should negotiate and agree with hospices the level of funding support provided for agreed levels of service.

  Intermediate Care Places
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) intermediate care beds and (b) non-residential intermediate care places there were in March; and if he will make a statement. [168645]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department is currently collecting and validating this data. It is anticipated that the information will be available at the end of May 2004.

  1 Actual medical school output in England 1997–99 to 2002–03

  Total output of students

  University

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  University of Birmingham

  155

  169

  169

  192

  191

  189

  University of Bristol

  141

  141

  139

  124

  158

  142

  University of Cambridge

  115

  133

  132

  134

  128

  126

  University of Leeds

  153

  181

  189

  158

  155

  155

  University of Leicester

  122

  167

  146

  156

  164

  159

  University of Liverpool

  180

  162

  173

  190

  180

  187

  King's College (incl. United Medical and Denial Schools), London

  322

  320

  359

  309

  308

  322

  University College Medical School (incl. Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine), London

  338

  297

  352

  320

  305

  361

  St. George's Hospital Medical School, London

  189

  150

  157

  160

  127

  189

  Imperial College (St. Mary's and Charing Cross), London

  269

  207

  263

  257

  275

  273

  Queen Mary's, London (Bart's and the London)

  220

  223

  212

  205

  164

  251

  University of Manchester

  280

  280

  306

  304

  279

  352

  University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  164

  137

  161

  182

  193

  178

  University of Nottingham

  162

  152

  168

  164

  188

  197

  University of Oxford

  106

  100

  102

  100

  102

  94

  University of Sheffield

  191

  144

  196

  189

  214

  198

  University of Southampton

  154

  134

  149

  142

  149

  149

  Total England

  3,261

  3,097

  3,373

  3,286

  3,280

  3,522

  Source:

  Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  The number of United Kingdom-qualified PRHOs in England in the last six years is shown in table 2.

  Number

  1998

  3,173

  1999

  3,122

  2000

  3,297

  2001

  3,176

  2002

  3,205

  2003

  3,344

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce survey.

  Responsibility for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish medical schools is the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students completed their studies in medicine at each university in each of the last six years; and how many in each year chose not to continue their training at hospitals within the United Kingdom. [161482]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 March 2004]: This information is not available in the form requested. There is no precise data on how many students do not complete undergraduate medical degree courses, nor on how many do not join the national health service medical workforce after graduating. However, apart from those overseas students who return home immediately upon graduating, we believe that virtually all graduates from English medical schools take up posts as pre-registration house officers (PRHOs) in the NHS within 18 months of graduating.

  The number of students who graduated from medical schools in England in the last six years is shown in table 1.

  Mid and South Bucks Health Community
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the definition is of the Mid and South Bucks Health Community; and whether this body has a statutory basis in law. [167600]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: The term 'Mid and South Bucks Health Community' refers to both the providers of health services and the people who use or have access to the health services in the Mid and South Buckinghamshire area.

  The body does not exist in law, but, within the geographical area of Mid and South Buckinghamshire there are the following trusts:
  Chiltern and South Bucks Primary Care Trust (PCT).
  Wycombe PCT.
  Vale of Aylesbury PCT.
  Buckinghamshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust.
  Buckinghamshire Mental Health NHS Trust.

  Minimum Data Setting Software
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in the use of minimum data setting software in the care sector. [161631]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 16 March 2004]: I am not aware of any developments on minimum data setting software.

  Work continues on the development of minimum data sets to support the sharing of information along care pathways and the production of comparative clinical information to enable services to monitor quality and clinical performance in each of the following national service framework areas:
  Cancer
  Coronary heart disease
  Mental health
  Older people, including single assessment, stroke, falls and dementia
  Diabetes
  Renal services

  In relation to social services, which are not covered by the majority of the above, core information requirements for adult and elderly social services were published in August 2001. More recently the Department has published a document defining the electronic social care record.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those local authorities which have been trialling minimum data setting software; and when they are expected to make an evaluation of its effectiveness. [161632]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 16 March 2004]: I am not aware of any nationally sponsored trials of minimum data setting software in local authorities.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans for(a) research into and (b) treatment of motor neurone disease. [167228]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government are investing an additional £40 million in stem cell research in 2004–06, which offers enormous potential in producing new treatments for diseases such as motor neurone disease (MND).

  The Government are also funding the creation of a national stem cell bank. The first of its kind in the world, it will hold all types of stem cells as a resource for researchers.

  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments of diseases is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC spent £2 million in 2002–03 on research relevant to MND and on basic work on the function of motor neurones.

  We are developing a national service framework (NSF) for long-term conditions which will focus on services for people with neurological conditions such as MND
  840W
  The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) has been asked to develop a clinical guideline on appropriate methods of feeding for patients who have difficulty in swallowing, which is due to be published in 2005.

  We have also commissioned NICE to develop and publish evidence-based guidance on supportive and palliative care, which was published in March 2004.

  Neurosurgical Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many neurosurgical registrars are due to obtain a Certificate of Completion of Specialist Training in each six month period over the next three years. [R] [167067]

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

  Number of expected CCST completion dates, in six month intervals, for Neurosurgical Registrars for England—as at 31 March 2003

  Date

  Expected Number

  1 April 2004 to 31 September 2004

  8

  1 October 2004 to 31 March 2005

  6

  1 April 2005 to 31 September 2005

  9

  1 October 2005 to 31 March 2006

  8

  1 April 2006 to 31 September 2006

  6

  1 October 2006 to 31 March 2007

  5

  Source:

  Department of Health Planning Extract—31 March 2003

  NHS Wages
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average wage of NHS laboratory technicians was in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003; [166950]

  (2) what the average wage of NHS cleaners was in (a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [166951]

  Mr. Hutton
  The estimated average earnings of national health service laboratory technicians was £17,900 in 1997, increasing to £23,400 in 2003. These figures are based on the average earnings of medical laboratory scientific officers and medical laboratory assistants. Equivalent information about the pay for cleaners in the NHS cannot be separately identified from the pay of other support staff.

  Sources:

  NHS Staff Earnings Survey 1997 and 2002.

  Paediatric Staff
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what attempts were made by Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust to recruit paediatric staff in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [167484]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 22 April 2004]: The information requested is not collected centrally. In line with our policy on "Shifting the Balance of Power", responsibility for local services now rest with the local trusts.

  However, I have been informed that considerable efforts have been made by Buckinghamshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust and its predecessors to recruit paediatric staff since 2001. Trusts have been

  841W
  successful in attempts to recruit senior house officers (SHOs) over recent years. However, there has been no consultant recruitment in this period.

  The trust is currently exploring more ways to support the service such as gaining further accredited training posts, and is also introducing a new foundation programme post at the SHO level.

  Parkinson's Disease
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans for(a) research into and (b) treatment of Parkinson's disease. [167227]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government are investing an additional £40 million in stem cell research in 2004–06, which offers enormous potential in producing new treatments for diseases such as Parkinson's.

  The Government are also funding the creation of a national stem cell bank. The first of its kind in the world, it will hold all types of stem cells as a resource for researchers.

  The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body that receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology. In 2001–02 the MRC provided more than £3 million for research relevant to Parkinson's disease.

  We are developing a national service framework for long-term conditions which will focus on improving services for people with neurological conditions such as Parkinson's disease.

  We have commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to prepare guidelines for the diagnosis, management and treatment of Parkinson's disease in primary and secondary care. We expect that the guidelines will be published in spring 2006.

  Patient Choice Scheme
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he is making available to patients who have been waiting for surgical procedures on the NHS for six months or more on how they can use the Patient Choice Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [167230]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is the responsibility of strategic health authorities (SHAs) to ensure that local arrangements are in place for offering choice of hospital to patients waiting longer than six months for surgery. "Guidance on Choice of Hospital" was issued in July 2003. It sets out the key responsibilities for national health service organisations in delivering choice to patients waiting longer than six months. The initial contact with patients should incorporate the following:Patients will be informed about how they will be provided with choice and the role of patient care advisors (PCAs).
  PCAs will explain the offer of choice, provide the necessary information to support the patient in making their choice and make the necessary arrangements if the offer is accepted. The PCA will be able to support the patient if any problems occur.
  Safeguards and security measures for confidentiality should be outlined to patients.

  Private Operations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been purchased from the private sector in the last 12 months. [164692]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information relating to the number of operations purchased from the private sector in the last 12 months is not available.

  The number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) that were sub-contracted or directly commissioned from non-national health service providers by the NHS during the financial year 2002–03 was reported as 60,922. This figure includes both operative and non-operative procedures and treatments, for elective and emergency admissions to hospital.

  Details of the activity can be found in Appendix SRC5 of the "Payment by Results: Core Tools 2004" publication, available on the Department's website at:
  http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/Organisation Policy/FinanceAndPlanning/NHSReferenceCosts/fs/en

  The information is also available on the CD "Payment by Results: Core Tools 2004". The CD contains unit cost information for each NHS provider in 2002–03 for designated procedures, diagnoses and treatments.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the impact of purchasing operations from the private sector on NHS waiting lists. [164694]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service has in recent years purchased surgical procedures from the independent sector under the 'Concordat' arrangement. 60,922 such procedures were purchased last year.

  We recognise that the independent sector could make a greater contribution to reducing waiting times and lists for less complex diagnostic and surgical procedures, such as endoscopies, cataract treatment, hernia repairs and primary hip and knee replacements. This is why we have established the independent sector treatment centre (ISTC) programme.

  Two services are already open: a cataract treatment centre at Daventry and the mobile cataract treatment service run by Netcare. Both schemes are already bringing immediate improvements to patients and cutting waiting times, but have not yet been running long enough to have a significant impact on waiting lists. When fully established, the ISTC programme will treat 250,000 patients a year from NHS waiting lists.

  Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sexually transmitted diseases were diagnosed in Southend-on-Sea in each year since 1997, broken down by disease; and if he will make a statement. [166913]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The incidences of sexually transmitted diseases for the Essex Strategic Health Authority area are shown in the table.
  843W

  Reported diagnoses of select ST1s by sex, KC60 statutory reporting, GUM Clinics, Essex Strategic Health Authority, 1997–2002

  Diagnosis/Sex

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Primary and Secondary Syphilis

  Male

  1

  2

  5

  2

  4

  1

  Female

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  2

  7

  3

  4

  1

  Uncomplicated Gonorrhoea

  Male

  57

  80

  94

  128

  129

  150

  Female

  31

  34

  49

  51

  58

  70

  Total

  88

  114

  143

  179

  187

  220

  Herpes, first attack

  Male

  111

  115

  132

  120

  143

  145

  Female

  256

  253

  261

  243

  306

  301

  Total

  367

  368

  393

  363

  449

  446

  Warts, first attack

  Male

  791

  805

  891

  897

  973

  997

  Female

  787

  717

  788

  788

  883

  911

  Total

  1,578

  1,522

  1,679

  1,685

  1,856

  1,908

  Uncomplicated Chlamydia

  Male

  265

  324

  404

  397

  524

  626

  Female

  449

  563

  720

  763

  980

  1,114

  Total

  714

  887

  1,124

  1,160

  1,504

  1,740

  Source:

  KC60 returns—Statistics provided by the policy branch within the Department of Health responsible for Sexual Health and HIV Strategy.

  Surgical Instruments (Middlesbrough)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department has taken in response to the incident in Middlesbrough regarding quarantining of surgical instruments. [164614]

  Mr. Hutton
  Guidance on the re-use of surgical instruments after brain biopsy is already published, in "Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy agents: safe working and the prevention of infection". This guidance, endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, is available in the following location on the the Department's website: www.dh.gov.uk > Policy and guidance > Health and social care topics > CJD > CJD publications > Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy agents: Safe working and the prevention of infection

  Additional guidance on the reuse of surgical instruments after brain biopsies is in preparation and will be published shortly.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the rate of teenage conception in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority was in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [167394]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  844W
  Letter from Len Cook to Sir Nicholas Winterton, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what the rate of teenage pregnancy in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority was in each of the last ten years for which figures are available.

  For this purpose, 'teenagers' are interpreted as the under 18 age group, in line with the target set by The Government Strategy on Teenage Pregnancy. The numbers of conceptions arc estimated from registrations of live and still births, and notifications of abortions. They exclude miscarriages before the 24th week of gestation.

  The teenage conception rates for Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority for 1992 to 2001, the latest year for which figures are available, are shown in the table below.

  Number, rate

  Number of conceptions

  Conception rate1

  1992

  1,916

  45.2

  1993

  1,913

  46.2

  1994

  1,853

  44.2

  1995

  1,934

  46.0

  1996

  2,143

  48.3

  1997

  2,051

  49.1

  1998

  2,100

  47.8

  1999

  2,093

  47.1

  2000

  2,027

  44.1

  20012

  1,938

  41.0

  1The rate shown represents the number of conceptions among all females aged under 18 per 1,000 females aged 15 to 17.

  22 Rate for 2001 is provisional.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Teenage Sexual Health (Taunton Deane)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) girls and (b) boys under 16 suffered from a sexually transmitted disease in Taunton Deane in each year since 1997. [167551]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many girls under(a) 16 and (b) 17 were (i) registered as pregnant and (ii) gave birth in Taunton Deane in each year since 1997. [167552]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Adrian Flook, dated 26 April 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many girls under (a) 16 and (b) 17 were (i) registered as pregnant and (ii) gave birth in Taunton Deane in each year since 997. (167552)

  The most recent year for which figures are available is 2001.

  The table below gives figures for:

  a) all conceptions, and

  b) conceptions leading to maternities

  for girls aged under 16 and under 17 in Taunton Deane for 1997 to 2001.
  845W

  Under 16

  Under 17

  Year

  Conceptions

  Maternities1

  Conceptions

  Maternities1

  1997

  11

  6

  30

  15

  1998

  18

  7

  42

  15

  1999

  16

  4

  42

  18

  2000

  18

  5

  40

  17

  20012

  13

  7

  38

  17

  1 Maternities resulting in one or more live birth or stillbirth.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) boys and (b) girls under 16 have been issued with contraceptives in Taunton Deane in each year since 1997. [167553]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Treatment of Children
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance his Department issues on the treatment of children in hospital by staff not specifically trained to treat children; [167598]

  (2) what guidance his Department issues on the treatment of children in hospital in facilities not specifically designated for children [167599]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answers 23 April 2004]: In April 2003, the Department issued the first part of the national service framework for children relating to hospital standards. This describes essential considerations and best practice in caring for children and young people in hospital, including staff training and facilities for children. The standards are available at: http://www.paediatrics. ox.ac.uk/profile_20of_20paeds/documents/hospitalstandard.pdf.

  Treatment Sector Contracts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many contracts for independent sector treatment centres have so far been signed in the NHS in England; [167412]

  (2) what his Department's projected timetable is for introducing independent sector treatment centres into the NHS in England; [167429]

  (3) how many independent sector treatment centres are in the process of construction in England. [167430]

  Mr. Hutton
  Four contracts for independent sector treatment centres (IS-TCs) have so far been signed for treatment centres in North Bradford, Trent and South Yorkshire, and Daventry, and for two mobile ophthalmology treatment centres operating throughout England. Of these, the IS-TC at Daventry and the mobile ophthalmology treatment centres are already treating patients. In addition, there is a IS-TC at Redwood, which is a public-private partnership between the national health service and BUPA that opened in October 2002.

  A further 31 IS-TCs that are in development subject to negotiations with preferred bidders and schemes will proceed only if they provide the required level of value for money for NHS commissioners. We have appointed preferred bidders for 30 of these schemes and expect to
  846W
  reach contract close by the end of summer 2004 with the treatment centres becoming fully operational over the following 18 months.

  In addition, the Government announced in the White Paper, "Building on the Best: Choice, Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS (December 2003)", their intention to explore ways to develop extra diagnostic services capacity in order to help reduce waiting times and facilitate choice. This will be sourced from NHS and independent sector providers.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Post Office Closures
  8. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of Post Office closures in Greater London on the collection and payment of pensions. [167682]

  Mr. Pond
  We have made no such assessment. Direct Payment still allows customers to access their money weekly at the Post Office if that is what they wish to do.

  The Government are investing record amounts in the Post Office network, some £2 billion over a five-year period.

  Jobcentres
  10. Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons are employed in jobcentres; and what estimate he has made of the total in 2004–05. [167686]

  Jane Kennedy
  Jobcentre Plus is at the cutting edge of a programme of public service investment and reform that is now starting to deliver efficiencies and improvements by releasing more people to front line employment and benefit services.

  Jobcentre Plus had 62,595 people employed in these roles at the end of March this year. By the same time next year we estimate this figure will be around 61,000.

  In the hon. Members' own constituency, there are over 200 people currently employed providing advice and information on training, jobs and benefits.

  Over the last financial year they contributed to the success of the Essex District in helping 574 people back in to work through the New Deal and their disabled employment advisers helped 41 disabled people into work.

  Corporate Manslaughter
  17. Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the likely impact on health and safety at work of the Government's proposed legislation on corporate manslaughter. [167693]

  Jane Kennedy
  I am well aware of the keen interest that exists in this House on the proposed reforms. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he has done in promoting this issue.

  The Home Office is leading on the preparation of the draft bill on corporate manslaughter.
  847W
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment, dealing with both the potential costs and benefits of change, is being prepared. This will be made available when the Government publishes their proposals for legislation.

  The new legislation will have a positive impact on health and safety by bringing to account those that grossly fail to comply with existing health and safety legislation. We have, however, already made clear that the law will not create new standards in the health and safety requirements.

  Following extensive consultation, the Home Office intends to publish the draft bill shortly. This will fulfil the Government's commitment given in the manifesto and in Revitalising Health and Safety.

  Pensioner Poverty
  18. Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of changes since 1997 on the incomes of the poorest pensioners. [167694]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As a result of measures we have already undertaken, including the introduction of pension credit, on average pensioner households are now £1,350 a year (£26 per week) better off, than they would have been under the 1997 system. The poorest third of pensioner households are on average, £1,750 a year (£33 per week) better off.

  I am sure that the House will agree with me that this represents good progress in tackling pensioner poverty. Figures out just last month show pensioner poverty down again—with absolute low income cut by two thirds, lifting 1.8 million pensioners out of acute hardship since 1997.

  Workplace Inspections
  19. Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the current level of workplace inspections carried out by inspectors on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive is; and if he will make a statement. [167695]

  Jane Kennedy
  Statistics for the last year (2003–04) are still being compiled and are not yet available. The most recent published figure is for the year 2002–03 when 84,234 preventive inspections were made by HSE Inspectors.

  HSC considers inspection as one of HSE's core activities but it is not the only type of intervention that should be used. They have just published their "New Strategy for Workplace Health and Safety in Great Britain" to 2010 and beyond.

  HSE intend to focus on the most effective way to reduce injuries and ill health.

  The UK is one of the safest places to work and the HSE deserve credit for the part they have played in creating a safer working environment.

  Work at Height Directive
  20. Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received on the draft Temporary Work at Height Directive; and if he will make a statement. [167696]
  848W
  Jane Kennedy
  My colleagues and I have received 47 letters regarding the temporary work at height Directive (2001/45/EC) and the proposed Work at Height Regulations since the start of the Health and Safety Commission's consultation period on the draft regulations (4 December 2003).

  Falls from height are the largest cause of fatalities at work, and the second largest cause of major injuries. Because work at height is such an important issue the HSC, when implementing the Temporary Work at Height Directive, decided to consolidate this with other relevant existing legislation into a single set of goal setting regulations.

  Consultation on the draft Regulations took place between 4 December 2003 and 2 April 2004, and has now ended.

  Council Tax
  21. Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners over 70-years-old he expects to benefit from the payments to mitigate council tax increases. [167697]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We expect around 4.86 million households in Great Britain to benefit from this payment.

  Note:

  Any residence found to have four or more occupants is not included in these figures as it is assumed to be a Residential Care Nursing Home.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, Winter Fuel Payments data Winter 2002–03 100 per cent. sample.

  Occupational Pensions
  22. Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to compensate workers who lose occupational pension rights prior to the introduction of the pension protection fund. [167698]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government are sympathetic to all those people who will not receive the pension they worked so hard to build up for their future retirement. We have been meeting some of those affected and listened to suggestions regarding assistance ahead of the Pension Protection Fund's introduction. But there are complex arguments on both sides and we are giving them serious consideration

  We are currently exploring with industry representatives the basis on which we can establish firm estimates of the extent of the problem of defined benefit schemes winding-up underfunded, the numbers affected and the potential scale of losses.

  Pension Rights
  23. Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to protect the pension rights of workers transferred from one employer to another. [167699]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are introducing measures in the Pensions Bill to protect the rights of employees with access to an occupational pension where there is a TUPE transfer.
  849W
  For the first time transferred employees will be provided with an assured minimum level of pension provision by transferee employers, if they had access to an occupational pension scheme with an employer contribution pre-transfer.

  Benefits
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask tin Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people received(a) sickness benefit, (b) incapacity benefit and (c) disability living allowance in (i) England and Wales and (ii) Scotland in the last three years for which figures are available. [168450]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the tables.

  Recipients in England, Wales and Scotland as at 30 November each year

  Thousands

  November

  November

  November

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Incapacity Benefit

  England

  1,167.3

  1,172.1

  1.166.2

  Scotland

  189.9

  187.1

  185.0

  Wales

  138.1

  137.5

  134.1

  Disability living allowance

  England

  1,854.0

  1,968.8

  2,066.7

  Scotland

  187.5

  199.4

  207.9

  Wales

  256.5

  271.0

  283.6

  Notes:

  1. Incapacity benefit replaced sickness benefit (SB) and invalidity benefit (IVB) from 13 April 1995.

  2. Figures are shown in thousands and are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample

  Child Support Agency
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will inquire from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency why the letters of 26 January, and of 24 March, from the hon. Member for Walsall, North regarding a constituent had not been located; what steps were taken arising from telephone calls to the Chief Executive's office to try and track down the two letters; why the further letter of 8 April from the hon. Member for Walsall North was received in the Chief Executive's office on 19 April; and when a substantive reply will be sent regarding the constituent's position, latest ref: PCU131435. [168380]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. David Winnick, dated 26 April 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will enquire from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency why the letter of 26th January, and again of 24th March, from the honourable Member for Walsall North regarding a constituent had not been located; what steps were taken arising from telephone calls to the Chief Executive's office to try and track
  850W
  down the two letters; why the further letter of 8th April from the honourable Member for Walsall North was received in the Chief Executive's office on the 19th; and when a substantive reply will be sent, regarding the constituent's position, latest ref: PCU131435.

  I apologise for the delays in responding to these letters. A substantive response has now been provided to them.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will inquire from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 25 February regarding a constituent, ref PCU129400; and if he will inquire for what reason there has been a delay in the reply being sent. [168381]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. David Winnick, dated 26 April 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will enquire from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency when the honourable Member for Walsall North will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 25th February regarding a constituent, ref: PCU129400; and if he will enquire for what reason there has been a delay in the reply being sent.

  I apologise for the delay in responding to this letter. A substantive response has now been provided to it, which includes an explanation for the delay.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions since the introduction of the new payment system in the Child Support Agency, how many cases on that system have been successfully concluded in(a) the UK, (b) Scotland and (c) the Angus constituency. [168652]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Michael Weir, dated 26 April 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked; since the introduction of the new payment system in the Child Support Agency, how many cases on that system have been successfully concluded in (a) the UK, (b) Scotland and (c) the Angus constituency.

  Regular reports on the progress of child support reform are made to the House. The most recent of these covered the period to 31 March and was made on 21 April 2004. In the period from the introduction of the new arrangements to 31 March 152.560 cases had progressed to the point of calculation or closure. I am unable to indicate how many of these relate to Scotland or the Angus constituency.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Child Support Agency cases in the Angus constituency are being dealt with under(a) the previous and (b) the new assessment system. [168653]
  851W
  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Michael Weir, dated 26 April 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked, how many Child Support Agency cases in the Angus constituency are being dealt with under (a) the previous and (b) the new assessment system.

  Around 1,100 cases relating to the Angus constituency are currently being dealt with by the Child Support Agency under the

  (i) of which are

  (ii) of which are

  GICS

  Other staff

  Press Officers

  Special Advisers

  (iii) Others

  DWP business unit

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  DWP

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Human resources

  —

  14

  —

  —

  14

  Communications Directorate

  191

  124

  13

  —

  111

  The Pension Service

  7

  7

  —

  —

  7

  Jobcentre Plus

  20

  126

  —

  —

  126

  Child Support Agency

  1

  66

  —

  —

  66

  Appeals Service

  —

  4

  —

  —

  4

  Includes 27 press officers.

  Notes:

  1. Non GICS press officers are regional press officers.

  2. The combined total of national communications staff and regional/district marketing executives, who have a dedicated remit for the provision of customer service information, is 122, of whom 18 are GICS.

  3. Figures include all staff working in the communications teams of DWP, Jobcentre Plus, The Pension Service, Child Support Agency, The Appeals Service and Human Resources. Their work includes: marketing (national and regional); media relations; internal communications; communication standards; customer service information; information services, i.e. the Library, Public Enquiry Office and Knowledge Management Team; Intranet; Internet; planning and finance and other support staff.

  4. Also, included in the Jobcentre Plus figures there are 24 staff of whom 2 are GICS engaged solely on internal communications activity nationally across Jobcentre Plus.

  5. Jobcentre Plus Regions and District Offices contain small Business Development Units (of which marketing executives are members). These have a wide-ranging remit, covering such areas as customer service standards, planning, partnership working, correspondence handling etc. as well as communications. Staff work flexibly within these units to maximise efficiency and—apart from dedicated marketing executives—it is not possible to identify the precise amount of additional staff time spent on communication issues.

  6. The information in the table does not take account of staff throughout the-Department who may carry out communications work as a minor or integral part of their job. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Working Groups
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the aims are of the(a) Modern Service Working Group and (b) Activities for Managing Life Working Group; what funding his Department has granted to each in each year since 2001; how many people each has employed in each year since 2001; and if he will make a statement. [167416]

  Maria Eagle
  The Modern Service Working Group meets on a quarterly basis and is the external reference group for the Disability and Carers Service Change Programme. It provides advice and guidance to officials of the Department on the impact of modernisation initiatives on disabled customers. Membership is drawn from a range of disability organisations that represent customers with physical, mental and sensory impairment.

  The Activities for Managing Life Working Group was established to enable DWP to discuss directly with organisations representing the interests of disabled
  852W
  old arrangements. I do not have similar information in relation to cases being dealt with under the new arrangements.

  Depart mental Communications
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff are employed in the Department to work in the communications field, broken down by(a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others. [158163]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the table.

  people, issues surrounding an alternative means of assessing entitlement to disability living allowance. It has now ceased to meet.

  All external members of both MSWG and the AML Working Group were volunteers who gave up their time freely, and no budget was set aside for this purpose. The groups were supported by the Disability and Carers Service Change Programme and neither employed staff directly. Costs were limited to incidental expenses of minimal value.

  Employment
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the levels of longterm(a) adult and (b) youth employment in Heywood and Middleton over the last seven years. [168539]

  Jane Kennedy
  Tile UK has one of the strongest labour markets in the world. We have the highest employment and the lowest unemployment of the major industrialised countries.
  853W
  Through a combination of economic stability and radical labour market reforms, more than 1.75 million more people are in work now than in 1997 and unemployment is at its lowest level for nearly 30 years.

  Specific information for Heywood and Middleton is in the table.

  Number unemployed for a year or more

  Over 25s

  18 to 24-year-olds

  1997

  653

  144

  2004

  148

  12

  Percentage change

  -79

  -92

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the level of long-term(a) adult and (b) youth employment in Manchester, Gorton over the last seven years. [167347]

  Jane Kennedy
  The UK has one of the strongest labour markets in the world. We have the highest employment and the lowest unemployment of the major industrialised countries.

  Through a combination of economic stability and radical labour market reforms, more than 1.75 million more people are in work now than in 1997 and unemployment is at its lowest level for nearly 30 years.

  Specific information for Manchester, Gorton is in the table.

  1997

  2004

  Percentage change

  Number of over-25s unemployed for a year or more

  1,490

  534

  -64

  Number of 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed for a year or more

  412

  37

  -91

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the levels of long-term(a) adult and (b) youth employment in Stalybridge and Hyde over the last seven years. [168742]

  Jane Kennedy
  The UK has one of the strongest labour markets in the world. We have the highest employment and the lowest unemployment of the major industrialised countries.

  Through a combination of economic stability and radical labour market reforms, more than 1.75 million more people are in work now than in 1997 and unemployment is at its lowest level for nearly 30 years.

  Specific information for Stalybridge and Hyde is in the table.

  1997

  2004

  Percentage change

  Number of over-25s unemployed for a year or more

  633

  144

  -77

  Number of 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed for a year or more

  102

  10

  -90

  "Making the Market Work"
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the trade associations which replied to the making the market work initiative, referred to in the second stage report of the review of employers' liability compulsory insurance. [168660]

  Jane Kennedy
  'Making the Market Work' is an initiative established and maintained by the Association of British Insurers (ABI). The Department understands from the ABI that the following trade associations have made applications for assessment under the initiative:British Chambers Connections
  British Coatings Federation
  British Furniture Manufacturers
  British Printing Industry Federation
  British Woodworking Federation
  Federation of Small Businesses
  Heating and Ventilating Contractors' Association
  Mastic Asphalt Council
  National Federation of Roofing Contractors
  Screen Printers Association

  Collectively, these bodies have around 190,000 members.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) number and (b) percentage of pensioners who were eligible non-recipients of (i) minimum income guarantee and (ii) council tax benefit as identified in the Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up in 2001–02 research, were in receipt of (A) another means-tested benefit and (B) attendance allowance or disability living allowance. [166234]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is tabled as follows.

  Percentage of pensioner eligible non-recipients to minimum income guarantee and council tax benefit in receipt of other benefits, 2001–02

  Percentage

  Proportion of eligible non-recipients in receipt of

  Pensioner eligible non- recipients of

  Other income- realted benefits

  Attendance allowance or disability living allowance

  Minimum income guarantee

  41

  35

  Council tax benefit

  6

  18

  Notes:

  1. Results are based on the 2001–02 DWP Family Resources Survey. These may understate the true percentages since the 2001–02 Family Resources Survey understated the numbers in receipt of attendance allowance, disability living allowance and income-related benefits other than council tax benefit.

  2. Estimates are based on an initial assessment of cases modelled as eligible non-recipients from the underlying microdata. Therefore, they do not take into account the possibility that a significant proportion of those appearing to be eligible non-recipients will not be true eligible non-recipients, and a significant proportion of true eligible non-recipients may not be identified. As a result, along with the effects of other data imperfections, the estimates should be interpreted with caution; and only percentage estimates can be provided.

  855W

  Pensioners
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners benefit from(a) the minimum income guarantee and (b) free TV licences, broken down by constituency, with constituencies grouped by region. [166679]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on minimum income guarantee is not available in the form requested. Since 6 October 2003 pension credit has replaced the minimum income guarantee and the 1.8 million cases receiving minimum income guarantee prior to 6 October were automatically transferred to pension credit. Information on pension credit take-up, including by parliamentary constituency, is available in the Library.

  The information requested about the number of pensioners who benefit from a free TV licence is not available in the format requested. However, people aged 75 and over are entitled to free TV licences and information on the number of households in Great Britain with at least one resident aged 75 or over, broken down by constituency with the constituencies grouped by region has been placed in the Library.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many press officers were employed in his Department in each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04; what the total cost was in each year; and if he will make a statement. [162834]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed on 8 June 2001 from parts of the former Department of Social Security, the former Department for Education and Employment and the Employment Service. Information on costs for 1994 to 2001 is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. At the end of March 2004, the Department employed 20 national press officers at an annual cost of £1,146,255. This included three part-time staff. A further 20 press officers worked in the regions across England, Scotland and Wales at an annual cost of £954,500.

  During 2002–03 the Department employed 16 national and 13 regional press officers, at an annual cost
  856W
  of £1,739,935. The total for 2001–02 was 21 national press officers at an annual cost of £816,725.

  Retirement Planner
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons the launch of his Department's proposed web-based retirement planner has been delayed, from the initial target year set out in Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement, page 42. [166246]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The launch of the web-based retirement planner is not delayed. The first elements—the provision of state pension forecasts in real-time—will be introduced it 2004, as set out in the Green Paper 'Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement'. As announced in February 2004 in Cm 6111, 'Simplicity, security and choice: Informed choices for working and saving', we intend to launch the web-based retirement planner in spring 2006.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioner households will benefit from the winter fuel allowance; and what amount of funding for winter fuel allowance will be given to each constituency in the UK, with constituencies grouped by region. [166684]

  Malcolm Wicks
  About 8.2 million pensioner households1 in Great Britain are expected to receive a winter fuel payment this winter. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for the Northern Ireland scheme. The value of individual payments is made in each constituency so far this winter is in the table which has been placed in the Library.

  1Estimate. Figures for households are rounded to the nearest 100,000.

  Note:
  Please note that the amounts for individual payments made refer only to the main payment run, i.e. they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent. of all payments). However, since late payment runs are mainly in respect of non system cases whose claims had not been received by the Qualifying Week, they are heavily skewed towards men aged 60.

  Source:
  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Planning Permission (Duration)
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  The Planning and Compulsory purchase Bill contains provisions to reduce the default period for the commencement of development under a planning permission, listed building consent or conservation area consent from five to three years. This provision is a crucial part of our agenda for speeding up the operation of the planning system.

  Local planning authorities have flexibility under existing legislation to vary the length of a permission or consent. This flexibility will remain. The time limit for the commencement of development will normally be three years from the date of permission or consent, but a local planning authority may direct a longer or shorter period as it considers appropriate. Local arming authorities should look favourably upon requests for longer periods of duration where there are valid planning grounds for such a request. There will be cases where three years is unlikely to be long enough to allow developers to complete all the preparation needed before starting work. Longer periods are likely to be appropriate, for example, for complex generation projects.

  After the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has completed its Parliamentary passage, the Government will issue guidance to local planning authorities on the new provisions. In this guidance we will make clear the need for flexibility on the part of local authorities in their dealings with applicants on the duration of permissions and consents.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  The Government is today publishing draft guidance for social landlords on how they should prepare and publish their statements of policies and procedures for tackling antisocial behaviour on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website for consultation

  Section 12 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 places a new requirement on all social landlords (local housing authorities, registered social landlords and housing action trusts) to prepare and publish statements.

  The consultation is aimed at all social landlords in England and those with an interest in housing and antisocial behaviour issues, including tenants groups. I would therefore urge the sector and others with an interest in these issues to consider the draft and supply their views.
  34WS
  A key part of tackling antisocial behaviour is to ensure that tenants know exactly what their landlord will do about it when it occurs. Tenants often feel left in the dark when they are experiencing problems with antisocial behaviour. They may not know what options are available to them or the landlord. Sometimes the problem may be because front-line housing management staff are unclear about what procedures they should be following either.

  Guidance is intended to support landlords in preparing and publishing their statements, helping them further define and develop their approaches to tackling antisocial behaviour and ensuring they work in partnership with other agencies to meet the needs of their tenants and the wider community when deploying interventions.

  Following consultation, statutory guidance issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will apply to local housing authorities and housing action trusts in England. The housing corporation will issue statutory housing management guidance in the form of a circular for registered social landlords, under the requirements of the Anti-social Behaviour Act. The National Assembly for Wales (NAW) will be issuing similar guidance in Wales.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Draft Identity Cards Bill
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am today publishing a draft Identity Cards Bill for consultation as part of a document explaining the need for legislation entitled "Legislation on Identity Cards: A Consultation" (CM 6178).

  The draft Bill establishes the legislative framework that would be necessary for the incremental introduction of the national identity cards scheme as set out in "Identity Cards: The Next Steps" (CM 6020) published in November 2003.

  The draft Bill includes provisions that would:
  set up a National Identity Register that would include identity information on individuals who have been registered and issued with an identity card;
  establish a family of ID cards based on new and existing documents;
  create powers to ensure that the details provided by an applicant can be checked against information already held on other databases to guard against fraud. Each use of these powers will require Parliamentary approval;
  provide reassurance that disclosure of information from the National Identity Register without the individual's consent will not be allowed, apart from for prescribed purposes such as on grounds of national security or for the prevention or investigation of crime, and to ensure there is independent oversight of these arrangements;
  establish new criminal offences for the possession of false identity documents. These will cover offences relating to the new identity card as well as existing identity documents that are false or have been improperly obtained;
  allow a date to be set when it would become compulsory to register and be issued with a card (but not compulsory to carry a card which is specifically prohibited in the draft Bill). This provision, together with the mandatory requirement to make ID cards the required proof of identity could be

  35WS
  brought in only following a vote in both Houses of Parliament, on a detailed report which sets out all the reasons for the proposed move to compulsion and how the Government propose to implement compulsion. Both Houses would be able to amend the proposition before being asked to take a final decision;
  enable regulations to be made, once it was compulsory to register and be issued with an identity card, to make it a requirement to provide proof of identity by the production of an identity card to access public services.

  We welcome the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee's announcement of its intention to examine the draft Bill.

  Copies of the consultation document "Legislation on Identity Cards: A Consultation" are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office and have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and can also be viewed on the Identity Cards website www.identitycards.gov.uk. Interested parties are invited to submit their comments and views on the content of the draft Bill by 20 July 2004.

  Terrorism Act 2002–03
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am pleased to announce that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed the report on the operation of the Act, which will be laid before the House today.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits (Third Party Deductions for Fines)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  One of the Government's priorities is to improve performance in 36WS
  the collection of fines and reinvigorate fines as an effective penalty for those who commit crime, thereby increasing public confidence in the criminal justice system.

  Currently, offenders who default on payment of fines and are receiving income support, jobseeker's allowance or pension credit, may have the sum of £2.80 deducted weekly from their benefit, by way of a third party deduction, until the fine or fines are recovered in full.

  However, this cash repayment is frequently too low for effective enforcement of financial penalties. It is often below the minimum repayment rate that magistrates can accept from offenders unable to pay immediately and in full, and it results in a repayment period that is too drawn-out.

  We are therefore increasing the amount of this weekly deduction from £2.80 to £5. This increase will be subject to the normal rules governing implementation of the various third party deductions from benefit that may be made, including the maximum amount for such deductions. If those rules preclude a £5 deduction but would allow one of £2.80, that rate will apply instead. This change is also consistent with the £5 now required from some non-resident parents on benefit towards child support maintenance.

  This will support the Government's efforts to restore confidence in fines as an effective penalty and therefore a credible alternative to prison. The increase is aimed at those offenders who simply refuse to repay their fines or those who opt to pay by deduction from benefit. It supports the wide-ranging work that the Department for Constitutional Affairs is carrying out in this area.

  We propose to amend regulations so that the increase will come into force from April 2005.

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

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Lord Northbrookasked Her Majesty's Government:
How their policies encourage entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in relation to taxation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, since 1997, the Government have introduced tax incentives for venture capital and cuts in corporation tax, as well as targeted measures such as R&D tax credits and simplification of VAT administration. The UK now has a business environment that encourages entrepreneurs, with levels of regulation among the lowest in the OECD.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I declare an interest as a fund manager of a fund management company set up in 1996. Having encouraged smaller businesses to incorporate with favourable measures in the 1999 and 2002 Budgets, why did the Government remove a major part of the benefits of doing so in the last Budget?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have removed an anomaly that had become apparent. I assume that the noble Lord is referring to what is commonly known as the 19 per cent provision. I should remind him that that applies only to money taken out in dividends. Therefore, money that is invested in the business or is left in the business to provide cover is not taxed in that way. I should have thought that that was an encouragement to responsible entrepreneurship.
Lord Newby: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that at the time of the Budget the Chancellor announced that a wide-scale review of the taxation of small businesses would take place later in the year. Rather than making one change now and a whole raft of further changes that might interact taking place or being proposed in a relatively short period of time, would it not have been more sensible to delay the proposed change on the distribution to non-corporates, in the case of small business, until that review had taken place?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think so. Both kinds of small business are going very well. Since 1997, there has been an increase of 117,000 businesses registered for VAT and an increase of
554
169,000 in self-employment. When both registered and non-registered businesses, and both incorporated and non-incorporated businesses, are going well, it is right to have a review, but when it should take place is not critical.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Treasury Committee in another place pointed out that it was widely predicted that small businesses would incorporate in order to take advantage of the small company tax regime created by the Government only two years ago. Does the Minister believe that the U-turn on this policy is a sign of incompetence by the Government or can he offer a more benign explanation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is entirely responsible that we should encourage small businesses to continue to invest by retaining their profits in the business and to continue to protect themselves by protecting their reserves rather than using a loophole to pay dividends simply to avoid tax.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a large number of self-employed taxi drivers were advised by their accountants to set up companies? They spent a bit of money doing so. Now they have to spend a lot more in order to undo the arrangement. Do the Government think that that is helpful to self-employed taxi drivers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have any information on self-employed taxi drivers, but I have no reason to doubt what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, says. The same argument applies to taxi drivers as to anyone else.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that today we had an agreeable lunch—not he and I, but others—with small business representatives? We make up the largest all-party group in Parliament, which shows that there is a great interest in small businesses. Does the Minister agree that the key and central point for young people developing companies for the future is skills? Is the Minister satisfied that we are on the right path in relation to skills for young people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in view of what I have been saying about our support for small businesses, I am sorry that I was not invited to that agreeable lunch. Of course, my noble friend is right about skills. As he will recognise, the encouragement of skills training has been—I was going to say, "at the heart", but that is a horrible cliché—of great importance to the Government since the beginning.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, how can small businesses plan their affairs when tax advantages that are given to them are withdrawn, particularly when the so-called loophole is created by the Government themselves?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have become a bore on this subject. I spent 30 years running

555
a small business and I did so throughout the Thatcher and Major governments. During that time, the real threats that we faced were economic insecurity, high rates of interest and extreme variations in market conditions nationally, internally and internationally. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, will agree—certainly, any responsible and honest small business person will agree—that these conditions, which are far more important, have improved substantially over the past seven years.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, given the importance to the old, to the young and to local communities of owner-occupied small shops, do the Government have any plans to encourage the survival of these entities, which are still under great pressure from the large multiples?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should not cite family interests, but on Saturday morning my elder son opened his own shop for the first time. I have some cards in my pocket for anyone interested in timber blinds. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has a point. However, I am not adequately briefed on it so, if I may, I shall write to him.

Hong Kong
2.43 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with the Government of the People's Republic of China about constitutional development in Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we are concerned about the interpretation of two of the annexes to Hong Kong's Basic Law which the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress gave on 6 April, and by the further NPC decision on suffrage which was announced today. My right honourable friend Peter Hain raised this issue with Tung Chee Hwa, the Hong Kong chief executive, and the Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister during his recent visit to the region. Further representations have been made to the Chinese Government and my honourable friend Mr Rammell has issued statements on 7 April and again today expressing our views. He is meeting the Chinese Ambassador later this afternoon.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Would she agree that the role of the National People's Congress in the political development of Hong Kong is quite complex and open to ambiguous interpretation? Is it the Government's view that the National People's Congress, in particular regarding its latest decision which, as she mentioned, was taken today, has actually altered the Basic Law? If, as I understand, we are a guarantor of the integrity of the Basic Law, what further measures other than
556
dialogue and discussion could we take to bring some pressure to bear on the situation and resolve it in a sensible way for all sides?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that we will resolve what is undoubtedly a difficult situation through dialogue and discussion. The noble Lord asked what further measures could be taken, but in the first instance we must adhere to dialogue and discussion because in the past it has delivered some helpful measures. The noble Lord also asked whether this has changed the Basic Law. This is an interpretation of the Basic Law, but what is different this time is that this has been a proactive process. The Chinese themselves decided to make this statement rather than being asked for an interpretation by the Hong Kong authorities. We are concerned that it means that the likelihood of reaching universal suffrage before the elections in 2007–08 looks further away, but we shall continue strenuously to argue our case.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, further to the response of the Minister, does she agree that by and large Beijing has remained close to the agreements regarding the freedom to travel as well as religious freedom and speech, and that we should be fairly glad about what has happened in our former colony?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can agree with what the noble Lord has just said. That is why I was careful to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, by saying that this is not a change in the Basic Law. We cannot say that a fundamental point in the Basic Law has been challenged. However, it is an interpretation of the Basic Law which is uncomfortable given that the mechanism used, that of a proactive engagement, seems to have brought rather closer together the Chinese way of doing things with the Hong Kong way. That means that the two different systems, which we believe are fundamental to the way the handover was dealt with, have been made at least that much more difficult for future discussions. It is a question of interpretation, but I agree with the noble Lord that, by and large, the handover has been one in which the Chinese have stuck by what they said.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I believe that I can provide some fortification for the last point made by the noble Baroness. Article 45 of the Chinese Basic Law makes provision for the ultimate aim being universal suffrage and for the gradual and orderly progress towards that aim. Does the noble Baroness further endorse the proposition that the latest announcement from the NPC appears, on the face of it, to represent no change in that direction? However, the noble Baroness may not have seen a statement issued today by the chief executive of Hong Kong asking the Constitutional Development Task Force in Hong Kong, which will submit its third report next month, to take forward actively the next stage of work relating to constitutional development,
"in a rational, pragmatic and forward-looking manner".

557
Will she therefore ensure that Her Majesty's Government encourage not only the chief executive himself, but also the Chinese Government, to support that objective in line with the provisions of the Basic Law?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has provided a fair summation of the position and I gladly support what he has said. He was quite right in the point he made about Article 45 of the Chinese Basic Law. The eventual target of universal suffrage is enshrined in that article. While, of course, there are no dates in the article, nor any indications about how universal suffrage might be achieved, it was hoped very much that steps would be taken towards universal suffrage before the election of the chief executive in 2007 and the LegCo in 2008. Undoubtedly we have suffered something of a disappointment in that, but none the less the noble and learned Lord is quite right to point out that we still have a great deal to argue for. We believe that the right way to do that involves the points that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked us to look beyond. For the moment, however, we should be engaging in dialogue and discussion.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, has not the problem we are now facing been with us for the entire period since 1949 when the new government of China made it clear that, at the handover of Hong Kong, they would exercise complete jurisdiction as the sovereign power? Some people in Hong Kong find that unpalatable but I think that the attitude outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, is the proper one to adopt. We should stop pretending that we have authority over Hong Kong, which we do not and have not since it was handed back. We may then get a sympathetic hearing, which we will not while acting like a former colonial power.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: the problem is inherent in the very nature of our period of tenure in Hong Kong. The party opposite negotiated the joint declaration in 1984 and I am sure that it did the best possible job it could in the circumstances. I do not blame it for the fact that the joint declaration does not have any hard and fast lines in it about universal suffrage and dates. I do not blame the party opposite for that; I am sure it negotiated in good faith. However, I find the implication that somehow the Government are blameworthy for not being able to push more on the issue of universal suffrage. I know that that was not an implication of the noble Lord's Question, but now and again one hears it from elsewhere. It is not a realistic position to take in view of the fact that all we can do is seek to persuade the Chinese Government in relation to Hong Kong, as a good friend of the people of Hong Kong and, I hope, as an increasingly good friend of the people of China.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, China has, in many ways, observed the joint declaration very well. Nevertheless, is not the decision of the Standing Committee of two
558
weeks ago unsatisfactory? It seems to be saying, from the reports that I have seen, that the Basic Law of Hong Kong will mean whatever the Standing Committee decides it means. Is not that kind of impression, if it is a fair one, likely to make it even more difficult for China ever to recover Taiwan?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I make no bones about it: both the declaration of 6 April and today's further interpretation are, from our point of view, unsatisfactory because they cause concern about the route to democracy in Hong Kong. That is absolutely clear but the point at issue is our locus in trying to do anything about it. We have the joint statement, which gives us at least the right to have discussions on these issues. But the noble Lord, Lord Howell, put it to me that we should be going beyond dialogue and discussion and that is an unrealistic position for the Opposition to take in view of the comments from the Cross Benches which, quite rightly, indicated that we no longer have a locus. Hong Kong is not in any sense a colony; it is not under a governor. We can only proceed by persuasion, dialogue and discussion and we are heavily engaged in so doing.

Criminal Justice Inspectorates
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making with their review of the five criminal justice inspectorates.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, Ministers commissioned a review of the five criminal justice service inspectorates to examine the existing inspection regime to ensure that it is as robust as possible. A report has been received by Ministers and discussions are currently taking place with the chief inspectors and others to ensure the report properly addresses all the issues. Structural change is being considered and significant progress has been made.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that interim reply. All the inspectorates are important but does she agree that the Inspectorate of Prisons is especially so? It is an expert body of undoubted independence and, under the previous two chief inspectors and the present one, it has done indispensable work in throwing light into corners of this public service which might otherwise remain in the dark. Can the Minister give an assurance that when the review is complete, or as part of the review, whatever its outcome, the duties and rights of the prison inspectorate will be no longer a matter of an administrative decision based on the wishes of the Home Secretary but enshrined in the law of the land with statutory back-up?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the important role played by the

559
current chief inspector and her predecessors. It is absolutely vital that the function continues to operate. If change is necessary, some of it may well involve a change in the law. If that is the case, the matter will come before the House and the other place and we will all have an opportunity to have our say.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the UK Government are to be congratulated on being one of the first three states to ratify the protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture in December 2003? The protocol requires the UK to put in place independent inspections of all places of detention. Therefore the remit of the chief inspector has been extended to all immigration detention centres and the military centre at Colchester. Can the Minister reassure the House that under the reorganised inspection arrangements, the UK Government will continue to meet the requirements of the convention for both the independence and the coverage of its inspection arrangements?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have pleasure in confirming that that is the case. I thank the noble Baroness for her congratulations, which I must say, if somewhat immodestly, are well placed.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the Audit Commission has reported that we now have the highest ever level of public spending in the criminal justice area. It has also reported that it is committed to working very closely with the criminal justice inspectors and that one of the objectives it intends to achieve is value for money. Does the Minister agree that public confidence is shaped by the quality of service provided by HM inspectors, particularly the Chief Inspector of Prisons? Will she give an undertaking that there will be full public consultation when the review report has been examined and that direct accountability to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State will not be eroded as a cost-cutting exercise?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we do not see the rearrangement as a cost-cutting exercise. The independence of the inspectorates will remain and it is paramount that it should do so. The chief inspectors will retain their direct accountability to Ministers and will be free to report as they find. We will retain their independence and professionalism and provide Ministers, their departments and the public with the information and assurance they need about the quality and integrity of the criminal justice system. We will also allow inspectorates the freedom to focus on additional areas of concern. All those issues will be fundamental to any reorganisation. There has been consultation and that will continue to be the case. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, if legislation is necessary it will be fully discussed and everyone will have an opportunity to have their say. However, it is important at this stage to continue the consultation
560
process that we have with the inspectors and others directly involved in order that we can make a proper, informed judgment.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her proper praise for the work of Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons. While she is contemplating change, will she allow that inspectorate now to inspect the Prison Service as well as the prison estate?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, one of the changes that we are considering is to enable the inspectorates to look at the new criminal justice system we are establishing by taking parts of the system from working in silos to working together in a more joined-up way. The whole point of change is to enable the inspection of that process to be more robust and comprehensive and to consider matters about which we need to be assured. It will enable us to be clear that the system is working well.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the inspectorate consider the issue of the training of prison officers? Given that the initial training is nine weeks, this might be a way of improving the whole culture within the prison system.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we will review the issues that need to be dealt with. Anne Owers, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, is leading a team at the moment, which includes the Acting Chief Inspector of Probation. They are reviewing the future inspections of the National Offender Management Service and its wider responsibilities, including immigration detention centres and youth offending areas. We are not relying on structural change alone; we are simultaneously changing how we, as the Government, lead in setting an inspection strategy and we will create a machinery to prioritise and follow through criminal justice inspections. All these issues are matters of review now, and we want to get them right.

Iraq: Troop Deployments
2.59 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Britain will provide a new headquarters unit in Najaf to take the place of Spain, and what discussions they have had on this with the American authorities.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this matter is under active consideration with coalition partners including, of course, the United States of America.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that response. We fully support the continued deployment of British troops in

561
Iraq and agree with the Government that it is essential that we see this through. But does the noble Baroness recognise that, if extra troops are deployed outside the British-controlled south of Iraq, our influence on how security is managed must be in proportion to our contribution? Can she confirm that in the event that extra troops are deployed, they will have had sufficient training in high-intensity operations and will be properly equipped and supported?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, that sort of decision, where it is taken, is not just a political decision by Ministers. It would also involve thorough consultation with the Chiefs of the Defence Staff. Therefore, we can rest assured that if there is a decision—I stress the word "if"—for further deployment, it will be done on the basis that those going are properly trained. I absolutely understand the noble Lord's point in relation to influence. We have touched upon it already in your Lordships' House. Of course we would want there to be proper arrangements for the lines of communication, the chain of command, over any such deployment.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister said "if", but if we are to replace other coalition forces, it is unlikely that other coalition forces will, in the short term, come to replace the troops that we are sending to Iraq. If that is the case, we are sending troops into a very long-term commitment. Considering how stretched our forces are at the moment, will the Minister comment on whether it is an open-ended commitment or whether it would be undertaken for the short term?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Spanish coalition troops are withdrawing from Najaf and Qadisiyah. Troops from Honduras and Dominican Republic are also being withdrawn. The noble Lord should know that those troops amount to something less than 2,000. South Korea, for example, has indicated that it will send in 3,000 more troops, so your Lordships should not simply look at the negative side—there are also some very positive aspects.
The noble Lord asked about the length of the commitment. These troops would be in no different a position, if they were to be sent, from the troops already there. They will be there for as long as there is a necessity for them to be there.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, may I press the noble Baroness on the point that my noble friend put to her about the link between contributing troops and influencing policy? It seems to many of us that crucial decisions are coming up that will be taken, sometimes at short notice, in Baghdad—for example, whether to attack Fallujah, how to deal with Najaf, and, at a slightly longer distance, what powers will be transferred to the sovereign government on 30 June. All those decisions will affect us and our troops closely.
562
How are such decisions are taken and how can we contribute our ideas and views to those who take them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, how are these decisions taken? Let us take the position in Iraq itself, where there are exchanges not just on a daily basis but several times a day between Ambassador Bremer and our representative, David Richmond. The two representatives sit in an office at either end of, what it turns out, is more or less a shared private office. So there are those opportunities for influence not just on a daily basis but several times a day. We then go through the exchanges between the political directors such as Condoleezza Rice on the American side and Sir Nigel Sheinwald on our own side. There are ministerial exchanges as well, going through the lower ranks of Ministers right the way up to the regular exchanges that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has with the President of the United States. So there is a wide variety of opportunity for influence over what is happening in Iraq—probably more than over most of our international relationships.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, if the interim authority, post-June, were to ask that the British troops be not involved in a operation in Najaf, would we comply or would we overrule, with American compliance, the request of the interim authority, post-June?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is an enormously important question, and it is not one to which I can readily give your Lordships an answer. Much of it depends on the terms of the discussions that are taking place between the representatives of the United Nations, the CPA and the Iraqi Governing Council. The whole question of what we mean by sovereignty—which is really the question that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is asking me—is still under active discussion. It is obviously crucial to the terms of the hand-over, and I hope we will be able to answer it before 30 June.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 10, the Bill as first printed for the Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

Application of Part 1
Part 1 shall apply only if an elected assembly for the region has been established."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
1A Because it is not appropriate to restrict the application of a regional spatial strategy only to regions which have elected assemblies.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
For the sixth or seventh time, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government are committed to the reform of plan-making in England, including a two-tier development plan, with strategic planning at the regional level.
These amendments would deny our regions strong and effective strategic plans. I find it difficult to believe that they would therefore be accepted. Those in favour of strong regional government, be it elected or otherwise, surely must want the regions to be strong enough to have effective strategic planning. The amendments would also prevent the streamlined two-tier planning system where the most up-to-date level—strategic or local—prevails when there is a conflict. That has to be taken into account.
The amendments would also have far-reaching knock-on effects. On the one hand, they anticipate arrangements for planning by elected regional assemblies but, rather than real devolution, they would leave those bodies only with responsibility for preparing draft revisions. The Secretary of State would still publish the final regional spatial strategy, including his proposed changes, and would still have regional planning policies of his own.
On the other hand, the amendments would leave uncertainty and muddle. The law would say that there would be regional planning bodies, consultation in line with published statements and an examination in public only where there was an elected regional assembly. We have to ask ourselves what this would mean for our existing regional planning bodies and the comprehensive arrangements we have now, which include an examination in public, for regional planning guidance. The amendments agreed by this House do not retain structure plans, but county councils would advise on strategic plans only if there were an elected regional assembly.
We can all understand the attraction the amendments have for those Members of this House who do not want to see any regional planning under any circumstances—indeed, any regional government under any circumstances—even though they were responsible for setting up regional government offices. In due course, they hope to persuade the regional electorates to vote no in the referendum on the elected regional assemblies. That is their choice. But for those
564
who recognise that many planning issues need to be tackled at regional level as well as at local level, this is a recipe for inaction and failure. It flies in the face of the many examples of regional planning bodies coming forward with solutions to cross-boundary problems that have bedevilled us for many years. It is quite frankly farcical to suggest that we should abandon all that and rely instead on county-based structure plans.
I hope noble Lords accept that the Government have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward during the passage of this Bill. Indeed, I have come to the Chamber today supported by a list of all the concessions that the Government have made. We are a listening Government and we want to get consensus on this matter. However, there are some issues on which we believe that it would be a major mistake to depart from the provisions in the Bill.
There has been concern that there would be too little democratic input, particularly by county councils with their strategic planning expertise. We accept that; I believe that I said, way back at Second Reading, that it was probably the thorniest issue we had to deal with when we were planning the Bill in detail at the time when I was the Minister responsible for it. We have responded to that concern by giving county councils a statutory advisory role. I still take the view that that has been found acceptable outside this House; I have not seen anything to contradict that.
There has been concern that people and interests in each region would not have sufficient say in the process. That was a genuine concern, raised at many stages of our debate. I accept that the concern is absolutely genuine and sincere. We have responded by requiring the regional planning bodies to prepare, publish and comply with a statement of their policies for the involvement of the community and the public. However, we cannot accept the other arguments that have been put forward.
We have heard that strategic planning should continue to be with county councils through their structure plans. That is despite support from the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network for our regional planning arrangements with a guaranteed role for counties, unitary authorities and other authorities with strategic planning expertise, and despite the mismatch in many cases between county boundaries and areas that are interdependent in strategic planning terms.
We do not agree that it is wrong for regional planning bodies to have a lead role in regional planning because they include representatives from stakeholders in the region as well as local authorities. Those social and economic partners bring an important dimension to the regional planning bodies' work and are particularly well placed to foster a true region-wide perspective. Local authorities are in the majority on regional assemblies, which will continue to be the regional planning bodies. There is a view out there, which is not shared by everybody, that only the elected councillors should take the key decisions, whatever level they are elected at. That is not the

565
reality, however. Local strategic partnerships and the regional assemblies are involving a much wider spread of opinion and achieving greater consensus about the way in which government takes place.
Where there is considerable consensus on what the plans for the region should be, we can expect that consensus to hold sway. That is quite legitimate; we do not take the view that it is wrong that the stakeholders should be involved. We also do not agree that it is wrong that, until we have elected assemblies, the Secretary of State should be ultimately accountable for the policies in each regional spatial strategy. That is the best democratic safeguard consistent with our current governance arrangements. If an elected regional assembly were in place, the Secretary of State would not need any spatial policies for that region. I have repeatedly made that clear; there will not be any need for the Secretary of State to have any policies for that region. That will be the job of the elected regional assembly. We are not seeking to second guess those bodies. It would be contrary to the spirit of devolution for the Secretary of State to have his own planning policies for the region which the elected assembly had to have regard to in formulating its policies for the region, as proposed by noble Lords. It would also be thoroughly confusing to have two sets of planning policies for the same region. That is a barmy idea by any stretch of the imagination.
We do not agree that we should delay the reforms in Part 1 until the elected regional assemblies are in place. That takes us back to the regional assemblies elections preparations legislation. As is well known, referendums are due in three regions; I believe that I gave July 2006 as the earliest possible date by which an elected regional assembly could be set up if there was a "yes" vote. If other regions were to be brought in, there would need to be a process and a mechanism for that. It would he had public administration, to put it at its mildest, to seek to delay Part 1 until elected regional assemblies were in place. There may be some regions that do not want elected regional assemblies and never have them; one must consider that as a possibility because it is the people's choice. We are not imposing elected regional assemblies on the regions. The people will always be given a choice in the regional referendums beforehand. The effective strategic plans at regional level and a full part of the development plan are needed now, and need to be endorsed by the Secretary of State. Without that endorsement there is neither democratic accountability nor the assurance that central government will play their part in the delivery of regional plans. That is fairly fundamental at present.
We are not taking away democracy, which is another argument that has been trotted out—although not necessarily in your Lordships' House. Noble Lords are much more in touch in some ways with what is happening than is sometimes the case elsewhere in this building. What really matters is that people should have their say and have their views listened to in the planning process. I do not believe that anyone could now argue, as the Bill stands, that it is not a vast improvement on the present process in allowing
566
people a say at the earliest possible stages of the planning process. Central to our reforms, both at a regional and a local level, is greater and earlier community involvement.
Our amendment—that is, the amendment that the Government wish to place in the Bill—will require the regional planning body to prepare, publish and comply with a statement of its policies for involving interested parties in preparing draft revisions of the regional spatial strategy. Draft regulations will require the regional planning body to consult a wide range of bodies while the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy is being prepared and after it has been published.
There are many aspects on which it could be argued that we are not squeezing democracy out of the system. There is a much greater involvement of the public and the wider communities in regional planning in this Bill. We have come to a make-or-break point. There is a limit to the amount of time that we can devote in this place to this issue. I do not know how many times we have now dealt with it—I have lost count. I sincerely hope that my argument will find favour with your Lordships at this stage of our deliberations on this important Bill.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Rooker.)
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamweerose to move Amendment No. 1B, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A, leave out "not".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4B and 5B.
I agree very much with one thing that the Minister said, about the concessions that the Government have given on much of the Bill and in this part of the Bill, dealing with regional spatial strategies. In fact, I believe we debated this matter only once, because it was, unusually, agreed at Committee stage. But—there had to be a "but"—the reason that we have from the Commons is that the amendment to which your Lordships agreed,
"is not appropriate to restrict the application of a regional spatial strategy only to regions which have elected assemblies".
That could be expressed differently. It could be said that it was not appropriate to remove powers to make such strategies from the only bodies directly elected by the people directly affected by them.
We acknowledge the advisory role that has been given to the counties, but it is advisory only. The Minister said that he had not had complaints from the County Councils Network or the Local Government Association. He has raised that matter before. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, who is a part of the County Councils Network answered the point quite

567
clearly. The advisory role is better than nothing, but it does not amount to agreement that this is the right way to go ahead.
We have all, I think, throughout this Bill been conscious of the role of planning in the wider governmental and political context and especially of the need to restore trust in government at all levels and reverse the alienation from the political process, which I know distresses all of us.
I acknowledge that speeding things up and tackling inefficiencies has a major role in that, and that is why we have supported the proposals in the Bill for local development. But this amendment is about a democratic deficit—about the deficit that there will be if regional spatial strategies are the creation of the Secretary of State through his agent, the regional planning body. I dare say that the Minister will object to that description, but without Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 the Secretary of State will give directions to recognise regional planning bodies or, indeed, withdraw their recognition and exercise their functions himself.
We have draft regulations that explain how the regional planning bodies will be created and who they will consist of, but regulations, as we all know, are not primary legislation. Indeed, the current draft regulations do not wholeheartedly inject democracy into the regional planning bodies. Thirty per cent or more of their members must not be members of local authorities, so even a public-spirited businessman or woman who is a member of a parish Council is disqualified.
Stakeholders in a region of course have a role, but to suggest that that is equal to the role of elected councillors or elected representatives diminishes the validity of elections. Of course, all the members of the regional planning bodies, including the 30 per cent plus, are entitled to vote, and their votes carry equal weight.
Those who come from an elected base are not directly elected under this model. So who do they represent for this purpose? We have talked—at any rate I have—about the less than complete adequacy of indirect election. There is confusion and a difficulty about the mandate, and a genuine difficulty in the mind of people who are elected to one body and find themselves on another where their primary responsibility is to the perhaps small group of people who elected them in the first place.
I think that the Minister referred to our all being good democrats, as, indeed, we are in this place, despite being the objects of patronage. I hope he will take the message back that, without proper devolved regional government, this model for designing regional spatial strategies will not do. In Committee, we heard from those whose faith in the counties was greater than the Government's and who raised some important practical problems: the haemorrhaging of staff who see their role disappearing and the lowering of resources which the counties will apply because they have merely an advisory role.
I would never suggest that we should lightly dismiss the views of another place, but severing the link between the electorate affected and those responsible for strategic plans would be serious—serious for effective planning and as another brick in the wall between politicians and
568
citizens. I do not myself—as I am sure do none of your Lordships—want to contribute to building up that wall. We want to pull it down. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Hamwee.)
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I should make it clear that noble Lords on these Benches do not support regionally elected assemblies. We shall not campaign for "Yes" votes in the three areas where there are referendums. However, we support democracy. If those three areas vote "Yes", and then all other areas vote for regionally elected assemblies, those assemblies will be democratically elected.
I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that stakeholders were very important. It is important to hear stakeholders' opinions. I know the stakeholders in my region well. They often hold their own individual views, but they are not democratically elected. If they can combine to defeat the democratically elected people in a region, it is not good for democracy, and any such action is not representative of the people who are elected to a county council, a district council or any other body that considers plans. We support the amendment. We do not support regionally elected assemblies, but we support democracy. At the moment, we have elected county councils and elected district, regional, borough, metropolitan and London councils. The people elected to those bodies should have the direct, most obvious say in the planning process on behalf of the people they represent.
The Minister referred to the County Councils Network. I thank the Minister and the Government for the concessions that have been made. Indeed, the concession regarding the county councils having an advisory role is important. However, the councils were happy to accept that because they were told that the Government would not accept anything else. However, we are talking about Parliament now. There is the Government, and there is Parliament. These processes have to go through Parliament. I told the county councils that Parliament might have slightly different views on regional spatial strategies.
I make it clear that no one—as everyone knows, I am very much involved in county government—is suggesting that the county structure plans are the right way forward. We need to tackle that matter differently and more speedily. The Minister has never heard me say during the whole debate on the Bill that I want to retain county structure plans—I do not. We want a modern system of planning and therefore we support many of the Government's objectives on that. However, we want to make it work. We want a democratic process in making it work. Later I shall move further amendments which ensure that we keep the democratic processes at the forefront. The

569
Government are democratically elected, as are local councils. Planning is about people. People elect other people. There is no more personal thing in local government than planning. The Government should not think that they can ignore the democratic processes. I agree that there should be consultation, but in the end the matter is the responsibility of the elected members of local authorities. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I express sorrow at the Government's attitude to this matter. It seems that in a funny sort of way the Government somehow believe that the higher the level at which the strategic planning is done, the better. We all agree that strategic planning is essential in these matters. One almost feels that the Secretary of State would ideally like to do the whole thing himself, but he is prepared for the regional authorities to be involved. However, we know that in their present format those authorities have a severe democratic deficit because of a lack of what many would regard as a better election system.
We believe that you must have a sub-regional input—a legitimate and fully accountable and accounted-for sub-regional input—to this crucial strategic planning element. It is not good enough for the Government to say that it has to be done at the regional level. The Minister says, "Of course, if there is a regional government, the Secretary of State would have no input". That in a sense makes the point that I am trying to make; namely, that even though you need planning on a big scale, you nevertheless need elected input into it. The amendments, as they left this House, provided for that and should not be removed. I support my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Lord Rooker: My Lords. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, made that speech. I agreed with virtually every word that he said. I shall give examples to support his and my case.
I have something to say, tongue in cheek, in reply to what I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I would obviously never dream of accusing anyone in this place of bad faith; it would not cross my mind. However, there are those outside who, on one hand, are quite happy to sit down with government Ministers and agree reasonable concessions—there has been a big concession from the Government, as I fully appreciate, from how the Bill was drafted. Then we are told that those people say, with a nod and a wink, "Okay, we're happy, but we'll get what we really want through the back door via the unelected House of Parliament, not the elected House". If they do not blink at that, it seems to border on dishonourable conduct in the negotiations by the outside bodies with central government. People cannot have it both ways.
3.30 p.rn.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I am not saying that. If well meaning officials of the LGA or a county council go to see government officials and are told that the Government will not budge, they are only officials,
570
not elected members. They then try to negotiate something that they can take back to their elected members. There is no bad faith on the part of the Government's officials or ours from the LGA or the County Councils Network. They can only negotiate what they can negotiate. As I said, it is then up to both Houses—this may not be an elected House, but there have been debates in the other place—to talk about how we might improve the situation. I would not put bad faith on to any of the officials who took part in the discussions.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I did not mean the officials. However, I shall take it with a strong pinch of salt next time I see letters signed by the elected leaders of the LGA and the County Councils Network. It was not officials who wrote letters saying, "We're content with this", but the elected leaders. I am not arguing about officials; we are talking about elected leaders. I am not in the business of blaming either civil servants or officials outside—far from it. My remarks are headed towards the elected leadership outside.
I want to give some examples to highlight the sort of things said by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. As I said, I agreed with him, and there is a common view on the matter. I have three examples of where regional planning is tackling issues that county plans could not. In the east Midlands, work has started on the development of a sub-regional strategy for Derby, Leicester and Nottingham. Those are, of course, traditionally very much competitor cities in the area, although each is in a different county. The regional assembly and development agency have identified an opportunity to build on existing interrelationships, and to develop complementary roles and services that will promote a more sustainable pattern of development and improve the economic performance of each city. That could not be done if one did not have a regional package with a sub-regional agenda underneath it. In the past that would not have been a runner as each city is in a separate county.
In the south-west, the regional planning body is promoting a "city region" approach that recognises the cross-boundary links. It is not an area of the country that I know, so I shall stick to my brief; others are more expert than me. Structure plans have historically allowed development in west Wiltshire and north-east Somerset towns that has fed Bath's labour market and created unsustainable patterns of movement. Looking at that area as a single sub-region is allowing strategic choices to be made to ensure that development is sustainable.
My final example is the south-east. Studies in the western corridor and the London fringe have been undertaken to provide coherence across regional boundaries in a manner that simply did not exist beforehand. Although there was liaison across the London boundary between authorities, it was not translated into effective and co-ordinated interaction. The studies are still at an early stage but they are already demonstrating the value of the approach.

571
To say that the Government made a concession is too strong, because it looks as though it had to be dragged out of us, but I suppose that in some ways it did. The point is that we always knew, from day one, that there was a sensitive issue about county councils. We understand that; hence what was proposed alongside a programme of possible elected regional assemblies, as one cannot be certain. We need to get ownership of the spatial strategies because two bodies claiming ownership is a disaster and a recipe for inaction. Conservatives—with a small "c"—might want to conserve what we have and not change anything. That is a very unfair attitude to put on the radical Conservative Front Bench. Nevertheless, we want some movement. The present system of planning in this country does not serve our fellow citizens. The provision is a contribution to making substantial changes and progress.
Our approach is that the regions need planning policies specific to their circumstances. I forget who made the point, but someone referred to the Secretary of State wanting to do everything; he does not. The provisions in Clause 1(2) that specify that the regional spatial strategy must set out the Secretary of State's spatial policies do not prevent such an approach. Those provisions are not a straitjacket. They are not the Deputy Prime Minister saying, "This is what will happen".
The relationship between the Secretary of State's national planning policies and the regional spatial strategies needs to be clarified. Clause 5 requires regional planning bodies to have regard to national policies in preparing a draft revision of a regional spatial strategy. That relationship is also true of regional planning guidance. We want the regional planning bodies, which are much wider than the elected areas—that is why the point about 30 per cent is important—to articulate in the regional spatial strategy a spatial vision of what the region will look like at the end of the period of that strategy. That vision should be unique to that region, not the next-door region. It is not simply a subset of the national picture, so is not the Secretary of State laying down what he wants.
The regional planning bodies have the freedom to set out the policies that will work in their regions to turn the vision into a reality. The national planning policies are there to provide a framework. They are the big picture, not a straitjacket. The existing system allows for significant flexibility between regions. When preparing revisions of regional planning guidance now and regional spatial strategies in future, the regional planning bodies may, if they wish, depart from national policy and make the case for a variation at the examination in public. I repeat: this is not the Secretary of State laying the law down from the centre.
It is true that Ministers will reach a view on the final form of policies and have to take into account the case made and the report of the panel from the examination in public. Amendment No. 2 is therefore neither acceptable nor sensible. The Secretary of State has regional planning policies and is accountable for them
572
now and under our proposed new regional planning system, because that is the best approach of the current governance arrangements. If the elected regional assembly were in place to play that role, the Secretary of State would not need any regional spatial strategies. That in no way takes away the important role of staff of the county councils. They will play a vital role, although the point is that it will not be the role that they had previously.
The issue is to get ownership of the regional planning strategies so that they are owned by one body and there is transparency and accountability. If we try to act any other way, two bodies will end up claiming ownership of the strategies. That is a recipe for not only disaster, but basically total inaction. No one outside would thank this House for that.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as the Minister says, the issue has always been sensitive. The sensitivity was eventually addressed when the Bill reached this House after its extended—sometimes almost undetectable— progress in another place. In our system, of course there are negotiations and discussions while a Bill is in progress. However, to characterise what happened as dishonourable on the part of those who took part is unfortunate.
The Minister used examples of cross-boundary arrangements, the sort of examples that I intended to use in a debate that we may have later on sub-regional arrangements. Those cross-boundary arrangements are happening now. I do not accept that what is proposed is a recipe for inaction. The Government have not moved on the fundamental question of the lack—indeed, I would say the loss—of democracy. They have not come up with any way of meeting their concerns at the same time as meeting that basic and important concern. Therefore, again I wish to test the opinion of the House.
3.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Chalfont, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chester, Bp.

Ampthill, L.

Chorley, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cockfield, L.

Avebury, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Barker, B.

Courtown, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Biffen, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Blaker, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Blatch, B.

Denham, L.

Bowness, L.

Dholakia, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Caithness, E.

Elles, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ezra, L.

573

Falkland, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fearn, L.

Peel, E.

Fowler, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Freeman. L.

Plumb, L.

Geddes, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Prior, L.

Glentoran, L.

Reay, L.

Goodhart, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rees, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Hanham, B.

Renton, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Higgins, L.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts L.

Rotherwick, L.

Home, E.

Russell, E.

Howe, E.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Jopling, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kimball, L.

Selborne, E.

Kingsland, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Swinfen, L.

Taverne, L.

McNally, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Maddock, B.

Tope, L.

Marlesford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Waddington, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Walmsley, B.

Naseby, L.

Walpole, L.

Newby, L.

Warnock, B.

Northesk, E.

Wilcox, B.

Northover, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Windlesham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Ahmed, L.

Crawley, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

David, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Andrews, B.

Desai, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dixon, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Dubs, L.

Barnett, L.

Elder, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Berkeley, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Bhatia, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Blood, B.

Filkin, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Fitt, L.

Borrie, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gale, B.

Brookman, L.

Gavron, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Golding, B.

Carter, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Christopher. L.

Goudie, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Gregson, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Grocott. L. [Teller]

574

Harris of Haringey, L.

Nicol, B.

Harrison, L.

Orme, L.

Haskel, L.

Paul, L.

Hayman, B.

Pendry, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Peston, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Puttnam, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Richard, L.

Hoyle, L.

Rooker, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Sheldon, L.

Jones, L.

Simon, V.

Jordan, L.

Stallard, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lipsey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Listowel, E.

Temple-Morris, L.

Lockwood, B.

Thornton, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Triesman, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Varley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Warner, L.

Marsh, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe. B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Weatherill, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Whitaker, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wilkins, B.

Mitchell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
3.50 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
2 Page 1, line 7, leave out "must set out" and insert "shall have regard to"
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
2A Because it is not appropriate to make such provision.
Lord RookerMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
"(3A) The RSS must include sub-regional plans for all parts of the region in accordance with geographical boundaries defined by the RPB.
(3B) The sub-regional plans referred to in subsection (3A) shall be prepared by the authorities falling within section 4(1) if their area or any part of their area is in the defined sub-region."
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason —
3A Because it is not appropriate to create more than one tier of regional spatial strategy.
Lord RookerMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A.
The amendment would require the regional spatial strategy to include sub-regional plans for all parts of the region and for these to be prepared by such county councils, metropolitan district councils, unitary authorities and national park authorities if their area or any part of it is covered by the sub-region. We are not clear why the noble Baroness is pursuing the issue when the Local Government Association and the county council network are committed to working within the new strategic planning arrangements. Well, that is what is written down here, but I might redraft it for the next stage. No doubt I will hear about it when the other amendment is spoken to.
The regional spatial strategies will contain a new emphasis on sub-regions. I fully accept what was said at the end of the previous debate when I gave three examples to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. What I described in them is happening now, so I cannot claim what will happen if the Bill is passed.
Under the present arrangements with the regional assemblies, the regional planning bodies, a new regime, which are not exclusively elected, the action is already taking place. That regime will carry across, so a new culture of planning is enabling the sub-regional work in the three examples I gave now to take place. It was not taking place prior to the regional assemblies being the regional planning bodies.
The regional spatial strategies will contain a new emphasis on sub-regions. As draft planning policy statement 11 makes clear, where sub-regional strategies are being drawn up, we would expect those authorities with strategic planning expertise in the area to take the lead on or participate in that work. We expect the sub-regional strategies with a distinct set of policies for parts of the region to be the exception and not the rule. Those sub-regional strategies will form an integral part of the regional spatial strategy.
We cannot afford to see a proliferation of plans under the guise of sub-regional strategies. That is not the plan; and nor would it make sense because they would be fully integrated and would serve only to create confusion and uncertainty for the community, local planning authorities and developers. That is one of the problems with our existing planning system. We do not accept that a two-tier planning system will leave us with an unbridgeable gap between regional and local plans.
Where we would otherwise be faced with a strategic policy deficit, sub-regional strategies will be prepared to deal with the specific growth or regenerational needs of an area, for example. Indeed, the three-tier plan system, constrained as it has been by administrative boundaries, has sometimes failed to tackle sub-regional issues which are now for the first
576
time beginning to be looked at in the revision of the regional plans. I mention the three-city area of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby of the east Midlands as one example.
Another example I can give, because I have dealt with it, is the separate sub-regional strategy documents being prepared in relation to the Milton Keynes/south Midlands, growth area and in due course the Thames Gateway. Where sub-regions cross regional boundaries—and the Milton Keynes/south Midlands growth area is an obvious example—it makes sense to have a separate sub-regional strategy document. But we must remember that the Milton Keynes/south Midlands sub-regional strategy is prepared by three regional planning bodies affected and will be adopted as alterations to their three regional spatial strategies. In the Thames Gateway, a non-statutory sub-regional framework is being prepared, but this reflects the unique circumstances of the sub-region rather than providing a model for other regions. I would not dream of saying that it should be a model.
We need a system with strong regional plans that includes sub-regional strategies where necessary. We need to involve authorities with strategic planning expertise closely in their preparation. That is what the new system is supposed to achieve—the one we proposed in the Bill with the amendments and with a strong role for county councils. A statutory layer of sub-regional plans, which is envisaged in the other amendment, will simply mean that the system becomes bogged down again by too many plans which are too often out of date and out of line with each other. I repeat what I said at the end of the previous debate—there will be an argument about who owns the plans. It will not be clear to the public and it will benefit no one. I commend the Motion.
Moved, That the House do not insist in its Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A.—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord Hanningfieldrose to move Amendment No. 3B, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord saidMy Lords, I hear and thank the Minister for what he has said and we thank the Government for the discussions and the concessions that have been made. Many of those were a result of our discussions in this House. I feel strongly about the amendment and I shall go into the reasons why. Throughout the Bill, I have felt that the Government have got it wrong.
I accept, as do Members on these Benches, that the Government will have a new planning system and ultimately new spatial strategies. Indeed, we are working on them in the eastern region. I am a Member of this House and, as everyone knows, I am the leader of a large local authority. As such. I like to make things

577
happen. As a Member of this House, I am debating legislation, which is different, but locally I am an action man. I sincerely believe that my amendment is more likely to make things happen than the Government's system of enormous regional spatial strategies and a local council delivery plan in most of the country through the counties and districts.
I will go so far as to say that if we do not look at the provision again, we shall be able to say, "We told you so". The previous Minister for local government, Hilary Armstrong, wanted a standards board but I argued that it was better to act locally. The Government have reverted to that idea. We made the same point in respect of best value, for instance, and the Government have accepted our suggestion that the procedure should not be so complicated. I am now moving an amendment which will help the Government to deliver what they want to deliver.
My county is in the midst of a great deal of development and we are working in conjunction with that—no one has said that it will work independently. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to Milton Keynes, which is my example of the Government creating a precedent. They are looking at a sub-regional spatial strategy which will take over the regional spatial strategies.
Turning to my own county again, we have the M11 corridor, which is obviously very dear to the Government in development policies. We have the A 12 corridor, along which tens of thousands of houses and businesses are still being built. We have the Haven Gateway, which, in conjunction with parts of Suffolk, we hope will regenerate a deprived part of the eastern region. We also have the Thames Gateway, in which I am very much involved. That work is already going on at a sub-regional level. It cannot be done by a vast regional hoard. I have quoted statistics about the south-east on previous occasions. The south-east region is bigger than Austria. The eastern region is bigger than several European countries. My own county is bigger than four countries that are just about to join the European Union.
I know a lot about European and American systems. I have studied local government and planning systems in both those continents. No other country would create a body that is so vast and approach matters from that end. I know that it is not going to work. I have been an action person in local government for 34 years and I know what works and what does not. I am helping in Basildon, where we are taking an initiative. I believe in the regeneration of Basildon. We are investing £20 million of county council money in it. If the county council is taken out of the equation, it will not help with the regeneration of Basildon because it will not be involved in it.
The Government are shooting themselves in the foot by not looking at the matter again. It is all very well to sit in offices in Whitehall and think that it might work. I know how it can work on the ground and I am suggesting ways of making it do so; that is, by making sub-regional spatial strategies part of the regional spatial strategy, involving local members at local levels
578
and often putting money and resources into it. We have a superb person in Essex County Council who is helping to redesign Basildon. We are loaning him to Basildon. That kind of initiative will just not happen under the Government's legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will know what I am talking about, because he has been the leader of a local authority as well. If we are to have a new system, let us make it work.
I hope that the Government will think again about the amendment because it is important that we develop sub-regional plans to complement the regional plan, given the size of the regions in question. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No.3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A, leave out "not".—(Lord Hanningfield.)
4 p.m.
Baroness HamweeMy Lords, the formal reason that has been given for the Commons' disagreement to the original amendment is:
"Because it is not appropriate to create more than one tier of regional spatial strategy".
The amendment would not do that. It would create not another regional spatial strategy, but a sub-regional one. I do not need to repeat all the good examples that have been provided by both sides of the House of the importance of partnership and of working across boundaries.
I noted how keen the Government themselves were on a sub-regional approach in, among other things, sustainable communities work. The Government recognised the need for action at a sub-regional level. Sub-regions come in a number of shapes and sizes, so it must be important for the regional spatial strategy to be transparent in identifying and explaining its relationship with the sub-regions.
Reference was again made to the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network. We on these Benches often agree with their views and aims, but we do not regard ourselves as their delegates. We regard ourselves as legislators as part of Parliament. We are not at their or anybody's beck and call. Although we often support them in their aims, our position is quite distinct. It is important to put that on the record in light of some comments that have been made. We support the amendment.
Lord RookerMy Lords, the noble Baroness can put all she likes on the record about those two organisations. I stand by everything that I have said.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said about Basildon and what Essex County Council is doing there. That is absolutely right. I raised the example of Milton Keynes myself. It is a question of horses for courses. Part of the problem with the amendment is that it would require sub-regional spatial strategies for all parts of the region. In some ways, we need a horses-for-courses approach. Where a need is perceived, we should go ahead with a

579
sub-regional strategy. It may be that local authority boundaries cross over regional boundaries—that is part of the problem in a way. It is important that we are able to do that; otherwise, we would be bound by lines on a map, which would be ridiculous. Co-operation is taking place now in sub-regional work, but the results are more difficult to deliver than they should be. That is because when sub-regions become part of regional planning guidance, they are not part of the development plan. To become so, they must first be incorporated into the structure plans and then into local plans. That takes a lot of time. Until the process is complete, the results lack clarity.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, quoted various examples of areas that are sub-regions, but that are not necessarily coterminous with local government boundaries. Under the system that we are proposing in the Bill and in all the guidance that would flow from it, where sub-regional strategies are necessary or beneficial—for that is clearly what we want—they will be prepared as part of the regional spatial strategy. There will be no need for that to be done in a convoluted fashion as it is now. We are not against sub-regional strategies. I hope that I have made that absolutely clear. That is self-evident from the way in which we are implementing the sustainable communities plan in the Milton Keynes and south Midlands areas, as well as in the Peterborough-Cambridge-Stansted-London corridor, which has grown slightly since we extended it. Those areas cross over many local authorities and some issues necessitate sub-regional strategies. Nobody is denying that. Our objection is to the idea that we should cover the whole country with sub-regional strategies. Surely they should occur only where there is a perceived need for a sub-regional strategy, based on history or whatever is proposed. It may not necessarily be based on history. At the moment, sub-regional strategies are being formed because of what the Government are proposing through the communities plan. There would have been no need for the sub-regional strategy in Milton Keynes and the south Midlands, for example, if it were not for the proposals in the communities plan. Therefore, where there is a perceived need for a sub-regional strategy, one should go ahead and do it, but the idea that every square inch of England should be covered by a sub-regional strategy makes no sense.
Lord HanningfieldMy Lords, obviously, some sub-regional spatial strategies would be very active; others would require more time. Due to the communities plan and other initiatives in the eastern region—Stansted airport, for example—the whole of that region requires a sub-regional spatial strategy at this moment.
I repeat that nobody wants ultimately to deny the Government their regional spatial strategies. The sub-regional spatial strategies are a component of them and work in conjunction with them, as the Government have just admitted in the case of Milton Keynes. They would work in conjunction with
580
regional spatial strategies. I repeat that I want to see a system that works for the benefit of our communities that we represent. Essex has 12 district councils. They get on better with the county council than with each other. If anyone is going to make something happen, it has be the county council acting in co-operation with two or three district councils. I am there and I know how that works. Unfortunately, it does not work in an office in Whitehall as it works at local level. If the Government want to make the system work on the ground, they should pay heed to what I am suggesting. If the Bill were passed as the Government require, we would be back at it from a sub-regional angle before we know where we are. That is the only way in which places can be designed and developed and in which the support of local people can be won. If somebody is deciding what will happen from a remote office, without the real involvement of local politicians, the system will just not work.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is important. The noble Lord is the leader of a very important local authority. I assure him from personal experience that in none of the places where we are undertaking the communities plan process are we ignoring the local elected politicians—far from it; we are bending over backwards to work in partnership with them. They are the key partnership players in every area, even if the delivery vehicle which we are proposing is statutory in some areas. In other areas, the vehicle is led by the local authority. We are seeking such agreement for horses for courses to ensure that we get the correct delivery vehicle that fits the need for those areas.
So in no way are we seeking to ignore local politicians. There is plenty of evidence of that everywhere I go. Last week I visited both Hertfordshire and parts of Essex, listening to people with different perspectives and from different parties. I listened to those in power—those with whom we are doing business—and to others who represent the community, including those from the local strategic partnership. However, nowhere are we ignoring local elected politicians. They are the key players and key partners. In one growth area the local authority—and in another, the local authorities—is setting up and will be driving the delivery vehicle for that area's communities plan. I would not want the noble Lord to think that we are ignoring or do not want to work with local government; far from it.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I know that he is making visits and that various people are pleased to see him and to talk about development problems. I am saying that the approach to these issues has to be sustainable. These issues are not just items on paper to be addressed when the Minister visits; people need to be involved in them, particularly if they involve large amounts of housing or development. We have debated this issue at length and we should ask the view of the House on it.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 132; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ampthill, L.

McNally, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Maddock, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Marlesford, L.

Avebury, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Barker, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Biffen, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Blaker, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Blatch, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Bowness, L.

Naseby, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Newby, L.

Noakes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northesk, E.

Caithness, E.

Northover, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Chorley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Peel, E.

Cockfield, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Colwyn, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Courtown, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Prior, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Reay, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Redesdale, L.

Denham, L.

Rees, L.

Dholakia, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Roper, L.

Elles, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Elton, L.

Russell, E.

Ezra, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Falkland, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fearn, L.

Sandberg, L.

Flather, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fowler, L.

Freeman, L

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Geddes, L.

Selborne, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Glentoran, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Goodhart, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hamwee. B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hanham. B.

Stewartby, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Higgins, L.

Taverne, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Home, E.

Tope, L.

Howe, E.

Tordoff, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Trumpington, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Waddington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wakeham, L.

Jopling,, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Kimball, L.

Walmsley, B.

Kingsland, L.

Walpole, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Warnock, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Wilcox, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Liverpool, E.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Ludford, B.

Windlesham, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wolfson, L.

582

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ahmed, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Andrews, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Barnett, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jones, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jordan, L.

Blood, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brookman, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Chester, Bp.

Marsh, L.

Christopher, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Massey of Darwen. B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mitchell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Crawley, B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Orme, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ouseley, L.

Desai, L.

Pendry, L.

Dixon, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elder, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Richard. L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Rooker, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sheldon, L.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Fitt, L.

Slim, V.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Stallard, L.

Gale, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gavron, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Golding, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Thornton, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Triesman, L. [Teller]

Goudie, B.

Varley, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Warner, L.

Grantchester, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe. B.

Gregson, L.

Weatherill, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitaker, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Whitty, L.

Harrison, L.

Wilkins, B.

Haskel, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hayman, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.
4.22p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 2, page 2, line 3, leave out from beginning to "region" in line 4 insert "The elected assembly shall be the regional planning body for the"

583
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason —
4A Because it is not appropriate to restrict the application of a regional spatial strategy only to regions which have elected assemblies.
5 Page 2, line 6, leave out subsections (2) to (6)
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason —
5A Because it is not appropriate to restrict the application of a regional spatial strategy only to regions which have elected assemblies.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 4A and 5A. I spoke to these amendments when we dealt with the first group, headed by Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 4A and 5A.—(Lord Rooker.)
Baroness Hamweerose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 4A and 5A, leave out "not".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments in the first group. They are perhaps not technically consequential, although I think that they may be. However, they are certainly very closely tied to the first amendment, which, indeed, would not make sense without them. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 4A and 5A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Hamwee.)
4.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Chorley, L.

Addington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Courtown, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Avebury, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Barker, B.

Dean of Harptree. L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Denham, L.

Biffen, L.

Dholakia, L. [Teller]

Blaker, L.

Ezra, L.

Bowness, L.

Falkland, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fearn, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Flather. B.

584

Fowler, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Freeman, L.

Peel, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Geddes, L.

Phillips of Sudbury. L.

Goodhart, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Prior, L.

Hamwee. B.

Reay, L.

Hanham, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Renton, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Roper, L.

Home, E.

Russell, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sandberg, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Jopling, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Kingsland, L.

Selborne, E.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Shutt of Greetland. L.

Ludford, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Stewartby, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinfen, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Taverne, L.

McNally, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Maddock, B. [Teller]

Tope, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Tordoff, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trumpington, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Waddington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne. L.

Wakeham. L.

Naseby, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Newby, L.

Walmsley, B.

Noakes, B.

Walpole, L.

Northover, B.

Warnock, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dubs, L.

Ahmed, L.

Elder, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Andrews, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Barnett, L.

Filkin, L.

Bassun of Brighton, L.

Fitt, L.

Berkeley, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gale, B.

Blackstone. B.

Gavron, L.

Blood, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Golding, B.

Borrie, L.

Gordon of Strathblane. L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goudie, B.

Brookman, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Graham of Edmonton. L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Grantchester. L.

Carter, L.

Gregson, L.

Christopher, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Clark of Windermere, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Haskel, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hayman, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Crawley, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

David, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Desai, L.

Hoyle, L.

Dixon, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

585

Hunt of Kings Heath. L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Richard, L.

Jones, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Jordan, L.

Rooker, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lipsey, L.

Sheldon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Simon, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Stallard, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Marsh, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thornton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Triesman, L. [Teller]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Varley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Mitchell, L.

Warner, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Nicol, B.

Weatherill, L.

Orme, L.

Whitaker, B.

Ouseley, L.

Whitty, L.

Pendry, L.

Wilkins, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williamson of Horton. L.

Puttnam, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.34 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
21 Clause 22, page 13, line 15, leave out "(other than a development plan document)"
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason —
21A Because it is not consistent with measures to speed up the plan making process.
Lord RookerMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 21 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 21A.
The Government have been clear from the outset that one of the key elements of our planning reforms is for the recommendations of the independent inspector, following an independent examination, to be the final stage in the preparation of a development plan document. However, the amendments seek to retain the status quo, which is totally unacceptable.
The government offices have told us of at least 18 development plans where progress has been or is being held up because the procedures have become long winded and mired in controversy. In some cases the local authorities have not wanted to implement the independent inspector's recommendations, which have been made as a result of careful examination and consideration of all the material available at a public inquiry, including the objections. In others, initial delays lead to other factors having to be considered as circumstances change and new national and regional policy needs to be incorporated. The introduction of binding reports could save several years, which would be good for everyone.
586
As regards the 18 cases—I have raised the point so I have to give a partial apology—it would not be appropriate for me to name any of the locations. Some of those could appear on the Deputy Prime Minister's desk and if any related to areas I deal with, that would be prejudging the case, and we might need to intervene in any subsequent decisions that rest upon the development plan. We cannot fetter discretion.
The binding reports of independent inspectors after independent examination in public of the issues, including those who object, have other benefits if they are binding on the parties concerned. They are a major incentive for tackling issues, proper debate and decisions early in the process. They ensure that investment by the community and others in making representations on a development plan document and participating in the independent examination will always be worth while. People will think that it is worth while. They will get the report from the independent inspector and something will happen whereas, as I have said, in some cases, years later nothing has happened. To have a report from an independent inspector following independent examination underpins sound plans.
The amendments, which I ask the House not to accept, would squander those benefits. The main argument put forward is that the inspector might make a mistake. Because of that risk it is argued that local authorities must have the opportunity to do something different from that which the inspector recommends. I developed this point at previous stages but obviously inadequately. We see the safeguards we are building into the system as much more sensible and a balanced response to the difficulty.
The local planning authority already sees the inspector's draft report and can point out factual errors. So, there cannot really be any excuse after the report is published for stating that it contains errors because the local authority will see the report and can point out factual errors. We propose that those arrangements should continue. There is the safeguard of the Secretary of State's powers in Clause 20 to direct changes or call in a development plan document.
I accept that the vast majority of inspector's recommendations are accepted by local planning authorities. We are not making a general sweeping case. The introduction of binding reports is a sensible measure, which will bite on those hard cases—for instance, the 18 I have mentioned, although not by locality—where the communities are denied the up-to-date plans they and their areas need.
There are a couple of points worth raising. If the authority refuses to adopt the development plan in line with the inspector's recommendations—assuming that the Bill is acceptable and as the Government would like it—any such authority in that case would be doing a grave disservice to its commmunity in denying it a sound, up-to-date development plan document having had the independent inspector's report and after examination. I accept, however, that there is a final safeguard, which is the Secretary of State's powers in Clause 20. We do not want to use those powers. They are there purely as a long stop. As I have repeatedly said, we do not want to run the system.

587
One other point is worth raising. It was raised at other stages of the Bill. An inspector taking evidence in public and producing a report might make changes to a development plan document. In other words, some issue might come into his mind when he was having a think about the matter one Sunday afternoon and drafting the report. I want to make it absolutely clear. The inspector will be able to recommend a substantive change to a development plan document only if people have had the opportunity to make representations on it, or if it has been considered at an examination and the representations or debate support that change. There is no possibility of the inspector slipping changes into a document on a hunch or a whim that have not been discussed at the examination.
The inspector may consider that the development plan document does not meet the test of soundness— it is useful to put this on the record—if the plan does not generally conform to national and/or regional policy. That is fair enough; I think that is what he would be there for. Also, if the plan is not supported by a sound evidence base. That is what an independent view with independent evidence is designed to tease out. In addition, if the local planning authority has not complied with its own statement of community involvement—it is fairly crucial that we have somebody who is independent to check on that—or if the local planning authority has not undertaken a suitable sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental assessment.
There are those issues. That is why we think that, as I have said, the vast majority of local councils accept an inspector's recommendations. However, we have cases around the country where they have been frustrated for years simply because local authorities have not wanted to implement the inspector's recommendations. That is incredibly frustrating. It adds to the vast uncertainty. It is frustrating for those people who want to put their money into development proposals—for example, by way of investment—let alone for those people who have put in their own personal assets, in the sense of their time, energy and effort, in giving evidence at the inquiry to see that all go to waste. The whole system is brought into disrepute if an independent inspector's report, having been taken through an independent inquiry, is simply ignored. It is just not good enough; hence the Bill's attempt to bring about the situation of binding inspectors reports. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 21 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 21A.—(Lord Rooker.)
Baroness Hamweerose to move Amendment No. 21B, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 21 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 21A, leave out "not".
588
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the provision is for all local development documents, including the development plan documents, to be dealt with in the same way as in the original bill, providing that the development plan document cannot be adopted other than in accordance with the inspector's recommendations.
The Commons reason for disagreeing with our amendment is that it would not be consistent with measures to speed up the plan-making process. The Minister has been very forceful on that point—far more forceful, if I may say so, than when we originally debated whether the inspector's report should be binding. At that time we were talking about periods of around six months; now, it is several years.
Ministers have talked about the opportunities open to local authorities if the inspector gets it wrong—recourse to the courts, reconvening the examination in public, preparing a new document and even requiring the intervention of the Secretary of State. It seems to me that any of those courses might take far longer than the six months, which is what we were told was in issue.
I understand the arguments that have been made during the discussion of this issue about the front-loading of community involvement, and that "soundness" as a criterion covers everything that the local authority would itself want to have regard to. That is so. Presumably, under the proposed new system, if a developer appeals against planning refusal on a matter on which the local planning authority takes a different view from the inspector, the local planning authority's views would not even amount to a material consideration. At the moment if there is a difference that provision comes into play. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to confirm or deny that.
What it comes down to is that the Government would prefer to trust an inspector—I shall not quarrel over his independent status, although I do wonder whether it is necessary to have an independent person to check whether a local authority is complying with its own policy, which is what has just been suggested—rather than an elected local authority. Even having listened to the argument made again today, I do not understand that. In a matter of judgment, is it not right that the democratically elected body not an appointee—an independent person but an appointee—should make the judgment?
It may be that the Government do not want to say that they do not trust local authorities not to obstruct house-building plans. We have heard the Minister describe the problems of nimbyism—I apologise to him for using an acronym because we have tried to avoid them—at local level, but the Government have not actually said that. If the inspector has done the job thoroughly, the local planning authority is likely only very rarely to object to the recommendations. At the price of six months, or perhaps just occasionally a lot longer—if it is a lot longer the position must really be very complicated and I would suggest that there must be many issues to sort out—is it not worth not just getting the development plan right but being able, by putting the weight of the local authority behind it, to show that it is right and widely accepted?

589
I have not yet been struck by lightning for suggesting that six months is not terribly long in the matter. The older I get—and we have all got a lot older during the course of the Bill—the shorter the period I feel that it is. Amendment No. 21D standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, proposes that the authority cannot adopt a development plan unless it is certified as being in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy or spatial development strategy in London. As I said to her before we came into the Chamber, I am not entirely sure whether that is very cunning or whether it makes no difference in that general conformity would be required in any event because of that being about a part of the plan being sound—to use the technical term. I had hoped that we might hear whether the Government have comments on the amendment or indeed might accept it. We have not heard that, but I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness's arguments. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 21 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 21A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Hamwee.)
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 21C. It is undoubtedly a matter of great cunning, to follow up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. At Third Reading we debated what we perceived to be unsatisfactory proposals in the Bill that recommendations made by an examiner or an inspector of a development plan documents should be binding on the planning authority. The issue was bound to reappear for a further run if the Government were not prepared to agree to or to look at amendments.
I am disturbed to know that it is because of 18 recalcitrant local planning authorities that this clause is deemed to be germane. I am not sure how many planning authorities there are in this country. There must be in the region of 450 to 500 local authorities, so 18 is a remarkably small percentage to be dictating legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, laid out the concerns that we expressed together last time, when she supported an amendment tabled in my name. She explained our difficulties with the clause.
We must emphasise that we do not stand here pulling all these amendments out of the top of our heads—or at least, not usually. They are normally supported by groups of people relevant to the legislation. The Local Government Association is certainly concerned about the matter, as are a number of other bodies relevant to planning.
Perhaps the Government do not understand—it may be more accurate to say that they are not prepared to understandߞthe importance that local government places on a planning authority having the final say on the contents of its own development plan document. That will have been prepared following detailed consultation, as the Minister rightly said, from the
590
outset and representations. Although it must receive the inspector's scrutiny, it must be right that democratic autonomy should then be paramount concerning what is finally adopted as the plan.
Accountability for the implementation of the documents lies with the democratically elected representatives in local government. We can blur that as we like with regional planning bodies made up of elected and non-elected people and with anyone else with a role to play in the preparation of the document, but, at the end of the day, the system of government in this country is still that the local level is democratically elected representation. That is where final decisions on the content of the development plan should lie.
We must recognise, not least because we have had a battery of discussions on the matter during the course of the Bill, that the documents must be in general conformity—and we have heard the Government's interpretation of what "general conformity" as opposed to "conformity" means—with the regional spatial strategy. That is where we believe that there is room for a compromise over that whole delicate issue. Our amendments would require that the planning authority did not adopt the development plan document unless the inspector was satisfied that it was in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy. If it was not, the planning authority would have to comply with the regional spatial strategy.
The Minister may say that that is evident in any event in Clause 23(1). However, to rely on Clause 23(1) to ensure that general conformity would mean that the parties end up in the High Court, which may be reluctant to interfere. So that may not be an ideal solution and the matter may be better dealt with by the amendment. General conformity with the regional spatial strategy would then be the only part of the development plan document over which the inspector had binding control by his comments. The local authority could then make the final decision on the local development documents, which will have caused the most interest and concern to the local population, following the inspector's comments. I hear what the Minister says about the areas in which he would he able to take up those comments.
Whether or not my amendment or that of the noble Baroness is accepted, it would be incumbent on the Government to make provision in PPS12 for the inspector's report to be published in draft form, so that representations can be made on it. Again, that is a real problem. At present, a unitary development plan is open to the inspector's recommendations and an authority then responds to them. That does not resolve the problem that I am discussing because, at the end of the day, the local authority will want to make a decision, but it would at least be fair to ensure that there was some comeback.
The Government's concern with speeding up the planning process could not be seriously hampered if my amendment was accepted. Indeed, we would argue that it would not be hampered if the previous amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were agreed to. But speed is not

591
everything in planning. Indeed, in some cases it is positively harmful. To end up with local development plans with which the local authority did not feel comfortable would fall into the category of harm.
The development plan documents need to be acceptable to the community to which they refer. The amendment leaves control in the right place and for the right reasons.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Baronesses put their points. I cannot give all the examples—especially the worst cases, because they are probably the ones that will hit the desk of the Secretary of State—but I have four or five examples to put flesh on my point about delay.
I want to make the position absolutely clear because, if one listened only to our debate today, one would think that the independent inspector is doing the local authority's job for it. He is not. The independent inspector is not there to do the job of local government; local government has its task to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that local authorities should make the judgments, but it is local authorities that are making judgments about the policy proposals that go into the development plan, not the independent inspector. Local authorities then simply submit them for examination. The inspector will make a judgment on that plan only if the document is found to be unsound in some way. His judgment will be about what changes are needed to make the document sound. In many cases, he or she will refer back to the local authority or reconvene the examination. Some of the examples that I shall give in a moment will show that that is the case. The inspector is not there to perform the judgment about what goes in the plan to start with; that is up to the local authority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that local authorities must have the final say, but it is quite clear that the previous administration was prepared to contemplate that not happening. The power of the Secretary of State to intervene is in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. So governments of both parties have thought that there needs to be a reserve power concerning the final say; the issue is not new with this Government.
I shall give a few examples of where there has been delay or prevarication—it depends on which side of the fence you are on as to what language you use. The first is Bromsgrove. That is an example of a long delay on a local plan where the authority took a long time to make difficult decisions, yet ended up with an outcome not very different from that which the inspector had first recommended. The inspector recommended in early 1997 that 230 hectares of land be safeguarded as areas of development restraint and the green belt boundaries being set properly for the first time to reflect that.
Bromsgrove chose not to accept that recommendation and did nothing for the next five years. It eventually adopted the plan in 2004 with 158 hectares of development
592
restraint land. If it had accepted the inspector's line in 1997, the plan would have been adopted a long time ago and review would already be complete, giving up-to-date policies. So there is a case of a long delay.
In the case of Castle Morpeth, the public inquiry on the local plan was held in the summer of 1998 and the inspector's report was published in spring 1999. The inspector's report recommended rejection of a number of the housing policies relating to Morpeth, which was the main settlement in the district. The local authority was uncertain how to respond to the inspector's report and, for the next two years and more, planning policies were determined by a series of Section 78 appeal decisions. Proposed modifications were eventually published in July 2001; further modifications were published in April 2002; and the plan was finally adopted in March 2003. That is a fairly long delay.
The example of Chester-le-Street is worth putting on the record. The inquiry commenced in September 1999, and the inspector's report was published in December 2000. The report did not recommend any difficult or controversial change to the plan. Despite that, it took the local planning authority 20 months to prepare proposed modifications, which were eventually published in July 2002. A further round of modifications was published in March 2003, and the council finally adopted the plan in October 2003.
In Redbridge, a plan was deposited in mid-1999, and the inspector reported in October 2001. The inspector disagreed with the council's residential car-parking standard. The council did not want to set a maximum car-parking allowance for residential development as advocated in national planning policy. The inspector's report recommended that a maximum parking standard be added to the plan. The council did not accept the recommendation, and in its proposed modifications, which were not published until June 2002, sought to retain the policy unmodified.
The Secretary of State objected at that point to the proposed modifications, on the basis of Planning Policy Guidance 3. After three sets of proposed modifications, the council accepted the argument and made the necessary changes. That took considerable time, and the plan was not finally adopted until November 2003. All that added some 15 months to the time taken to prepare the plan.
I have other examples, but I shall not go over them, as the point has been made. There were no major, earth-shattering changes in any of the examples given, yet a good deal of time was lost. The average modification stage following an inspector's report takes six months to a year. The cases that I mentioned involved far longer delays.
On Amendments Nos. 21C and 21D, we are surprised that the noble Baroness proposes a special provision on general conformity with the regional spatial strategy, as the Bench opposite has been opposed to the principle throughout. It now seems to have in mind that the inspector's report should be binding on matters of general conformity. We are not sure whether the amendment would work, given the discretion that the authorities would have under its

593
first limb—I do not claim that those are technical grounds. For example, the inspector may recommend changes needed for general conformity, and the authority may include those changes in its development plan document, but it may at the same time make other changes that bring the development plan document out of general conformity in other ways. I remind the House that the inspector will recommend changes only where necessary because the evidence shows that a development plan document is not sound. The changes that he or she recommends will be only those needed to make the document sound. It is well worth repeating that.
Under Amendment No. 21D, an authority could drop recommendations needed because the document failed one of the other important tests for soundness. The document may conflict with national planning policy or be unrealistic and impossible to implement. The proposal, therefore, is neither acceptable nor sensible. We do not think that we should single out one element, as the amendment would, on which the inspector's recommendations go ahead while ignoring other matters. We disagree that any community should face the uncertainty or delay about the plan for their area that some have experienced under the current arrangements— I have given examples. I am not making a great claim about the examples; they are not earth-shattering. We have several others, but I cannot bring them to the House, for the reasons that I have given.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that speed was not everything and that it could be harmful; I wholly agree.
We have heard examples. My noble friend Lady Maddock has more than a little knowledge of Castle Morpeth, one of the authorities referred to. I understand that the new administration after elections, and after the events described followed by elections, got to grips with the position. Is not that the way for things to be changed?
The Government have blanket arrangements for assessing and dealing with local authorities through the CPA process, yet we seem to be hearing that particular arrangements should be imposed on 450 minus 18, or whatever it may be, because of the bad examples. Hard cases make had law; we should not make bad law. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bowness, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Anelay of St Johns. B.

Carlisle of Bucklow. L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Avebury. L.

Colwyn, L.

Barker, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

5.15 p.m.
[Amendment No. 21 C not moved.]

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 22
22 Page 13, line 19, at end insert—
() any recommendations made by the person appointed to carry out the independent examination of the document."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
22A Because it is not consistent with measures to speed up the plan making process.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 23
23 Page 13, line 20, leave out subsections (2) to (4)
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason —
23A Because it is not consistent with measures to speed up the plan making process.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 22A and 23A. I have spoken to these amendments along with Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 22 and 23, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 22A and 23A.—(Lord Rooker.)

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 26
26 Clause 37, page 20, line 28, at end insert—
"() For the purposes of any area in Greater London, the development plan prior to the publication by the Mayor of London of a new spatial development strategy in accordance with section 341(1)(b) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (alteration or replacement) is the unitary development plan adopted in accordance with the principal Act."
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason —
26A Because it is not appropriate to make such provision.

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 27
27 Page 20, line 29, at beginning insert "Thereafter,"
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
27A Because it is not appropriate to make such provision.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 26A and 27A.
These amendments have been a focus for some concerns about the new planning process in London. I am pleased that following assurances that we have given, the amendments were not pursued in the other place. In no particular order, the concerns were, for example, about the following matters: whether the Mayor could intervene in a London borough's unitary development plans. The Mayor does not have the power to do so under the current legislation, and nothing in this Bill changes that.
The other issue is what powers the Mayor has on planning applications in London. He can direct refusal of strategic planning applications. The definition of "strategic" is in circular 1/2000, which sets out the arrangements for strategic planning in London. On the relationship between the London plan and the boroughs' plans, I have repeated in this House a Statement by the Minister for Housing and Planning on our policy on general conformity. The key point is that this is a test of "general conformity", not conformity. It is only where an inconsistency or omission in a borough unitary development plan, or in the future a local development document, would cause significant harm to the implementation of the London plan that it should be considered not to be in general conformity.
Another issue is whether determining planning applications in London would become much more complicated and expensive. It will not. The London plan will be a factor when an application raises strategic issues that are covered by policies in it. Many applications will not raise strategic issues, and it should be reasonably straightforward, in the case of those that do, to give the appropriate weight to strategic and local planning policies. I beg to move.

597
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 26A and 27A.—(Lord Rooker.)
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I noted in the written Statement and the debate in the House of Commons, and particularly the explanation that the Minister has just repeated, that it is only where there is an inconsistency or omission in a unitary development plan that would "cause significant harm" to the spatial development strategy that the unitary development plan should be considered not to be in general conformity.
I assume—I hope that I can assume—that the Mayor's guidance on general conformity, which has just finished a consultation period, will have to be in its final form such that it reproduces those words, "significant harm". I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that today.
The explanations did not address the point made when the Bill was last in this House; namely, that the spatial development strategy should not achieve the status or relationship given it by the Bill until its first revision. That is not out of any desire to make mischief, nor anything other than to avoid the confusion to which I referred at Report stage.
However, I note that the Government have not agreed with my analysis, or that of the boroughs which expressed their concerns and prompted me. Indeed, your Lordships may have seen the letter from Michael Snyder, chair of policy and resources at the City Corporation, which also expressed concern about the arrangements that the Bill would put in place. Given that the Government have not taken the point but have clarified the interpretation of general conformity and have made the point about significant harm, I do not intend to press the matter further.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I do not want to add much to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. We supported each other on this amendment at the previous stage. The concern, if any, that still remains is the question of the lining up or the timescaling of the need to conform borough plans with the Mayor's strategy. From the outset, the whole argument was that the Mayor's strategy has been set after the boroughs have completed their unitary development plans, when they did not even know that they were going to have to comply at some stage with a regional spatial strategy set by the Mayor. Therefore, it is inconceivable that every policy within those would be even in general conformity with the Mayor's strategy. The questions are: at what stage will it be sorted out and who will sort it out if there is a conflict of interest?
If the Minister can reassure us further on that, the matter may not need to go any further. But that is the problem. It may be that there is a problem with all the regional spatial strategies, but it seems to be more germane in London where the London Plan has far wider connotations than in the other regional spatial strategies, as indicated under the Bill. The fact that the London Plan is much wider in its scope than the other
598
regional spatial strategies and the fact that the boroughs' plans were set before the Mayor's strategy was devised are causing the problem. That suggests that it would be sensible to allow one stage and a revision in order that the boroughs could bring that conformity into the London Plan. Indeed, it may be that the London Plan needs to be looked at to determine whether it needs to conform with the regional spatial strategies, as laid out in this Bill. There is a mismatch somewhere here that needs the Minister's constructive thought.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not want to repeat the statement made by the Minister. Obviously, that is a matter of record now. However, I have three further paragraphs to put on the record. This is an area on which I have no expertise whatever. Perhaps I may make that absolutely clear. I shall therefore stick to the words on the brief. I hope that these three paragraphs may go some way to allaying the fears expressed by both noble Baronesses.
We have considered the Mayor's draft guidance on general conformity and have responded to it identifying those areas where the drafting of the Mayor's consultation document does not reflect the Secretary of State's policy on general conformity.
There are examples of issues related to the London Plan being insufficiently strategic. Obviously, that has been subject to panel examination. The panel concluded, for example, that policies 3A.9 and 3A.10 in the draft London Plan, requiring boroughs to adopt policies detailing requirements for off-site provision of affordable housing or payments in lieu, were insufficiently strategic. They are not included in the final published version of the plan.
There is an issue relating to giving the London Plan the status of a development plan. Although the change in status would not make a big difference, we think that the change is important for two reasons. First, there is no logical reason for treating the London Plan differently from regional spatial strategies for other regions, which would also initially be based on documents that predated this legislation. Secondly, we would not wish to send a message that the existing London Plan or the strategy that it sets out is in any way of reduced status. The plan is an important document that the Government believe has a key role in planning the future of London.
I hope that those three paragraphs might touch on the points raised by the noble Baronesses and go some way to reassuring them.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to say that they do touch on it. But I do not think that they answer the point about the fact that the London Plan has a much wider scope than the regional spatial strategies will have. One concern is that London will be doing something different from other parts of the country in relation to planning authorities and the regional spatial strategy. I cannot see why London boroughs should have to respond to a plan that is wider than any other spatial strategy.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, from the Dispatch Box, I do not know the technical answer to that. However, I cannot help but point out that of all the regions in the country, only London has an elected authority. Look: the noble Lord is nodding. He knows what I am on about.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I realise that we cannot do this at this stage of the Bill. We cannot keep bouncing backwards and forwards. Of course, that is correct if there are any other regions, but they will not have the same regional spatial strategy or the same form of regional spatial strategy as in London. That is the point; it is not the elected authority point.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it comes down to that because, as I said in the points that I just read out, the initial regional spatial strategies will be based on documents that pre-date this legislation. Clearly, the London Plan pre-dates this legislation. But the London Plan has come from an elected planning authority. The noble Baroness made a point about the boroughs and the plan, and I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, was nodding vigorously at what I said. They may not like elected regional planning authorities, but in London we have one.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we have an elected mayor. It is his plan. The Minister needs to go back to the legislation and recall that it is the Mayor's plan and not that of the assembly.

LORDS AMENDMENT
41 Page 31, line 14, at end insert—

"() Any planning application that the Secretary of State declares is of national or regional importance, as designated through subsection (1), must be subject to an economic impact report.

() Any planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a national policy statement White Paper shall be considered by an inspector who shall be able to question the need for a specific development."

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason —
41A Because it is not appropriate to make such provisions.
Lord Rookerrose to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A, but do propose Amendment No. 41C in lieu thereof:
41C Page 31, line 26, at end insert—

"(4A) If the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (2) the applicant must prepare an economic impact report which must—

(a) be in such form and contain such matter as is prescribed by development order;

(b) be submitted to the Secretary of State in accordance with such provision as is so prescribed.

600

(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) the Secretary of State may, by development order, prescribe such requirements as to publicity and notice as he thinks appropriate."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A, but do propose Amendment No. 41C in lieu thereof.
The Government initially resisted the tabled amendment on the basis that the amendments were not required in the Bill. In dealing with amendments on economic impact and major infrastructure projects, the resistance was not because the Government were against the amendment in principle. I hope that I made that clear at the time.
The first subsection of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, required an economic impact report to be completed in relation to an application that has been designated as a major infrastructure project by the Secretary of State.
The Government have always been clear that they would expect the promoter of a development of the type which the Secretary of State is likely to declare a major infrastructure project, that is, of national or regional importance, to engage with all parties concerned at as early a stage as possible. It is expected that some form of economic impact assessment or report will have been completed in preparation for the application in much the same way that it is expected that an environmental impact assessment or statement will have been prepared. It will be well in advance of the stage at which the amendment would envisage this happening.
It is only at the application stage that the Secretary of State will be able to declare that he thinks the application is of national or regional importance and should therefore be called in rather than left to the local planning authority to deal with. However, as the work assessing the economic impacts of the proposed development should already have been undertaken at the point at which the Secretary of State makes his decision as to whether the application should be called in, there is no reason why the requirement for an economic impact report cannot be included in the Bill.
The alternative amendment which has been tabled provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe the form and content of the report. He can also prescribe how and when the report is to be submitted to him, and the publicity requirements. The intention will be to avoid dispute over what constitutes an economic impact report, to ensure that it is submitted in good time in order to avoid lengthening the inquiry process, and to ensure that so far as possible the public are informed of its content.
The second subsection of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, would require any planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a White Paper to be considered by an inspector who could question whether the specific development was necessary. I have to say that the Government continue to resist this proposal because there is no need for a legislative

601
provision in order to enable an inspector to be able to question whether a specific development is necessary, which is what I think is at the heart of the amendment. I accept that what was being argued was along the lines of, "You are more or less taking away from the inquiry whether we should have this in the first place and saying simply, 'We are going to have it. What are the nuts and bolts aspects?'". We were not quite putting it like that.
Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government's stated position has been that where there is a national policy statement White Paper, it will help to reduce the argument at a planning inquiry—not obliterate or eliminate it—about the need for a specific development on a particular site. It has never been the Government's intention to rule out the possibility that the inspector will spend some time looking at need, but this will be done in the context of what is said about need in the national policy statement.
The Government's position is not contrary to the principle behind the second subsection of the amendment, but legislative provision to enable an inspector to consider the issue of need is unnecessary. I hope that I have made it clear: the issue of need will be open for question by the inspector, but the point about the national policy statement in a White Paper is that it could reduce the scale of the argument. Obviously we have based much of this on what happened over Terminal 5.
Although the noble Lord may wish to do so, I do not want to get bogged down in the issue of the recent aviation White Paper. As I said in the debate on Report, the White Paper sets out the Government's strategic framework for airport capacity over the next 30 years. It does not authorise or preclude any particular development, but sets out a policy framework against which the relevant public bodies can plan ahead. That is the point of it.
I hope that what I have been able to say has been much more precise than what I was able to say when we considered the earlier amendments, and that it will find favour not only with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, as the original proposer, but with the whole House.
Moved that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 41, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A, but do propose Amendment No. 41C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Rooker.)
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hanningfieldrose to move Amendment No. 41D, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A, but do propose Amendment No. 41C in lieu thereof, leave out "41C" and insert "41E".
41E Page 31, line 14, at end insert —
"()Any planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a national policy statement White Paper shall be considered by an inspector who shall be able to question the need for a specific development."
602
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for those comments, and I thank him and the Government for tabling their amendment. At least we have won half of our amendment, for which I am grateful. It means that during the course of our discussion of the Bill in this House, the Government have listened to the argument in this area, one that is obviously contentious, in particular in my own county because of the development of Stansted airport. Therefore, as I have said, I thank the Government for tabling their amendment, which we shall accept.
However, I should like to speak to my new amendment, Amendment No. 41E. While I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on the inquiry process, I think that certain areas need clarification. We all accept that no one wants to see inquiries of the kind conducted for Terminal 5 at Heathrow. It went on for years and caused a lot of uncertainty and disruption. Waiting such a long time for a decision does not help either local communities or airports.
One also accepts that governments of all kinds have policies and that, once stated, those policies are debated and conclusions reached. But what is paramount is the need for people to have confidence in a local inquiry. They must be able to put all the issues relating to the development at such an inquiry. We have discussed many times during the course of this Bill the fact that, unfortunately, despite some modifications, there is going to be only one planner in this country. That will be the Deputy Prime Minister. If he decides that there is to be an airport, then that is it. One wants to be confident enough in the system to be certain that local people will have the right to question both the need for, say, the new, runway at Stansted, and the actual positioning of it. I say that because such concerns deeply affect the surrounding communities. Aircraft noise is only one consideration. One wants to make certain that inquiries fulfil the legitimate democratic process. People, whether local or industry representatives, must feel that they can go to a local inquiry and put their arguments forward in the knowledge that those points will be properly considered.
I would still like to see such a provision on the face of the Bill. It would give a reassurance that local democracy does still exist. We need to know that local councils can question the need for, the siting of and so forth of a runway or any other major project affecting thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people's homes and livelihoods. These truly big issues must be dealt with openly—even after the Government have set out their policy.
I appreciate what the Minister has had to say and I am glad that it is on the record. However, perhaps he will be able to say a little more about the democratic nature of inquiries and the ability of the inspector to have a free hand in looking at all the issues relating to a major infrastructure project.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason

603
numbered 41A, but do propose Amendment No. 41C in lieu thereof, leave out "41C" and insert "41E".— (Lord Hanningfield.)
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have anything further to say. Although I do not want to sound nitpicking, I shall refer again to my original notes and cross-check those against the wording of Amendment No. 41E, to which the noble Lord has just been speaking. We are not talking about the same thing. Amendment No. 41E deals with a,
"planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a national policy statement White Paper".
I am no expert on the aviation White Paper, but I can only repeat what I have said. The recent White Paper sets out the development of airport capacity in the UK for the next 30 years. It does not authorise or preclude any particular development. Moreover, I have already made the point that even if it was site-specific, the inspector would still be able to question the need, which is the purpose behind Amendment No. 41E.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I do not want to debate that White Paper today but it gives a specific site and specific positioning for a second runway at Stansted airport. There is a specific site named in the White Paper.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept that. I am not arguing what the pronouncement was—the answer to the question for which everyone had waited for three years was "Stansted"—but the White Paper did not authorise Stansted. Let me make it absolutely clear that the White Paper did not authorise the expansion of Stansted. People think, "The Government have published a White Paper—boom—this is going to happen", but a process has to be followed.
As I have said, the inspector will be able to question the need. Under the new procedure in the Bill, we hope to be able to reduce the amount of time spent on the need argument before one gets down to the nuts and bolts. That is what we are seeking to do and it would not be fruitful for me to debate the pros and cons of the aviation White Paper. I am not seeking to nit-pick the amendment. I am making the point that the White Paper does not authorise the expansion at Stansted.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall not pursue the amendment further today. What he has said is on the record and one hopes that any potential future inquiries into large projects will proceed exactly as he has said they will. We shall be watching what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
42 Leave out Clause 45
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason —
42A Because it will prevent the more speedy creation of simplified planning zones.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 42A. I shall speak also to Lords Amendments Nos. 130 and 139. The three amendments seek the removal of all reference to simplified planning zones in both the Bill and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
I shall take the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 42 proposes the deletion of Clause 45 from the Bill. The Commons disagree because this,
"would prevent the more speedy creation of simplified planning zones".
Amendment No. 130 proposes amendments to Schedule 6 that would delete all reference to simplified planning zones from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Commons disagree because it would not be,
"appropriate to abolish simplified planning zones".
Amendment No. 139 proposes an amendment to Schedule 9 with the effect that Section 83(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would not be repealed as is currently suggested in the Bill. The Commons disagree to this because it is,
"not appropriate to retain the existing arrangements for the creation of simplified planning zones".
Clause 45 seeks to amend the existing provisions for the creation of simplified planning zones to enable the implementation of business planning zones. These will be fully defined in subsequent policy statements, most likely the forthcoming policy planning statement 4. Planning for Economic Development, which is due to be published later this year.
Broadly speaking, however, business planning zones are as previously described: flexible planning regimes, responsive to the needs of business. They are a strategic tool, to be identified at the regional level and implemented at the local level. We expect them to be used to encourage the development of high quality, high tech business, perhaps in the form of clusters. We will expect regional planning bodies to look at promoting one or two of these only in each region. They will be a valuable tool for encouraging investment and therefore growth and regeneration.
Business planning zone developments will he of a high standard. This is something that we will require through subsequent policy statements. They will have a low environmental impact and will be required to undergo environmental impact assessment. They will, of course, be subject to public consultation, both at the regional level, when the broad locations for business planning zones will be identified, and at the local level as they are implemented.
The new business planning zones will be very different from the current special planning zones, both conceptually, as already described, and technically. The key differences proposed by Clause 45 are as follows. The new special planning zones cannot be made by a local planning authority unless the need for one has first been identified in the regional spatial strategy or, in the case of London, the special development strategy, or by the National Assembly for Wales. The life span of a special planning zone may

605
be varied to respond to the specific demands of an area and be for any period up to 10 years, rather than a fixed 10 years as is currently the case.
The business planning zones are an improvement on their predecessors. They will provide a new, useful and flexible strategic tool and will support business development. They should be supported. I regret that I cannot read out a list of all the people clamouring for them because I have not got one in my notes. I ask the House not to insist on its amendment.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 42A.—(Lord Rooker.)
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanhamrose to move Amendment No. 42B, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 42A, leave out "not".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I suspect that the reason why the Minister has not got a list of people clamouring for these business planning zones is because there are none. When we discussed this issue at Third Reading I thought that the Minister was less enthusiastic over the provisions in Clause 45 than any other part of the Bill. There may be not only a lack of enthusiasm from the Minister—for which, I am sure, he has now been clouted round the head—but a lack of enthusiasm from business itself. In reality, for years there have been business planning zones, simplified planning zones and business enterprise zones, and they have not taken off.
The House would expect me to be concerned about a second aspect of this issue—that is, the fact that these zones will be identified in the regional spatial strategy. It is another name—or misnomer—for the Secretary of State deciding where business development will take place, alongside where housing will be built under the spatial strategies and the sustainable community plans.
As I said before, this is an unloved provision—not even business sees any particular virtue in it. It is not unique—it has been around before—and we ought to take the opportunity with this Bill to put it out of its misery; to take it out of these provisions, to take it out of the latest town and country planning Bill and to dump what is clearly not a very successful project. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 42A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Hanham.)
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, some Ministers leave a great many gaps between the lines for us to read into. Perhaps that is what the Minister has done in his final paragraph. Certainly at the previous stage he clearly filled in the gaps.
We still have not had it spelled out how business planning zones will facilitate "high quality" business schemes. As for "high tech", which is part of the same
606
mantra, I remain puzzled. I continue to think that the local planning authority may have the scope to use the new local development orders to achieve high tech business parks or whatever; they seem to be ideal for that purpose. But as to whether we need simplified planning zones or the change in provisions brought about by the Bill to achieve this, I am no more convinced than when we started debating the issue.
The root of the provision does not seem to be the Minister's department. We all recall that the planning reforms were heralded originally by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the basis that planning was thought to hinder competitiveness, although there is no evidence of that. I support the noble Baroness entirely; we ought to let this die the death it is headed for.
Lord Rooker: My Lords. I have nothing to say in answer. The business planning zones are a vital part of the Bill. It is not a confidence issue.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I wish I felt moved to say that I was going to press the amendment to a vote, because I might win it, with the Minister voting with me. I shall not do so today; I think this will die its own death. It is unfortunate that we will have in legislation something that is completely useless and will cause justifiable grievance, without having particular merit. We have tested this out—we have talked round it and through it. I think I could move the Minister substantially in our direction, although I doubt whether that applies to his colleagues behind him. However, for today, I will leave the matter alone. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
45 Insert the following new Clause—
"Duration of planning permission and consent

(1) Section 91 of the principal Act (limit on duration of planning permission) is amended by inserting at the end of subsection (2) the words "and any other matters which the authority consider relevant".

(2) Section 18 of the listed buildings Act (limit of duration of consent) is amended by inserting at the end of subsection (1)(b) the words "and any other matters which the authority consider relevant"."

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason —
45A Because it is not necessary to make the provision to which the Lords amendment relates.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 45, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 45A. In moving the Motion, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 46 and 47.
I recall that at earlier stages of the Bill's passage—I am not sure whether it was Report or Second Reading—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, moved Amendment No. 45 to address the concerns that when

607
a local planning authority considered the length of time that a planning application should remain valid, it should not consider such matters as the length of time it takes to assemble the site and organise funding. The noble Baroness intended the amendment to be helpful in the context of a three-year default period for the duration of a permission or consent. Section 91(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 18(1)(b) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require the local planning authority to consider "any other material considerations". If a local planning authority, when considering the time needed for a planning permission, thinks that the time needed to assemble finance and land is relevant, that matter will be a material consideration to which the authority must have regard. The amendment is therefore not necessary.
Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would leave out the provisions making the default period for the duration of planning permission and listed building consent three years. The Government proposed with Clause 50 to reduce the period of validity of a planning permission, listed building consent or conservation area consent from five to three years. Local planning authorities will be able to agree longer periods than three years where appropriate—for example, in complex regeneration projects. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
The clause also prevents a developer seeking to extend a permission by submitting an application to vary a condition. Any developer wishing to extend the time limit will have to submit a new application for planning permission, and the local planning authority will consider the entire application afresh.
Reducing the default period for permission and consent from five to three years is a crucial part of our agenda to speed up the operation of the planning system. The default period refers to the time limit for the commencement of development. A three-year default sends a clear signal about the importance of delivery. We are, of course, pressing local authorities to speed up their planning processes, and we are showing an even-handed approach towards developers with a three-year default period.
We know that circumstances can change, and a three-year default period will allow changes to national guidance to take effect more quickly. We previously introduced an amendment providing that where planning permission is granted and that grant of permission is subsequently challenged in judicial review proceedings, the duration of permission will be from the date of the grant until three years—or other period as directed by the determining authority—after the completion of the proceedings. That amendment was inserted in response to concerns raised by developers that the shorter validity period, coupled with the associated removal of the provision that enabled developers to seek to extend the life of the consent, could mean that the validity period had expired before the judicial review proceedings had been completed. I accept that that would be complete nonsense.
608
During your Lordships' earlier consideration of the clause, it was argued that even expert lawyers would find it difficult to calculate when judicial review proceedings were concluded. We have been persuaded by that argument and have tabled amendments to deal with the issue.
Commons Amendment No. 46A in lieu of Amendment No. 46 provides that, where a planning permission is granted subject to a time limit by virtue of a condition imposed under Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or, by virtue of Section 91(3), as amended in each case, and the grant or deemed grant of that planning permission is challenged, the period is statutorily increased by one year in relation to that permission. Commons Amendment No. 47A in lieu of Amendment No. 47 makes a similar change in relation to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
The Government have listened to criticism during the consideration of the clause, as indeed we have during consideration of the whole Bill. We have proposed amendments to deal with problems arising from legal challenge. However, a three-year default period for planning permission is a central part of the programme for speeding up the operation of the planning system.
During consideration of your Lordships' amendments in the other place on 19 April, the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats expressed sympathy with the Government's proposal to change the default period for planning permission from five years to three. He took the view that planning officers might not know that they could vary the period. He proposed that the Government should make it clear that local authorities could vary the period and that longer periods should be allowed, for example, for complex applications.
The Government have listened to that argument, and the Minister for Housing and Planning has today published a statement that makes it clear that the current flexibility to vary the length of permission or consent will remain. The statement notes that the time limit for commencement of development will normally be three years from the date of permission or consent, but a local authority may direct a longer or shorter period, as it considers appropriate.
The statement says that local planning authorities should look favourably on requests for longer periods of duration where there are valid planning grounds for such a request. There will he cases in which three years is unlikely to be long enough to allow developers to complete all the preparation needed before starting work. Longer periods are likely to be appropriate, as I have already said, in complex regeneration projects, for example.
The statement also notes that after the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has completed its parliamentary passage, the Government will issue guidance to local planning authorities on the new provisions. In that guidance, we will make clear the need for flexibility on the part of local authorities in their dealings with applicants on the duration of permissions and consents.

609
I hope that is considered to be reasonable. It certainly meets the points that have been made in this House and in the other place during the Bill's passage. We have listened and have tried to be practical where we can, while keeping the central message that there has to be some change.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 45, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 45A.—(Lord Rooker.)
6 p.m.
Baroness Hamweerose to move Amendment No. 45B, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 45 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 45A, leave out "not".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords in speaking to Amendment No. 45B, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 46B and 47B. Amendment No. 46B is slightly defective. Any defect is significant at this stage but, as the Minister says, I am reading out what it says on the Marshalled List, so I had better stick to what it says. It should read,
"as an amendment to the Motion now before the House to leave out from "House" to the end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 46".
When I phoned the Public Bill Office last week to ask for guidance in drafting, they said, "It's very complicated, my Lady—you tell us what you want to do and leave it to us to draft it".
We do not at all take issue with the Government's objective of actually seeing the end product of the plans for much needed housing, or of achieving a very high percentage on brownfield land. The issues that we considered in the previous debate related to the length of the default period and to what the local planning authority can have regard in extending, or indeed shortening, that default period.
Most householder applications can be taken through to completion within three years—the side extension, the conservatory and so on. We talked at Report about the need to give sufficient time for an individual to get organised. I do not want to make things difficult for individuals, but I do not believe that that is the central issue. The issue is about achieving the significant developments.
The recent Barker review, which we shall debate in a couple of weeks' time, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, identifies as a factor that the housebuilding industry's response to risk and the speculative nature of land leads to reluctance to build out large sites quickly. However, that is only one of five factors that are identified. The review talks of the increasingly complex nature of sites, especially brownfield sites, where significant remediation is required; the difficulties of site assembly, where ownership is fragmented; the planning system, its influence over the amount of land available, and whether the infrastructure is there to support the
610
development; and the politically contentious nature of land use. However, the review has found little evidence, at least across the country as a whole,
"to substantiate concerns that option contracts and the practice of land banking allow housebuilders to erect barriers to entry into the market".
The difficulties of site assembly, obtaining funding and dealing with contamination resulted in my being concerned about the reduction of the default period. I welcome the statement made today about site assembly and funding being capable of being regarded as material considerations. I should like to have heard that whatever the local planning authority believes is relevant is de facto relevant.
The other issue expressed to us as a concern by the industry related to obtaining consents from other agencies, such as the Highways Agency, the water authorities, the Environment Agency, English Heritage and English Nature. I would be glad to be corrected, but it does not appear to me that obtaining those consents would fall within what could be considered as material considerations.
I acknowledge the Government's amendment in response to concerns about how to calculate when a period starts running in the event of judicial review. However, that is not quite the end of the matter—nor, perhaps, is guidance, unless the new proposed guidance is very strong. We are waiting to see what it is like. Your Lordships may have received letters from the various industry organisations on that matter.
I share the concern that in practice local planning authorities will follow the statutory period and impose three years. I hope that what the Government do following these debates will mean that, if one told a planning officer that it was possible to vary the default period, the answer would not be, "Not a lot of people know that". I hope that these debates will have brought that out very fully into the open. Clearly the industry's concern, which I have shared because I share the Government's own objective, still remains. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 45 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 45A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Hamwee.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have an amendment within this short group, which provides what I hope is the spectacular and usual British comprise. Instead of "three years", we have moved to "four". There has been great concern about the matter, although not for the smaller scale application. We are not talking about the length of time taken over planning permission for a small-scale development, although, having said that, a long period in that regard can sometimes sterilise what happens to a property. We are talking about the larger developments. There has been great concern

611
that if the five-year duration was not to be adhered to, three years was far too short a time to deal with all the problems that might be associated with a larger site, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said.
I note the Minister's amendment, but it will help only in an extreme case, when judicial review has been implemented. It does not really take us very far. The applications in question, relating to something more than a small domestic extension, probably amount to about 20 per cent of any local authority's applications.
The Minister says all the time that the whole purpose of the Bill is to speed up the planning process. However, it represents a serious slowing down of the process if a developer who gets to the end of the three years for a development of 50 or 200 houses on a brownfield site and is not quite ready has to put in a whole new planning application. If at the outset he is told that he can have a longer time if necessary, the issue may be resolved. But if he comes up to the end of the three-year period and is not ready to go and has to put in a new application, timescales will move forward in any event.
It is also true that when an application for renewal is considered, it is not exactly a fresh application or a fresh field. I have recently had this experience as a member of a planning authority. A material consideration for the planning committee is whether or not approval was given. It is a different hearing from a hearing in consideration of a fresh application. All that can take extra time.
Four years is certainly not three years and certainly not five years, but it would represent a half-way house. It would give more time for major developers to bring their plans to fruition and, perhaps, ensure that it was not necessary for them to put in a new application because they might complete the process within that time.
I hope that this amendment is helpful, in the context of a vexed situation over the length of planning permissions—vexed for the local authority and for any developer trying to assemble a site and introduce something that is not entirely straightforward or run of the mill.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am disappointed that the Government should have chosen not to accept the amendments on this matter. It seems to me that the Barker review demonstrated quite clearly that there is no evil that needs dealing with and that by and large sites are built out as soon as they reasonably may be given all the problems of putting them together and the commercial considerations surrounding the site, and that there is no delay that needs dealing with. All the Government are doing is, I think, creating potential for chaos in a small number of cases and inconveniencing many. It saddens me that the Government should have come back on this but unless my noble friend or the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, jumps up and calls us to a Division, I suspect that I shall have to put up with it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord should not be so sad as he sounds. Anyone would think that the Government had not moved on the matter. The other place has put amendments before your Lordships' House, to which it seeks your Lordships' agreement, that show considerable movement. The statement by the Minister also shows movement. It is quite clear that if a development is perceived to need a period of four years or five years, it will get it. The relevant issues are debated beforehand so there is a degree of certainty there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a fair point about the agencies and the other bodies. They are a law unto themselves but they are statutory bodies—that is why they are a law unto themselves. I hope that I can answer her question in that regard. If when considering the duration of time needed for a planning permission a local planning authority thinks that the time needed to assemble the finance and the land and to consult other bodies is relevant, that matter will be a material consideration to which the authority must have regard. In other words, the "other bodies" will cover the agencies plus other relevant bodies in addition to those that the noble Baroness mentioned. A matter can be considered a material consideration. I think that is the central question that the noble Baroness asked me.
I believe that we have a good compromise. The flexible three-year period is almost like flexible retirement. One thing is certain—it is not a rigid three-year period. That was made absolutely clear in the statement made following the points raised in the other place. The three-year period is flexible. It is a default three-year period as opposed to a five-year period: we want to speed up the process. The flexible three-year period should not give developers any problems whatever. Even at this final stage of the Bill the Government have tried to compromise, as we ever seek to do when listening to reasonable arguments. We have a compromise here. I repeat that the three-year period is flexible, not rigid. If it started out as a rigid three-year period, I apologise. There was always a degree of flexibility there, but I do not suppose that we highlighted that as we should have done.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is clearly important that the Government are making the position clear to the planning and development community, if I can call it that. Issuing new guidance is important but it does not change things. I do not want to sound too scratchy as I welcome what the Government are doing, but I do not think that the Minister can quite claim that they have moved in the way that he suggested. The Government are clarifying the 1990 Act. Welcome as that clarification will be, we know that concerns remain. I would not like to deprive the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, of the opportunity to express his view because I should like to express mine. I should like finally to test the opinion of the House.
6.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 45B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 114.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bowness, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Anelay of St Johns. B.

Carlisle of Bucklow. L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Avebury. L.

Colwyn, L.

Barker, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Noakes, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Northover, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Denham, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dholakia, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Falkland, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L

Fearn, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Flather, B.

Plummer of St. Marylehone, L.

Fowler, L.

Reay, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Rees, L.

Goodhart, L.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roper, L.

Hanham, B.

Russell, E.

Hanningfield, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy. Ly.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Sandberg, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howe, E.

Selborne, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sharp of Guildford. B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Kimball. L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kingsland. L.

Stewartby, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Swinfen, L.

Livsey of Talgarth. L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Ludford, B.

Tope, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Trumpington, B.

McNally, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Maddock, B.

Waddington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Walmsley, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Walpole, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wigoder. L.

Naseby, L.

Wilcox, B.

Newby, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dubs, L.

Ahmed, L.

Elder, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Evans of Parkside, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Andrews, B.

Falconer of Thoroton. L. (Lord Chancellor)

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Barnett, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]

Filkin, L.

Berkeley, L.

Fitt, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Billingham, B.

Gale, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gavron, L.

Blood, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Borrie, L.

Golding, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brookman, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Goudie, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Chandos, V.

Grantchester, L.

Christopher, L.

Gregson, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Harrison, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Haskel, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hayman, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Crawley, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

David, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Desai, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Dixon, L.

Hoyle, L.

595

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jones, L.

Richard, L.

Jordan, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Rooker, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lipsey, L.

Sheldon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Simon, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Stallard, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackenzie of Frarnwellgate, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Marsh, L.

Thornton, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Triesman, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Varley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Mishcon, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Mitchell, L.

Warner, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Morris of Manchester, L

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Nicol, B.

Whitaker. B.

Orme, L.

Ouseley, L.

Whitty, L.

Parekh, L.

Wilkins, B.

Pendry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Maclennan of Rogart. L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

McNally, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Maddock. B.

Avebury, L.

Mancroft, L.

Barker, B.

Marlesford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Naseby, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Newby, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Noakes, B.

Coe, L.

Northbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northover, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dholakia, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Razzall, L.

Fearn, L.

Reay, L.

Fookes, B.

Redesdale, L.

Fowler, L.

Rees, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Rennard, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Hanham, B.

Sandberg, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Seccombe, B.

Higgins, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jacobs, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stewartby, L.

Jopling, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kimball, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kingsland, L.

Tope, L.

Liverpool, E.

Tordoff, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Waddington, L.

Lucas, L.

Wakeham, L.

Lyell, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Walmsley, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Walpole, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Ahmed, L.

Brookman, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Alli, L.

Carter, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Chandos, V.

Christopher, L.

Andrews, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Barnett, L.

Crawley, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]

David, B.

Berkeley, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Desai, L.

Billingham, B.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dubs, L.

Borrie, L.

Elder, L.

Brennan, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

614

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mitchell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Filkin, L.

Nicol, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Orme. L.

Gale, B.

Palmer, L.

Gavron, L.

Pendry, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen. B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Golding, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goudie, B.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

Grantchester, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Robertson of Port Ellen. L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rooker, L.

Harrison, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Haskel, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hayman, B.

Simon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Triesman, L.

Hoyle, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Varley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Warner, L.

Jones, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Jordan, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Weatherill, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lipsey, L.

Whitty, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wilkins, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.24 p.m.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
46 Page 38, line 14, leave out subsections (1) and (2)
The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment in lieu—
46A Page 38, leave out lines 19 to 39 and insert—

""(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if any proceedings are begun to challenge the validity of a grant of planning permission or of a deemed grant of planning permission.

(3B) The period before the end of which the development to which the planning permission relates is required to be begun in pursuance of subsection (1) or (3) must be taken to be extended by one year.""

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 46 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46A in lieu thereof. I have spoken to the amendment.

615
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 46 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Rooker.)
[Amendments Nos. 46B to 46F not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
47 Page 39, line 12, leave out subsection (4)
The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment in lieu—
47A Page 39, leave out lines 17 to 36 and insert—

""(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if any proceedings are begun to challenge the validity of a grant of listed building consent or of a deemed grant of listed building consent.

(2B) The period before the end of which the works to which the consent relates are required to be begun in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) must be taken to be extended by one year.""

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 47 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A in lieu thereof. I have spoken to the amendment.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 47 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Rooker.)
[Amendment No. 47B not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
130 Page 126, line 14, at end insert—
"Sections 82 to 87 (simplified planning zones) are omitted and Schedule 7 (simplified planning zones) is omitted."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
130A Because it is not appropriate to abolish simplified planning zones.

LORDS AMENDMENT
139 Page 144, leave out line 24
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
139A Because it is not appropriate to retain the existing arrangements for the creation of simplified planning zones.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 130 and 139 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 130A and 139A. I spoke to the amendments earlier.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 130 and 139 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 130A and 139A.—(Lord Rooker.)
[Amendments Nos. 130B and 139B not moved.]
616
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons with an amendment and reasons.

Child Trust Funds Bill
6.29 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Eligible children]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, leave out "2002" and insert "1988"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall also speak to the other amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Wilcox in this group.
The effect of the amendments is to create the ability for parents to open child trust fund accounts for children who were born on or before the magic qualifying date of 31 August 2002. Those pre-2002 child trust funds would enjoy all of the benefits of a child trust fund regime, except for the Government contributions at the outset and any top-ups. At the heart of the amendments is a desire to encourage a habit of savings. The child trust fund project has that as one of its aims and it is why these Benches have determined that they will not oppose the Bill. My party has a long-standing commitment to encouraging savings and that means ensuring that there are effective vehicles available at all of life's stages.
The Government's record on savings is not good. I do not doubt the worthwhile intentions of the Government in the Bill, but we also need to judge them on their record. The fact is that the savings ratio has halved since 1997. It was 10 per cent then and now is 5 per cent with no significant recovery in sight. One third of households have no savings at all. It is hard to think of any of the Government's policies—as opposed to their rhetoric—which are strongly pro savings.
We think that a savings ratio of 5 per cent is unacceptable. We are sceptical about whether a child trust fund policy will have any effect on the ratio in the sense that it will encourage further savings. I do not know whether the Government's own contributions of around £250 million a year to the trust funds will count as savings for the ratio—and the Minister might enlighten us—but even if it does, we know that this will not represent anything that resembles a culture or habit of saving that we need so much if the savings ratio is to be restored.
I am proposing the amendments against that background. The Government scheme is for child trust funds to be available only to children born after 31 August 2002. We want children born before that time to be able to have child trust funds which are as similar as possible to those which benefit from the Government contributions. Part of that similarity will be the fiscal advantages that attach to child trust funds, but I do not want anyone to be carried away with the idea that I am proposing another major tax

617
break for the wealthy. The Minister may wish to comment but I do not believe that the ability to invest £1,200 a year for a child will create a significant fiscal cost.
For me, the advantages of extending the child trust fund are twofold. First, there is no easy way at present to create an account that mimics the child trust fund itself. In particular, the lock-in of investments until the age of 18 is not available in the same way. I believe that this will be an important feature for some categories of potential contributors—for example, grandparents—who may wish to he reassured that the money will be locked up. Another feature is the availability of a stakeholder product, which may be attractive to some.
Secondly, and more importantly, there is the impact on the savings habits of potential contributors to the child trust funds. Parents like to treat their children equally and so, usually, do grandparents, godparents and so on. Creating an artificial divide in 2002 may mean that no additional savings will be channelled into child trust funds, because it will be impossible to treat equally children born before and after August 2002. If children cannot be accorded equal treatment, or only at disproportionate effort, the additional savings may simply not be made. The Children's Mutual, which has provided a helpful briefing to noble Lords, has been concerned about the matter—and so are we.
The Minister will tell us that there is a power in Clause 2(7) to extend backwards the date of eligibility for child trust funds. We acknowledge that the Government have said that they will monitor the market to see whether there is a gap. But in Grand Committee the Minister seemed more concerned with whether or not the market provided tax-advantageous products and, as I have tried to point out, this is not the most important gap.
In Grand Committee the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for the Liberal Democrats, said that he would support amendments that made it easier for families, especially poorer families, to invest. I hope that he now appreciates that our amendment is solidly in line with that principle: it is exactly about making savings for all the children of a family, rich or poor. I beg to move.
Lord Newby: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, we on these Benches oppose the principle behind the Bill, because we do not believe that it will achieve its objectives and that the money allocated to it by the Government could be better spent in the short term. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has pointed out, the line that we have taken has been to oppose amendments that increase the scope of the Bill, but equally to make sure that, to the extent that the Bill is likely to be implemented, all families should have an equal opportunity to invest in it. We shall be looking particularly at the situation facing poorer families and trying to ensure that they are eased in to the additional savings.
This group of amendments has arguments in both directions. There is some evidence that it may, if passed, encourage some poorer families to invest in more than one child, although, as I have said on
618
several occasions, I have severe doubts whether for many poorer families it either makes sense to invest in these products, rather than others, and whether they are likely to do so in any numbers.
Against that is the question of whether the amendments increase the scope of the Bill. I believe that they do. The issue is not primarily one of cost, although I was intrigued to see under Amendment No. 13 that there is provision for a supplementary contribution to be made in respect of any child trust fund held by a child horn on or before 31 August 2002. So there is a clear chink there, which could lead to payment by the Government into child trust funds for older children.
A long way down the track there is also likely to be the potential for tax losses. Therefore, weighing up the two arguments against my own criterion, I find that the amendments extend the scope of the Bill and I shall not support them.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Children's Mutual. I support the comments of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I wish to add a couple of points in relation to Amendment No. 1 and then turn to the two amendments standing in my name.
First, it seems, on the one hand, that the Government are rightly and understandably saying that they recognise that one should not differentiate between one child in a family and another but they want time to reflect on that and to see how their proposals operate in the market. The problem with that is that the providers themselves are now planning the software and all the other necessary preparations, which are exceedingly complicated. Therefore, providers need to have a clear, authoritative statement from the Government on whether the scheme will be extended at some point. A specific date does not necessarily have to be given, but there certainly needs to be a statement from the Government that the scheme will be extended hack to the remaining children within a family.
My second point is that the Government are saying, as I understand it, that, for the moment, there are alternative methods of saving for children. The friendly society of which I have the privilege of being chairman has been selling to the children's market for 40 years. We know that market well and we know that about 20 per cent of families save specifically for their children. It reaches nowhere near the concept of the child trust fund, which is why that concept is so exciting in the first place. It is why, from the beginning, the average family will look to the child trust fund as the mechanism to save for all of its children. The kind of question we are getting from people seeking information is: "Can I split my endowment in two so that my elder son can benefit from the CTF and have top-ups too?". I understand why there should not be top-ups, but it is difficult to explain why they should not benefit from CTF. I hope that the Government will think again about finding a means of involving children who just miss out.
The purpose of my Amendment No. 18 is to equal tax advantages, but not the other CTF provisions, to children born before 1 September 2002 and therefore

619
not eligible for the CTF, and to do that through other regulated savings schemes. I see the provision as second best, but it is worth proposing and it would provide the means for raising any tax exemptions on subscriptions into those schemes to the same level as set for the CTF of £1,200 per annum. It would treat all children fairly, especially families of mixed ages; it would further encourage the savings habit; and it would provide a positive commitment to enhancing financial awareness.
In case the Government say that that is all very well, but it is too expensive to do it, I have tabled an amendment with regard to friendly societies. I re-emphasise my involvement in that movement. Half of children's savings are provided by friendly societies. It requires only a change of figure in the regulations from £270 to £1,200 to make it possible, through the tax-exempt policy for friendly societies, at least to provide a vehicle. It could be a time-barred vehicle. There is nothing to prevent the Government from saying that for an interim period of five years they will increase the figure to £1,200 and will then review it. That will at least put child A on an almost level playing field with child B.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I support this series of amendments. We had a long debate in Committee so I can be brief. First, I congratulate my noble friends on the Front Bench on the ingenious way in which they introduced the amendments and managed to make them stick.
There are three reasons why I support the amendments. The first is the effect on families. There will be confusion among many parents when they discover that a child born in 2001 is not eligible for the tax benefits, but that a child horn after September 2002 is. They will certainly regard that as unfair, and it may well discourage some families, grandparents, family friends or whomever from putting money into the trust fund because it will discriminate between children in the same family. Indeed, I am aware of no other children's savings product that discriminates between children in the same family, which is what this does.
The second reason is the effect on the children. The purpose of the child trust fund is to encourage through grant and tax relief a savings habit among young children. In addition, as the Minister repeatedly said in justifying the scheme, the literature to be circulated with the trust fund will provide a financial education for them. Unfortunately, those two advantages will not be available to the older children in the family.
We are talking about children who are now about two and a half years old. It is unlikely that they will be able to read the literature or be aware of the tax advantages until they are much older. Therefore, they are deprived of those advantages from the outset, which is unfortunate. Indeed, no other savings scheme for children has this level of tax advantage. My noble friend Lord Naseby indicated how it might be done, but the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Noakes is simpler taken with the educational aspect. If those are advantages for children born since September 2002, they should be an advantage for all children.
620
The third reason relates to the point of view of the provider. We are all aware that the Children's Mutual, which has done so much work in this area, will be taking up child trust funds in a big way. However, the project is marginal for many other providers. It is a question of volume—and it really is marginal. If parents are discouraged from topping up for those children who are receiving a £250 grant and are unable to do anything for the rest of the family, that will have a disadvantage on the whole. However, if these amendments were accepted, undoubtedly the volume going into the child trust fund would be greater and might encourage more providers to participate.
For those three reasons, I believe that these amendments are desirable.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in a discussion about savings ratios. All right, if she wants me to, I will to the extent of one sentence. She is right that savings ratios since 1998 have been of the order of 4 to 5 per cent. There have been periods when they were higher, but the average over the past 40 years has been 3.5 per cent. There is therefore nothing dramatic or relevant to the Bill about savings ratios.
I agree with the noble Baroness that with this Bill we want to encourage saving. That is one of the objectives of the child trust fund. However, we believe that it can be and should be achieved without legislating for child trust fund accounts for older children.
Perhaps I may begin this Report stage by saying that we had a good idea with child trust funds. We put it into our election manifesto; we defined it carefully; and we consulted on it carefully. After all, we won an election and introduced legislation. But the measure must be carefully defined, workable, understandable and acceptable to families and financial providers.
Now, this and several other amendments seek to embroider and add to it. They would certainly add substantially to the cost, if Amendment No. 13 is to be taken as being consequential on this amendment. It would allow for contributions from the Government. Surely, once someone has had a good idea and it has been agreed that it is a good idea and that it should go ahead, we should stick to the simple, well defined, well thought-out scheme which we have before the House and not try to play with some of its provisions.
The new clause proposed by Amendment No. 11 and the related amendments would introduce a second form of child trust fund account for children born between 1 September 1988 and 31 August 2002. It is not being proposed, except as a power under Amendment No. 13, that they should have the initial government contribution, and there is no requirement on the Government to pay supplementary or further contributions such as the age-related contributions, although they would be allowed to do so.
We are not convinced that these accounts, without an additional endowment, would offer parents—particularly parents on low incomes—a powerful incentive to save. The feedback from our research

621
shows that one of the key attractions of the child trust fund is that the government endowments are an effective way to encourage parents to save. The research carried out by IPPR indicates that,
"£250 would start the ball rolling. People might get into the routine of saving".
It also indicated that,
"£250 is a fair start. It is positive. With interest and Christmas money going in, that would build up".
The only real incentive to save without the government endowment would be the tax advantage nature of the account. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, carefully disclaimed saying that she was not proposing a tax break for the wealthy, but the impact of her amendments is more likely to appeal to those on a higher income. Only about 50 per cent of children have any savings in their own name, despite the current tax advantage savings vehicles that exist.
It is our firm belief that the industry will step in if it senses a demand for other types of children's savings vehicles. I cannot imagine a parent going to open a child trust fund account, asking whether there is a similar account for older children and not being offered other options. I am sure that that applies to the Children's Mutual.
However, what if the market fails to step in as I have suggested? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made two commitments on Report in the Commons which should reassure this House. First, the Government will continue to monitor whether, after the launch of the child trust fund, parents feel their demands for accounts for older children have been met. Secondly, the Government are working on proposals to meet any gaps identified. My right honourable friend pointed out that any changes could be met by regulations. No amendments to the Bill, which might create additional complexity, are needed.
I might perhaps reassure the House further by explaining how we intend to monitor the market. We have consulted financial providers throughout the development of the child trust fund. We intend to continue those consultations in the period before the launch and in the first years of the child trust fund being available. In conclusion, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, the clear statement that he sought for the benefit of providers. It is not our intention to extend the child trust fund before 1 September 2002.
However, I would not like any noble Lord to think that we are simply going to ignore the needs of children born before 2002. We are developing the child trust fund website. That will have a section specifically for children who are not eligible for the child trust fund, giving them information about other savings opportunities. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
I turn to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Amendment No. 18 would grant tax relief for child trust fund accounts to accounts for older children. I assume that those would be child trust fund-type accounts with the same key features. If the settlements legislation were to be disapplied on children's
622
savings other than child trust fund accounts, even with a £1,200 annual limit on contributions, no controls would be in place to ensure that each child had only one such account. That could lead to widespread abuse. Parents could open multiple accounts for their children, or grandparents for their grandchildren, in order to shelter savings and investment income from tax. Rigorous controls must be built into the child trust fund system to ensure that only one child trust fund account can be opened for each child.
The settlements legislation has been disapplied for child trust fund accounts only because children have no access to the funds until they are 18, and then only the child or young adult is entitled to the funds. It would not be appropriate to give the same treatment to tax-exempt savings plans—the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, pointed out they can attract £270 a year—precisely because those plans do not necessarily belong to the child, nor are the funds locked in until the age of 18.
The noble Lord's Amendment No. 20 would amend Clause 14, which relates to insurance companies and friendly societies. The clause provides for the child trust fund business of life insurance companies and friendly societies to be taxed in the same way as their ISA business. The amendment simply supplements Amendment No. 18, except that it would not extend the treatment of funds to life insurance companies, only to friendly societies.
Given our decision not to create child trust fund-type accounts for older children without waiting to establish how the market meets any demand for them, it would not be appropriate to amend the Bill in the way proposed by Amendments Nos. 18 and 20.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response and I thank other noble Lords for their contributions, particularly those of my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord MacGregor, who have so much practical experience to bring to debates of this kind.
The Minister raised a number of points. He spoke about the effect of the Government contribution on saving. The IPPR report has a lot of "mights". One of the problems with our discussion of how the child trust fund would operate in practice and what its effect would be is that it is a series of "mights". We have a concern that the child trust fund project will not have a dramatic effect on savings. Savings are important. We would not have invented the child trust fund ourselves.
Noble Lords should reflect that four out of five families do not save for their children. Is there anything in the Bill that would make those four out five families save for their children? The barrier is that parents will see a potential unfairness between different categories of child.
The Minister said that I had included the tax advantages. Indeed, I did, but not, I re-emphasise, because that would be a tax break for the wealthy. The Children's Mutual told me that for a savings product to be successful, it often has to have the label "tax free" or "tax advantage", even though there is no effective

623
advantage in investing in it, because that is the psychology of investment. That was one of the advantages.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not with the approval of the Government or the FSA.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I did not say that it was with the approval of the Government or the FSA. That was relayed to me by somebody who is very experienced in the field of the psychology of investment.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I assure my noble friend and the Minister on the Benches opposite that the rules are quite clear. Any literature must follow the rules laid down by the FSA. Nevertheless, where there is a tax advantage, it does act as a trigger in the mind of the saver. My noble friend is quite right in pointing that out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am shocked.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for explaining that point more adequately than I had been able to do. The Minister has said that the scheme will be monitored and that work may be undertaken to meet gaps but that the scheme will start without child trust funds for children born before August 2002. In an ideal world, we would like to see parity at the outset. It would not be costly, as the Minister claimed, because the benefits in terms of savings would far outweigh the cost. We are, however, conscious that the Bill reserves a power to extend the child trust funds. We must assume that the Government will undertake their scrutiny comprehensively and rigorously. We certainly expect the savings industry to be loud and voluble if it believes that the way in which the child trust funds are being implemented is, as we postulated, to the disadvantage of their success. On that basis, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Requirements to be satisfied]:
Lord Newby Lord Newby moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
"() Regulations shall not require account providers to provide equity-based accounts, and shall make provision for cash deposit accounts, including provision for such accounts provided by building societies."
The noble Lord said: The amendment would remove the obligation on child trust fund account providers to provide equity-based accounts. It is aimed in particular at those building societies that offer cash-based accounts, but that do not, as a matter of course, offer equity-based accounts.
The reason for the amendment is that the Government require all those who offer child trust funds to offer stakeholder, equity-based child trust funds. More than a quarter of all building societies, particularly the smaller ones, do not have authorisation from the FSA to offer regulated investment products. Therefore, as matters stand, they are not in a position to offer equity-based child trust
624
funds. In order to do so, they would need to apply to the FSA to extend the regulatory permissions under which they operate. That would impose additional costs and an ongoing compliance burden which, given the 1.5 per cent charge cap, would mean that, for those societies, it would not be worthwhile incurring the additional regulatory burden. My understanding is that of the 17 societies in this category, only one is intending to extend its permissions.
It has been suggested that this problem will be dealt with in the future by depolarisation, but that simply is not the view of the societies themselves. They believe that they would have to pay significant additional costs if they were to adopt the equity-based products and they simply cannot see financial sense in doing so.
Why does it matter if a small minority of financial services providers are not able to offer child trust funds? The reason is that these building societies are regionally based societies with a good reputation and, typically, a very substantial market share in their own area. They have a high proportion of lending to children and young people and a high proportion of accounts with people whose incomes are relatively modest. They are the obvious place where many well off families would go to open child trust funds. These families are not used to going to a plethora of financial services providers for a range of products. They often have a very limited range of accounts, very often just with their local building society, and very often they are cash-based.
When we discussed this matter in Committee the Minister said:
"I think it is more important for parents to have choice than for providers to be marginally inconvenienced".—[Official Report, 18/3/04; col. GC151.]
The truth is that it is not a question of the providers being marginally inconvenienced; it is a question of these providers simply not making provision at all because they cannot afford to offer these products. It simply does not make any financial sense for them to do so. In those circumstances, I contend that many families will simply not invest in child trust funds. The only financial institution they trust themselves is their local building society.
I believe that if these building societies do not offer child trust funds, many parents will not invest elsewhere, and therefore the Government's aim of extending savings, particularly down the income scale, will be to an extent frustrated. I therefore hope that the Government have had a chance to reconsider the issue since Committee stage and to be more flexible. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I wish that I could support the noble Lord. It seems to me that this is a case of special pleading, as some small laggard building societies cannot get up to date and offer a product which is universally thought right. Another danger occurred to me as I reflected on the amendment over the weekend. How do we ensure that building societies offering the child trust fund offer the stakeholder child

625
trust fund as opposed to an attractive child deposit account — which does not have a price cap, is home based and has a number of other features, including the fact that it is non-stakeholder? So if there is a problem even in building societies that offer child trust funds—at least it seems to me that there is a potential problem— there is an even bigger problem in those that are not offering stakeholder child trust funds. If the noble Lord forces the amendment to a Division, I shall be in the opposing camp.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall have difficulty distinguishing Amendment No. 2 from Amendment No. 3. Although each has a slightly different approach, both are basically on the same subject. Amendment No. 2 deals with the requirement for all providers to offer a stakeholder account. The stakeholder account has been designed to provide good value to all consumers. It is to be equity-based, risk-controlled, charges are capped at 1.5 per cent of fund value, and a minimum contribution of £10 will apply. All of those issues were debated in Grand Committee, and I am glad that we have reduced them to perhaps the core ones.
In order to maximise accessibility and ensure that all savers can benefit from the good value of the stakeholder account, the draft child trust fund regulations have required all child trust fund account providers to include a stakeholder account as part of their product ranges. The Government want all savers to be able to benefit from the generally higher returns to equities over the longer term. This requirement would also avoid the problem of providers automatically offering low-income families cash accounts—which is I think what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, was more than hinting at; I think he was actually suggesting it. Of course, any description of the services provided by the Children's Mutual society is of benefit to the House.
Risk controls required for stakeholder child trust fund accounts would reduce the risk of a loss in value. However, savers will be free to invest in cash deposits, including those offered by building societies, if they wish. I will not go into the argument any further about equities. There are things to be said about that which are perhaps better referred to in the debate on Amendment No. 3. However, I am aware of the concern of some building societies that the FSA permissions required to offer the stakeholder account will mean that they cannot offer the child trust fund. That is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. He raised the concern with my office in response to my offer of a meeting between Grand Committee and Report stage.
The Government's view is that the requirement to "offer" a stakeholder account means that a stakeholder account is always made available when an investor contacts a child trust fund provider. That does not mean that all providers have to manufacture their own stakeholder account. A firm could make arrangements with another firm to offer its products as the stakeholder investment provided that all products are available in a one-stop shop for the customer. We are keen to see a wide range of providers, including the
626
majority of building societies, and other mutuals, join the child trust fund market. The Government are continuing to work with the FSA and providers with a view to allowing providers that do not have the full range of FSA permissions to offer the child trust fund, and for that to be achieved in a way that protects the interests of investors by giving them access to a good value, equity-based account for the long term, without placing undue burdens on providers.
I hope that that indicates the work that is going on and the new thought that has gone into this issue since the matter was first raised in Committee.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and indeed for that latter comment. The truth, however, is that we still disagree about the effect of current provision on the likelihood of many lower-income families adopting child trust funds. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, says about the possibility that these building societies are not as far advanced as the Children's Mutual; perhaps they should be able to offer more products more easily. However, the truth is that they cannot, and it appears that they will not. As a result, we believe that many of those who I would have thought the Government would be keen to see take up child trust funds will not do so. Therefore, as grateful as I am for the Minister's comments, I fear that he has not gone far enough, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
7.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 107.

Division No. 6

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Avebury, L.

Razzall, L.

Barker, B.

Redesdale, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Roper, L.

Dholakia, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hooson, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McNally, L.

Tordoff, L.

Maddock, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Walmsley, B. [Teller]

Monson, L.

Walpole, L.

Newby, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Berkeley, L.

Alli, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Borne, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Andrews, B.

Brookman, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Carter, L.

Barnett, L.

Chandos, V.

627

Chester, Bp.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

David, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Desai, L.

Naseby, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dubs, L.

Palmer, L.

Elder, L.

Pendry, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prashar, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Rea, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield. L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gale, B.

Richard, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Robertson of Port Ellen, L.

Golding, B.

Rooker, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sawyer, L.

Goudie, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Grantchester, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon. B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Triesman, L. [Teller]

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Hoyle, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Varley, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Warner, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Jones, L.

Whitaker, B.

Jordan. L.

Whitty, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Wilkins, B.

Kirkhill. L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.18 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister alluded a few moments ago to the fact that Amendment No. 3 covers some of the same territory as the previous amendment. Indeed, I was surprised that the two were not grouped. However, as the role of the Opposition is to ungroup and not group amendments, I left it as it was proposed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in Grand Committee we tried to group them and they were ungrouped. Therefore, we thought that we would not chance our luck again.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, that just shows the Minister that it is always worth another try. The effect of Amendment No. 3 would be to remove the requirement for a provider to offer particular types of account. The practical effect would be to remove the
628
requirement to offer stakeholder accounts. In that respect, it goes beyond the previous amendment, which merely took out the requirement for the equity component.
We have no problem with a stakeholder product being approved by the Government and being available to consumers, and we would have absolutely no problem if the Government's explanatory material said that stakeholder products were good things in which to put one's child trust fund money. We believe that that is the right place for the Government to steer voucher recipients. Equally, we have no problem with the Inland Revenue using stakeholder accounts as a default where parents cannot be bothered to do anything or where, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, they understand only building societies and, if those do not offer accounts, they will do nothing.
However, we believe that the market should be encouraged to offer diversity and choice and it is neither efficient nor necessary for all providers to have to offer one kind of product. We believe that the explanatory material should explain the different types of product and their different features so that people can choose between them but we do not think that every single provider should have to offer a particular type of product as that may not play to the strengths of certain providers.
Therefore, on the one hand, we favour diversity of choice and freedom for providers to offer what they are good at, but, on a practical level, we worry about the impact of the requirement to provide a stakeholder account. If, for example, I decide to go into business as a child trust fund provider, which I have no present intention of doing, I must provide a stakeholder account alongside anything else that I want to market to attract child trust fund vouchers. The other products that I offer can have child structures, investment approaches and the approaches to minimum investments that I want. As I understand it, if I choose to become a child trust fund provider, I can offer those very diverse products but I must also offer a stakeholder account. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
Therefore, when I come to market child trust fund products, what would be the practical impact of having to offer a stakeholder product? Could I simply state at the bottom of my marketing material, "If you want one of the Government's stakeholder varieties, please apply separately", thus building my marketing around the unconstrained products that I wanted to offer? Or will stakeholder products, in practice, be a dominant offer? If it is simply a technical requirement, there may be little objection to it because the market will promote what it wants. I could not find anything in the Bill or the draft regulations which seemed to address that point. So I am struggling to find out what is the practical impact of having the requirement for a stakeholder product.
As I have said, we believe that providers should have the option of choosing whether they offer such stakeholder products. When they offer the products,

629
they have to accept a strict charge cap and a number of other obligations that go with that. In return, they get the promotional benefit of being one of the Government's chosen investment vehicles and are promoted as such when vouchers are issued. But if a provider chooses to go another route, what is the problem with excluding from the marketplace a perfectly good provider of non-stakeholder products, provided that no one pretends that what it is marketing is a stakeholder product? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I sympathise with the difficulty the noble Baroness has in understanding what Clause 3(3) says because in regulations it is all stated as "may". However, we have published the draft regulations and I can make it clear that the intention in the regulations is to specify that all providers must offer a stakeholder account as part of their product range as it has been specifically designed to provide good value to all consumers. That is the basis on which we debated the last amendment and it had better be the basis on which we debate this amendment also.
The stakeholder account is to be equity based but its risk will be controlled through lifestyling, a progressive move to less risky assets commencing no later than at the age of 13, and a requirement to diversify investments in the account. Although equity investments can go down as well as up in value, the evidence is that they provide the best returns for long-term investment. Nevertheless, it is not compulsory for investors to take out a stakeholder account. They are free to choose whatever account best fits their needs and risk preferences. Moreover, parents are always able to transfer their child's CTF account from a stakeholder one to a cash based one. Transfer between those accounts will be free.
Parents will have access to financial information and education to help them make suitable choices about which type of child trust fund account is right for them. I say this with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in mind as the only virtue that he sees in the Bill is the increased availability of financial information. An information pack will also be issued to parents alongside the CTF voucher covering points that need to be considered. I think everyone in the House agrees that it is important that families make informed decisions. To ensure appropriate support for parents, particularly those with little experience of savings and investment, the Government have commissioned research on the best way to communicate to parents how to take the financial and investment decisions involved.
Allowing all investors to have the opportunity to invest in equity could help people engage with financial institutions and understand different ways of saving. That is why I am so puzzled at the expressed intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in taking out Clause 3(3). This is precisely what that subsection and the regulations which it permits are intended to do. I wonder whether she is not in danger of finding herself on the opposite side from her
630
colleagues in the Commons. After all, Mr George Osborne, the honourable Member for Tatton, said in Standing Committee in the other place:
"when I first looked at the Bill, I had some sympathy with the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Angus about forcing, requiring or encouraging people to use equity products…However, on further consideration, I have been more persuaded by the argument that if one purpose of child trust funds is to educate people about the financial services industry, savings and so on, we should try to encourage more people to become shareholders and shareowners, as they would through equity stakeholder products. Of course, as a Conservative I believe in a capital-owning, share-owning democracy and perhaps it takes a new Labour Government to turn us into that".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 6/1/04; col. 62.]
I could not have put it better. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will not pursue her amendment.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I was extremely interested to hear the views of my honourable friend in another place. If one takes out the slip of the tongue—I believe that it was a slip of the tongue—which resulted in "stakeholder", I could not possibly disagree with my honourable friend. From what he said, I do not think that he therefore supported the compulsion for every provider to offer a stakeholder product. He was merely saying that equity investments are a good thing and that is certainly a proposition that I find little difficulty in signing up to.
The Minister explained that the draft regulations have been published. However, I am still puzzled as to their effect, which is merely to state that there are stakeholder accounts and non-stakeholder accounts. My question to the Minister was what is the genuine effect of requiring a provider to offer stakeholder accounts if he can keep them as a marginal product in the suite of products which is there just to receive a tick from the Inland Revenue that a stakeholder product is available? So, my problem is first that I do not think that providers should be obliged to do this and secondly, I cannot see that requiring minimal compliance will achieve the Government's objectives. We will probably end up with providers, in effect, doing their own thing.
If my interpretation of that is correct, I should have nothing to fear from the compulsion for stakeholder products because they will be marginal products promoted only if the providers choose to see that as a major plank of their marketing stance. If that is what the Government wish to achieve, I suppose I have to leave them to it. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 41, at end insert—
"() secure that when the child reaches the age of 18 it is used only for purposes specified in regulations,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 amends subsection (4) of Clause 3 by adding a requirement that the terms of child trust funds should

631
secure that when the child reaches the age of 18 the money is used only for the purposes specified in legislation.
We had a useful discussion on the matter in Grand Committee in the context of a similar amendment. Since then, the Minister has written to me. I thank him for his comprehensive letter. It covered the impact of the human rights convention. As I understand it, it would not be possible to pass secondary legislation to deprive a person of his property in a child trust fund because the effect of Clause 3(4)(a) is that the child trust fund is the child's property and a restriction on that would deprive the child of his or her human rights.
My amendment is inserted before Clause 3(4)(a). It is designed to ensure that the Government would have the power to create rules about how the funds should be used. I hope that it would be clear that the creation of a property right in paragraph (a) is subject to the rights that exist for the Government to determine how the money is used.
I do not want today to rehearse the arguments for restrictions because I am not arguing for particular restrictions. I am arguing that the Government should not throw away the opportunity to ensure that child trust funds are spent on proper purposes. The Minister said that power could not be taken at a later stage without infringing the child's human rights. That makes it imperative for a power to be taken in the Bill.
I remind the House that we are talking about significant sums of money in aggregate. With £250 million or so going into the scheme annually there will, once compound returns have been taken into account, be around £500 million in real terms maturing each year in 16 or so years' time. That assumes that the Government make no further top-ups and that no additional savings are made on behalf of the child. Taxpayers are funding this bounty and are entitled to know that the money will by and large be spent on purposes of which society approves.
Many noble Lords have concerns that the maturing funds will be used for what were described in Grand Committee as "trust fund raves"; that is, they will pay for a party, alcohol, drugs or all three. The danger is greater when the trust fund has not been topped up by additional contributions from parents or others because the amount at maturity will not look particularly significant to the individual. On the Government's own figures, £250 invested in a child's trust fund at a nominal yield of 7 per cent will produce £456 in real terms after 18 years. That is party-sized money.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, in Grand Committee questioned the practicalities of policing a system that monitored how money should be spent. Clearly, there would be a trade-off between simplicity and practicality; too many potential uses and too much subjectivity would raise issues of practicality and cost. But we have seen from the US that practical schemes can be defined and operated. I am sure that we could devise a proper scheme if we were clear about what we wanted to do. Indeed, I think if we were trying to get
632
additional contributions on behalf of children, for example, from grandparents and godparents, they might even be more likely to save if they saw some sensible regime for the ultimate use of the money.
I hope that the Government will not turn their face against this. The child trust fund is based on little hard evidence. Evidence may well start to accumulate that the original faith in the power of financial education is misplaced. If the legal niceties are such that no later action can be taken, whatever evidence has emerged, the only action that will be available to a future government of whichever party would be to conclude that the risks of abuse of public money were too great to allow the experiment to continue. So, if the Government want the experiment to run its course, surely they want to ensure that they have the power to step in to provide for responsible uses of the money when it matures. I beg to move.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, again I do not want to go over all the arguments that we had in Grand Committee. However, I think that some of the reservations about dissipation of the funds on raves or a quick holiday and so on—and I seem to recall other noble Lords, including the current Deputy Speaker, raised these points in Grand Committee—continue. It is interesting that the similar United States's scheme has some conditions on the use to which the money can be put because the recipients are of course gaining not only from taxpayers' grants, as in this case, but also from tax relief.
I do not want to go over those arguments, although I still think they are strong. I want to ask the Minister about one point referred to in his letter of 6 April 2004 to my noble friend Lady Noakes which he very kindly sent to all noble Lords. In it he stated:
"Even if there were the necessary vires"—
by which I assume he means granting the powers to impose conditions at the age of 18 on the use to which the money can be put—
"I am also advised that if any such restriction were imposed, it would be regarded as a deprivation of the child's property, engaging its human rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol, and that there would be a serious risk of incompatibility with those rights".
I regard that as a very important point because all the others are arguments in which one can take one side or the other. But if that were true, it is clearly a clincher against moving forward on this; indeed, it is a stopper to the whole argument. I notice that the words used were "serious risk". I do not know whether that is just a threat or if it is thought that the risk is very serious. That is why I ask the Minister to spell out exactly why it is incompatible with Article 1. We are asking that certain conditions should be applied to the scheme in return for taxpayers' grants and tax benefits.
I make a similar analogy with another savings scheme: personal pensions. Personal pensions are the pensioner's property, just as here child trust funds would be the child's property. Personal pensions have certain tax advantages and in return for those tax advantages restrictions are imposed on them; namely, that by the age of 75 those pension funds have to be invested in an annuity. Does that

633
mean, therefore, that that restriction in relation to personal pensions could equally well come up against Article 1? So, where I now stand is that instead of regarding this as a clincher against what we were trying to do with the child trust funds, which would have been a disadvantage, I suddenly see the attractions of the principle because I am all in favour of altering the conditions regarding pension funds being invested in an annuity by the age 75. I ask the Minister to spell this out because I think it is a very important point.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly pointed out that £456 in real terms is party-sized money. I should also like to suggest that it is dangerous old banger or dangerous old motorbike-sized money.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we make clear from these Benches that in principle we support the idea of the use of child trust funds being constrained so that they are put to purposes which we would all feel were positive. At the moment, that cannot be guaranteed by any means.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that if the funds were so constrained, there would be a greater likelihood of parents and probably even more grandparents putting funding into child trust funds.
The problem is that no one has come up with a workable alternative constraint scheme, leaving aside the human rights' point. From what little I know about the American system, it is a very different product from the proposal being made here. One could not insert that kind of constraint just through regulation; it would require root and branch recasting of the whole scheme.
While I have a lot of sympathy with the purpose of the amendment, in the absence of any suggestion of how such a scheme might work, it is rather difficult to support it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Newby, has gone to the heart of the matter. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes; she presented the amendment as if it were significantly different from the one moved in Grand Committee. It is a different approach, but it is intended to achieve the same objective of restricting how the money could be used when the child becomes a young adult at 18. That is the same purpose as sought in Grand Committee. I shall have to treat the amendment as if, for real purposes, it were the same as the one moved in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right: the core of the matter is our belief that 18 year-olds are best placed to decide the best use of the money for them. Of course there could be misuse; we cannot deny that, and I did not attempt to do so in Committee. The noble Lord implied that using the money to fund a gap year might not be appropriate. He said that his 18 year-old was raising money for a gap year. I would have thought that it was a very good use of a CTF account to allow a wider range of teenagers than those from the middle classes who do so now to benefit from the experience
634
of travel. If it were my son or daughter, I would not be at all worried if a CTF were made available for that purpose.
I said in Grand Committee that it was patronising to assume that 18 year-olds would not make the decisions that were best for them—research by the Children's Mutual indicates that that is the case. But is it not also patronising to assume that their parents or some committee would necessarily make better decisions?
Improving financial awareness is one of the key objectives of the child trust fund. The financial education that will run alongside the child trust fund will help young adults to make the right decisions for their own circumstances. We believe that the amendment to allow 16 year-olds to manage their own child trust fund accounts will encourage a greater sense of responsibility about the money in that account.
I remind the House that the Electoral Commission is considering those matters at the moment. It recommended that the voting age should remain 18 but that people could stand for Parliament at 18. No decision has been taken about that, but generally society is, rightly, giving greater responsibilities to younger people. To accept the amendment would be to go in the opposite direction.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, I wrote to him and others to say that, even if we had the necessary powers in the Bill, our legal advice is that any such restriction would be regarded as a deprivation of the child's property, engaging its human rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol. There would also be a risk of incompatibility with those rights. That is more than what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, calls a "legal nicety". But the fundamental point is that made by the noble Lord. Lord Newby: the potential for incompatibility depends entirely on what the restriction is and how it is applied. I shall not rely for this purpose on the European Convention on Human Rights. On the merits of the case itself, it is right that we should treat young adults as young adults when they reach age 18.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and all noble Lords for their contributions. The Minister said that he did not want to rely on the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in pushing to one side the European Convention on Human Rights, he did not answer the points made by my noble friend Lord MacGregor on what that meant in practice, particularly his very telling point on the read-over to annuities.
The Minister said that my amendment was the same in effect as the one in Grand Committee. I am no lawyer. It was intended to be subtly different, but clearly failed that test. It was intended to make it clear that the Government did not create an unfettered property right but only a fettered one. I would have thought that if the Government wished to have the ability to control how funds could be used, they could create that. If my amendment fails technically, so be it.

635
But we return to the Government's view that 18 year-olds are best placed to decide how to spend their money. We disagree on that. It is taxpayers' money that they will be spending, and the Government should be capable of producing a scheme for how that money should be spent—though not necessarily introducing it in practice.
I should like to think further on the human rights issues. Perhaps we may take up the Minister's offer of a further discussion before the final stage. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Inalienability]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 9, leave out from first "estate" to end of line 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment should be in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as she brought it forward. I would have liked to have had the opportunity to offer it to her to table in her name. It is a drafting amendment to deal with a matter raised by the Scottish Law Society. It removes an inappropriate reference to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. I am grateful to her for bringing it forward. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"OFFENCES

(1) It shall be an offence for any person to induce or attempt to induce a child to carry out an act within subsection (1) of section 4.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We brought forward this new clause in Committee in an attempt to add some weight to Clause 4, on inalienability, by creating an offence. The issue is straightforward, and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I briefly run through the facts to make the case for our amendment clear.
Clause 4 is intended to protect a young person with a child trust fund. It prevents the assets of a young person being transferred to a third party when the fund matures on the 18th birthday of the young person. That is designed to stop loan sharks or others using funds from a CTF account as security on a loan and subsequently appropriating the money when the fund is accessible at age 18.
That is a laudable measure and it is a vital protection in the Bill. My worry, however, is that it lacks teeth. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, argued in Committee that the amendment was inappropriate. He claimed:
"Clause 4(1) tackles the practical problem at its source by providing that any assignment of the investments in a CTF, for example, by way of security for borrowing, is void-that is, legally ineffective. There is therefore no incentive for any person to induce a child to assign or charge their CTF assets. Loan providers will
636
not attempt to use CTFs as security for loans because they would not gain any advantage from so doing. They would achieve no legal rights to the assets within the child's trust fund".—[Official Report, 18/03/04; col. GC183.]
I return to the point that I made in Committee. We are not talking about reputable loan providers, who will know the rules and abide by them. I envisage a dodgy loan shark, a manipulative "friend of the family" or other malicious adult who persuades a vulnerable and desperate young person, of say 16 or 17, to accept a loan on condition that they pay it back with interest from their CTF account when it matures. Such activity goes on as it is anyway. Young people are particularly liable to be targeted by disreputable adults. One only has to think about the number of young people who leave home due to family problems and are on the streets trying to make ends meet without sufficient funds. Now think of the circumstances when large sums of money will be available to every single young person on their 18th birthday.
I do not want to paint a morbid picture of the state of our society, but it is likely that there will be more frequent instances of individuals trying to con young people out of the funds due to them at 18 from their CTF accounts by offering an advance repayable with interest. How is the young person in question to know about Clause 4(1)? The agreement with the loan shark or adult will not be legally binding. However, anyone who will undertake to defraud a 17 year-old out of their CTF will have no qualms about using any methods of intimidation to recoup their funds when the account matures.
In Committee, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who said that creating an offence of the kind envisaged by our amendment was too draconian and would make criminal such activity as the loan of money from a parent for, say, driving lessons, which would then be repaid from the money from a CTF available at 18. This is activity that we would in no way wish to criminalise. We have looked again at our amendment and redrafted it to make it tighter and to try to address those circumstances.
Subsection (1) of our amendment states that any person who induces, or attempts to induce, a young person to assign their funds over to a third person before maturity, and who demands a charge thereof, is guilty of a criminal offence. This would not criminalise a situation where a 17 year-old approached his parents and asked informally for them to pay for driving lessons with the understanding that he would be able to pay back the money the following year.
What penalty would there be for an adult who ignored Clause 4(1) and successfully persuaded an unknowing young person to hand over their funds? There would be no penalty and no recourse to law, because no offence would have been committed. The young person, apparently, should have known that their CTF was inalienable under Clause 4(1), and should therefore have refused to repay whatever money was owed from their CTF.
If the young person were to dare to challenge their loan shark under Clause 4(1), the loan shark might possibly accept that actually they had acted illegally,

637
and the original amount of their loan would be lost to them. Is this a significant deterrent for loan sharks and devious adults? I would like to think that it is, but I fully believe that it is no deterrent whatever to a manipulative person attempting to exploit a child and appropriate a portion of their funds at 18.
I stand firm in believing that, far from being draconian, this new clause on offences is vital in safeguarding the protection of children and young people and their right to the full value of their CTF at 18. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me start by acknowledging first that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, obviously feels strongly about this issue, and I respect that. Secondly, I acknowledge that she has thought about the issue since Grand Committee. She has amended her proposition so that it would no longer be an offence, to use the example that we had in Committee, for a parent to pay for driving lessons at the age of 17 in the expectation of getting the money back when the child trust fund matures at the age of 18. That is helpful.
We are left with the fundamental proposition that the noble Baroness is putting forward, which creates two new criminal offences. Under subsection (1) it would be an offence for anyone to induce a child—the noble Baroness said "or attempts to induce", but that is not what her amendment says—to assign, or agree to assign, the investments within their child trust fund or to charge or agree to charge those investments. Subsection (2) defines the punishments attaching to those offences.
I hope that we made our position clear in Committee. Our view is that this new clause is legally inappropriate. The current drafting of the Bill ensures—in Clause 4(1)—that any assignment of or agreement to assign investments under a child trust fund and any charge on, or agreement to charge, any such investments is void, so that it has no legal effect. Clause 4 therefore removes any incentive for a loan provider to use a child's trust fund investment. There is no advantage for them to do so.
If however, despite this—this is the loan shark example that I assume that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is talking about—the child trust funds are used to secure a loan, despite these provisions, the young adult at the age of 18 will be able to recover the funds, relying on Clause 4. The security will be made legally ineffective, and the child trust fund assets will be reinstated through the courts. There are additional safeguards against borrowing, for example, from loan sharks, in the fact that withdrawals from the account are not permitted while the child is under 18.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked about penalties. Surely, the most important thing is that the courts are able to order that the money should be given back. That is really what we want to achieve, and I do not accept that making it an additional offence to attempt to induce funds is necessarily the right thing.
638
However, I ought to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, to this extent. Between now and Third Reading, I will look into whether other aspects of the law—those aspects that might conceivably be brought into play if someone is doing something that turns out to be void—do bear on this, and whether there are any offences that might be relevant to meet the concerns of the noble Baroness. I frankly do not know the answer at the moment. I will find out, and I will write to her. The fundamental protection for the child trust fund is that any activity of this kind would be void, and the money would be recoverable through the courts.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, my heart was sinking when the Minister started speaking, because I thought that I was going to get absolutely nowhere here. His last two sentences have raised my spirits somewhat. It may be only a vain hope.
I cannot emphasise enough, or too often, that I have worked in environments where I have seen this happen to people. I have seen youngsters really intimidated by members of their own family. I have seen them working towards a sum of money being taken away from them. It is my intention, and always has been, in those circumstances to be an employer who could try to help a child in my employ. We must always be looking to encourage employers to explain what the rights of young employees are. Perhaps that too will happen.
If there is any activity that we can do that will make children run towards a policeman rather than away from a policeman, that must be a good thing. I am only too delighted to withdraw the amendment, in the hope that the letter that I will receive from the Minister will move us a little more towards some form of punishment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"INCOME-RELATED BENEFITS, ETC.
(1) In determining the matter specified in subsection (2) no regard shall be had of income and gains arising on—

(a) Inland Revenue contributions to a child trust fund;

(b) subscriptions to a child trust fund;

(c) investments under a child trust fund;

(d) investments or other assets derived from a child trust fund.

(2) Those matters are—

(a) eligibility for,

(b) entitlement to, and

(c) levels of,

the benefits and credits that are specified in regulations."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 7, which inserts a new clause after Clause 4. This is an enabling provision, which does not commit the Government to do anything specific. It simply allows them to ensure that child trust funds are not taken into account for benefits and credits to be specified in regulations.
In Grand Committee, I spoke to a more complex amendment that purported to specify particular benefits. Of course, for a scheme that is intended to run for 18 years or more, in that circumstance it would be silly to specify the benefits. Therefore, the formulation in this amendment allows the Government to specify the benefits or credit by regulations. I hope that this formulation—if I may term it thus—is Hollis proof; that is, that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, would not object to it.
The Government are trying to break the mould of attitudes to savings and to ownership of financial assets with their child trust fund project, in particular, with those groups who have not saved or have not traditionally had financial assets. However, the arm of government that deals with the social security system has a different approach. That part of government sees financial assets as a reason not to pay benefits. If the assets are kept, they can result in a denial of benefits. If they are spent, the capital deprivation rules can have the same effect. So the poor on income-related benefits find themselves in a no-win situation.
Since Grand Committee, the Minister has confirmed in correspondence that a child trust fund would not be counted as the capital of parents while the child is under 18 years old. It would come into play only once the child has access to the fund at the age of 18. That still leaves the issue of the income-related benefits entitlement of an 18 year-old or—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in Grand Committee—of a parent whose child has died who has inherited the child trust fund. It certainly leaves the general issue of capital deprivation by recipients of child trust funds.
Amendment No. 19 standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, deals with the issue of capital deprivation more comprehensively than my amendment. In addition to that amendment, there is the issue of capital deprivation by donors to child trust funds. The Minister's letters to me did not allay my doubts that there would be a postcode lottery in that area.
The Government's response has been that they will disregard the first £6,000 of capital and that a further review of the threshold is "a real possibility". That is nothing like enough to ensure that child trust funds will be left out of account in calculating income-related benefits. The Government's social security approach is at odds with their desire to create a new savings paradigm. Why should a poor family think about saving if it might be neutralised by the benefit and tax credit system? I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 7 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I shall speak also to my Amendment No. 19. As the noble Baroness said, it deals more comprehensively with capital deprivation rules, but, I fear, perhaps less correctly in terms of drafting. I suspect that it is not Hollis proof. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, this is an issue of
640
principle; that is, whether we take a social security centred view of those who would be in receipt of child trust funds when they come to fruition or whether we look at the child trust funds and try to abide by what has been argued is their motivation to give all 18 year-olds, at a key point in their financial lives, an asset.
It seems that we have been universal in ensuring that the tax benefits within the scheme are available to everyone, including higher rate taxpayers as well as standard rate taxpayers. But when we come to the fruits of a child trust fund, we run into the issue of the interplay between the social security system and the child trust fund. There is the possibility that the poorest 18 year-olds with trust funds would find that, in some ways, the trust funds are a financial liability rather than an asset. If they are on an income-related benefit, they run the risk of losing some or all of that benefit because they have capital above the £6,000 that the Government suggest would be adequate. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, if in better times for those particular families serious deposits were made over 18 years, it is quite possible that there would be enough in the child trust funds to take the 18 year-olds well over the £6,000 limit, particularly if there are other assets. The benefit might therefore be reduced. My amendment deals particularly with capital deprivation.
Equally, if an 18 year-old was to spend that money on something that was not a rave, drugs or drink, but possibly spend it on a car—which might be particularly important at that time for the person to be able to get a job and a start in life—or to pay for a course that was not funded in any other way, there is the risk that he would lose out because he has been seen deliberately to deprive himself of the capital.
Exactly the same problems would arise where parents inherit a child trust fund when a child has died before the age of 18. In Grand Committee, I referred to the number of deaths of under-16 year-olds in this country as being around 5,000 deaths per year. I said that one could take 10 per cent perhaps of those families—a higher number than would normally be on benefit—as being affected by these rules. I was shocked when I posed a Written Question on this issue, answered on 19 April. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, as I suspected, could not answer exactly my question; namely,
"What proportion of those under the age of 18 who die each year are members of families dependent on income-related social security benefits".
The noble Baroness kindly took the social fund funeral payments as a basis and extrapolated the result. The end conclusion was:
"Of those under the age of 16 who die each year the proportion who are members of families where a funeral payment is claimed and the claimant is eligible is therefore approximately 32 per cent".—[Official Report, 19/4/04; col. WA 13.]
One third of children who die before the age of 16 come from families dependent on social security benefits. So this is not as small a problem as we had originally thought. It is an important matter of principle. I had a helpful meeting with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I am grateful to her. She wrote to me subsequently seeking to reassure me about

641
capital deprivation and the circumstances that worry me, such as those where parents want to move the money to give to other children in the family, so that the child trust fund is passed on. Parents may wish to set up a memorial in recognition of the life of the child who has died. I was reassured that in those circumstances, staff in the Department for Work and Pensions would have the flexibility to make decisions and that they would be sympathetic and do all they could not to enforce the rules too rigidly or harshly.
I accept that, but I would be more comfortable to see it in black and white. Where there is an element of discretion, there is always the possibility that rules and guidance will be interpreted differently. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will look again at the issue. It is a question of whether the families of the poorest children in our country will benefit to the full from the scheme.
I should like to record that the reason I came to this issue is neither because I am normally that assiduous on these matters, nor because a pressure group raised the issue. A great friend of mine, at the age of 90, remains as deeply concerned about child poverty and family welfare as she has been for seven decades. She has twice my 35 years' membership of the Labour Party. She chided me that the Government of which I am a supporter and was once a member are bringing in rules that run the risk of depriving the families of the most vulnerable children and young people in this country of the benefits of this scheme while safeguarding the tax advantages for others. Her name is Peggy Wynn. She has been for many decades a doughty and well-informed campaigner. I think that my noble friend knows her well, and I hope that he will be able to reassure us by accepting the amendments.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we accept the principle behind the amendments and, indeed, the amendments themselves. The friend mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has summed up the argument exactly. Why should those reaching the age of 18 from well-to-do circumstances be able to enjoy the full benefit of the child trust fund while those who have fallen on hard times might not? That flies against the principles behind the whole child trust fund initiative. Therefore I hope that the Government have thought again about the matter.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 would ensure that the child trust fund is not taken into account when entitlement to a range of benefits and tax credits is assessed. That is not spelt out in the amendment, but we have been over this ground sufficiently to know which benefits are means-tested and which are not. We need not go into the issue again. The House knows that the child trust fund does not affect entitlement to benefits such as incapacity benefit and disability living allowance, which are aimed at helping disabled people and those with long-term incapacity. They are not means-tested.
642
I have confirmed that child trust fund assets and the income and gains from those assets do not impact on family benefits and tax credits before the account reaches maturity when the child is 18 years old. I stated that in the letter quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. As only the child can access the money at the age of 18, in applying the regulations on income-related benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions will not treat the child trust fund as part of a parent's capital or a child's capital before the child turns 18.
It is the Government's intention that when the child trust fund account matures, the funds could be rolled over into tax-effective savings schemes available at the time. Income from investment in such schemes does not affect entitlement to tax credits.
The Government acknowledge that savings in child trust funds or any other savings vehicles could affect entitlement to income-related benefits once the child trust fund account holder turns 18. I do not see this as quite the point of principle referred to by my noble friend Lady Hayman, but it is certainly a potential clash of cultures between the benefits regime and what we are attempting to do here. We have responded to that.
As a first step, the Financial Secretary announced at Second Reading in the Commons that from April 2006, the Government would increase the £3,000 threshold above which all savings reduced the amount of income support, jobseeker's allowance, housing and council tax benefits to £6,000. I should make the point that this concession goes very much wider than the child trust fund. It is a general concession confirmed in the Budget of 2004.
In any case, very few people on benefits have capital of over £6,000. For example, only 1 per cent of claimants under 60 on income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance have capital of over £6,000 as at May 2002. The Institute of Fiscal Studies' analysis of the British household panel survey shows that the median net liquid financial wealth is zero for adults aged under 25. So it is reasonable to conclude that the number of 18 year-olds with capital of over £6,000 would be under 1 per cent.
In addition, possession of capital above the lower threshold of £6,000 reduces the amount of benefit paid by one pound for every whole or part of £250 over £6,000. An individual would need to have capital over the upper threshold of £8,000 for income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance for them not to be entitled at all to the affected benefits. The upper threshold is even higher for housing benefit and council tax benefit, excepted at £16,000.
The doubling of the lower threshold is a significant move to reward those who save. It will give parents, carers, grandparents and friends the reassurance they need at this stage that the child will not be unfairly penalised in future for the savings made now.
In addition, the Government have made a public commitment to keeping under review the treatment of capital in income-related benefits. The first child trust fund accounts will not start to mature until 2020. The treatment of capital in income-related benefits needs

643
to strike a sensible balance between targeted state support, incentives to work and not unfairly penalising those who have acted responsibly by saving. Given the doubling of the lower threshold and the commitment to keep under review the treatment of capital in income-related benefits, I have to resist Amendment No. 7.
I turn now to Amendment No. 19, which would have the effect that when an individual spends his or her child trust fund at age 18, or if a person spends money inherited from a child trust fund, this would not be treated as deprivation of capital. The second situation refers to when a child dies. Under normal intestacy rules, the child's assets, including the child trust fund, will go to the parents, or spouse if the young adult was married, and then the normal rules for income-related benefits and tax credits will apply. This applies to any assets in the estate of a dead child.
The Department for Work and Pensions has advised that expenditure would trigger the rules only when the significant purpose behind the spending is to secure entitlement to benefits. This also applies when grandparents make contributions to a child trust fund account. Their entitlement to pension credit is affected only if gifts into the child trust fund account are for the purpose of securing entitlement to pension credit.
The decision on whether the capital deprivation rules are triggered for a particular case will be based on full knowledge of the individual circumstances. This is the way in which the Department for Work and Pensions operates, and has to operate. If an individual decides to spend his or her child trust fund account at age 18 and the significant motivation behind the spending was not to secure entitlement to benefits, this spending would not he treated as deprivation of capital. For example, if an individual was less well off and needed to buy a car in order to find work—a point made by my noble friend Lady Hayman—the motivation for spending his child trust fund would not be to secure entitlement to benefits; therefore the rules would not he triggered and the entitlement to benefits would be unaffected.
That goes a good deal further than the description given by my noble friend Lady Hayman about local officers having to be generous and trying not to apply the rules. These rules are, in my view, properly tailored to individual cases rather than rules which ought to be on the face of the Bill, which it is sought to achieve.
In the same way, in the event of a child dying and the sums being transferred to the parents, if the parents spend the child trust fund it would not affect their entitlement to benefits if the motivation behind spending the money was not to secure entitlement to benefits. That takes into account the example of the memorial raised by my noble friend Lady Hayman. The decision maker will take into account the parent's reason for the spending. For example, if a parent wished to transfer the deceased child's trust fund to the child's sibling and if the motivation was not to secure entitlement to benefits, the capital deprivation rules would not be triggered. The parents are likely to be
644
distressed in such circumstances and every effort will be made to handle the situation sensitively and appropriately.
I acknowledge what my noble friend Lady Hayman said about numbers. She estimated, and we agree, that there are likely to be approximately 5,000 deaths among children and young people under the age of 18. She estimated that about 10 per cent of them would come from families on benefits. The 32 per cent which she quotes from the Written Answer would seem to be in about the same range as the 40 per cent of children who will receive supplementary payment because they are in households in receipt of child tax credit because they have an income of less than £13,480. In situations where the child dies and moneys received from the child trust fund affect the parents' benefit, there will still be a tiny percentage of the population in receipt of the child trust fund, which we estimate to be about £10 million. Doubling the threshold will still work to reduce the number of parents who are affected in this way.
I have said something about the comprehensive guidance which the Department for Work and Pensions issues to decision-makers—that is, its own staff—to ascertain when the capital deprivation rules would be triggered. The decision-makers' guide is not secret. The public can consult a copy of the guide at the social security office or view it online.
Amendment No. 19 would allow individuals who deliberately spend their CTF to secure entitlement to benefits to be successful in their attempt. I say to my noble friend Lady Hayman that that would be unfair to taxpayers, inequitable and at odds with the Government's message that work is the best form of welfare. I say that in all friendship to Peggy Wynn, because, like my noble friend, I respect the lifetime's work that she has given to this and many other subjects.
The Government aim to provide a balance between personal responsibility, work incentives and targeted state support. Income-related benefits are intended to provide help for those who are unable to provide themselves and their dependants with enough to live on and need outside financial support. It follows that if someone has resources, they should use them before calling on the state. Capital rules allow people to have a modest amount of savings without their benefits being affected, but they reinforce the message that work is the best form of welfare.
I am sorry to have gone on so long on this subject but it is clearly treated as a matter of principle. I take it very seriously and I hope that the length of my response and the argument in it will encourage those who have put forward the amendments not to press them.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I can speak only for Amendment No. 7. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will decide in due course what she wishes to do in respect of her amendment.

645
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Those of us who have raised concerns about this do so because of the discretion that is used. One man's significant motivation is not the next man's in terms of approach.
I welcome what the Minister said about making the decision-making guide available and the many examples he gave. That sounds reasonable in many respects.
I confess that I am still troubled by this area. The message going out to the less well off is mixed. The child trust fund is trying to generate a new approach to saving. However, we still have the existing unamended version of the benefits and tax credits system which is means-tested and which will claw back a considerable amount of the effect of capital accumulation. We were trying to highlight those mixed messages because they dilute the message that saving is a good thing for people in low-income groups to do. If we are to restore the savings ratio on a permanent basis, we need to get that message across.
I thank the Minister for what he has said. It will certainly repay close examination in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Opening by responsible person or child]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Naseby Lord Naseby moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 15, at end insert "except where the application is made by telephone or the internet"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall try to persuade the Minister to move forward on telephone and electronic applications. To do so, I decided to do a little more research on the matter, among government people. I discovered that over the past five years the number of people using online banking services has grown from 1 million to 5.4 million. The Government's e-envoy estimates that half of UK households have Internet access and 29 per cent of those are using online banking services. It is clear that more and more people expect to manage their financial transactions using the Internet.
None of us objects to the idea of the voucher being sent by the Inland Revenue to the young couple who have a new baby and are eligible for the child trust fund; indeed, we encourage the idea. It is a marvellous means of communicating information, education and choice for the parent or guardian and acts as a reminder to them to set up a child trust fund for their child. They have the provision to open an account over the Internet or telephone. That is all very well, but then they have to send in the wretched voucher.
The problem occurs when they do not send in the voucher. We have done some work in our society and, having considered other similar products, such as the baby bond—although it is not similar to the child trust fund except in the use of the Internet—we discovered that about half the people who apply have to be reminded to do something for the second stage. It may happen that a significant number of young couples want to apply, do apply, and open an account with
646
everything in place except the voucher. Half of them may forget to send the voucher; some of them will lose it—which is inevitable. Life is like that. For some of them, the voucher will expire because they do not get around to doing anything about it until the last minute. Then there will be the extraordinary situation whereby the account is allocated to a provider, so that in the minds of applicants there will be two accounts— the one that they applied for initially when they forgot to send in the voucher and the second one, which is allocated.
I hope that the Minister is beginning to get the picture. It seems to me that the process is really a recipe for confusion. We could deal with it if only the Minister and his team would look a little further and recognise that aspect. I believe that we killed off the mass fraud dimension in Committee, so I do not need to go into that. The point that the Minister made in that regard was that it was all to do with microlining on the voucher, but the microlining on the voucher has only four elements on it. It does not even have the child's name, the parents' names or the address on it; it does not say whether it is a stakeholder or non-stakeholder product, whether it is a voluntary contribution, who is paying, or the details of the bank account or the direct debit. A little more keying would not make a huge amount of difference.
I say to the Minister in all sincerity that, given that 5.4 million families are using online banking—young, modern couples who will be the ones who use such a service—and all such services in future will probably do online banking, and if fraud is not an issue, we should get up to date. We should forget about insisting that the voucher must he sent in if the applicant applies over the telephone or via the Internet. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I tabled Amendment No. 10 in this group, which has a similar effect to Amendment No. 9 to which my noble friend Lord Naseby has just spoken. I might argue that my amendment is broader than his, which confines itself to the telephone and the Internet. I would gently suggest to him that his amendment to Clause 5(1) is a little difficult as the subsection relates to the Inland Revenue issuing vouchers, which must logically precede an application, so the Inland Revenue would not know what to do. But, leaving aside those issues, which are mere drafting, I think at heart we are in agreement that a child trust fund should be capable of being opened wholly by non-paper means and that the voucher should not need to be physically handed over to the provider.
My noble friend talked about the experience of a 50 per cent failure rate which, of course, leads to extra costs for providers. In the context of a scheme that has a 1.5 per cent cap, that may well be a significant issue.
In Grand Committee the Minister talked about the vouchers playing a part in financial education, but the education is likely to take place when the Inland Revenue gives the voucher to parents. It is really a case of the Government saying that they have an ignorant public and they have to play shops, as it were, by giving them something that looks as if it is valuable to enable the public to learn about financial education, and,

647
indeed, that physically transporting the voucher will teach parents financial facts of life. That simply ignores the fact that very many parents already carry out transactions on the Internet and would find it extraordinary to have to complete the transaction physically.
In Grand Committee the Government also discussed fraud and hacking into, and opening, multiple accounts. That is something that we found quite difficult to understand. I assume that the vouchers will have a unique number. It is not beyond the wit of the Inland Revenue's IT capabilities to have a system that ensures that a unique number is used once and once only. There may well be problems with the purported opening of two accounts. That issue could certainly lead to some additional costs but, if that is the case, I suspect that the majority of the costs would be borne by the providers. If they wish to take the risk of that additional cost of using non-physical transaction methods arising, it surely should be up to them.
We have been disappointed thus far by the Government's non-adherence to the welcoming of the e-world which seems to permeate their other policies. I hope that repentance might be in sight.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we support these amendments although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that her amendment is possibly technically the superior of the two.
Looking forward, it seems to me that the extent to which we use paper for any purpose at all will be greatly constrained, and that paper will become a relatively rare thing. It certainly is as regards the method of communication of choice of my teenagers. I think that that is increasingly becoming the case with the Inland Revenue which sends me a piece of paper, the purpose of which is very much to tell me that it would rather I did not send it any more pieces of paper, and that it would like me to submit my tax return electronically.
I suspect that in five or 10 years' time any vouchers being issued by the Government will certainly not be on paper. They will be sent electronically. I do not know whether the current definition of "voucher" within the Bill enables it to be sent electronically but it seems to me that to have the kind of belt-and-braces approach which is being proposed by the Government where a piece of paper must supplement an electronic communication, goes against everything else that the Government are trying to do. Therefore, I, too, hope that the Government might change their mind on this point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am a sucker for being told that I need to get up to date and get in touch with the electronic era. I am always tempted by arguments of that kind.
I am sorry that I shall not be able to respond in quite the way that some noble Lords would wish, particularly as I am in dispute with an insurance
648
company, some loan notes of which I have lost. Every time I say that I have lost them and ask the insurance company to issue me with a duplicate or repay them, it sends me another stamped addressed envelope in which to send the voucher back. If I may, I shall take the relevant bits of Hansard and say that it is the view of all parties—all opposition parties at any rate in your Lordships' House—that I should be let off the hook and not have to recreate the voucher.
The situation is a little different in relation to the amendments. Amendment No. 10, in particular, would remove the need for the paper voucher to be produced before an account could be opened. I do not think it true that we have solved the problem of fraud, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, seems to think, but I shall not go over the argument again.
Is it really such an effort for the parents to get the voucher to the provider? We are talking about a voucher that is, in effect, a post-dated cheque for £250 or £500. Of course, it is post-dated almost 18 years, but nevertheless it is something that will be opened carefully with a paper knife rather than with the envelope torn in half. It will be treated reasonably respectfully. Some parents will choose to open an account with their usual high-street provider and, naturally, will take the voucher with them when they go. Others will be used to making applications over the Internet, but they will also be used to having to provide supporting paperwork, particularly proof of identity, by post.
I long to see the day when the Internet and electronic communications reduce the amount of paper. I seem to remember that, when the new British Library was first proposed, the Conservative Minister, now a Member of this House, said, "Why do we have to spend all this money on the British Library? By the time that it's completed, books will be out of date and we will have the paperless society". It was the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, I believe. It was not true, and it will never be true. My experience is that the Internet does not reduce the amount of paper, but increases the amount of copying.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said about the 50 per cent of people who approach the Children's Mutual to open an account but do not pursue it when asked to complete and return the necessary paperwork. If the Children's Mutual requires paperwork to be completed, why should the Government be so different?
Lord Naseby: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord will have an opportunity to reply; it is his amendment.
I pointed out in Committee that the main reason for requiring the voucher to be handed over was the efficient transfer of the data encoded in the microline on the voucher to the Inland Revenue. The noble Lord's response to that is that the information is incomplete. Of course, the implication is that we should include more information on the microline, rather than eliminate it altogether and

649
increase the risk of keying-in mistakes. It costs money for both the Revenue and providers to correct data-matching failures. Of incorrect combinations of ISAs, 30 per cent are due to that kind of failure. It costs less to prevent that happening in the first place, and vouchers do that in a way in which Internet or phone applications cannot. Providers will not have the burden of checking the details with which they have been provided; they simply relay the data on the voucher.
As I say, I am a sucker for being told that I ought to get up to date and be all electronic and e-government. However in this case, whatever is done, the voucher is the most efficient way of dealing with the issues.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, it is very difficult to respond to a Minister who, for one reason or another, does not want to do online banking. He has probably never done it; I may be wrong, but I do not think he has or that he really wants to. That is the problem, as young people want to do online banking. I suspect that the Minister has grandchildren. If he does, he will know that households with small kids crying are pretty bedlam-like. The papers get removed here, there and everywhere, and although the beautiful voucher—a cheque in lieu—arrives, it gets lost. There is no hiding the fact that it gets lost.
However, returning to my key point—the 50 per cent example that I gave—the law requires at the moment that if someone makes a purchase in response to the Children's Mutual web site, that person can make an application but we have to send back to them a form to sign. The problem is that half of the people who are sent the form forget to fill it in. Most people then do so, after we send them a reminder. But, of course, that is a double transaction. That is what will happen with the vouchers. There will be a significant number of young couples who, for one reason or another, do not return the wretched voucher. We and every other provider will have to contact and remind them—and some people will then send in the voucher. All of that adds to the cost and aggravation for a young couple who have so many other pressures at home.
I must tell the Minister that Internet banking is exploding. It will not stop at its current level. It will grow and grow. Even the Minister will have to take part before too long. Therefore, I ask him to take back the matter again. I shall not press the amendment tonight, but it is a key issue. I have given evidence on microlining, and I shall send the Minister a further detailed note. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Clause 8 [Initial contribution by Inland Revenue]:

[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]

Clause 9 [Supplementary contribution by Inland Revenue]:

[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]

Clause 10 [Further contributions by Inland Revenue]:

[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 16, at end insert—
"(4) For the purposes of this section, a child is to be treated as being an eligible child if entitlement to child benefit in respect of the child is excluded by—

(a) paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 9 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c. 4) (children in custody), or

(b) paragraph 1(1)(a) to (d) of Schedule 9 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c. 7) (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, under Clause 10 the Government have powers to pay additional government endowments when children reach a specific age. A payment at age 7 has been announced, but the Bill allows future governments to make further payments at other ages if they decide to do so. As drafted, the Bill prevents such payments being made to the child trust fund accounts of children held in legal custody, as child benefit is not paid in respect of those children and the award of child benefit is the key eligibility requirement for child trust fund payments. That means that if a future government were to decide on payments to children at any age after 12, any child held in custody on the relevant birthday would not receive them.
Some people take the view that children in custody should not receive the payments, because that would be rewarding bad behaviour. But the Government do not believe that it is justifiable to disadvantage such children on the grounds that they were in custody on a particular birthday. To do so could lead to anomalous situations—for example, if a child were in custody for a long period but not on the relevant birthday and received a child trust fund payment, but a child in custody for a shorter period, including the relevant birthday, was excluded. The child trust fund is a long-term savings policy, and this group of children is likely to include some of the most disadvantaged and in need of help.
The amendment would allow such age-related payments to be made by the exclusion from child benefit for the purposes of Clause 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Subscription limits]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 30, after "in" insert "respect of"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 17 —both are about the culture of savings theme, which we covered in earlier amendments.
Both amendments concern the annual limit on subscriptions to child trust funds that will be permitted. The amount is not specified in the Bill, but the regulations have now fixed that, initially, at £1,200 a year. Amendment No. 16 would replace the annual limit operating in each year with one that operated in respect of each year; and the intent is to create the possibility of carrying forward contributions from one year to the next.
In an ideal world people would commit to regular savings. We fully subscribe to that idea, and I am sure that the savings industry will want to promote it. However, not everyone who might wish to contribute to a child trust fund is able to take on a regular saving commitment. Some people have irregular income patterns while others, perhaps relatives, have no intention to contribute to a child trust fund on a regular basis. They might, however, think that some of the "rites of passage" events such as going to a new school or a confirmation would be an appropriate time to give money. The effect may be that in one year the limit will not be used, but in the following year when such a rite of passage takes place there may be an accumulation of money available for investment. Our amendment is therefore designed to accommodate the fact that in practice regular savings are not the only form in which money will potentially come into child trust funds.
In Grand Committee, the Minister said that providers would not be able to cope with that provision. I am confident that they could easily cope with it and would find a marketing advantage in telling people how much unused allowance they had so as to promote additional savings within the limit. It should not be necessary for every provider to offer a product if it cannot support it. But let those do so who can support variable amounts being contributed in a year, keeping track of the available limit, to see whether it is popular in marketing terms. Let the market decide on it. The concept of carry forward is not an alien one in tax law. Other allowances can be carried forward and they operate without problems.
Amendment No. 17 is a kind of "Rooker-wise" amendment, so I hope that the Minister will recognise its impeccable credentials which go with indexation in the tax sphere. It proposes that the £1,200 should rise annually with the RPI. I do not need to remind noble Lords of the insidious effects of inflation, even at the relatively low level of 2.5 per cent in RPI terms which we are currently experiencing.
In Grand Committee, the Minister said that the Government wanted to keep flexibility to manage the child trust fund in future years. "Flexibility", in government-speak, is code for chopping and changing at will. There is nothing in the amendment to stop the Government from increasing the limit beyond £1,200, but it prevents them from applying the kind of policies they have been applying to ISAs—that is, a combination of stop and go backwards.
The amendment is designed to increase confidence in the stability of the child trust fund regime and thus increase its attractiveness as a home for savings. I hope that the Government will see that the amendments are designed to improve the attractiveness of the child trust fund regime overall and I look forward to the Minister welcoming them with open arms. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is another example of what I referred to in responding to Amendment No. 1. This is a good, simple idea. Although it is new and therefore cannot be proved in advance, it has been thoroughly examined and consulted on to make it as simple and practical as possible. What is being proposed in an accretion on to it. And too many accretions, like shellfish—I say that to appeal to the specialism of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox—could be damaging.
The additional contributions that can be made into a child trust fund by family, friends or children themselves are an important part of the fund. And additional savings by family and friends could significantly increase the amounts which children receive at the age of 18. The child trust fund aims to encourage a partnership between government and families and to build on existing positive attitudes for saving for children.
Amendment No. 16 would allow for unused subscriptions for one year to be carried forward to the next. I appreciate the point that not all parents can contribute the same amount every year and I understand that there are parents who would like to make up contributions that were missed. However, I persist with the view that it would be more complicated for providers to administer and for the child trust fund account holders and their families to get to grips with. After talking to some of the providers, our understanding is that a single, regular annual limit encourages regular savings and provides well for modest contributors who will form the vast majority of those involved with child trust funds.
It would also be unwise to include in the Bill rules such as increasing the subscription limit in line with the RPI. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, does not approve of it, but we have given flexibility to future governments to manage the trust fund in the light of future development needs and opportunities. It is not fair to say that that would necessarily mean a slow-down or a stop in further changes. Yes, Rooker-Wise is relevant. There would be pressure to increase the limits in line with the RPI. Our rejection of the amendment is not intended to be a restriction. We are simply saying that future governments should decide the limit. We will keep the subscription limit under review in the light of the progress of the child trust fund. I am not sympathetic to the amendments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seemed to think.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I cannot express to the Minister how disappointed I am that he has chosen to turn his face against the amendments. He described them as barnacles on shellfish, which I find particularly wounding.
The amendments were put forward as a serious attempt to improve the model, not simply as "harmful accretions", which was another of the terms used by the Minister to describe my amendments. We are concerned to ensure that the scheme, if it goes ahead, accommodates the different savings patterns that will

653
exist. Whatever the savings industry wants, it will not be the case that every family can contribute a regular amount every month or year. Life simply is not like that. We were also trying to encourage the Government to commit to something that would represent stability in a savings product and avert possible cynicism. Many people have seen what the Government have done with ISAs; namely, the progressive reduction of the maximum annual contribution and the prospect of that amount falling to £1,000 next year. They have seen what the Government have done to savings products. Why should they believe that the Government would do anything different in future? The Bill gives them no reason to do so. However, the Government have unkindly rejected my amendments. I must accept their judgment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]

Clause 13 [Relief froth income tax and capital gains tax]:

[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved]

Clause 14 [Insurance companies and friendly societies]:

[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

Clause 20 [Penalties]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 12, line 25, leave out from beginning to "5(5)" in line 29 and insert—

"(a) the provision by the account provider, as a child trust fund, of an account which does not meet the condition in subsection (7A),

(b) a failure by the account provider to comply with section 8(2) or 9(3) or with a requirement imposed on the account provider by regulations under section"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. These amendments to Clause 20, which imposes penalties, are essentially tidying-up amendments to ensure that the references to other clauses of the Bill are to clauses under which offences can be committed and so penalised. None of the changes affects the penalty regime in any way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Page 12, line 31, at end insert—
"(7A) An account meets the condition referred to in subsection (7)(a) if—

(a) it is of one of the descriptions prescribed by regulations under section 3(2),

(b) section 3(4) is complied with in relation to it, and

(c) the requirements imposed by regulations under section 3(5) are satisfied in relation to it."

Page 12, line 35, leave out from "each" to end of line 37 and insert "account affected by the matter, or any of the matters, in respect of which the penalty is imposed,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27 [Commencement]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 16, line 8, at end insert—
"() No order may be made under subsection (1) before the dissolution of the present Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the last of the amendments on Report. I can hear the sighs of relief starting to echo around the Chamber. While the last, but certainly not the least, of our amendments, the amendment would delay the commencement of the Bill until after the next general election.
My proposition is a simple one. The child trust fund policy owes as much to the electoral cycle as it does to high-minded notions of "asset-based welfare"—which was trotted out in another place. I am glad that the Minister has spared your Lordships that. The policy was announced before the previous general election, and it has been implemented with the next general election fully in mind. In Grand Committee I went through the logic, which would have been clear back in 2001 after the previous general election, that the most likely time for the next general election—I said "most likely"; it is not an absolute necessity—would be in spring or early summer 2005. To reach that conclusion one has only to put together the Prime Minister's general desire to get beyond four years, not wanting to be boxed in at the end, and the EU presidency.
So when is the child trust fund being implemented? In spring 2005. That is when parents of about 1.8 million children will receive a voucher worth about £250 from the Inland Revenue, which is the department that the Chancellor runs. Unlike most letters from the Inland Revenue, which no one wants to read and usually ask for money, these letters will be very nice because they will contain a voucher that looks a bit like a cheque. So imagine the warm feelings of the 3 million or so parents—otherwise known as voters—when that happens. Taxpayers' money amounting to about £450 million will finance that. As we discussed in Grand Committee, the notion that the Chancellor will use his Budgets to secure voter approval is not very surprising. We all expect that next year's Budget will be very long on those matters. What is surprising is the calculated use of the child trust funds.
Back in 1769, the legal scholar William Blackstone opposed universal suffrage because he thought that the poor would sell their votes to the rich, who would then use their new power to exploit the middle classes. If we let the Bill be used to encourage anyone who thinks that £250 is a lot of money to vote for the Chancellor's party, we will indeed be handing him power to exploit the middle classes. It is the middle classes who have already borne the brunt of the Chancellor's additional taxes—more than £5,000 per household since 1997—and they will be the ones who have to bear the tax rises of the Chancellor's third term if he gets the opportunity. That is why we think it would be right for the Government to wait until after

655
the general election. That would not be much of a delay for a policy that has an 18-year span. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that this is unwise. There is a certain inevitability in the way in which policy, particularly new policy proposals, achieve fruition. You have an idea. You put it in a manifesto. You win a general election. You work out what the idea means in practice, you consult on it. If people are not happy you consult again. You produce legislation and you bring it before Parliament. You subject it to the severe scrutiny of your Lordships' House. When that has happened you allow enough time for it to go through. That may take three, four or five years—I do not know. I do not know when the next general election is going to be.
I would be astonished if we won the previous general election to any significant effect because we put child trust funds in our manifesto. I would be astonished if we were to win or lose the next election to any significant effect because we had pursued that policy through to fruition. On the other hand, if we were given the argument that the Opposition had denied parents this £250 or £500 because of these electoral reasons and we were able to go into the election saying, "You could have had this money but the Conservatives would not let you have it", I would think that that would have very considerably more electoral effect than what we are proposing to do now. I would strongly advise the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in her own interests not to pursue this amendment.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his advice. I completely accept that, in the electoral cycle, ideas work their way through and are then enacted. However, relatively few of them involve the transfer of significant amounts of money to individuals, admittedly in a form which could be put into an account but could not be accessed for some time.
If the general election were held next June, the delay would be relatively small. It is merely a matter of there being no suggestion that the Government could influence the outcome by using a particular type of policy. It is not a question of whether or not the Minister would be astonished. Let it be beyond doubt that if this is the Government's policy, that is fine; it will be implemented if they win the election. However, if they do not win the election and perhaps the Liberal Democrats win it, it will be for the Liberal Democrats to decide whether or not they implement the policy. I think we know from the tenor of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, what his answer would be. That is why we consider this to be a very important issue.
When we tabled the identical amendment in the Commons, I was encouraged that the Liberal Democrats all voted for it, including their leader, Mr Kennedy, and I think it is appropriate to test the opinion of the House.
9.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 67.

Division No. 7

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Noakes, B.

Coe, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Fookes, B.

Palmer, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Peel, E.

Lyell, L.

Renton, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Wilcox, B. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Addington, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jones. L.

Avebury, L.

Jordan, L.

Barker, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brennan, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Chandos, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McNally, L.

Crawley, B.

Maddock, B.

David, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Newby, L.

Desai, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dixon, L.

Pendry, L.

Dubs, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elder, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rooker, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Roper, L.

Gale, B.

Russell, E.

Gilbert, L.

Sawyer, L.

Golding B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Goudie, B.

Taylor of Blackburn. L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Tordoff, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Triesman, L. [Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B.

Walmsley, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Warner, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hoyle, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
9.11 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Gould of Potternewton) in the Chair.]
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

REPEAL OF SECTION 55 OF THE NATIONALITY, IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ACT 2002
Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (late claim for asylum: refusal of support) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 41, which would amend Schedule 4. Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was in my view a mistaken and last-ditch attempt to reduce the number of asylum seekers in this country. It was introduced during the very final stages of the NIA Bill's passage through Parliament in the autumn of 2002, giving both Houses only very limited opportunity to consider its potentially devastating consequences.
The amendment to repeal Section 55 was tabled in another place by Neil Gerrard. It was grouped, but because of the guillotine it was never debated, which is another example of this House picking up the pieces—in this case an argument which already had considerable support among MPs. Incidentally, the original government amendment to introduce Section 55 was given only 15 minutes in this House in October 2002 and no time at all in the Commons.
Noble Lords may remember that Section 55 originally denied all National Asylum Support Service (NASS) support to adult asylum seekers who claimed in country and could not show that they claimed as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival.
The Government have since all but admitted that this section is not working, conceding only last December that three days is a reasonable time in which to claim. In other words, the Government have accepted that this section, which so many of us opposed 18 months ago, was always based on the false premise that people—including many genuine claimants who may have suffered trauma, been trafficked or tricked into coming, been given false documents or destroyed documents under duress—should somehow be able to produce all the right papers at the port of arrival or soon afterwards.
Noble Lords who support the amendment are pointing out that most people are in this position when they come here, and that the three-day concession has made very little difference. That is also confirmed by the high rate of success of in-country applications. Many applicants with well founded claims apply after 72 hours.
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said in a previous sitting, the High Court is now flooded with cases, with solicitors turning away more than they can take on. In-country applications, meanwhile, are still at a very high level. Four out of 5—81 per cent—of asylum seekers on whom the Home Secretary made a positive asylum decision in the first three quarters of last year,
658
for example, had applied in country. That is three quarters of all applicants. Using 2001 figures, two out of three positive decisions were based on in-country applications. That situation will continue unless Section 55 is removed. The Home Affairs Select Committee this year described it as harsh and called for a review. There is an element of official desperation in that, while most people are refused support in their first week, case workers are even being instructed that someone claiming asylum four days after arrival is a suitable case for refusal. It is obviously absurd to say that asylum claims that have credibility on a given evening somehow lose credibility the following morning.
I shall briefly cite two cases from the Merton Churches' support group. One young woman arrived on the Saturday of a bank holiday weekend. She went to the immigration office in Croydon on the Monday, and it was closed. She went back on the Tuesday and was judged to be a late claimant and refused under Section 55. An elderly Somali woman lost her first appeal on the ground that she did not know where she was or where she had come from. Her second appeal was won for the same reason, because she was obviously suffering from dementia. That surely demonstrates the absurdity of the three-day rule.
Incidentally, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether the section was regarded as a deterrent. I understand that the fall in applications last year was not the result of Section 55, but of other factors, such as external border controls and reduced numbers coming from Iraq, which were down by 72 per cent last year. The proportion of asylum applications made in-country has actually increased. Of the total number of UK asylum applications, 65 per cent were made in-country in 2001, and that figure rose to 72 per cent in 2003.
The humanitarian consequences of all that are most obvious to local authorities, non-governmental organisations and churches, all of whom have to take responsibility for any failures of legislation. The Mayor of London's office, which is very concerned about the matter, has published its own report, Destitution By Design, expressing concern about the number of adults made destitute by the section, which came close to 10,000 last year, or 200 people a week.
Research for the Greater London Assembly showed that, despite the efforts of local communities, 29 per cent of people denied support under Section 55 in London last November had to sleep rough. That implied a rise of more than half on the previous recorded tally of people rough sleeping in London. As many as 50 per cent of those destitute under Section 55 are women, which is a much higher proportion than of asylum seekers as a whole. I declare an interest as a board member of Christian Aid. Thanks to the Churches' Commission for Racial Justice, I have read case studies from the Merton Churches' support group and the Eritrean group at the Crossroads Women's Centre. There are also examples from Oakington. Those show how many church and community groups, mainly in London but also elsewhere, are trying to cope with increased numbers. People who have

659
undoubtedly escaped persecution and destitution in their own country are simply being turned out on to the streets. The Catholic bishops have called for repeal of the section. Their statement reads:
"seeking asylum is a fundamental human right, guaranteed in international law. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to make certain that no-one is left destitute, homeless or detained arbitrarily at any point during the process of an asylum application".
One worrying consequence of Section 55 has been the suspicion that some established voluntary agencies that are trying to administer NASS support under this section are seen by asylum support groups as agents of policy as well as service-providers. That could easily undermine the mutual trust that has always existed at local level. I know that the Government are under pressure to get results. We have all heard about the Daily Mail poll that shows how public confidence has fallen. But I hope and expect that I have said enough to convince noble Lords that Section 55 was a mistake and that, although we may well need to discuss the cut-off point following earlier amendments, the Government must now move to repeal it. At the very least, they should organise an independent review. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for the clarity with which he has introduced the amendment. He has dealt with all the nuts and bolts with admirable precision. I want to try to look at it in a slightly wider context. It seems that there are four possible grounds on which the amendment could be held to be valid. I need to prove only one of them to satisfy the Committee; in fact, I think that there is force in all four of them.
First, it could be argued that it is always wrong to reduce people to a level of destitution; that it is a basic principle that people have a right to life; and that the state is there to protect them and to help to ensure that right to life. The Minister will talk about rights and responsibilities, but when you link rights and responsibilities, the biggest responsibility of all is that of the Government to protect the lives of those temporarily or permanently under their protection. That is, in the 17th century phrase, the keystone which closes up the arch of government. Take that away and all the rest collapses.
Prima facie, having no visible means of support is below subsistence level. But, as my late colleague Professor Jack Fisher used to say, if you are below subsistence level you are dead. That creates a rebuttable presumption that some of those who have been so disentitled but have stayed alive have done so by illicit means. The maxim,
"lead us not into temptation",
has more force than it is sometimes given. It is to lead people into temptation to give them no visible means of support whatever.
Saint Thomas Aquinas maintained that it was not a sin for the destitute to steal from the rich to support themselves. I have never been certain that I have agreed all the way with Saint Thomas. I would prefer
660
to say that it was a sin that I would always be inclined to look on with mercy. But it is certainly a temptation that is created. So it contributes more—and, God knows, we do not need this—to the fear and hatred of asylum seekers, which was demonstrated last week in Portishead, where there was an attempt to open an office for interviewing asylum applicants. All the residents of Portishead have created such an outcry against that—polluting the town with these evil people—that the only one who spoke up for them at a town meeting was in real danger. That is not clever.
I once said that the case for not disentitling people to benefit was as strong in terms of fear created among the rich as of want created among the poor, because when the rich get fear they tend to get fierce. I had quite forgotten that I had said that. I was reminded of it by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, whose newly published book, Just Law, is well worth studying.
It may be argued that even if it is right to deprive people of benefit, it is wrong to do it to asylum seekers because they are too vulnerable. There is a sort of unofficial guidebook—a sort of Down and Out in Paris and London as it were—which English people on the streets pick up from each other very quickly indeed. Having had a pupil who was homeless on the streets for six years, I have heard a lot about this. He was a paranoid schizophrenic who decided not to take his medicine. English people on the streets know which restaurants put out food, at which times; they know the culture; they can talk to people and we do not allow the force of this. During the policy of dispersal, that ill-fated policy, there was once a Malay who was sent to Brighton where not a single person in the whole town spoke his language. Arguably, it is a more severe penalty when inflicted in these circumstances than when it is inflicted on people who are in surroundings that they know.
There is also a remarkable failure of due process in the working of this clause. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, quoted cases of the next working day. In Mr Justice Maurice Kay's judgment, there is a case of someone who applied for asylum later the same day on which he landed, which was held to be an unreasonably delay. Attention has rightly been drawn to the fact that the proportion of in-country applicants has gone up. I have never been able to understand how the Home Office believes that it is possible to deter people from applying in a particular way by changing British benefit regulations. I simply do not see how such regulations are brought to the attention of the people who are supposed to be subject to them. This is not a rhetorical question: were these changes promulgated on the streets of Harare, or Freetown, or Kabul? Are the presses of those countries so free that you can report, in detail and accurately, under what terms you can get asylum in the United Kingdom? I would be surprised if that were the case, but I cannot see how these things can have a deterrent effect if they cannot be made known to those who are supposed to be deterred.
It is about time that the Home Office gave an answer to that question. Certainly, the system is not working. It is having the reverse effect from the one intended.

661
Also, it assumes that applicants in-country are likely to be less genuine than those who apply at the ports. That contradicts the Government's own figures, which show that two-thirds of successful applications are made in-country. As one of my pupils said to me when he found a contradiction in my index, "Where are you right?". The Government must be wrong in one or other of these things.
It is likely contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. I had a communication this morning from Fisher Meredith, the firm for which my daughter-in-law works—I declare an interest. I do not have the details, because I mistakenly thought that this was coming up tomorrow. It confirms what Mr Justice Maurice Kay has said, that the volume of cases under ECHR on this subject is in danger of clogging up the courts because they have nowhere else to go. He also confirmed my impression that the interpretation of the words, "inhuman or degrading treatment" in Article 3 of the Convention is at present hanging in the balance and that a judicial consensus has not yet emerged as to how those words are to be interpreted.
We also agreed that the more cases of the sort precipitated by this clause that come to the courts, the more likely the judges are to reach the conclusion that disentitlement to benefit is always inhuman and degrading treatment. At present, the threshold is referred to as "destitution plus". No one understands exactly what is meant by the "plus", but it could be held that the particular circumstances of being an asylum seeker, on which I was speaking a moment ago, constitute that plus. That is a risk that the Government should not take lightly.
Were the Government or the ECHR judges to decide, either in Strasbourg or in this country, that all disentitlement to benefit was in breach of Article 3, that would cause a confusion in Government social security policy which, if I were the Minister, I would not approach with equanimity. It would be a good example of the regular political rule that when one gets very frightened of something one produces rather than prevents the effect that one fears. The Government really ought to think again, or they will find that it is too late.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: This discussion appears to raise important questions of procedure. First, why are we being asked to consider four amendments and one clause stand part debate in isolation from the rest of Committee stage of the Bill? Secondly, why have the Government brought this little piece of Committee stage before us at a very late hour, well after any conceivable dinner time, following two other complex and controversial Government Bills? It seems to be unusual, unprecedented and very undesirable.
Turning now to the amendment, I am very happy to support my noble friend Lord Sandwich. I think that he moved the amendment in a most comprehensive, logical and moving way. I hope that the Government are therefore in listening mode tonight, particularly regarding an amendment designed to prevent
662
destitution. The Government may fancy that they have saved themselves some trouble of an embarrassing kind by the way in which they have treated the House. But I think that it is not out of order to suggest that they will be storing up trouble for themselves during the later stages of the Bill. Have they perhaps considered the prospect of sitting on every Friday between now and July?
Home Office statistics apparently admit that there are already 7,500 people destitute because of the legislation that we are considering. Reference has already been made to the burden that this causes for Church groups. I hope that the right reverend Prelate, who is in his place, will be able to add to that and to give more details. It is certainly causing problems, acute worries and anxieties for the members of refugee and exile communities already in this country who are bound to feel moved by compassion for their fellow countrymen who find themselves in such difficult circumstances. It is also causing major problems for a whole range of charities that are confronted with people in a destitute state and feel that they cannot and should not just walk by on the other side.
As to public policy, it seems that the present state of the law is likely to cause people to take to begging as the only way of keeping themselves alive and, possibly, to resort to quite aggressive begging, which many will find offensive in itself. It is also bound to be a strong incentive to those affected to find whatever employment they can at whatever wage rate in the black economy. Surely that runs totally contrary to the Government's minimum wage policy.
On all those grounds I am happy to support the amendment and I wish it very well.
Lord Avebury: At the time Section 55 was introduced by the Government, I believe it was generally understood that the intention was to deny benefit to those who had entered the UK in some other capacity and who claimed asylum either when they reached the end of the road of their permitted leave to remain or at some point after their leave had expired and when they were detected as overstayers. That was certainly how Mr Neil Gerrard, the chairman of the All-Party Refugee Committee in another place, thought it was supposed to operate. The Minister did not contradict his assertion that people had been denied support even if they applied the day after arrival. My noble friend has given an example of someone who applied on the very day of arrival, but was denied support.
In Committee in the other place the Minister, Miss Beverley Hughes, referred in the last few words she spoke before the guillotine fell to the December 2003 concession, under which people who applied within three days were supposed to be given support. She did not say whether people who had applied within three days prior to the concession and had been denied benefits would have them restored. As the noble Baroness may recall, the Inter-Agency Partnership found that almost half of those refused support under Section 55 between November 3 and 21 last year had actually applied either on the day of their arrival or the

663
day after. The Minister said nothing about why someone who applies within three days should be considered meritorious, while someone who applies within four or five days would be considered undeserving of benefits. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the Government's thinking on these points.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned the communication we have all received from the Mayor of London saying that the 72-hour concession was not likely to make a significant difference because it was only a presumption which had to be confirmed by National Asylum Support Service caseworkers, who have not been particularly generous in their interpretation of Home Office guidance. The Mayor pointed out that a great many people with well-founded claims do apply more than 72 hours after entry, and they will continue to be destitute.
I want to draw attention to a matter notified to us by the Children's Society; that is, the large number of asylum seekers from the A8 countries who are about to be added to the pool of Section 55 indigent. NASS wrote to local authorities on April 1 saying that, from the end of this month, those people will lose their rights to benefits and accommodation. They will of course acquire the right to work, but not only will they have to find a job by the end of the month and satisfy an employer that they are lawfully able to work, they will also have to find living accommodation with a landlord prepared to wait until the arrival of the first wages payment or salary cheque. In the real world, landlords ask for a deposit up front. None of these people will have that kind of money.
We have already discussed the problems arising from Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in relation to another group which has been made ineligible for benefit under it: those whose immigration claims have failed. The same problems arise with all of the classes of person denied benefits; that is, the duty to support children, if not the parents, and the duty to support any person where failure to do so would breach their rights under Community law or the ECHR. But in the case of the A8 nationals, no provision has been made for NASS to conduct an assessment to ensure that those rights would not be affected by an abrupt withdrawal of support. Some of them would be incapable of work because of pregnancy or their duty to care for young children or sick relatives.
In the past few weeks, as we have heard, practitioners have received an avalanche of claims from agencies and individuals with either Section 55 refusals or, now, EEA support withdrawal crises. Mr Jean Patrick of Brent Initiative Community Action has told us that he had 16 Section 55 refusals in a single day, half of them having claimed on the day of their arrival. So it appears that the December concession has not yet dawned on NASS officials in Brent. But Mr Patrick says that he is unable to take on
664
any of the Section 55 cases submitted to him in the past two weeks because he is absolutely swamped with A8 cases.
Does the duty to support people where their community or ECHR rights would otherwise be breached extend to NASS itself as well as to local authorities? If so, why is it not conducting assessments of the 2,571 A8 asylum seekers on its books instead of handing over the entire responsibility to local authorities on 1 May?
Among this A8 group there are some who had become eligible for indefinite leave to remain under the backlog clearance programme. Some had even been sent forms and returned them, but the forms had yet to be processed. Others had not yet been sent the forms. What is the benefit and accommodation situation for these people?
The combination of Section 55 and the dumping of EEA nationals by NASS at the end of this month without transitional arrangements or an agreed mechanism for looking after those unable to work or whose rights are in jeopardy, threatens chaos for local authorities, agencies and the courts, and an increase in the numbers sleeping rough without the means of providing themselves with the basic necessities of living, as described by the IAP. Will the Minister agree to meet us, together with representatives of local authority and non-governmental organisations, to discuss all these problems as a matter of urgency?
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I should like to identify myself in general terms with all noble Lords who have spoken thus far. This is an extremely serious issue in our midst. As has been mentioned, individual church groups often get involved in caring for those who have no other means of support and subsistence. It does not happen much in my diocese—it is a long way from the main ports and it does not have the large immigrant communities to which people often go—but I know from talking to others and receiving correspondence just how difficult and critical the stories are of people who are directly affected.
At the same time, I have sympathy for the Government. They face a most difficult question. One of the problems is that the question tends to get caught up in political debate. It seems to me that we have to search for cross-party agreement as to what to do with a problem that, ultimately, we cannot control. It is impossible to control in advance how many people will come to this country with a genuine claim for asylum, a point made previously by the noble Earl. It is absolutely right. I can understand the political pressures on the Government which lead to the setting of targets—the Prime Minister stating that numbers will be halved by a certain date and so on—but, frankly, the thought that we can control all the problems in our midst is a modern myth that does not face up to reality.
There are great questions about global warming, terrorism, what to do with despotic regimes and how to control large flows of population from one country to another. The flows will get greater and greater in the

665
years to come as transportation gets easier and language barriers are less. In a society which more and more operates on the basis of freedom of opportunity—something that I am happy to welcome—you will always have a bigger difference between the winners and the losers. Societies based upon freedom always generate an underclass. That is the story of America in many ways and it has become true in this country in the past 20 or 30 years on the back of considerable economic prosperity.
This problem will not simply go away. We should admit that and try and find a way in which we can achieve some cross-party understanding which can be presented, in those terms, to our country, and avoid getting caught up in political debate. Once that happens, the people who lose are the asylum seekers. One thinks of the questions we remit to Select Committees or Royal Commissions. This strikes me as a question which must get beyond the party political debate.
I can see that simply removing the section by amending the Bill in this context will not in itself solve the problem, but the problem will not easily go away. As the noble Earl said, every society is judged by the way it treats the weakest in its midst. That is a deep truth in every society. That is why what goes on in our prisons and young offenders' institutions is such a scandal. I recently visited one and was absolutely horrified at what happens. Eighteen and 19 year-olds in a young offenders' institution were routinely sworn at by the prison officers and banged up 16 or 17 hours a day. This is another debate which has to be taken out of the to-ing and fro-ing of party politics.
While I support all the speeches that have been made so far, I have great sympathy with the Government's position. Somehow we must find a better way of addressing these issues.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was kind enough to telephone me last week about his amendment. I made it clear that I was not in a position to be able to support him. However, I recognise, as have other noble Lords during the debate, that this is a highly sensitive and complex issue that will, as the right reverend Prelate said, not go away. It is right that the noble Earl has tabled this amendment. It holds the Government—any government, of any political party, who have to consider these issues—continuously to account.
It is not only right that there should be continuous parliamentary scrutiny of these matters, but it would be useful if the Government looked again at the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in January this year that there should be an independent review of Section 55. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that there are advantages, in some issues, of going out with the normal party political argument. This may well be one such issue. I shall be very interested to hear how the Government have reflected on that recommendation since January this year.
666
I am also grateful to the Refugee Children's Consortium for the careful briefing it has given noble Lords on the amendment. One issue which was referred to fleetingly is the fact that when we pass such measures, there can be unintended consequences, and I would like to draw the Minister's attention to one. The Refugee Children's Consortium refers to the fact that pregnant women can be deprived of all manner of support under Section 55, which can place both them and their child at risk. Have the Government looked at that particular problem since the operation of Section 55 and, if so, what has the result been? If the Government's attention has not been drawn to that, might they be prepared to consider it and receive representations from the Refugee Children's Consortium?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. The noble Earl is right that this is the greatest degree of scrutiny that this provision has had to date.
I should like to say a word in response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the stage at which this matter comes before your Lordships today. As noble Lords know, we are now permitted—indeed, enjoined—to sit on all these days until at least 10 o'clock. The Committee stage has to be agreed between the usual channels. It was hoped initially that this part of the Bill would be reached somewhat earlier in the previous debate. It is simply fortuitous that it has come before the Committee at this time. Others may say that the noble Lord's comments should have been targeted at those who came before us, as opposed to those who have waited so diligently for our line to be reached today.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made a number of points, with which many noble Lords have agreed but not all of which I feel able to agree with. I wish gently to make some points about the context in which some of the reports should be put. The noble Earl rightly mentioned the GLA report. Noble Lords will know that that survey used a very limited sample; the response rate was only 24 per cent and only 248 people were covered, of whom only 14 per cent were said to have been affected by Section 55. It is easy to get the wrong impression from the figures. However, I take on board entirely the basis of the noble Earl's concern: he is concerned that those who should have had succour did not receive it.
I also acknowledge what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. It is easy to take an unbalanced or one-sided view of what is inherently a difficult problem. In considering these issues, there is a tension between providing proper succour for those who seek asylum and dealing with another issue—that of economic migration. One can understand why a number of individuals in other countries seek properly to move from that country for adventitious advantage, for economic reasons. One does not blame them for so doing, but one must recognise that there is a difference between asylum and economic migration.

667
This Government have taken strenuous steps to enhance the opportunity of legitimate means for encouraging economic migration in a proper, planned way. We dealt with some of those in our earlier debates on other subjects. The question is how we achieve that proper balance. Section 55 has contributed to halving the asylum intake over the past 12 months, from October 2002. It achieved its original purpose. Throughout that period, the way in which it operated in practice was kept under close review.
Earl Russell: The Minister is saying a great deal that makes sense, but can she show me any way in which Section 55 distinguishes between genuine applicants and economic migrants? If so, how?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have sought to say that it distinguishes between those groups by encouraging those who come to this country to make their application as soon as possible, so that we can together differentiate between one group or another.
Throughout the period, the way in which Section 55 has operated in practice has been kept under close review. As a result, as noble Lords have said, the policy was adjusted on 17 December 2003 to allow the three days following the arrival in this country to lodge the asylum claim. That has resulted in about half of those who are subject to a Section 55 decision being granted access to asylum support, as opposed to about 75 to 80 per cent being refused support, which was the position before 17 December. So it is not right to say that a significant change has not taken place; it has.
To answer the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the Government are keeping the operation of the policy under review, including the way in which it interacts with Article 3 to ensure that, while it continues to provide the necessary deterrent, it is applied only to the extent necessary to deliver our overall aim of an effective asylum process that encourages applicants to come forward and to be frank with us. If further adjustments are necessary, the Government will make them in line with the original statement made by my noble friend Lord Filkin on 17 October 2002.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the recommendation in relation to the review has been considered. It was raised by the Committee. We shall look at that. I cannot give the noble Baroness any promises in that regard but it is certainly something that the Government will bear in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the issue of the number of judicial reviews that are currently before the court. The Committee will know that there are three test cases which await determination by the court. Many of the judicial reviews that are currently pending before the court are reliant on those three test cases. Many of them are waiting almost in abeyance until they are decided. Once those three decisions are available, of course the Government will consider further what to
668
do in response to those judgments and in relation to this policy. That would be an appropriate opportunity for us to look at those issues.
Lord Avebury: Has the Minister left the subject of the three-day concession? Will she give me an answer to the question of what happens to people who were denied benefit having claimed within the three days and who now reapply following the concession?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have not left that subject. As the noble Lord will know, I try to give a comprehensive answer and take the points in order. It was convenient to tell the noble Baroness about certain issues as I was talking about whether there would be a review.
It is not proposed that we should use retrospectivity in relation to those cases which were dealt with before December. Those decisions were lawful within the context. The noble Lord will remember that we had three cases dealing with whether it was or was not appropriate to make that determination at that time. The authorities supported that action. We do not intend to go back over those but we certainly took fully into account the comments that were made by a number of agencies and individuals about their operation. It was for that reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, David Blunkett, made the statement regarding the change in relation to three days. Since that period it has operated as I have just indicated.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also asked whether we had advertised. We have done so. Before implementation these provisions were advertised overseas. The posters have continued to be displayed since then. It is quite clear that there is an active appreciation and interest about what the provisions are in individual countries to which people seek to move. Therefore, this information is a matter of some importance.
The number of judicial reviews has reduced now compared with those before Christmas. Before Christmas there were 50 or 60 a week. There are about 10 a week now. Effective reconsideration of the process since 24 November 2003 has provided an efficient and timely review mechanism. That has helped. As I have indicated, the three-day process eased the situation in which people found themselves.
It is important to remember that Section 55 was part of a wider package of measures contained in the 2002 Act aimed at creating a more streamlined and cohesive asylum system. It was designed to tackle abuse of the asylum system and send a clear message to those who are simply economic migrants that they will not be supported at public expense. It also seeks to bring about a change in behaviour so that genuine asylum seekers should make an asylum claim immediately at the port of arrival or as soon as reasonably practicable afterwards. Section 55 has played its part in reducing asylum claims.

669
It is a tough policy but there are safeguards to protect the vulnerable. Families are exempt from Section 55 and support will be provided, as noble Lords know, if it is necessary to avoid a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, even if the claim was not made as soon as reasonably practicable. Unaccompanied asylum seeking children are not affected by Section 55—they are supported by local authorities under the Children Act 1989. Those with care needs are also supported by local authorities under the National Assistance Act 1948. It is open to anyone who receives a negative decision under Section 55 to request reconsideration, as I have indicated.
In relation to NASS support—
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am sorry to return to the point, and I am grateful to the Minister, but can she give me any reason at all to suppose that Section 55 has caught more economic migrants than genuine applicants?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It has certainly helped to differentiate those who have a bona fide claim and those who do not. That is my understanding. Whether the figures go further, I know not. I certainly undertake to write to the noble Earl if there is a better answer to be had that is not available to me now.
I was also asked about the NASS support for accession nationals. Members of the Committee will know, not least from our Friday debate in relation to an order on the subject, that we have now written to all accession nationals supported by NASS or a local authority under the interim provisions to explain their options. NASS outreach teams are following that up with home visits to ensure a smooth transition.
Accession nationals currently supported by NASS or a local authority will have three options. They can register as workers under the Home Office workers' registration scheme, and will be eligible for only certain DWP benefits and social housing. They can remain in the United Kingdom as jobseekers but become self-supporting—that is, stay with friends or relatives. Alternately, they can leave the United Kingdom, and local authorities will have the power to provide temporary accommodation to families, and make travel arrangements to their country of origin both for families and singles.
The work registration scheme will go live on 1 May. A designated, dedicated casework team has been recruited and training is under way. Accommodation for the team and the IT systems are in place. We went through the details of that on Friday. We hope that the scheme will come into operation on 1 May smoothly.
I understand the concern expressed in relation to Section 55. The Government's view is that it has utility and has been amended to make it respond more creatively and effectively to the needs identified. We will continue to review it, and certainly will review it when the matter comes for further consideration as a result of the cases currently before the Court of Appeal.
670
One specific point to which I did not respond, and which I should have mentioned, was in relation to pregnant women. The noble Baroness will know that they are a group of people who are very vulnerable and are always given very careful consideration. If they are visibly pregnant and in advanced stages, Article 3 provides the safeguard. Caseworkers have been trained to take great care in considering all potentially vulnerable cases, so it is very much an issue that is at the forefront for those who make such decisions. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel a little comforted as a result of that.
I invite Members of the Committee not to press the amendment. Particularly bearing in mind that it is now two minutes past 10, I shall say no more.
The Earl of Sandwich: I thank the noble Baroness very much for that full explanation of why we have to live with Section 55. She may have anticipated that I was not expecting her to withdraw the section at a stroke. On the other hand, I hoped that she would recognise the strength of the opposition to it and, even more, the arguments against it continuing in its present form. At the very least, the Home Office could more seriously after today consider the possibility of the review, which was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, if only in relation to Court of Appeal cases. That is an advance.
I had hoped that some of the arguments for retaining the section would fall away. For example, the three-day concession may mean that fewer people are destitute, but thousands more are bona fide applicants who do not qualify for assistance and still have to prove their claims the hard way. To my mind, there is still no evidence that Section 55 is an effective deterrent.
When referring to that section, the noble Baroness used phrases suggesting that it had "contributed to" or "played its part in" halving the number of applicants. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because it would be helpful if the Minister wrote to him—and copied the letter to me—explaining how those calculations are made. Of course I do not intend to challenge the figures given by the noble Baroness, but we will return to the matter at the next stage.
I also thank other noble Lords for making important contributions. For example the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked how people could hear about our regulations in the United Kingdom. The Home Office has an exaggerated view of its own publicity. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the important question of the 2,000 or so A8 asylum seekers, which is causing a degree of chaos. The right reverend Prelate raised our sights and made a case for sympathy for the Government, which we all appreciated half way through. I was also glad to hear the reassurance given by the Minister about the outreach, including efforts being made by NASS to research the true situation of asylum seekers through careful casework. That is always encouraging.

671
We shall return to the matter and we will read the debate carefully. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Retention of documents]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 12, line 27, leave out from "document" to "an" and insert "is detained by"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 25, I shall also speak to my Amendment No. 26. The debate on whether Clause 12 should stand part is in the same group and appears in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Avebury.
I am grateful to the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association for their briefing on the background to the clause. These are probing amendments that seek to clarify the Government's intentions in adding this new clause to the Bill at Report in another place. At that stage there was no time for the Minister even to introduce and explain the clause, nor for the House to debate it.
Clause 12 provides the Secretary of State or an immigration officer with the power to retain documents—which could include a passport or a birth certificate—while it is suspected that the person to whom the documents relate is liable to removal; and that the retention of the document may facilitate their removal from the United Kingdom. The Explanatory Notes state that this clause complements current powers, such as those in paragraphs 4(2A) and 18(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, which already allows the seizure and retention of documents in certain circumstances.
Can the Minister explain in what respect the new powers in Clause 12 complement the existing ones and in what respect they add to them? In what circumstances are the documents likely to "come into the possession" of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer? The drafting is rather odd. It sounds as though someone could be trying to obtain documents by stealth. I am sure that that is not the case, but the drafting has some odd implications.
Do the Government agree that the provision in the clause could authorise the Home Office or the Immigration Service to hold almost any document of a person with limited leave to remain—who would be liable to removal if a future application were refused, or if he overstayed—as well as those here without authority? There is no time limit given for the retention of the documents. It is not even stated that the documents would be returned to the person on removal or on being granted leave. Why is that? Do the Government intend that there should be occasions when documents would not be returned and, if so, what would those occasions be?
My reason for tabling the amendments is to ask the Government to put on the record their explanation for this clause and to confirm which documents they expect to hold and how and when they should be returned. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: Following the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is increasingly becoming like following the school swot. So assiduous is she in preparing herself for her amendments that, looking desperately through the Immigration Law Practitioners Association brief, I could find nothing to delay the Committee beyond the questions she has put.
My noble friend Lord Avebury had the same intentions in the more brutal method of getting rid of the whole clause. The guillotine in the Commons prevented discussion on the matter and that is why the Government want the clause.
Lord Hylton: The Government have a lot to explain in particular about the drafting of Clause 12. Why is the 1971 Act thought to be insufficient in what it says about documents? The Explanatory Notes blandly state that Clause 12 "complements" the 1971 Act. What on earth does that mean?
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly pointed out that the clause says nothing about the return of the documents. How long may they be retained and when will they be returned? I most definitely hope that they will be returned before a person is removed from this country, otherwise there surely is a danger of the person becoming undocumented and a further risk of his ending up in a stateless condition. The burden of proof is on the Government.
Lord Avebury: The clause is drafted so that the document may not be owned even by the person to whom it relates. Is that supposed to deal with the fact that passports are generally the property of the issuing authority? I do not know whether that applies also to driving licences, identity cards or student cards. However, does the Minister agree that, as drafted, the clause could refer to a document which bears little relation to the person, such as the bank statement belonging to someone else showing a payment to that individual, and that that document could be seized?
Is it one of the purposes of the clause to legalise the Home Office practice, presently followed, of hanging on to the passports of individuals who send them in with their applications for leave to remain when it is alleged that they entered illegally or are overstayers? Apparently, the Home Office continues to retain the passports even when the person concerned indicates a willingness and intention to depart voluntarily. I can understand that the IND may not be satisfied that the person genuinely intends to leave, but there has to be some procedure for reuniting a departing suspect with his passport.
ILPA has given us a couple examples of how the Home Office is already misusing the power which is supposedly conferred by this clause. Mr C, an asylum seeker, married a British woman in 2000 when he applied for leave to remain as her spouse. The

673
application was refused in December 2001 and again when his wife made further representations. In June 2003, he applied to the High Commission in New Delhi for entry clearance to join his wife and was given a date of interview of 10 September. His solicitors then repeatedly asked the Home Office for his passport so that he could return to India for the interview. That, of course, would have meant abandoning the asylum claim he had made. However, the Home Office failed to respond. In December 2003, it told his solicitors that if they gave a few weeks' notice of his intention to travel, it could arrange for him to collect the passport after he had passed through immigration control.
Mrs J tried to stay in the UK with her second husband and their two young children early last year. She had no reply from the Home Office, but was advised that she needed to apply for entry clearance from her West African country of origin. She applied repeatedly but in vain for the return of her passport last summer until finally the Home Office told her that the passport had expired and that it would get her a temporary travel document—a process which took until January 2004.
Considering that the clause relates to persons who may be liable to removal, one would have thought that the IND would be only too pleased to facilitate their departure to cross them off the books. We want to know why those problems arise and why the Government should be given much greater powers when they cannot manage their existing powers to hold on to passports more efficiently and responsibly. How can we be confident that all documents will be returned properly when the person concerned has a need to travel? I hope that the Minister will explain the purpose of the clause, which documents are likely to be retained and the length of time for which they will he held.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: The return of documents is a genuine problem. I was once called in on behalf of a colleague in the University of London, who was Georgian by birth and whose research was in Armenia. He had exceptional leave to remain—there was no question of his bona fides —but the Home Office hung on to his passport, I think, for four years. During that time, his research was brought to a dead halt and his college's income was thereby considerably diminished. That case was solved by calling in Lord Williams of Mostyn, a person of whom there are few equals. But you cannot have a Lord Williams of Mostyn for every case where the Home Office computer lets you down.
Lord Hylton: I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has raised the point of exceptional leave to remain. For years, there have been problems. People in that category, of perfectly good standing in Britain, have been unable to travel or impeded from travelling for a holiday or to visit a relative in another country simply for lack of documentation.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I find myself in a quandary, because I am able to answer each and every question save for that raised about a particular case by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It would probably be wrong, if not improper, to answer him from the Dispatch Box. However, I see that it is a quarter past 10. I am likely to take 15 to 20 minutes in answering all those questions. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands. If it would suit your Lordships, I propose to give a rather staccato answer and then to undertake to write in depth. I would anticipate my reply being seven pages' long. I am entirely within your Lordships' hands. If noble Lords would not like me to take that course, I shall not do so.
I shall answer noble Lords in brief. The 1971 Act does not cover caseworkers, but only immigration officers. The provision would widen the scope of documents that can be retained to include those that may help the redocumentation process. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked which documents we expect to be able to hold and what the time limits would be. We expect to hold any document that facilitates removal, but primarily passports and identity cards. We must be working towards removal, so the power would be limited. Such documents will be returned unless they are forged or counterfeit. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and therefore all other noble Lords, asked about "come into possession". They come into possession if they can be supplied with applications and they can be obtained during enforcement visits. Those are the two main ways.
Those are the basic reasons for the amendments. I absolutely understand that there has been little opportunity to discuss the issue and to interrogate the Government. That is why I would be more than happy to put what I would have said to the House into writing and to send it to each noble Lord who has participated in the debate. If further comments arise from that, I would be most happy to deal with them on Report. Unless any noble Lord wants me to take a different course—I am quite happy to devote 15 or 20 minutes to my full answer—that is the course that I am minded to take.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: For one brief moment, I thought that a noble Lord was about to say that they wished to let the Minister expand the answer.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It was voices offstage.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I may be the class swot, but I think that I would have swatted such a voice out of court as well at this late hour. I shall simply thank the Minister for her staccato response and say that we look forward to a greater response. The difficulty is always that the lack of time and consideration that may be paid to measures in another place have to be put right here. However, at this time of night, all we can do is put down a marker and, as the noble Baroness says, have the opportunity of considering her response to see whether we need to return to the issue on Report.

675
I simply signify that I accept what she says as regards the return of passports and ID. Those are not the personal property of the holder as such, and it would not be right for them to be returned if they were forged, counterfeit or stolen in any respect. I will look carefully at other matters that could be personally owned and ensure that those could be properly returned at the right time. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
676
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past ten o'clock.

  Retail Crime
  Retail Crime
  Multiculturalism
  Multiculturalism
  Police Driving: Casualties
  Police Driving: Casualties
  Torture
  Torture
  Passports
  Passports
  Home Secretary's Special Adviser
  Home Secretary's Special Adviser
  EU: Decision-making Procedures
  EU: Decision-making Procedures
  British Telecom: Northern Ireland Phone Book
  British Telecom: Northern Ireland Phone Book
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Nuclear Material
  Nuclear Material
  Wild Boar
  Wild Boar
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Train Operating Companies: Incentive Payments
  Train Operating Companies: Incentive Payments

  Draft Identity Cards Bill
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  My right honourable friend the Home Secretary (David Blunkett) today published a draft Identity Cards Bill for consultation as part of a document explaining the need for legislation, entitled Legislation on Identity Cards: A Consultation (CM 6178).

  The draft Bill establishes the legislative framework that would be necessary for the incremental introduction of the national identity cards scheme as set out in Identity Cards: the next steps (CM 6020) published in November 2003.

  The draft Bill includes provisions that would be required to:

  set up a national identity register that would include identity information on individuals who have been registered and issued with an identity card;

  establish a family of ID cards based on new and existing documents;

  create powers to ensure that the details provided by an applicant can be checked against information already held on other databases to guard against fraud. Each use of these powers will require parliamentary approval;

  provide reassurance that disclosure of information from the national identity register without the individual's consent will not be allowed, apart from for prescribed purposes such as on grounds of national security or for the prevention or investigation of crime, and to ensure there is independent oversight of these arrangements;

  establish new criminal offences for the possession of false identity documents. These will cover offences relating to the new identity card as well as existing identity documents that are false or have been improperly obtained;

  allow a date to be set when it would become compulsory to register and be issued with a card (but not compulsory to carry a card, which is specifically prohibited in the draft Bill). This provision, together with the mandatory requirement to make ID cards the required proof of identity could be brought in only following a vote in both Houses of Parliament, on a detailed report which sets out all the reasons for the proposed move to compulsion and how the Government propose to implement compulsion. Both Houses would be able to amend the proposition before being asked to take a final decision;

  WS 24

  enable regulations to be made, once it was compulsory to register and be issued with an identity card, to make it a requirement to provide proof of identity by the production of an identity card to access public services.

  We welcome the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee's announcement of its intention to examine the draft Bill.

  Copies of the consultation document, Legislation on Identity Cards: A Consultation are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office and have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and can also be viewed on the identity cards website (www.identitycards.gov.uk). Interested parties are invited to submit their comments and views on the content of the draft Bill by 20 July 2004.

  Terrorism Act 2003: Report on Operation
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  I am pleased to announce that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed the report on the operation of the Act, which will be laid before the House today.

  Planning Permission
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill contains provisions to reduce the default period for the commencement of development under a planning permission, listed building consent or conservation area consent from five to three years. This provision is a crucial part of our agenda for speeding up the operation of the planning system.

  Local planning authorities have flexibility under existing legislation to vary the length of a permission or consent. This flexibility will remain. The time limit for the commencement of development will normally be three years from the date of permission or consent, but a local planning authority may direct a longer or shorter period as it considers appropriate. Local planning authorities should look favourably upon requests for longer periods of duration where there are valid planning grounds for such a request. There will be cases where three years is unlikely to be long enough to allow developers to complete all the preparation needed before starting work. Longer periods are likely to be appropriate, for example, for complex regeneration projects.

  After the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has completed its parliamentary passage the Government will issue guidance to local planning authorities on the new provisions. In this guidance we will make clear the need for flexibility on the part of local authorities in their dealings with applicants on the duration of permissions and consents.