Sitting of 29 April 2004

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

    Construction Workers
    Ms Joan Walley: What assessment he has made of the supply of skilled construction workers. [169204]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The statutory industrial training board for the construction industry currently forecasts an average annual requirement for 82,000 recruits into the industry in the period 2003 to 2007. The latest survey of new entrants shows around 50,000 individuals entering formal training in 2002–03. Other sources of recruitment are people re-entering the industry and foreign workers. A further group of around 28,000 people already employed in the industry is undertaking on-site assessment and training.
    Ms Walley: It is important that we have a new construction college in Burslem in my constituency that will train workers from across the country. Will the Minister take a special interest in how the learning and skills council and Stoke-on-Trent college of further education take that forward, particularly on the need to retrain pottery workers who have been made redundant? Will he take a special interest, too, in how we need local employers to provide local employment if we are to deliver the Government's agenda on new investment in housing and hospitals?
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend spoke about the important work of the Burslem centre during the Housing Bill debate on 12 January. I shall certainly take an interest in it and ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), looks into it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) is right that the partnership between employers and the education system holds out real promise of progress.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Minister agree that the roofing industry is crucial to the construction industry? Is he aware that,
    986
    of the 57,000 employees working in that industry, only 8,000 have certification to construction skills certification scheme standards? Is he aware that, of the 352 people who joined modern apprenticeships for roofing last year, 40 per cent. dropped out during their first year? What is he doing to stop people dropping out of modern apprenticeships? What will he do to ensure that people who work in the roofing industry have CSCS certification? Will he hold discussions with the insurance industry to try to ensure that firms that have qualified people get discounts on their massive insurance premiums?
    Mr. Miliband: I certainly agree that we cannot have a house building or construction industry without roofing specialists; I think that there will be cross-party agreement on that.
    I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned modern apprenticeships and the 255,000 young people undertaking them. He rightly mentioned the importance of quality in those apprenticeships, which is being taken up through the Learning and Skills Council. It is significant that £325 million of LSC money is supporting construction industry training, in addition to £75 million from the industry itself. That is a good example of the sort of partnership the hon. Gentleman and I both want.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that everyone in the construction industry receives appropriate safety training, particularly foreign workers, many of whom do not have an adequate grasp of English and for whom safety notices are therefore meaningless?
    Mr. Miliband: It is obviously important that we collaborate with our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry on this matter, which crosses departmental boundaries. All training must include the health and safety aspects to which my hon. Friend referred and I shall take up his point about literacy and the issues related to it.

    Overseas Students
    Huw Irranca-Davies: What measures he is taking to encourage higher education institutions to compete effectively for (a) the market for overseas students and (b) the market for students from the Gulf states. [169205]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): My Department has taken steps to encourage higher education institutions to compete effectively for the market for overseas students through the Prime Minister's initiative to attract more international students to the United Kingdom, including those from the Gulf states. A vigorous worldwide marketing campaign under the brand of Education UK supports that initiative. The number of non-European Union international students studying full-time in UK higher education institutions rose by 23 per cent. on that for the academic year 2001–02, to a total of 174,575 last year. The Prime Minister's initiative

    987
    recruitment target of an extra 50,000 international students in higher education by 2004–05 has been achieved well ahead of target.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Having just returned from a visit to the United Arab Emirates, I can assure my right hon. Friend of the high regard in which our higher education institutions are held. He will be aware, however, that there is an immensely competitive market that includes higher education institutions from South Africa, New Zealand and elsewhere that often undercut us on price but cannot maintain our excellent quality. Can he assure me that, in discussions with higher education institutions, he will continue to foster a proactive approach to penetrating the market in the Gulf region? We are doing excellently, but the end-of-term report might say, "Could do better."
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for that question and I can assure my hon. Friend of our commitment to work in the area. He put his finger on the central point, which is that the quality of the higher education courses we offer gives us such a strong competitive position. He may be interested to know that only last week I had a dialogue with the Minister for the middle east about how we could better promote our universities and education more generally into the whole of the middle east region. We are completely seized of the points that my hon. Friend makes.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Non-EU students pay full fees, but every student admitted to higher education from an EU country receives a subsidy of between £6,000 and £16,000 from the British taxpayer. Today it is reported that applications are up 100 per cent. from Cyprus, 200 per cent. from Hungary, 300 per cent. from Slovenia and 365 per cent. from Poland. What will be the cost of that to the British taxpayer?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's attitude is truly extraordinary. The figures published by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service today show that 406,000 applications have been received—that is a 3.1 per cent. increase in applications which, given all the controversy and discussion about our reforms, is a testament to the position—and that there have been increases from applicant countries. I shall set out the figures in the context of the 406,000: Slovakia increased from 23 to 95, the Czech Republic from 54 to 149, Estonia from 17 to 56, Hungary from 37 to 112, Latvia from 19 to 51, Slovenia from 12 to 49, Lithuania from 23 to 60, Cyprus from 712 to 1,458, Malta from 17 to 41 and Poland, the largest of the acceding states, from 95 to 442. Those are tiny figures. The hon. Gentleman's narrow nationalism is deeply appalling. We should be proud of the contribution that our higher education institutions are making to the whole of education throughout the European Union. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Council report shows the enormous potential for our country of earning enormous sums, with another 1 million students wanting to come here by 2020, most of them from outside the EU? Is he aware that most
    988
    people in the higher education sector believe that we should make plans now to invest more heavily in infrastructure and well-paid academics to make sure that we make the best of it? Even students from within the EU make a profit for the UK, as well as those from outside. Should not act now to invest in the future and perhaps do more about private-public partnerships?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As an illustration, just today the figures published show a 50 per cent. increase in applications from the United States. There is a massive interest in this country to have students coming and studying here and a massive opportunity for our students to go and study in other countries throughout the world. We should take pride in the fact that our higher education institutions and the English language give us a competitive advantage and we should seek to build on that for all the economic reasons that my hon. Friend described. The petty nationalism of the Tory party is utterly deplorable.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Of the 175,000 students to whom the Secretary of State referred, how many go to the Russell group?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not have the figures to hand, but a lot do. Many universities right across the range are substantially developing their work internationally. The hon. Gentleman may have read recent reports about the university of Nottingham, which is part of the Russell group, establishing a campus in China precisely to support work of this kind. Throughout our university sector there is a strong commitment to achieve that. It is something to be applauded—as most rational Tory Members will do—not denigrated.
    David Cairns: May I tell my right hon. Friend about the success of James Watt college in my constituency in attracting large numbers of students from the middle east and the Gulf states, primarily by focusing on engineering-based courses which are in great demand there? Given that he has mentioned the British Council and the Foreign Office, can he ensure that his Department works closely with the relevant Scottish Education Ministers and the Scottish Executive so that every university and higher education college throughout the United Kingdom can benefit from the competitive advantages that he mentioned.
    Mr. Clarke: I can absolutely give that assurance, and I can add that many Scottish universities are outstanding in that field. Their reputation is strong for reasons of history and academic quality. Some of the marketing that they have pursued in working with the Scottish Executive achieves that end, but I believe—and I have discussed the matter with colleagues on the Executive—that a joint effort can maximise our impact internationally. That is what we are very keen to do.

    Further Education Funding
    Tony Baldry: If he will make a statement on funding for local colleges. [169206]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): In November 2002, we announced an extra £1.2 billion of investment in

    989
    further education colleges over the three years to 2005–06. That record investment means that total funding for further education is set to rise by 19 per cent. in real terms when compared with 2002–03. That is the largest ever investment in further education to support a radical and ambitious reform strategy that links funding to college performance.
    Tony Baldry: People often think that Banbury is a very prosperous town, but in at least two wards. more than half the adults have no further or higher education qualifications. Given the Minister's answer, I do not understand why the Association of Colleges has expressed concern that colleges haw had to dip into their reserves to the tune of £62 million for skills and vocational training this year, because they have received only some £20 million from the Department. How is it that every Member has heard concerns from local college principals and the Association of Colleges that they have been short-changed on money for skills and vocational training?
    Alan Johnson: I am also puzzled by those remarks by the AOC. We meet that organisation regularly and it is appreciative of the additional investment, although—like any lobby group—it continues to seek more funding. Perhaps some of the problems have been with how the allocation of funding reaches the colleges through the learning and skills councils. The new chief executive, Mark Haysom, is aware of some of those problems, but I am willing to investigate specific problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to see whether I can do anything to help.
    Linda Perham: My local college—Redbridge college, of which I am an external governor—is very pleased with the extra investment from the Government, but it is having problems obtaining the payment in full of £250,000 of funding from last year. It received 30 per cent. in April, having been promised 60 per cent. in March, and it has been promised the rest by the end of May. Will my right hon. Friend investigate the delay in that funding?
    Alan Johnson: I certainly will investigate the point raised by my hon. Friend, which might relate to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). To put the issue in context again, we have increased funding for teaching and learning in FE colleges by 17 per cent. and funded a 60 per cent. real increase in capital spending in colleges. Almost anyone one speaks to in the FE sector will agree that, with 4 million students and a further 2 million reached in the workplace, it has been somewhat undervalued in the past. The sector would like the increased funding to continue, but it appreciates that funding for FE colleges has turned a significant corner.
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: One of the interesting things about the answers that the Minister gave to both the previous, questions on this topic is the disparity between his view and what is actually happening. It is clear that one of the essential roles of—and an apparent Government priority for the FE sector and local colleges is the, provision of basic skills and level 2 courses. Why then are the Government
    990
    enabling cuts to take place in the FE sector, just as adults needing help are being turned away from literacy and numeracy classes—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) seems very annoyed that I have not called him. It is my right to decide whom to call, and he must not stare at me as if he has been deeply hurt by my decision. That is the last thing that he should do.
    Mr. Simmonds: Basic skills provision is also being axed. As I am sure the Minister would agree, such courses are essential for people who are trying to escape socio-economic deprivation. Will he assure the House that the threatened cuts in places of more than 70,000 that the Association of Colleges predicts this year will not materialise? Will he assure us that he will endeavour to deliver basic skills to all who need them?
    Alan Johnson: I was in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at a very exciting and well attended initiative. He received many plaudits, and I am pleased that he did. His local college was extremely appreciative of the extra funding provided.
    I think that we are talking about two different things. The Association of Colleges is concerned that, in the next financial year when the level 2 entitlement kicks in, we will not be able to meet every claim for every piece of further education training in the country in the way that we did last year. Last year, every bid made to the Learning and Skills Council was accepted. The reason for the concern is that we have to have priorities and the 4 million adults who do not even have a basic level 2 qualification must be our priority. That is why we are going to give them financial help and an adult learning grant to meet that priority. If that we means that we cannot meet every single claim, we will have to accept that in the interests of meeting that priority. Nevertheless, literary and numeracy are what the issue is all about. We will strive, as always, to ensure that all the claims are met.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Socialism is the language of priorities.
    Alan Johnson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggests, new Labour is the language of priorities.
    Lawrie Quinn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer to the initial question. On Monday, I spent the morning at Scarborough sixth-form college and saw at first hand the excellent work that is being done. However, the college stands alone and it competes with many sixth forms in the surrounding local education authority area. Students and staff alike asserted to me that there was a gap in terms of the money that was being spent in the college. May I tempt my right hon. Friend to make the short trip from Hull to Scarborough to see the excellent work that the college is doing and perhaps persuade him that we need to give greater consideration to the inequalities between LEA sixth forms and stand-alone sixth forms such as at Scarborough sixth-form college?
    Alan Johnson: I will gladly make the short trip to Scarborough to see my hon. Friend. We are aware of

    991
    those issues and, in this funding round, the funding gap between sixth forms and further education colleges has closed considerably. It is always a delight to see him, particularly in his delightful constituency.

    Schools (Appropriate Relations Guidance)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What guidance he provides to schools on maintaining appropriate relations between pupils and staff. [169207]
    The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): We have worked with the teachers unions and with the National Employers Organisation of School Teachers to produce a document entitled "Joint NEOST/Teacher Union Guidance on Preventing Abuse of Trust for Teachers, Education Staff and Volunteers". We have also funded further work to produce further advice entitled "Developing Safe Working Practices for the Protection of Children and Staff in Educational Settings".
    Miss McIntosh: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the number of disturbing cases that I have raised with the Secretary of State about bullying between pupils and inappropriate relationships between staff and pupils in certain schools that are in or serve the Vale of York? Has the guidance to which she refers been published and, if schools have similar guidance, is it not appropriate for parents to have sight of it?
    Margaret Hodge: It is certainly appropriate for parents to have sight of it. The hon. Lady raised the issue of bullying between pupils and I hope that she appreciates the concentrated work that we—in particular, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis)—have been doing to try to tackle the problem and to create zero tolerance for bullying in our schools. If she wishes to raise further issues with us in relation to bullying between pupils and teachers, I would warmly welcome further consideration of those issues so that we can take any further action that she would deem appropriate.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is it not essential that the relationship between pupils and staff involves good order and discipline in the classroom? Because good discipline and learning can be disrupted by a small number of highly disruptive pupils, is it not essential that we have good provision of pupil referral units throughout the country for children of all ages? Will she undertake an audit of pupil referral unit provision and take action to fill the gaps? At the moment, there appears to be a bit of a postcode lottery and, surely, we do not want postcode disruption in our schools.
    Margaret Hodge: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments about the importance of good order in the classroom so that effective teaching and learning can take place. How that is developed is down to each local authority and the schools within it. The use made of pupil referral units must be decided locally. There are good pupil referral units around the country. I visited a project yesterday in Oxford that is run by a voluntary organisation called Parent-School Links, which takes sound action to improve the behaviour of children in
    992
    schools and to tackle the behaviour between children and parents and between children and teachers. Such small initiatives, run by valuable voluntary organisations, should be spread across the country. That is the key to improving behaviour in the classroom.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Taking on the valid point made by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), is not the real problem the fact that there are no longer proper sanctions in schools and that, when teachers try to exercise reasonable discipline, they are frequently pursued by litigious parents who have a perverted idea of human rights?
    Margaret Hodge: I do not agree. We have strengthened the power of head teachers to apply appropriate sanctions in schools. The hon. Gentleman would probably agree that we live in more litigious times and people exercise their rights, rightly or wrongly, in all sorts of situations I do not agree with his premise that we have weakened the power of heads. We have gone in quite the opposite direction.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Does the Minister agree that, with reference to appropriate relations between pupils and staff, the overwhelming majority of teachers get it right 100 per cent. of the time, and they deserve both our thanks and a presumption of trust? Will she confirm that more than 80 per cent. of teachers who are accused of having behaved inappropriately are subsequently entirely cleared and vindicated? Will she therefore accept that now is the time to act on the NASUWT campaign for legislation to preserve teacher anonymity up until the point of a conviction? Will she undertake to accept the offer from the Opposition to speed the passage of such legislation through both Houses of Parliament, or will it take the election of a Conservative Government to give teachers that essential protection?
    Margaret Hodge: I am not sure that there is a single child or parent with an interest in the education service who would welcome the transfer of power to the Tory party. Its record in government on education was abysmal and our record in government has been second to none, with increased investment, rising standards and a massive extension of opportunity. On the specific issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, we believe there must be a conversation with the NASUWT and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is engaged in those discussions. We will look further at the issues that the union has legitimately raised and take the action that we deem appropriate.

    University Salaries
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on university staff salaries. [169208]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): Universities are autonomous, independent bodies and are responsible for determining their own affairs, including pay for their staff. The Government play no part in setting the levels of pay or conditions of service for higher education staff. However, we recognise that Government funding plays

    993
    a part in what institutions can pay their staff. The Higher Education Funding Council for England will allocate almost £6 billion of grants for 2004–05, a 9.3 per cent. increase on 2003–04. Within that, funding for teaching is increasing by 5.6 per cent.
    Mr. Chapman: In recent times, I have had a great deal of correspondence from academics expressing their concern about the relative long-term decline in academic salaries. I share that concern. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if we are to have world-class academic institutions, we need to attract and retain quality staff? Does he agree that as the Government have a role to play in the funding of higher education, they have an influence on salaries? Does he have a long-term plan to solve the problem?
    Alan Johnson: I entirely accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. Indeed, the Prime Minister, in a speech late last year, said:
    "The shortfall of teaching funding has badly hit the salaries of academic staff, which have shown practically no increase in real terms over two decades."
    That is one of the reasons why we are pursuing the controversial measures in the Higher Education Bill. Not only are we putting in an extra £3 billion from the taxpayer, but an extra £2 billion will come through existing fees and through the increase. University vice-chancellors tell us that, in general. at least a third of that money will be put back into the salaries and conditions of their staff. That will make an enormous contribution in tackling a very serious and deep-seated problem.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Has the Minister seen the survey by the Association of University Teachers that confirms that higher education was better off under the last Conservative Government than it is today under Labour? Will he confirm that Labour's only answer to the growing funding crisis in universities is to force students to run up bigger and bigger debts? While that will almost certainly deter many young people from poorer backgrounds from applying for university at all, it will do nothing to address the problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) with regard to universities attracting and retaining top-calibre staff.
    Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman always does a good turn at the Dispatch Box; it is always amusing.
    The problem with the AUT study, which I have seen, is that it does not compare like with like. There was a change in the way in which student support funding is measured and reported, as we moved to economic cost rather than cash outlay, and that has distorted its figures. The independent statistical first release, which takes into account that change, shows a level of student support that was higher in 2002—03 than 10 years before. If one takes the AUT's own statistics and report and strips away student support, one sees that they show an increase in higher education funding of more than 25 per cent. above inflation between 1994 and 2003—04.
    I find it incredible that, during the most important debate on higher education since the early 1960s and the publication of the Robbins report, the Opposition still do not tell us how they plan to tackle these difficult issues. While our proposals are controversial, they are
    994
    the right thing to do, as many of the hon. Gentleman's own party members will be telling him from the other place as we take the Bill through the Lords.
    Valerie Davey: While I obviously accept the Minister's initial response with regard to the independence of universities, given the Government's input into the funding, may I ask him to confirm that he continues to raise in dialogue with universities the fact that there remains among academic staff a differential between women and men?
    Alan Johnson: Yes, I will raise that issue. Actually, it does not need to be raised, because vice-chancellors are very aware of it. Indeed, as my hon. Friend will know, the latest pay deal, which is a two-year deal, seeks to address some deep-seated issues, including inequality in pay and an 8.1 per cent. increase for the lowest pay grades in universities. She makes a very important point that I shall reiterate on every occasion I can.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: May I share with the Minister my concern in support of the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman)? As the representative of a university constituency, I know that there is great concern about a brain drain in which our academic staff go abroad because we cannot pay them proper salaries. Will the Minister therefore consult his colleagues in Northern Ireland to see whether what is happening in England can also happen in universities there?
    Alan Johnson: I will certainly speak to my colleagues in Northern Ireland. As the Higher Education Bill progressed through the Commons, I spoke to many Northern Ireland Members and to the vice-chancellors of both universities in Northern Ireland, who are aware of the problems. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, although we think that the issue should be devolved—we are keen to see a devolved Administration pick it up again—universities in Northern Ireland must face up to the controversial issues surrounding higher education funding that we are trying to face up to in England.

    School Transport Bill
    Mr. Roger Williams: What assessment he has made of the impact of the draft School Transport Bill on traffic congestion.[169210]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): The purpose of the draft School Transport Bill is to reduce congestion and to enable pilot authorities to provide improved home-to-school transport. We will expect all pilot authorities to have plans that will cut car use on the school run, which will reduce traffic and congestion.
    Mr. Williams: Hon. Members who represent rural areas, as I do, view a number of the proposals with great concern. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the draft Bill were rolled out across the whole of Wales, 80,000 children would lose the right to free school transport, which must result in more private cars being used for the school run? Will he join me in urging the

    995
    Welsh Assembly not to adopt any proposals that would result in increased congestion and children from rural and remote areas losing the right to free school transport?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. The whole of local government, which includes all parties, the Churches and schools say that the current school transport arrangements are not sustainable. That is why, in consultation with those bodies, we laid the draft School Transport Bill, which is designed to free local authorities to make decisions—if they want to make them. I will not impose such decisions: local authorities must decide how best to address congestion in their localities, which is an intelligent way to proceed.
    In considering a proposal from an authority, the criterion that I, as Secretary of State, would set—the National Assembly for Wales will apply the criterion in Wales—is that it must increase children's ability to travel to school and reduce congestion. I am well aware that it is possible to make a brouhaha about the matter, in which case I admit that the Bill will not be necessary, but it would be a mistake not to seize this opportunity to address a serious problem that concerns local government, Churches and everyone else, and to surrender to the bandying about of misleading and inaccurate figures.
    Mr. David Chaytor: In respect of school transport, does my right hon. Friend agree that the preferences of parents who believe passionately that their children should be educated in faith schools should be given equal priority to the preferences of parents who believe passionately that their children should be educated in secular schools?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend, who is a member of the Select Committee, raises an important issue of principle, which lies at the heart of the proposals to permit local education authorities to take those considerations into account. School transport is controversial and involves many difficulties, which is why there has not been legislation on the matter for decades—since 1944. We should not allow the current system to decay, and we should introduce a system that allows local education authorities to address such issues on a regulated basis to try to take us forward.
    Mr. Mark Hoban: In an earlier answer, the Secretary of State gave the impression of urgency, when he said, "we should seize this opportunity." However, the Transport Committee report on school transport states:
    "The Government's leisurely approach is an indulgence … An experiment which does not end until 2011 is not addressing this problem with the urgency it needs."
    How does he square the Committee's criticism with his own comments about urgency and seizing the initiative?
    Mr. Clarke: I gave evidence to the Transport Committee, and think that the report, in which the Committee rightly gives us credit for taking up the issue, is good. I urge the hon. Gentleman to talk to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who, on the day when the draft Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech, launched a vigorous attack in the media, saying
    996
    that the draft Bill is wrong and that we should not take this course. As I said at the time, the hon. Member for South Suffolk can stop the argument. In line with the question from the hon. Member for Fareham, the hon. Member for South, Suffolk should work with us on the legislation, which his Conservative friends in local government want, to take the matter forward properly.

    Education Maintenance Allowance
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the education maintenance allowance in raising levels of participation in post-16 education. [169211]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): In the pilots, education maintenance allowances increased participation by 16-year-olds in education by nearly six percentage points. Evaluation findings of the national scheme show that we are expected to ensure that, by 2006–07, 72,000 more young people will be participating in post-16 education thanks to education maintenance allowances.
    Mr. Bailey: I thank the Minister for his reply. In my local authority, Sandwell, which is one of the more deprived boroughs in the country, experience of the pilot scheme reflects the figures that he gave. As the grants are linked not only to attendance but to performance, will he give an assessment of improvements in academic performance at this level and assurances on long-term funding to sustain them?
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The English problem post-16, concerns not only participation but progression. The key aspect of education maintenance allowances is that they are tied to achievement, as well as attendance. I will write to my hon. Friend with the precise figures, but I can assure him that the programmes have had a significant and positive impact on achievement.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: To use a phrase of the Home Secretary's, is it not bonkers that we should pay children who presumably do not see the value of education to go to school? Is it not equally perverse that this Government, who introduced fees, and are introducing top-up fees for universities, should say on the one hand, "We'll pay you to go to school", and on the other, "We'll saddle you with debt to go to university"?
    Mr. Miliband: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is bonkers. It is bonkers when young people who have the motivation and qualifications to stay on in the educational system have to leave it because they do not have the necessary financial support. We hope over time to teach Conservative Members that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, socialism is the language of priorities; and this is a priority.
    Colin Burgon: May 1 bring back a brief report from the chalk face? Last week, I was lucky enough to speak to 16-year-olds at Brigshaw high school. I got a better reception as an MP than I used to

    997
    get as a school teacher, as those young people listened with rapt attention to the Government's proposals on the education maintenance allowance. This Labour Government have introduced these proposals precisely because young people from such former mining areas did not, for a number of social and cultural reasons, stay on to fulfil their true potential. May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that when a Labour Government carry on like this, they are doing a brilliant job?
    Mr. Miliband: These occasions are the time for asking Ministers searching questions to test Government policy. I am happy to reiterate that in mining areas such as mine and my hon. Friend's, education maintenance allowances can plug a significant gap in the system. We all know that the best investment that we can make is in education, and anything that helps young people to participate and progress in their studies must be good.

    Science Education
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What resources are available to support innovative projects that bring nine to 19-year-olds closer to an understanding of science, engineering and technology in industry. [169212]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The Department makes available £25 million a year through local learning and skills councils to promote closer links between schools and businesses. The new programme of study for key stage 4 and vocational GCSEs in applied science and engineering aims to give a broader understanding of science and engineering. Science learning centres and science and engineering specialist colleges encourage teachers to make links with local businesses and universities.
    Dr. Iddon: The Northwest Development Agency has provided £2.3 million to build Bolton technical innovation centre, which is the first junior incubator in the United Kingdom. The local education authority will ensure that all nine to 19-year-olds have access to the building, which will be open in the evenings, at the weekends and throughout the school holidays. Industry also has access to the building and is providing state-of-the-art equipment and seconding staff to show pupils how to use it. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to ensure the success of innovative projects such as the Bolton TIC, we must ensure a steady stream of revenue funding instead of expecting them continually to rely on the bid culture?
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting an excellent example of innovation. He was too modest to mention the fact that he chairs the board of Bolton TIC, but I pay tribute to his personal role in doing that. I know that he has written to the Secretary of State on this matter, and we shall consider his suggestions. He rightly highlights the great challenge that we face to encourage more young people to study science and engineering, and Bolton TIC plays a very important role in that regard.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Minister will know that the corporation of Macclesfield
    998
    college was very disappointed that the Macclesfield learning zone was not successful in the first tranche of learning zone projects, bearing in mind the fact that a successful application would have resulted in a new college on the same site as a new secondary school, which would have enabled the college to provide the facilities and expertise for engineering, technology and science. If the college makes proposals for improvement, will the Department give them favourable and sympathetic consideration?
    Mr. Twigg: Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education are whispering in my ear that this is a very exciting and positive project, and I am delighted to take their word, and that of the hon. Gentleman, for that. Initially, this is a matter for the local education authority and the LSC, but when proposals are made we will give them sympathetic consideration.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of increasing the number of young people going into science, engineering and technology is to increase the number of girls and young women taking scientific subjects at school and going on to study them in further and higher education? What efforts is his Department making specifically to encourage young women to take up those subjects at school?
    Mr. Twigg: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: there is a big challenge both to increase the number of girls studying those subjects and to stem the long-term fall in the number of students continuing to study science subjects after the age of 16. An important part of our strategy for dealing with that is via science and engineering specialist colleges, and I am delighted that there is a record, and growing, number of such colleges, the role of which is not only to enhance science learning and teaching in their own schools but to give support to primary and secondary schools. Part of that work involves ensuring that the options are available on an equal basis, and that there is a positive approach to encouraging more girls and women to study sciences up to the age of 16 and beyond.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: What progress has been made in reaching a 50 per cent. participation rate in higher education. [169213]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): The provisional higher education initial participation rate for 2002–03, released earlier this month, is 44 per cent. This represents a rise of one percentage point on the 2001–02 figure of 43 per cent.
    Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that the 50 per cent. target has been met north of the border, where his Labour colleagues in the Scottish Executive, with a little help and encouragement from my colleagues, have already abolished tuition fees and reintroduced student grants. In fact, in the first year following the abolition and

    999
    reintroduction, the increase in applications to Scottish universities was some 10 per cent., compared with 1 per cent. in England and Wales. In the light of that evidence, does the Minister believe that trebling student tuition fees in England and Wales will help the Government to meet their 50 per cent. target?
    Alan Johnson: There are many excellent things about Scottish higher education, one of which is that is has always had a higher participation rate. Another is that there has always been very good collaboration between higher and further education. There is a myth that, after the Cubie report, Scotland abolished up-front fees. Every student in Scotland—barring certain categories—will pay about £2,100 after they have graduated, on an income-contingent basis—
    Mr. Carmichael: That is a contribution.
    Alan Johnson: The contribution is apparently towards the grant. We provide the grant free; the contribution is towards the teaching, so I do not accept that argument.
    My final point is that the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service figures released yesterday showed a 66 per cent. increase in the number of UK applications for foundation degrees. A large part of our expansion up to 50 per cent. participation will come from two-year vocational foundation degrees, and there has already been a very healthy increase in applications for such courses, so I do not believe that our proposals will affect our drive towards the 50 per cent. rate.
    Jeff Ennis: My question is on the very point that we need to expand the base of foundation degrees to achieve that target of 50 per cent. Will the Minister say a little more about the response that he is getting from local universities and industry to achieve that massive expansion in foundation degrees?
    Alan Johnson: I welcome my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in this issue. We are getting a good response from employers and from higher education institutions—I refer to higher education institutions rather than universities because it is FE colleges that in the main provide foundation degrees accredited by universities. The response is very good, and particularly good when one considers the fact that these degrees are very new—the first batch of graduates came through only last summer. The UCAS figures show that interest will expand, and our role is to make sure that people, particularly youngsters, are aware of this route into an accredited degree. We all have a role, however, to support one of the most exciting initiatives that we have seen in this country, and to end the strange prejudice that there has always been in favour of academic qualifications over vocational ones, which has dogged British academia for too long.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL
  The Solicitor General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Domestic Violence
    Julie Morgan: What plans she has to introduce statutory reviews of domestic violence murders. [169197]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which I hope will be introduced to the House in June, will contain a clause establishing reviews after domestic homicides. Most domestic homicides—one in three of all killings—are not single, isolated events but the culmination of mounting violence. We must learn lessons from these deaths so that we can intervene earlier. Subject to the approval of the House, that is what the multi-agency domestic homicide reviews will do.
    Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. I know that she is aware of the domestic violence homicide review conducted in the south Wales area, which produced the tragic evidence that there had been approximately 40 referrals to the health service before a particular murder took place. Is she aware that the review was jointly led by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and South Wales police, and that this joint approach was very successful in drawing all the different agencies into the process? Can she think of any situation in which it would not be appropriate to carry out a review when a domestic violence homicide had taken place?
    The Solicitor-General: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. I am grateful to the people in Wales who allowed me to see a copy of the full case report. It shows that on probably 40 occasions the woman had told her GP, her friends and her employer and had been in A and E. The criminal justice system missed many opportunities to step in and stop the violent assaults, which, because they were not stopped, culminated in her being killed. It is important that all those who worked together on the review continue to work together to ensure that practice is such that such a case does not happen again.
    My hon. Friend asked about cases in which it would not be appropriate to conduct a review. There are some exceptional cases in which a killing is a bolt out of the blue. In most cases, however, somebody—a child's teachers, a GP or the police—will have known about the violence. In cases where a death has resulted, local agencies will need to have a review, so that they can learn lessons and introduce better practice.
    Ms Meg Munn: May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that included within the definition of domestic violence are people with learning disabilities who are living in a more domestic situation? She will be aware that great changes have been made whereby many people are now

    1001
    supported within domestic situations, and as such they can be particularly vulnerable to abuse from either relatives or carers, including paid carers.
    The Solicitor-General: The definition of domestic violence, in circumstances in which it will give rise to a review after a homicide, is in the Bill We recognise that when violence takes place in a domestic setting, either between a husband and wife or a former husband and wife or boyfriend and girlfriend, or when it involves a young child, it is particularly difficult to make sure that there is early intervention. The cases that my hon. Friend mentioned will certainly fall within that review.

    Witnesses (Trial Attendance)
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on measures taken by the Crown Prosecution Service to prevent non-attendance by witnesses at trials. [169198]
    The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service works closely with the police, courts and other agencies to do everything possible to ensure that witnesses attend court, so that when a crime has been committed justice can be done. That includes extra police protection for frightened witnesses, extra support for victims, telling witnesses what is going on in their cases and looking after them when they get to court and afterwards.
    Mr. Chapman: Many witnesses, because of victimisation and the fact that they are very frightened, do not turn up and trials fail as a result. They will turn up, however, if they are supported and encouraged, and the system should allow for that. I welcomed yesterday's "big victim event", but things are still difficult on the ground. Merseyside in particular still has a high level of failed trials because of this problem. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that in magistrates courts in Wirral and in Crown courts on Merseyside, appropriate support mechanisms are in place and will be developed?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is bad enough to have been a victim of crime without feeling that one has become a victim of the criminal justice system. People are prepared to come forward, give evidence and ensure, that offenders are brought to justice, but they need help and support in a system that is all too familiar to the professionals, but baffling and often frightening for lay people.
    As my hon. Friend says, a big conference took place yesterday. All the criminal justice partners and members of the voluntary sector came together to talk about better support for victims and witnesses. That must be provided on the ground. I know that one in three cases in the magistrates court in my hon. Friend's area does not proceed. We must ensure that there are as few unnecessary hearings as possible, and that everyone works together to make things run smoothly.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am sure that the Solicitor-General agrees that another reason for the non-attendance of witnesses may well be a sense of dismay or dissatisfaction at the length of time they must
    1002
    wait before giving evidence. Will she reassure us about the role played by the Attorney-General in attempts to resolve the dispute, in high-cost criminal cases, between the Bar and the Legal Services Commission in relation to scrutiny that the commission wishes to apply to the individual reading of documents in court cases? I understand that it is threatening to disrupt criminal trials to a serious extent.
    The Solicitor-General: The matters relating to barristers' fees are being actively discussed by the Lord Chancellor and his Ministers and the Bar Council. We have delivered our commitment to ensure that pay levels are the same for prosecution and defence counsel.
    The Attorney-General is leading the "no witness, no justice" project, which is intended to ensure that all the support services needed by victims and witnesses are provided on the ground.
    Vera Baird: I strongly agree that it is important to support frightened witnesses, but is it not equally important to look after willing ones? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the case of a nightclub doorman in my constituency—the kind of person who is likely to be a prosecution witness more than once—who was dismayed to find that the trial fell on the date of his holiday? He could not be compensated because he had lost no earnings, but he had lost a day with his children. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that discretion is used to ensure that such events do not occur?
    The Solicitor-General: I shall certainly look at that case, and examine the rules governing payment for witnesses. I shall try to establish whether more could have been done to ensure that the trial fell on a convenient date. We must all make an effort to work around those who help to bring offenders to justice, rather than allowing them to be inconvenienced or even out of pocket, or to lose time with their families.
    Mr. John Burnett: Consultation on the Government paper "Securing the attendance of witnesses in court" closed on 2 January this year. What was the thrust of the consultees' views on the protection of witnesses in personal jeopardy, and what are the Government's proposals to secure their safety?
    The Solicitor-General: There are two points that I would like to make, which arise from the concerns that have been brought fully to our attention for victims and witnesses who feel in personal jeopardy, the first of which is that that should be a consideration in every case. All the agencies should consider who the witnesses are and what support they might need. That should be a routine consideration.
    Secondly, we are bringing in another power next month, which I think will help with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. That will enable the court to order the name of the victim or witness to be withheld and not reported, so there will be anonymity. Some people fear that if they give evidence and their name is then in the local or even national newspapers, they will be subject to intimidation and pressure. We need to ensure that the court proceedings are as open as

    1003
    possible, but on some limited occasions we will need to make sure that there is anonymity for those who are prepared to come forward, sometimes risking their personal circumstances.

    Anti-Semitism
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If she will make a statement on her policy towards prosecution of anti-Semitic hate crimes. [169199]
    The Solicitor-General: In July last year, the Crown Prosecution Service published its new policy and guidance for prosecutors on cases of racist and religious crime.
    Mr. Dismore: First, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your good sense in lifting the subjudice rule to allow me to ask a question about Abu Hamza. For once, we have some good sense on that issue.
    1004
    Why, when there is such overwhelming evidence of incitement to race hatred, violence and support for terrorism by such people as Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohamed, has no prosecution taken place? If newspapers such as The Sun can mount highly effective investigations to produce the evidence that would justify prosecution—and, I believe, conviction—why cannot the police and the CPS do the same?
    The Solicitor-General: A file from the police is with the Crown Prosecution Service at the moment. I cannot say more about that case at this stage, although I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about Mr. Speaker having lifted the sub judice rule. My hon. Friend will be aware that the CPS is independent, and when it is actively considering a case such as this, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt or prejudice any decision about to be made. I do not think that the House would thank me for that.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
TUESDAY 4 MAY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 5 MAY—Opposition half-day [10th Allotted Day] (Part One). There will be a half-day debate entitled "The Government's Failure to Solve the UK Housing Crisis" on an Opposition motion, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution on the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, followed by a debate on genetically modified crops on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 6 MAY—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill.
FRIDAY 7 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 10 MAY—Second Reading of the Energy Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 11 MAY—Remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
WEDNESDAY 12 MAY—Second Reading of the Age-Related Payments Bill, followed by a motion to approve the first report of the Procedure Committee on estimates and appropriation procedure.
THURSDAY 13 MAY—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 14 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The House may wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the end of business on Thursday 27 May and return on Monday 7 June.
Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business. May we have two days on Report for the Pensions Bill, and will he ensure that that debate does not fall on 18 May, when the National Pensioners Convention has its parliament in Blackpool? The Leader of the House will understand how important it is for the Minister for Pensions to be present there to hear the robust views of the pensioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) will also be there on that day.
When can we expect to receive the Home Secretary's Bill to prevent courts from releasing psychopathic terrorists who have been detained While sane?
What has happened to the statutory instrument denying welfare benefits to non-working east European migrants, which is due before I May? Can we expect it tomorrow?
1006
The Leader of the House will be aware that on this morning's "Today" programme, Giscard d'Estaing, president of the Convention on the Future of Europe and architect of the EU constitution, confirmed that Britain could reject the constitution and still remain a full member of the European Union. Is there any reason why the Leader of the House should not now consult the Electoral Commission about the question to be asked in the referendum and swiftly introduce the necessary paving Bill, and will he tell us about the timetable today?
Finally, why is it that everything that the Government touch seems to go wrong? We are told this morning that Royal Mail is losing 1 million letters a year—particularly in London—through theft, incompetence, cannabis on the job and a chaotic culture. Does the Leader of the House understand the sheer bloomin' misery caused to pensioners when their money does not arrive, or to the person whose credit card is stolen? What is the response of Ministers? Apparently, they say, "Oh, we intend to watch tonight's television programme." Should they not have controls in place, and when will they explain to the House what they are doing about this scandal?
Mr. Hain: I was intrigued to discover which questions the shadow Leader of the House would ask. The polling organisation ICM has refused to work for the Tories on the ground that they are doctoring its questions. This is the first known case of a pollster sacking a client to protect its integrity. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is in the same boat.
I shall certainly give very serious consideration to the hon. Gentleman's request for two days on Report for the Pensions Bill. He makes a fair point about the parliamentary time needed to debate it, particularly given the large number of Government amendments to it. He will appreciate that it is a very important Bill that protects workers from being robbed of their pensions. We have seen such tragic cases recently, but of course it was under the Tories that such circumstances were created and allowed to continue.
On the Home Secretary's preventing courts from releasing psychopathic terrorists, he of course keeps this issue under constant review. If extra powers are needed—[Interruption.] There are very tough powers in existence, for which we are constantly criticised, including by Conservative Members. The statutory instrument to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be laid tomorrow, so he can rest content on that point.
I have a transcript of Giscard d'Estaing's remarks on the "Today" programme about the European Union constitution. His point was that Britain would be pushed to "the edge" of the European Union if ours was the only country that did not sign up to the new constitutional treaty. If the other 24 countries agreed to it and Britain did not, we would be left behind and there would be consequences. One consequence of being on the edge would be precisely the kind of Tory incompetence that we saw during European negotiations on BSE. The Tories failed to create the circumstances in which we could work with our colleagues to solve the problem.
On the working time directive, the problems that we have sought to unravel in recent months are precisely those that the Conservatives foisted on us when in

1007
government by not negotiating the directive properly to protect British interests. We do not want to be on the edge of Europe: we want to be in the middle of Europe, influencing its direction, and that is where this Government will place us.
In a quaint remark at the end of his questions, the hon. Gentleman asked why everything that this Government touch goes wrong. What about the record number of jobs in the economy, and the lowest inflation and mortgage rates for a generation? These are the things that people really care about, not the antics of Conservative Front Benchers at Prime Minister's questions and business questions.
On the substantive issue of the allegations made against Royal Mail staff, they are very serious and Royal Mail's investigations unit will look into them. That process will continue. The unit has a record of conducting investigations over a number of years. We as Members of Parliament depend on our local Royal Mail service—on our local postie—and have a good relationship with the staff, who are admired throughout the country for the fantastic job that they do. I do not think that we should attack them willy-nilly, in the disgraceful way that the hon. Gentleman did.
Jeremy Corbyn: In view of the continuing fighting in Fallujah and Najaf and the death last night of American servicemen, as well as the death of a large number of Iraqi civilians over the past few days and weeks, and the very serious statement made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, calling for a political rather than a military solution, will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a statement from either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary at the earliest possible opportunity, and a full debate on the whole desperate situation in Iraq, where we are increasingly seeing the Vietnamisation of a war that the Americans simply cannot win? We need a political solution brought about by the international community, with the Iraqi people.
Mr. Hain: Like my hon. Friend, no doubt, I marched against the Vietnam war. I see absolutely no comparison with the situation in Iraq—on the contrary. It is a very difficult situation, with terrorist groups and others seeking to destabilise the operations of the coalition forces. I agree. however, that a political solution is needed, and that is precisely what the Government are backing, with power due to be handed over to the interim Iraqi governing council in June, as part of creating a free and democratic Iraq and solving the political problem that existed for a generation under Saddam Hussein's undemocratic dictatorship.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the Leader of the House for his hint that there will indeed be two days for the Pensions Bill. May I encourage him to change that hint to a firm promise? I draw his attention to the publication of two recent written statements by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, one on sustainable development and the other on energy efficiency, with the latter running to 116 pages and incorporating a 16 per cent. reduction in the
1008
Government's CO2 emissions policy targets. Does he agree that it is not really satisfactory for the Secretary of State to have made only one statement to the House on environmental matters since the general election, and will he ask her to put in a rather more diligent performance?
We welcome the statements that have been made, but is it not time for the House to have a proper debate on Iraq, where we appear to be in a descending spiral of more disorder, more troops, more casualties, and, according to senior diplomats, no plan B? Will the Leader of the House assure us that we will have an opportunity to debate the Government's strategy on Iraq thoroughly in the near future?
Mr. Hain: Iraq is debated at the highest level in the House almost daily, and certainly weekly. Only last week, the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on Iraq, and the hon. Gentleman and others were able to question him. Despite the difficulties and the attempts being made to destabilise Iraq and prevent it from going down the democratic path favoured by the Government, we will get through in the end.
The hon. Gentleman may be surprised at the amount of time given to debate the Pensions Bill on Report. His point has been well registered, as has that of the shadow Leader of the House.
The hon. Gentleman's point on energy efficiency is an important one, but I disagree fundamentally with his allegation about the Secretary of State, who is widely admired throughout the world for her leadership on environmental issues and on tackling climate change and rising CO2 emissions. She has done more than any other Environment Minister in the world to drive forward that agenda, and she should be praised for that, not criticised.
David Taylor: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1059, tabled by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and signed by many other Members, on international noise awareness day?
That this House places on record its appreciation to the UK Noise Association, a coalition of key organisations lobbying on different aspects of noise, for the work it undertakes in seeking to tackle the increasing nuisances and problems caused by unnecessary noise, particularly by anti-social neighbours; is alarmed that Britain's cities are up to 10 times noisier than a decade ago and that tranquil areas in the countryside are fast disappearing; is further alarmed that 32 million people in the UK are exposed to high levels of noise and that an estimated 2.5 million live in homes with bad sound insulation; notes that 28th April is the ninth international noise awareness day; congratulates the UK Noise Association for supporting the event and assisting honourable and Right honourable Members in the formation of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Noise Reduction in Society; and calls on the Government to introduce further measures to make the country a quieter place.]
International noise awareness day was yesterday. The early-day motion draws attention to the work of the UK Noise Association and the fact that 32 million people in this country are now subjected to excessive levels of

1009
noise, with 2.5 million homes having either no or very little noise insulation. Tranquil areas of Britain have virtually disappeared. When my right hon. Friend is making bids for the Queen's Speech—fewer than six months away, and I believe that the process is under way now—will he ensure that appropriate legislation is entered in the pipeline? Our Government have been quiet about noise for far too long.
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his noisy question. He raises an important issue for all Members of Parliament. We all know that our constituents are increasingly worried about the problem and I am sure that the Secretary of State will want carefully and closely to consider the points that my hon. Friend made. We are implementing an EU directive requiring compliance with noise maps and the production of action plans to manage noise from the transport industry in particular. We are also tackling night noise through antisocial behavour legislation. We are on the case, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will make any additional points to the Secretary of State.
Sir George Young: On the same issue of noise and antisocial behaviour, when can we have a debate on the report of the Procedure Committee on Sessional Orders, which would allow the House to deal with the unsightly cacophony on Parliament Square? Does the Leader of the House recall telling me last November that that problem would have to be dealt with sooner rather than later; and does he recall telling my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) a month ago that there would shortly be some good news on the matter? Does he also remember that, the last time I raised the matter with him, you, Mr. Speaker, also expressed interest in the debate?
Mr. Hain: I think that pretty well all the points that the right hon. Gentleman made in those questions are true. We are on the case, but I am sure that, with his long parliamentary and governmental experience, he will appreciate that it is not a straightforward matter. We are examining whether existing procedures and measures can be utilised more efficiently. That, rather than relying on potentially time-consuming legislation, is my preferred course. We will see how it goes and I hope to report back to the right hon. Gentleman when I can.
Keith Vaz: As my right hon. Friend will know, the enlargement of the European Union will take place on Saturday 1 May. Will he arrange an urgent debate next week so that the House can examine the benefits of enlargement? That is particularly important in view of the scare stories that Conservative Members have put about over the last three months—for example, that millions of people will be getting on easyJet flights from Warsaw and Prague. We need to argue that that will not materialise on Saturday. Will he also arrange, through the Secretary of State for Transport, for the Leader of the Opposition to go to Luton airport to find out whether that actually happens?
Mr. Hain: It would be valuable for the Leader of the Opposition to do so, because he Was in power as Home
1010
Secretary when the accession treaty was signed and these measures first started on their road. As regards my hon. Friend's wider point, we heard the same scare stories when Greece, Portugal and Spain joined the European Union. They were all poor countries—
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): Ireland.
Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend reminds me, Ireland as well. Exactly the same scaremongering took place then. We have put measures in place to stop any abuses of the benefits system. Enlargement will take place, and I assume that both sides of the House support the enlargement of the EU as an important reunification of Europe, which will create greater stability, greater prosperity and protect our environmental standards.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I join other hon. Members who have pressed for a full two-day debate on Iraq? Those who voted against the war could then restate their view that the war was unnecessary, unjustified, unwise and probably unlawful. We could also express our deep concern at the fact that we are so closely linked in strategy and tactics to the policy of the present United States Administration.
Mr. Hain: I disagree with almost everything that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. I notice that he made no reference to the despotic and tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein, which we must remember was responsible for the deaths of 1 million Muslims. I do not know of anyone in history who bears a similar responsibility.
Mr. George Foulkes: Would the Leader of the House consider a debate on the conduct of the media? Such a debate would deal not with the gratuitous insults that you and I, Mr. Speaker, receive from the snooty scribblers in their sketches, but with the serious misrepresentations and falsehoods that regularly appear now. It would also cover the unjustified personal attacks on Members of the House, especially Ministers, which cause great distress to families. Those attacks are beyond belief, and existing voluntary arrangements are no longer sufficient to deal with them.
Mr. Hain: If the snooty scribblers are here, I think that my right hon. Friend has guaranteed himself a slot in their sketches tomorrow. He has made his point very eloquently.
Mr. Michael Jack: During the Easter recess, BAE Systems announced 1,000 redundancies at their plants in Lancashire. In part, that reflects the fact that the Government have yet to conclude discussions with the company over the ordering of tranche 2 of Eurofighter. This week, we learned that the company is considering selling its military shipbuilding capability, and that relationships between the company's senior management and the Government are at rock bottom. Given the company's strategic and industrial

1011
importance, will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on the Government's relationship with BAE Systems?
Mr. Hain: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the company's strategic and industrial importance, which the Government have consistently recognised as crucial. His constituency interest means that the right hon. Gentleman, understandably and rightly, has championed the company's cause, but he will understand that there has been a huge investment of public money—as much as £1 billion—in the company in respect of defence technology. The rise in defence spending means that there are great opportunities for the defence industry right across Britain.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I add my voice to those calling for a debate on Iraq? The seriousness of the security situation there makes such a debate essential. However, I want to draw the Leader of the House's attention to the plight of Refreshment Department employees, many of whom face redundancy because of the new hours of the House. One employee—of 30 years' standing, and a trade union representative—was given half an hour's notice of redundancy and then escorted from the premises. That is no way to treat longstanding and loyal members of staff, and it is time the House discussed the matter.
Mr. Hain: If that were true, it would indeed be outrageous. Those responsible for such matters, including the members of the Catering Committee, will want to look into what happened. However, I must correct my hon. Friend in one respect: the reforms and changes taking place in Refreshment Department staffing stem from the House's decision to reduce the level of subsidy for hon. Members' catering services, and are not to do with the hours that the House sits. Indeed, catering income has risen since the hours changed. My hon. Friend may have legitimate concerns about the change in the House's hours, but that is not responsible for what is happening in catering.
Pete Wishart: Does the Leader of the House agree with Scotland's First Minister, who has said that Scotland's falling population is perhaps the single biggest challenge facing Scotland in the 21st century? He has identified the fact that Scotland has the fastest falling population of any nation in Europe. May we have a debate to examine the differing immigration requirements of the UK's constituent parts? The UK's difficulties with immigration mean that it may be sensible to devolve the immigration policy to the Scottish Parliament.
Mr. Hain: I must acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in taking any opportunity to press his case for Scottish independence. The problem is that no one in Scotland—apart from members of the Scottish National party—agrees with him.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the recently announced increase in the numbers of teachers
1012
and classroom assistants? The House needs to consider how it can be maintained, and the possible effect on that increase of proposals to passport pupils from schools to the private education sector. Another factor that needs to be debated is that the passports could be funded by a two-year freeze on public expenditure.
Mr. Hain: If any Government were to adopt those policies, the result would be devastating for schools. Tens of thousands of teachers and classroom assistants have been recruited, but their numbers would be savagely cut. The policy is therefore very mistaken, and the Conservatives who advocate it, will find themselves in the dock at the next general election.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Reports in the national press today reveal the serious reservations of business leaders, and especially of the director general of the CBI, about the now-notorious £10 million bung for the trade unions that the Government hale included in the Employment Relations Bill. Will the Leader of the House ensure additional time to discuss that specific measure? That is needed because of the sneaky way in which the Government introduced it, and because of the widespread belief that it is an outrageous abuse of taxpayers' money by a political party.
Mr. Hain: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can accuse the Government of being sneaky, when the provision was put before the House of Commons as part of proposals for employment reform. Is he seriously suggesting that a modernisation fund to encourage trade unions to be more strategic in the way that they tackle the problems, of skills and investment faced by our economy and industry is not a good thing? Surely he wants members of the work force, including those who organise in trade unions, and of management to be forward looking? They should be looking to drive up our skills and our ability to add value so that we can compete in the modern world.
Mr. Wayne David: The Leader of the House will be aware that some opponents of the constitutional treaty favour Britain having associate membership of the EU. Can we have a debate on the Floor of the House so that some of us can point out that associate membership of the EU is not full membership?
Mr. Hain: Indeed it is not, although some Conservative Members have argued otherwise. Associate membership would be devastating for Britain. It would do more than put us on the edge of the EU, as Giscard said on the "Today" programme this morning; it would cause us to be right out of the picture as far as Europe is concerned. It would threaten British jobs, more than 3 million of which are based in companies that trade with the EU. It would also threaten our ability to be at the heart of what is the world's biggest and richest market, and one of its most important political blocs. [Interruption] That may be Conservative policy, and their excited chatter underlines that. It will not be the policy of this Labour Government.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House say more about the mysterious

1013
statutory instrument on benefits for migrants? I suppose that we should be grateful for tiny crumbs, as he has told us that it will be discussed tomorrow However, will he give more details about the parliamentary timetable for this very important measure, so that we all know what is going to happen, and when? What is his assessment of our vulnerability in the period when it is subject to parliamentary scrutiny? What might happen if it is rejected because of its inequity?
Mr. Hain: The order is the same as any other, including the one that was discussed on Tuesday night. However, in the meantime, I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his wonderful tie, which is dazzling everyone in the Chamber.
Julie Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend agree to an early debate on women's participation in politics? Is he aware of the report from the Electoral Commission this week which shows that women are turned off by the macho style of politics in Westminster, and that they are much more likely to vote and to engage in politics if they have a female MP? Also, the Labour party's policy of having all-women short lists was specifically cited as a way forward.
Mr. Hain: Yes, I am aware of that report. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the large number of women now being selected by the Labour party in vacant seats. That compares with the dismal record of the Conservatives—and, I am sorry to say, of the Liberal Democrats and other minority parties. We want more women in Parliament, as women represent more than half the population. [Interruption.] Conservative Members want to know why—that is the authentic voice of the old, male chauvinist, traditional Tory party, barking at me from the benches opposite. We want a Parliament that reflects the country. We do not have that at the moment. As my hon. Friend noted, the Electoral Commission report shows that, on the whole, women candidates tend to do better than men, as women—who are disinclined to vote in the current climate—feel a much greater identification with female MPs.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1051, the main sponsors of which are six of his colleagues.
[That this House is shocked by reports from the United Nations of a looming major humanitarian catastrophe in the Darfur region of Sudan where 665,000 people have been internally displaced, 453,000 others have been affected and more than 100,000 refugees have fled to Chad; notes with alarm that the top UN official in the Sudan has described the situation as being comparable to the Rwandan genocide; and calls on the UN Security Council to address the situation urgently.]
What steps are the Government taking to make their views known to the Government of Sudan and through the United Nations to see whether action can be taken? A militia, apparently backed by the National Islamic Front Government, is persecuting Muslims because of their colour.
Mr. Hain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the situation in Darfur, which is indeed dire. The civilian
1014
population is in a precarious state, and civilian protection is a serious concern. We have committed more than £9.5 million in humanitarian assistance in response to the crisis, and we are providing key personnel to reinforce the United Nations presence. We will continue to monitor the situation to make sure that we avoid the even worse catastrophe that the hon. Gentleman foresees.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the corporate social responsibility of companies such as BP, which announced its largest ever profit last year but which has also announced, with a cavalier attitude, that it is going to dispose of its weaker businesses, which will include the olefins and plastics plant—the company's only one in the UK—at Grangemouth in my constituency? Some 500 workers there rely on the company for their livelihood, and it seems to me that, in spite of all the whitewash in BP's corporate responsibility documents, it forgets that it made its wealth from the people of the United Kingdom and used our assets, particularly in the North sea, to boost its profits for 30 years. Surely we need a debate to try to align the responsibility such companies have to their shareholders with a responsibility to the work force, to UK plc and to the people of Scotland.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that Lord Browne, the chairman of BP, will take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said. Obviously. BP is one of our national champions and one of our most important industries, not least in my hon. Friend's community. It is important that it should continue to enjoy the confidence of its work force and the communities that it serves.
Mr. John Taylor: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate about residential blight caused by prospective airport development and the necessary compensation schemes for which we wait and which must be brought forward by the airports themselves? Can we have such a debate soon to end uncertainty for those of my constituents who are affected by that blight?
Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and uncertainty is in no one's interests. The Secretary of State for Transport will want to take careful note of the points raised and to respond to the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his constituents enjoy the certainty to which they are entitled.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Surely we must have a debate on Fallujah, Iraq and the chaos and mayhem there, not so that those of us who opposed the occupation may say "We told you so," but so that we can offer constructive suggestions about the way forward in the difficult circumstances that exist there. One such suggestion would be the greater development of the wider labour and trade union movement in Iraq, which supports neither terrorism nor oppression.
Mr. Hain: I am very much in favour of the greater development of the trade union and labour movement in Iraq. Of course, that was not allowed, and was

1015
specifically prevented, under Saddam Hussein, who is now, mercifully, not ruling the country in his despotic way. My hon. Friend has many opportunities to raise the situation in Iraq, and I am sure that he will take every one of them.
Bob Russell: A few minutes ago, the Leader of the House drew attention to the importance of a strong, democratic, well established trade union movement to this country's social and economic well-being. I endorse the thrust of his point, but, bearing in mind that a rotten financial institution is terrible for all other financial institutions, does he agree that a rogue trade union, such as ASLEF, also brings the entire trade union movement into disrepute? Will he arrange for the Minister who will be responsible for the good news that he mentioned earlier to tell the House why the trade union movement allows ASLEF to behave as it has under its current executive and former general secretary? Together, they are damaging the good name of all trade unions.
Mr. Hain: ASLEF is an independent trade union, governed by the law and the rules, and, as a member of the Trades Union Congress, it accepts its obligations. All sorts of things are going on in the union at present, but I do not think that they justify the hon. Gentleman's over-the-top question.
Mr. David Chaytor: This week, the Prime Minister announced his wish that the G8 would give the highest priority to climate change and terrorism in its discussions next year. In view of the chief scientific adviser's recent remark that climate change is a greater threat to civilisation than terrorism, in view of the Government's energy White Paper's argument that energy efficiency is the key way to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, and in view of the long-awaited publication this week of the energy efficiency action plan, will my right hon. Friend find time in the very near future for a debate on the contribution of energy efficiency and productivity to combating the threat of climate change?
Mr. Hain: If I could find time for such a debate soon, I would readily do so. I agree that this is one of the central challenges facing the world. Governments such as ours have a proud record in signing up to the Kyoto protocol, leading the way in energy efficiency and pressing for more renewable energy, which will assist with this task, and of protecting the environment in every way. If my hon. Friend applied for a debate and had the opportunity to hold one, it would give us an opportunity to display that record to the whole House.
Mr. Adrian Flook: Tomorrow, the unelected south-west regional assembly meets to choose whether to upgrade the A358 in my constituency or to build a new road across the beautiful black downs. The decision will then be conveyed to the Secretary of State for Transport, putting the ball very much in the Government's court. May we have a debate so that
1016
those of us who are elected to this place and believe in the A358 option can influence the Government's decision on a matter of vital interest to the west country?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has many opportunities to press the Secretary of State on that matter, and I am sure that, in the interests of his constituency, he will take them all. I was intrigued to hear him refer to the unelected south-west regional assembly. Does that mean that he is in favour of an elected one?
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Thousands of foreign women are trapped in domestic slavery. We read in the papers about mail-order brides and so on. It is a mystery to me why holding another person's passport cannot be made a criminal offence. Will the Leader of the House urge the Home Secretary to make a statement on that pernicious form of exploitation.
Mr. Hain: I agree that it is indeed pernicious. The Home Secretary and his Ministers take a close interest in the matter, and I am sure that further information will be sought from my hon. Friend about the precise circumstances that, he has properly raised.
Bob Spink: The Independent Monitoring Commission's report of 20 April recommended act on against Sinn Fein in response to continued high levels of violence and terrorism. The £120,000 fine imposed is entirely inadequate. When will the Leader of the House give the House the opportunity to consider withdrawing facilities in the House from Sinn Fein as a result of the IMC's recommendations?
Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's wish to raise these matters, and I recognise that he regularly attends business questions. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a full statement on the matter and answered questions for nearly an hour.
Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend today announced a debate on Tuesday 4 May on the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill. I am sure that the strongly held feelings about the Bill on both sides of the House are not lost on him. Will he use his good offices to ensure that—notwithstanding an emergency—no ministerial or other statements will be made on that day that would eat into the already limited time that Back Benchers will have?
Mr. Hain: I am aware of the many strong feelings among hon. Members on the matter. I can assure my hon. Friend that more than adequate time will be provided for a full debate in which all the issues can be raised. There are no plans for a statement at the moment, but in politics one can never anticipate what may arise. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the working of Prime Minister's Question Time and will he consider extending it to 40 minutes? As I am sure the Leader of the House is aware, yesterday out of 535 lines in Hansard, 216 were taken up in an exchange between the

1017
Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative party. Last week, of 652 lines in Hansard, 246 were taken up by that exchange. Some 650-odd other right hon. and hon. Members might wish to catch the Speaker's eye and if the time were extended to 40 minutes, it would give us a better chance.
Mr. Hain: When I next need advice on Prime Minister's questions, I shall turn to the hon. Gentleman, as he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of them. For the period that it has operated—in this Parliament and the previous one—the half-hour provided for Prime Minister's questions has been very successful in enabling the House to hold the Prime Minister to account. That is what he wants, and we do not need to extend the time any further.
Kevin Brennan: On the matter of the timing of the Report stage and Third Reading of the Pensions Bill, will my right hon. Friend pass on to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister my thanks for the remarks that he has made in Prime Minister's questions—including this week to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan)—and for the work that has been done by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor to try to find a solution to the problem of the 60,000 people who have lost their pensions? But will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House also convey the necessity for the Government to produce their conclusions on that work before Report, which will be the last opportunity that the House will have to influence the issue?
Mr. Hain: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done on behalf of the Allied Steel and Wire
1018
workers in Cardiff, who—like many others—were scandalously robbed of their pensions. We are anxious to resolve the matter if we can in a way that does not read across to other areas and cost taxpayers billions of pounds in extra claims for compensation because of the collapse of private schemes across the country. I am grateful for his comments about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's words yesterday. If there is a way to achieve our aims, there is certainly a will to do so on the part of the Government, and we will do all that we can to secure that outcome.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Leader of the House turn his attention back to what the website of The Daily Telegraph calls "Thieving, laziness and utter chaos in the post"? He has dealt with the thieving and laziness allegations, but in my constituency and in Hampshire there is utter chaos, with people not receiving their deliveries until well after lunch. It is not the second delivery that has been abolished, but the first delivery. Can the Minister responsible come to the House and explain how the Post Office can compete with new, electronic forms of communication, when the service now appears to be so unreliable?
Mr. Hain: I remember when I was a researcher for the Post Office workers' union, many years ago, that most union members argued that the second delivery was a protection to ensure that the first delivery arrived on time. At any rate, that has been changed. It is a matter for Royal Mail, but I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman made, especially in respect of his constituency. If he has accurately depicted the situation there, it is obviously of great concern.

Council Tax Capping
1.14 pm
The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about how the Government propose to handle those local authorities that have set excessive budgets for the current year.
The average increase in council tax in England this year is 5.9 per cent. That is less than half the previous year's increase, and lower than many people predicted. It is also the lowest for the last nine years. A large number of authorities have set lower council tax increases than they originally proposed, following the Government's strong messages to local authorities that high increases were both unacceptable, and unnecessary. They are unacceptable, because people are rightly concerned about increasing council tax bills. They are unnecessary because, for two years running, the Government have provided all local authorities with above-inflation increases in general grant.
Nevertheless, some authorities' budget and council tax increases are still too high and impose unreasonable burdens on council tax payers. The Government therefore intend to take action against those authorities whose budget requirements they consider to be excessive. That is not something that we are doing lightly. The Government attach great importance to local accountability and believe that first and foremost it is for local authorities to set their council tax and justify it to their local electors. However, we also have a duty to protect council tax payers from increases that we believe to be excessive. Many people, including representatives of pensioner interests, have urged us to use our capping powers.
After this Government came to power, we replaced the previous Government's crude and universal capping regime with new reserve powers that are more discriminating and flexible. As well as the option of in-year capping, the Secretary of State now has the power to set a notional budget to be used for future comparisons or to cap the following year's budget. The experience of last year, when council tax rose by an average of 12.9 per cent., showed us that not all local authorities can be relied on to behave responsibly when setting their budgets and council tax.
Of course, it is not just the percentage increase in council tax that is relevant. We have first to decide whether an authority's budget requirement is excessive. In doing so, we have used the following principles. These are described in more detail in a report that is being placed in the Library of the House. In the case of unitary authorities, London boroughs, metropolitan districts, counties, the Greater London authority and the Isles of Scilly, our view is that budget requirements are excessive if they involve an increase of more than 6.5 per cent. over last year's budget and if council tax has increased by more than 8.5 per cent. over the same period.
Shire districts are in a different position, as this year authorities no longer have to contribute 5 per cent. towards the cost of council tax and housing benefit. While that change has also affected some other local authorities, the amount involved represents a relatively insignificant element of their budgets whereas the change to shire district councils' much smaller budgets
1020
represents a considerable saving to them. We have therefore judged their budget requirements to be excessive if they are more than 2 per cent. higher than last year and, again, if council tax has increased by more than 8.5 per cent. As those are small authorities, whose increases in council tax may be correspondingly small in absolute terms, we have introduced a further test by applying those principles only to district councils with a band D council tax for 2004–05 greater than the shire district average.
Police and fire authorities also have a duty to be efficient and to act responsibly in setting their precepts. At the same time, we recognise that those services face particular pressures. We have therefore judged their budget requirements to be excessive if their budgets are more than 7 per cent. higher than last year and if their precepts have increased by more than 13 per cent. As those are single-purpose authorities, whose precept increases may be relatively small in absolute terms, we have applied a similar de minimis principle to that for shire districts. The principles have therefore been applied only to police and fire authorities with band D precepts for 2004–05 greater than the average for the relevant category of authority—either metropolitan or shire police, and either metropolitan or combined fire authorities.
Calculations relating to the combined fire authorities and their constituent authorities are based on figures in "The Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Alternative Notional Amounts) Report (England) 2004/05", which was approved by the House on Monday. Those figures take account of the fact that combined fire authorities have become major precepting bodies for the first time this year. The alternative notional amounts for 2003–04 allow like-for-like comparisons to be made with this year.
As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State has a number of options for dealing with authorities that have set excessive budgets. He may either designate an authority and proceed to cap it in-year, or he may nominate it and then either set a notional budget requirement to be used for future comparisons or designate it for next year.
According to the principles I have described, four unitary authorities and two shire district councils have set excessive budgets this year. They are Herefordshire, Nottingham, Telford and Wrekin, Torbay, Fenland and Shepway. We are writing to them today informing them that the Secretary of State is designating them for 2004–05 and setting a maximum budget. The authorities have 21 days in which to respond. We will carefully consider the representations that they make and the information that we have required them to send us. We will then either make an order, to be approved by Parliament, designating them at the level of the proposed maximum budget or another level, or we will withdraw the designation and nominate them instead.
Also according to the principles I have described, three police authorities and five fire authorities have set excessive budgets this year. They are the police authorities of Cumbria, Northamptonshire and West Mercia, and the fire authorities of Bedfordshire, Durham, Essex, Hereford and Worcester and Nottinghamshire. We are writing to the police authorities and four of the five fire authorities informing them that the Secretary of State is nominating them. In

1021
the light of the information that we have required them to send us and any information that they themselves want to provide, we will then take decisions about whether to set notional budget requirements for 2004–05 against which increases in 2005–06 will be measured, or to designate them in respect of 2005–06.
However, one of the fire authorities—Hereford and
Worcester—has set very large increases in its budget and council tax precept: a 19.4 per cent. increase in budget and a 29.4 per cent. increase in precept. We are therefore writing to that authority, informing it that the Secretary of State is designating it for 2004–05. The calculation of the maximum amount and the procedure to be followed are the same as for the unitary authorities and the shire districts.
We believe that the actions that we are taking represent a measured response to the increases that we have seen this year. We are pleased that many authorities have heeded our warnings, but some have not. We will listen carefully to the cases put forward by the authorities that I have named where justified, we will use the greater flexibility afforded by our new capping powers. However, authorities should be in no doubt that the Government mean business.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for his usual courtesy in making a copy of his statement available in good time.
What we have just heard is the culmination of a sorry story of fiddled figures and broken promises ending in a finale that may make the Deputy Prime Minister feel good, but which will do nothing to address the underlying driver of soaring council taxes—fiddled local funding from Whitehall and the never-ending torrent of new burdens, targets and red tapes from his interfering Department.
In opposition, Labour pledged to end capping and in 1999, it brought in a Bill to create a new capping regime. In 2002, it pledged that no authority rated good or excellent in the comprehensive performance assessment would be subject to capping powers; today two such authorities are in the list that has Just been announced, making a mockery of the whole costly CPA process and the billion pounds a year of council tax payers' money that it costs.
While the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is posturing about keeping council tax down, a senior Treasury official disclosed yesterday to the Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee that the Treasury believes that it could more than double in future. So is it too high already, as the ODPM seems to think, or can it more than double as the Treasury apparently believes? Can the Minister clarify whether the Deputy Prime Minister or the Chancellor is now running council tax policy?
Until recently, the Government's policy was at least coherent, if grossly unfair. It changed the grant formula to channel funding away from the southern part of the country to the north and to the midlands—that is not my assessment, but that of the Audit Commission in its December 2003 report—while, at the same time, it piled on additional cost burdens and responsibilities that local authorities were required to fund. The
1022
Government made no attempt to conceal the fact that their policy would lead to higher council taxes in areas that Ministers considered could afford to pay them.
So what has changed? Ministers have been galvanised into action of a sort by polling evidence that shows that the public has not been fooled; they know that the responsibility for high council taxes and high council tax increases lies firmly with this Government. However, instead of addressing the real issue of authorities, such as my own in Runnymede, whose budgets have not increased significantly but which have had to increase council tax because of cuts in Government grant, the use of the double threshold—the increase in budget and the increase in tax—in the criteria that the Minister has used for capping means that the Government are ignoring the problems of these councils. The problem is of the Government's, not the councils', making.
After record increases last year that went unchecked, this year the Government have been panicked into a response. Herefordshire, for example—a good authority according to the Audit Commission—has by no means the largest increase over two years in its group. However, the Minister, by focusing on just one year in his criteria, has allowed local authorities such as Southampton and Portsmouth, with larger increases over the two years, to sneak through the net.
The use of arbitrary criteria and the double threshold has had perverse effects. Six uncapped unitaries have higher percentage budget increases than Telford and Wrekin and five have higher percentage band D precept increases. Yet Telford and Wrekin gets capped; others do not—fiddled capping on top of fiddled funding. Can the Minister explain why he did not apply a test of absolute council tax levels to the unitaries—distinguishing high-taxing councils from those with a relatively high single-year increase—as he has done with every other category of authority capped?
For all the authorities designated today for in-year capping, the Minister has carefully avoided detailing the maximum budgets that the Secretary of State will set for those authorities. Can the Minister confirm whether those budgets will be set to bring those authorities to the ceiling increase for their category in each case, or will increases above the ceiling be allowed to avoid drastic service cuts? Will the capping process be arm's length, or will ODPM officials be involved in defining areas for cuts within the budget?
Can the Minister also tell us what the cost of re-billing for those authorities will be in aggregate? My calculation is that well over £1 million will be spent sending out new council tax bills, necessitating further cuts in front-line services. That is just the cost of sending out the bills; there will be further substantial cash-flow and collection failure costs associated with re-billing.
The combined fire authorities, five of which are being capped, find themselves in a particularly difficult situation, facing the pressures of the Government's modernisation programme against a very tight timetable and, at the same time, precepting and building reserves for the first time this year. I can tell the Minister, if he is not already aware, that the costs of the regional structures that he has introduced to the fire service are already spiralling out of control of the fire authorities that constitute them. If he is not careful, he will have his very own Holyrood in the regional control structure. In

1023
the case of Hereford and Worcester fire authority, whose budget has to be cut in-year as a designated authority, deep cuts in front-line services are certain to be required.
What the Government have done is apply a sticking plaster to a gaping wound. Unless they are prepared to engage realistically with local authorities about the Government's expectations for service delivery and council tax levels in 2005–06 and beyond, and unless the Government are prepared to commit to fully funding all the additional cost pressures imposed by them, as well as changing the formula to reverse the drain of money away from the south and south east, the future for millions of council tax payers will be one of higher taxes or continuous, incremental cuts in services.
The capping process, which the Government promised would be a lifeboat for pensioners and those on fixed incomes, has ended up as a shipwreck of a policy—unfair, untransparent and ineffective, and designed to distract public attention from the real underlying problem that is wholly of the Government's making. For all the bluster and all the macho posturing, at the end of the process, council tax payers, councils and local authority service users have once again been let down by Labour.
Mr. Raynsford: I was particularly interested in the use of the words "macho posturing" by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). The House will have noticed that there was no indication from the official Opposition about whether they would use capping powers or not. We know very well that when they were in government, they capped—indeed, they capped repeatedly, in a crude and unfair way—but now that they are in opposition, they are trying to give a different impression, so they go and speak to local government, saying, "We're your friends. We won't cap." [Interruption.] Yes, indeed. They give clear indications to local government that they will not use capping powers, but in the House they do not dare say that because they know very well what the public reaction would be.
The Opposition's policy is non-credible, first because they do not come clean about their attitude towards capping, and secondly because their policy is to freeze local government—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must answer the questions. The statement is not about the Opposition's policy.
Mr. Raynsford: I will certainly respond to the questions, Mr. Speaker. I was simply pointing out the inconsistency of the position adopted by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge referred to fiddled figures. The figures are not fiddled. They show generous grant increases to every authority in the country. Every single local authority had an above-inflation grant increase. That never happened when his party was in power. He referred to the capping of good and excellent authorities. Because we had given the pledge last year that we would not cap good and
1024
excellent authorities although some of them had very large increases, including Conservative Wandsworth, which led the field with the largest council tax increase last year, we did not cap those authorities. We had given a pledge and we honoured it, but we made it clear this year that, because of the irresponsible behaviour of a small number of authorities that had no regard for prudence, that pledge would no longer apply.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about posturing to keep council tax down. The Government have acted to get council tax down from the very high levels last year. It is Labour councils that have led the way, with the lowest increases, averaging 4.7 per cent., compared with increases of 5.4 per cent. from Conservative authorities. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the shift of resources. Yes, we accept that resources have been shifted to give a greater reward for deprivation, and it is right that we should do so—[Interruption]—but they have not been shifted in favour of one political party.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) would do well to look at the figures, because he will see that Conservative authorities received an average 6.1 per cent. grant increase this year, compared with only 5.9 per cent. for Labour authorities. I hope he will withdraw the entirely unjustified comment that he made from a sedentary position, implying political bias.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge drew a veil over Runnymede's own council tax increase—more than 17 per cent. He will know that because of the criteria that we have adopted, we are not proposing to nominate or designate Runnymede, but I remind him that Runnymede got a very good grant increase from the Government and we expect it to budget prudently with that grant increase.
The hon. Gentlemen asked about the decisions to cap some authorities and not others, and asked why some with ostensibly higher council tax increases were not capped. He will know from the statement, which he has seen in advance, that there are two or three criteria, and only where all the criteria apply will we exercise our powers. That is why some authorities—Runnymede is a good example, as it has a large headline council tax increase, but not a large budget increase—are not within the capping frame. That is the logic of the principles that I outlined.
The hon. Gentleman said that there would be costs associated with re-billing. There will be costs where re-billing is required, but he will recognise that there will not be re-billing in all cases. In the case of the three police authorities and four of the five fire authorities, we have not suggested re-billing because we are proposing only to nominate.
Finally, with regard to fire authorities, the Government have invested substantially and will go on investing in the fire service to ensure that it is capable of doing all the tasks that it must perform and saving more lives. That is our objective. We expect authorities to use the extra money that we are providing and to do so prudently, but we also expect them, as Sir George Bain said in his report, to make the most of the available opportunities for achieving economies. That is why we are applying exactly the same principles to fire authorities as we are to police authorities, and we cannot exempt them from capping.

1025
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that only in the case of Hereford and Worcester, an authority that has gone for an enormously high increase both in budget and in council tax, have we proposed that it should be subject to in-year capping. I hope he will recognise that his party's position is non-credible, and that the Government are acting prudently to defend the interest of council tax payers from irresponsible decisions by some authorities.
Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance notice of it. I am surprised that as he read it, he did not choke on some of the words he was using.
How can the Minister impose random and heavy cuts on local services for pensioners and children when the independent Audit Commission said that it is the Government's council tax system that is "fundamentally flawed"? How can the Minister pretend to be the friend of local government and local democracy when he is reverting to the old Tory tricks that he used to vote against?
The absurdity of capping can be revealed by looking at any of the councils affected, but let us take Shepway. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit, for the record, that the 29 per cent. rise this year comes after a 10-year average rise of just 3 per cent.? Will he acknowledge that whereas the average band D council tax in England has gone up in the past 10 years by 94 per cent., in Shepway it has risen by only 37.4 per cent." Will he admit that when the Liberal Democrats took over Shepway council from the Conservatives last May, they inherited a council that had suffered years of poor financial management and was spending more than it was raising, with no financial reserves? Why, then, has the Minister not taken account of local circumstances and given local politicians the chance to do what they were elected for, to put right the Tory mess?
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) is with a parliamentary delegation meeting His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. My hon. Friend has explained to me that Torbay has the second lowest council tax in Devon, yet is being penalised for a social services overspend from last year's budget set by a Conservative administration. Torbay's rise, whether over the past two or past three years, is still lower than that of Devon or Plymouth, which are not capped. Where is the consistency and fairness in that? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the principles behind that decision?
Why is the Minister capping Telford and Wrekin when it was deemed an excellent council, and he previously promised "freedoms and flexibilities" to such councils? Ministers are capping councils such as Shepway, Torbay and Telford not because it makes sense for local people, as they will now be hit by Labour cuts, but because capping will get a desperate Government some short-term friendly newspaper headlines.
As for fire and police authorities, the Minister has again gone for the wrong solution. Surely he should make them more accountable to local people, not less. What discussions did he have with the Home Secretary before deciding on cuts to the police?
The Government are spinning today that they are the great white knights riding to the defence of local people. In reality, they are the ignorant classroom bully
1026
attacking the vulnerable. The Government should not be capping council tax. They should be scrapping it altogether.
Mr. Raynsford: There was nothing random about the decisions that we announced to the House today. We have made clear the principles on which we are applying the caps. The people of Shepway will not be terribly impressed by the hon. Gentleman's comments that it is absurd—that was his word—to stop that council imposing a 28.4 per cent. increase in council tax, the highest by any shire district council in the country. The people of Torbay will not think it is absurd for us to take action to save them from the largest increase proposed by any unitary authority in the country.
The Liberal Democrats do not have a good record on this. The average increase in council tax this year is 4.7 per cent. for Labour authorities, 5.4 per cent. for Tory authorities and 6 per cent. for Liberal Democrat authorities. No wonder the Liberal Democrats are trying to defend their high-spending friends. They are clearly a high-tax party. There is no justification for the hon. Gentleman's criticisms.
The hon. Gentleman is not right to claim that the Audit Commission identified the Government's policies as the largest single source of blame for council tax increases. On the contrary—James Strachan, the chair of the Audit Commission, has made it very clear that there is no single source of blame, so speaking in those terms is not helpful. I hope the hon. Gentleman will do his homework more thoroughly in future.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that Durham fire authority has one of the best records in the whole country, but has now been one of the worst-resourced authorities for many years? Is he also aware that, on a number of occasions, my colleagues and I have met Ministers who agree that Durham has a problem, mainly because of pension payments that come from the revenue fund? We now have a situation in which the Government will not adequately fund the service in Durham and will not allow the fire authority to fund itself. If there is an unforeseen problem because of underfunding in Durham, who will take the blame? Who will be responsible—an efficient fire authority that has done its best in difficult circumstances, or Ministers who won't damn well listen?
Mr. Raynsford: The Government are funding fire authorities, including Durham, which received a 3.5 per cent. increase in grant this year. Like other fire authorities, Durham is also benefiting from the substantial investment that the Government are putting into the new dimension programme to equip fire brigades far more effectively to cope with the new dimension of terrorist threats. The fire authority has been put forward for nomination, which means that it will not be required to cut its budget in the current year. We are proposing to nominate the authority, and depending on what evidence it gives to us in the next 21 days—as I have made it clear, we are open to representations from authorities in that period—we will decide how to take things forward.

1027
I assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to enabling all fire authorities to deliver their service effectively, and in a cost-effective way that does not impose unreasonable burdens on council tax payers.
Mr. Tim Collins: Does the Minister accept that his decision to cap Cumbria police authority has been greeted with concern and alarm by many in the county, including senior police officers? Is he aware that Cumbria has succeeded in recruiting an extra 87 police officers in the past three years, but that if it had received all those paid for in additional council tax, it would have had another 165 officers? In other words, if we had been reliant on Home Office funding, we would have seen a cut of 78 police officers. A MORI poll showed that 79 per cent. of people in Cumbria support extra council tax to pay for extra police officers, which is also supported by all three main parties in the county. The result of his decision, on a day on which violent crime in Cumbria has been confirmed to have risen by 19 per cent. in the past year, is that there will be fewer police officers than everyone in the county believes to be necessary. Will he meet a cross-party delegation of MPs from the county, plus the police authority, in the next 21 days, so that it can explain to him why he has got this matter badly wrong?
Mr. Raynsford: Of course we will accept representations. I do not know whether it will be possible to arrange for a delegation to see us, but we will certainly accept representations from the Cumbria police authority, as from all affected authorities. The hon. Gentleman's own figures, however, demonstrated the success of the Government's policy. The substantial increase in the number of police officers in Cumbria has been the result of substantial additional investment.
It is proposed that Cumbria's council tax will increase by 15 per cent. this year. At £150, the amount will be 24 per cent. higher than the average for shire police authorities. The authority's budget has increased by 7.3 per cent., which, along with that of West Mercia police authority, is the highest increase for any police authority. Clearly, it behoves all authorities, whether they are police, fire or other authorities, to look at their costs in comparison with those of other authorities and to try to operate in the most cost-effective way. I hope that the authority will do that, but as I said, we will be happy to receive representations from it.
Mr. Eric Martlew: The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) failed to tell us that in 1996, the last year of Conservative Government, there were 1,115 police officers in Cumbria, while at the end of this year, there will be 1,231—an increase of 116.
The Minister has fallen into the trap of imposing a universal cap, whereas local people should be able to take the decision. As has been pointed out, a MORI poll says that the vast majority of people in Cumbria were in favour of increasing tax for the police. To some extent, the police authority was misled by indications that, if the increase was less than 15 per cent., it would not be capped. I should be grateful if the Minister agreed to receive an all-party delegation to discuss this matter. I
1028
do not think that what has been announced is particularly drastic for Cumbria police, but it will create a problem for us.
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the increased investment to which I referred in responding to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). There has been a substantial increase in police numbers, and those numbers are not affected by our proposal this year. We are not proposing to cap Cumbria police authority this year; we are proposing a nomination. We will obviously listen to representations, and I shall take on board my hon. Friend's request for an all-party delegation to put forward whatever concerns it wishes to express on behalf of Cumbria police authority. When we have received the representations and considered any points that are put to us, we will reach final decisions, but I can assure him that this is not a universal cap, because it is proposed only to nominate Cumbria police authority, and not to designate it, so there would be no reduction in this year's budget.
Several hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I shall try to call every hon. Member who has been standing, but I hope that forthcoming contributions will be briefer than those that we have heard on behalf of Cumbria. That would be extremely helpful.
Mr. Kevan Jones: When I was in local government, I always thought that capping was both a crude and a crass way of controlling local government finance. My position has not changed, unlike that of the Minister, whose statement reinforces the reasons why. Durham fire authority has worked responsibly over the past 12 months with ODPM officials to strip out £1.3 million from the budget. As the authority is only 1.6 per cent. over the cap, why did that discussion and work not continue? Having been added to the list, Durham could face re-billing, which would cost £700,000 and do nothing to improve fire safety or good relations between local government and Whitehall in Durham.
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend may have misunderstood the statement, as there is no question of Durham fire authority being required to re-bill. We are not proposing to designate Durham fire authority; we are simply proposing to nominate it. That indicates that we will either set a maximum budget for 2005–06, or make a notional budget for 2004–05 and take that into account when considering next year's budget and council tax increases. There is no question of re-billing in the current year.
My hon. Friend referred to the work that we have been doing with Durham, along with other fire authorities, to help to modernise the fire service, improve the service that is delivered to local people and save lives. We will go on doing that, but it is not possible to have individual discussions with individual authorities when dealing with an issue about using capping powers that must be applied across the board in a fair and impartial way to all authorities, according to set principles. That is what we have done.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I congratulate the Minister on capping Torbay, a third of which is in my

1029
constituency. Does he agree that the Torbay Liberals have been cocking a snook at the Government by increasing council tax by more than five times the rate of inflation and promising £100 cashback to every council tax payer if they got into office? Is he aware that, rather than cutting out waste, the Torbay Liberal Democrats favour surveys on tombstones, which they say it is their statutory duty to carry out on health and safety grounds, but have closed the loos in Torbay because they say that it is not their statutory duty to maintain them? What can he do to prevent Torbay council, which is facing capping, from causing council tax payers further inconvenience?
Mr. Raynsford: I cannot say that I will visit Torbay to see the local facilities, but Torbay council should operate prudently and cautiously. It received a generous 6.9 per cent. grant increase from the Government this year, and the proposed 9.9 per cent. council tax increase is excessive. This is not, however, the first time that it has made large council tax increases, because it also made them when it was under Conservative control.
Mr. Peter Luff: On balance, I welcome the Minister's comments about Hereford and Worcester fire authority and West Mercia constabulary, but 1 am not sure whether the Labour chairman of the fire authority will see it that way. Does he understand that the consequences could be serious, because those authorities can no longer impose the Chancellor's stealth tax to make up the gap between what the Government expect them to provide and what they can provide under the rigged funding formula, which monstrously discriminates against Herefordshire and Worcestershire?
Mr. Raynsford: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. He will recognise that we are trying to proceed in a measured, cautious and responsible way to ensure that authorities budget prudently. However, the figures show that the Government have given substantial additional grant to all authorities: for the past two years, every authority in England has received an above-inflation grant increase, which did not happen when the Conservative party was in power.
Alan Simpson: Will the Minister urgently meet the local authority in Nottingham to discuss his capping proposals? The city is affected by a degree of consternation, because, prior to the authority's inclusion in The Sunday Times lists this week, there had been no indication either at a national level or through the Government office for the region that the budget in any way fell foul of Government guidelines on capping. If the cap is a result of a misunderstanding about the apportionment of costs previously attributable to the fire authority, will the Minister discuss the matter with the local authority and the three local Members of Parliament, which will hopefully resolve the confusion and disagreement on an amicable and constructive basis?
Mr. Raynsford: We will certainly listen to representations from Nottingham, as with any other authority, but the local authority should not be confused. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime
1030
Minister, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), and I repeatedly said in this House that we expected authorities to budget prudently this year, and that we would use our council tax powers if authorities did not do so.
In mid to late-February, an evening paper in Nottingham carried an article speculating whether the council tax increase would actually be much higher than that suggested by the authority. Because the authority's figures implied that the increase would be low, we did not to invite it in for a meeting. The evening paper carried a comment from an ODPM spokesperson, who said that if Nottingham proceeded with its 7.8 per cent. increase, which was the figure quoted at that time, it would be in the danger zone for capping, so the evidence that Nottingham would be open to capping if it did not moderate its budget is clear. However, I am happy to receive representations from Nottingham, and I hear my hon. Friend's request for a delegation.
Mr. Paul Keetch: As the only hon. Member from Herefordshire who is present in the Chamber, I tell the Minister that the people of Herefordshire will be triply affected by today's announcements that Herefordshire council is being capped, that the fire authority is being capped and that the police authority is being nominated. Is he aware of the attitude of the leader of Herefordshire council, who tries to blame almost everybody else for the council tax rise? The council blames the Government, the previous Administration and the police and fire authority. Indeed, the deputy leader of the council blames me for the cap because I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister about my constituents. Will the Minister tell the House that the only people who are to blame for today's announcement are the Conservative and independent leaders of Herefordshire council? Will he assure the council and my constituents that projects that we have worked for in Herefordshire for a very long time, such as flood defence for the city of Hereford and the Rotherwas relief road, will not be affected by our council's poor management, and that the Government will listen on the campaigns that we have worked so hard for?
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and note that his tone is rather different from that of his Front Benchers. He did not describe as "absurd" our approach to Herefordshire council, West Mercia police authority or Hereford and Worcester fire authority. Herefordshire council received an excellent 7.5 per cent. grant increase, and, given those circumstances, it is difficult to understand why it is trying to proceed with a very large council tax increase. We will obviously listen to representations from Herefordshire council and other interested parties, but the Government's action is a measured response to unreasonable pressure, which will cause considerable hardship and anger among council tax payers in the hon. Gentleman's county if it is not dealt with.
Mr. Graham Allen: Members of Parliament from Nottingham, including my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who sits on the Front Bench, are surprised by the announcement. The excellent and

1031
improving Nottingham City council has worked closely with the Government to tackle chronic problems with education and law and order. The surprise stems from the fact that we had no letter of warning, unlike other authorities, and that we were not called in to meet Ministers or officials, unlike other authorities.
We cannot make policy on the back of what may or may not appear in the local paper. We were assured by departmental officials at the Government office for the region level that we were on course for a reasonable settlement. I hope that the Minister will concede that there has been a communications breakdown, to put it charitably, and that he will reinforce the point, which he has already expressed, that he will meet the leader of the council and the chief executive to allow Nottingham to do what it wants to do and come into compliance immediately.
Mr. Raynsford: I agree with my hon. Friend's final view, but I must say that our position was not based on newspaper reports—it was based on the figures in the council's own press releases of 3 March and 9 March, both of which referred to a 4.5 per cent. increase in council tax. If he is saying that the ODPM should have invited in the authority for a warning meeting, all I can say is that we would have done so if the authority had produced the figures. We did not receive any figures, even via the Government office for the region, indicating that a warning meeting was necessary; instead, the evidence suggested that the council was considering a much lower increase.
Mr. Mark Francois: Understandably, today's announcement has caused considerable concern in Essex. In the conclusion to his statement, the Minister said, "We will listen carefully to the cases put forward by the authorities that I have named." May I take him entirely at his word? Is he prepared to accept a delegation, including the chief fire officer, from the Essex combined fire authority—I would also like to be involved—so that we can put our case to him in person? He knows that the situation is complex and that there are a number of nuances, not least the fact that, in this one-off situation, the fire authority has had to establish a sizeable reserve for a service that deals with a county containing more than 1.5 million people. Will he listen to us and allow us to put our case to him face to face, because we would be grateful?
Mr. Raynsford: I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to all hon. Members who have made similar requests, that we will certainly listen carefully to any representations, and I will certainly consider his request to receive a delegation. He knows that the process must be completed within 21 days because of the statutory obligation. I do not want to fail to consider everyone simply because it is not possible to programme all meetings into that period, but I will do my best.
Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that law and order is one of my constituents' biggest concerns? My local police authority has caused some problems, which were
1032
recently highlighted in a critical inspection report. Will he therefore carefully examine the information from Northamptonshire police on how grant decisions have impacted disproportionately on it? Will he also consider next year's position and examine the particular service difficulty problems, so that my constituents experience both reasonable council tax bills and a steady improvement in policing that is consistent with the Government's increased investment?
Mr. Raynsford: I hear my hon. Friend's comments. She is right that concerns have been expressed about Northamptonshire police authority, and my colleagues in the Home Office drew my attention to them. We will do all that we can to help the police authority improve its performance and meet the needs and expectations of the people whom it is there to serve. It has received a large budget increase—the third highest for a police authority in the country—and under the principles that I set out, it is not possible to exempt it. My hon. Friend knows that we do not propose to cap it this year, and simply propose to nominate it. I hope that that gives her some comfort, and we will certainly listen to representations from her and anyone else affected by its work.
Mr. John Maples: It will come as a great disappointment to people in my constituency that he has not capped Warwickshire county council and Warwickshire police authority. The county council precept has risen by 6.5 per cent. this year on top of 8 per cent. last year and 12 per cent. the year before; and the police authority precept has gone up by 8 per cent. this year on top of 15 per cent. last year and 20 per cent. the year before. People simply cannot afford those inflation-busting increases. Surely, those authorities are either setting responsible budgets, in which case the Government are not giving them enough grant, or setting irresponsible budgets, in which case the Government should cap them.
Mr. Raynsford: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I wish that he would speak more often to his Front-Bench colleagues, who take a rather different view on capping. We looked carefully at all relevant authorities, including Warwickshire county council and Warwickshire police authority. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the principles that I set out, and he will know that neither the county council nor the police authority fell within those criteria. We want all authorities to budget prudently—that is the message that the Deputy Prime Minister and I have given repeatedly in this House, and which I gave again today—and we expect them to look very carefully at reducing even further the increases that they have made in the current year. The capping principles are measured and are designed, unlike the old capping regime, not to penalise crudely all authorities. Neither Warwickshire council nor Warwickshire police authority came under those measures this year, but they should certainly keep a close watch on their budgets.
Phil Sawford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Northamptonshire is currently funded below the formula funding level and that as a result it has a shortfall of some £2.2 million? To bridge

1033
that funding gap, the police authority has introduced a precept that is perhaps higher than it otherwise would have wished. In those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend believe it reasonable or fair to penalise the police authority?
Mr. Raynsford: We are not penalising the police authority, but nominating it because its budget increase was the third highest of any in the country and involved a significant increase in the precept imposed on council taxpayers. I have to say to my hon. Friend that the record shows that Northamptonshire police authority has received above-inflation grant increases in each of the past two years. Funding will continue to go into Northamptonshire. We want to work with the police authority to meet the needs of its people and to provide the high-quality service that they expect.
Richard Younger-Ross: Surely today's statement represents a failure of Government policy with regard to fire authorities. After all, the Minister was advised by fire authorities that trouble would be caused by the modernisation process and transitions to combined authorities. Under his proposals, 20 per cent. of fire authorities are to be capped. When he talks to those aurthorities, will he ensure that fire safety comes first, not his accountant's slide rule? As for what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), I think that he is suffering from selective memory and using selective statistics. This is clearly a case of selective authorities.
Mr. Raynsford: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, who served on the Committee that considered the Fire and Rescue Services Bill earlier this year, that the Government are absolutely committed to saving lives and to reducing the number of deaths, and we have put in place many measures to help to improve the efficiency of fire authorities all over the country. That is compatible, as the Bain report said, with making significant efficiency savings, for which there is considerable scope. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman and his party have not been more assiduous in looking for ways in which rather outdated and expensive practices can be reformed to ensure that fire authorities provide a high-quality service that saves lives and meets the needs of their communities. That is what we are committed to doing, and nothing in today's statement is incompatible with it. All that we are doing, unlike the hon. Gentleman's party, is protecting council tax payers from unreasonable rises in council tax.
Peter Bradley: I cannot say that I welcome the statement. I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my disappointment that such a well-regarded authority as Telford and Wrekin faces capping. There cannot be a better example of the tension between simultaneously delivering high-quality services and low council tax increases.
I welcome the opportunity for representations. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that Telford and Wrekin faces particular difficulties, including its historically low council tax, its low asset base, and the implications for its funding of the population undercount? Does he agree that capping for 0.1 per cent.
1034
above the limit may not be the most appropriate, constructive or proportionate way forward; and that the best outcome for the council and the community would be to avoid capping and protect services this year, while working constructively with the council towards a more sustainable council tax increase next year?
Mr. Raynsford: I welcome the constructive approach that my hon. Friend has adopted. I certainly share his disappointment, but I note that Telford and Wrekin received very generous grant increases of not only 8 per cent. this year, but 8.7 per cent. last year and 7.4 per cent. the year before that. The Government are making substantial grant increases, and we expect authorities to budget prudently to ensure that they do not impose unreasonably large council tax increases.
I take my hon. Friend's point, but he will know that in the case of any set of principles, some authorities will be just above and some will be just below. That poses questions about whether it would be appropriate to require re-billing. We will certainly listen carefully to any representations that he or Telford and Wrekin council wish to make.
David Wright: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) and express my disappointment that West Mercia police authority has been capped. It is a large, rural police authority area that is spending its additional council tax income on recruiting new police officers and community support officers. Indeed, in the past year we have seen 38 new police officers and 21 new community support officers in the constituencies of Telford and the Wrekin. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the nomination process will not place those officers under threat and that the budget will be protected to ensure that police services for the community throughout West Mercia continue to improve?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend has taken a great interest, as has his hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), in the position in Telford and Wrekin. On the West Mercia police authority, he will be aware that the budget increase that it proposes is the largest, along with that of Cumbria, of any police authority. It would therefore be wrong of the Government not to consider taking action. As he will know, we are proposing to nominate West Mercia not to cap in-year. I therefore assure him that there is no reason why any changes should be made this year to what the police authority plans to do to meet the needs of the people of West Mercia.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the light of the generous increases in council tax funding that the Government have recently supplied and the abatement of council tax increases among local authorities in the past year, it is particularly disappointing that it should be necessary to introduce capping? That is a sad day for the durable nature of central-local relations in future, irrespective of whether the capping is sophisticated and selective or crude and universal.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the progress of the balance of funding review that he set up a little while ago? Will he ensure that when it reaches its conclusions

1035
its report will be published? Does he agree that the genuine difficulties with several issues relating to council tax, including gearing and the balance of funding, should be given a wide airing to assist with longer-term policy considerations about a durable settlement on local government taxation and the balance of funding between central and local?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is a great expert on these subjects and he raises some pertinent points. I agree that it is a sad day when capping becomes necessary, but he will recognise that following the substantial increases in Government grant it is unacceptable for large increases again to be imposed on council tax payers. We made it very clear that last year's increases were unacceptable, and we therefore had no option but to take action.
We are making good progress on the balance of funding review. We had a further meeting this week, and we are looking carefully at all the relevant issues. As my hon. Friend knows, local government finance is a minefield, and those who promise quick and easy solutions, as the Liberal Democrats keep doing with their promise of a problem-free local income tax, are no more than snake oil salesmen offering an entirely illusory promise. We are considering all the issues carefully and thoroughly, and I hope that we shall produce our report this summer.

Orders of the Day
  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.
  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
    New Clause

      APPLICATION OF PART I
      Lords Reason: 1B
      The Lords insist on their Amendment 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason—
      Because responsibility for drawing up regional spatial strategies should lie with the elected representatives of the communities affected.
      2.10 pm
      The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
      '(2A) The Secretary of State must not give a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a body unless not less than 60% of the persons who are members of the body fall within subsection (2B).
      (2B) A person falls within this subsection if he is a member of any of the following councils or authorities and any part of the area of the council or authority (as the case may be) falls within the region to which the, direction (if given) will relate—

      (a) a district council;

      (b) a county council;

      (c) a metropolitan district council;

      (d) a National Park authority;

      (e) the Broads authority.'.

      Lords Reason 3B and the Government motion to insist on disagreement.
      Keith Hill: Before we move on to the substance of the Government's proposed amendment in lieu, I would be grateful if I could detain the house for a few moments in order to draw hon. Members' attention to just how willing my colleagues and I have been to listen to genuine issues of concern during the passage of this Bill through both Houses. Hon. Members will recall that we did not get the opportunity at the previous stage of the Bill in this House to debate those issues on which the Government had listened and tabled amendments when we could see that such genuine concerns had been raised.
      So let me remind the House that we have introduced amendments that guarantee a statutory role in the regional planning process for county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise, through changes to clause 4. These amendments followed extensive discussions with the Local Government Association and the county councils network, and those organisations have undertaken to play their full part in making the new strategic planning arrangements work.
      We have also introduced amendments that give more influence to the community and other interested parties through the new clause, introduced on Third Reading in the Lords, introducing the regional public participation

      1037
      statement. We have accepted the removal of statements of development principles provisions—that is in clause 41—and retained and strengthened outline planning permission in schedules 6 and 9.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that he did not get time in the earlier stages of the Bill to discuss some of the amendments that the Government have accepted, and which he is now detailing. Perhaps he did not get time because the Government had imposed a timetable on those proceedings, which meant that discussion was not allowed. Surely it is an abuse for the Minister to start going through those measures now.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise that that is not a matter for the Chair. I suspect that it is more a matter for the usual channels.
      Keith Hill: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I might say to the hon. Gentleman, through you, that, as one former Deputy Chief Whip to a current one, I know exactly what game he is playing at this juncture.
      We have strengthened the application of the sustainable development clause—that is clause 38—and introduced amendments to the standard application form provisions to require access and design statements in appropriate circumstances. That is in clause 42. In addition to these amendments, we have also again listened to the debate and brought forward amendments on mezzanine floors, on the requirement to give reasons for substantive decisions, to introduce provisions for temporary stop notices and for appeal on second applications, and today we are also seeking the agreement of the House to amend the major infrastructure provisions to require an economic impact report.
      Against the background of this substantial package of concessions, I have to express my strong disappointment that we are here again today to debate Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 3. I find it difficult to understand the grounds on which these amendments are being pursued. The effect of amendment No. 1 would be to end any system of regional planning where there was not an elected regional assembly. I cannot believe that that is the serious intention of either the official Opposition or the Liberal Democrats, and I am particularly surprised that the Lib Dems continue to cleave to this amendment. I am absolutely certain that they share the Government's belief in the need for strong regional planning.
      Regional planning policies that form part of the development plan are essential to address the particular opportunities and challenges faced by an individual region. Effective regional planning policy is vital to tackle historic regional disparities and respond to the challenges of the modern knowledge economy. We need a system for strategic planning that is based around areas that are interdependent on the ground, not one that is constrained by administrative boundaries. County boundaries simply do not work as the basis for
      1038
      effective strategic planning. Many strategic planning issues cut across county boundaries and are beut dealt with at regional or sub-regional level.
      David Taylor: The region that produced the Minister and in which I still live, the east midlands, has no elected regional assembly. There is some merit in the amendment—although I shall not appear in the Division Lobby with those who are promoting it—in that our region has a Nottingham-Derby dominated caucus that is dumping on the northern parts of Leicestershire the adverse implications of uncontrolled airport expansion, which would be covered by this type of approach to planning. Does the Minister not see that, in the absence of an elected regional assembly, such circumstances can sometimes emerge?
      Keith Hill: I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for an elected regional assembly for the east midlands, the region of his and my birth. In the meantime, however, before that particular utopia is secured, we are best to go forward with the existing regional planning structures, which provide precisely for the kinds of exchanges that could limit the undesirable development mentioned by my hon. Friend. As ever, he and I essentially are on the same tack: two souls with a single mind on this subject. I am grateful that he will be joining me in the Division Lobby; that has not invariably been the case, as he and I well know.
      There are many examples of the existing regional planning bodies coming forward with solutions to the cross-boundary problems that have bedevilled us for years. But under the current system those solutions are hard to put into practice. The system itself is a barrier. However good the solutions are, however much work has gone into preparing them, and however much support they have, they will be only a material consideration when it comes to deciding planning applications, and structure plans can delay them or prevent them from happening.
      I know that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who speaks for the Lib Dems, has concerns about accountability, which 1 understand and appreciate. I have reflected very earnestly on a practical way to respond to these concerns, and I hope that the democratic guarantee that I offer in amendment (a) will commend itself to the hon. Gentleman. I have to say that the alternatives that one might contemplate offer a recipe for delay, obfuscation and perhaps litigation.
      Most uncharacteristically, the approach of the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), smacks just a little of cynicism and opportunism. The Conservative party appears to combine support for regional planning for regions with elected regional assemblies with an equally avid determination that none will actually be established, and with an express intention to campaign against them in regional referendums. He and I both know that this amendment would effectively mean no regional planning. However, regional planning guidance was introduced by the Conservative Administration in 1990, with the publication of RPG15. The Conservative party is the parent of regional planning. This is a case of throwing the baby out with

      1039
      the bath water, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the inconsistency of his position.
      Lords amendment No. 3 is not acceptable because it imposes the burden and bureaucracy of blanket sub-regional planning irrespective of whether it is needed or adds value. Surely it is also defective in that it would require those plans to be drawn up by county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise, but would exclude others who may have an essential and valuable role to play: district councils or the regional development agencies, for example.
      Our package as a whole is the right approach to sub-regional planning and gives a properly central role for county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise. The Bill and our draft guidance to regional planning, planning policy statement 11, in dealing with sub-regional strategies, makes it clear that those should be prepared for areas that are interdependent on the ground and that therefore need a distinct set of sub-regional policies. The Bill and our guidance guarantee that county councils and other authorities with strategic planning responsibilities will advise, and they make it clear that, where appropriate, those bodies are expected to lead on this work.
      I appreciate that this is an important issue to many, and particularly to county councils. There are anxieties about decisions on which areas on the ground warrant a sub-regional strategy. There are concerns about ensuring that counties and other authorities play a full part, and I appreciate them and the fact that perhaps they have not come much to the fore in earlier debates because of the importance of other issues. I believe, however, that our approach to sub-regional planning, which is flexible and practical, is the right one for our communities and our planning system. It does not prescribe an across-the-board, universal requirement for sub-regional plans but fully supports the involvement of sub-regional partners where there is a clear case for sub-regional structures and planning. That will happen within the overall framework of advice from and consultation with local authorities and a local government-led regional planning body.
      I am reasonably confident that it would be otiose, as we say in this place, to make specific provision in the Bill for an essentially flexible and locally and regionally driven arrangement. I note the concerns on the matter, however, and in the light of those, let me say that I am prepared to review the package ahead of the Bill's return to the other place.
      Meanwhile, we ought to reflect on what these Lords amendments would mean. Lords amendment No. 3 would provide for sub-regional plans as part of the regional spatial strategy, with boundaries chosen by the regional planning body because the boundaries of counties do not fit for this purpose. I think that I have made it clear that the difference between us relates to how extensively this principle should be applied. I need to point out to the House, however, that that approach would simply not happen or would be considerably delayed under Lords amendment No. 1.
      I shall now turn to amendment (a). The regional planning process needs to be driven forward by bodies able to represent the region and take a strategic view.
      1040
      Regional chambers are best placed to fulfil that role. We are not suddenly transferring powers from counties to regions. We are removing a filter that has slowed down the expression of strategic regional policies in local plans. We are clearing out a system that allows out-of-date structure plans to take precedence over up-to-date regional plans. Chambers are, of course, not directly elected, but they are representative of both local authorities and wider stakeholders in the region. Local authority members represent their local authority on the regional planning body. Equally, other stakeholder group members, such as business or the voluntary sector, will speak for the interests that they represent.
      Where elected regional assemblies are established, it is right that they should take over responsibility for regional planning But we should not conflate that with reforming the planning system—that reform needs to happen now. Of course, we need the safeguard of democratic accountability, and it needs to be the best one possible, consistent with our current governance arrangements. Local authorities speak for their communities—that is what they are elected to do. This Bill, along with its regulations and guidance, guarantees that theirs will be the loudest voice in regional planning. Local authorities are in the majority on regional chambers, which will be the regional planning bodies. Where there is consensus, the local authority's view will prevail in the RPB's work.
      I recognise the views expressed, and I am willing to move, as in so many other areas, to deal with the concerns. Amendment (a) therefore highlights the leading role of local authorities and provides a statutory guarantee for the future. The Secretary of State will not be able to recognise a body as a regional planning body unless at least 60 per cent. of its members are drawn from county councils, unitary authorities, district councils, national parks authorities or the Broads Authority. I commend the proposal to the House.
      Mr. John Hayes: As ever, the Minister for Housing and Planning makes an eloquent and persuasive case. He started by listing the concessions that the Government have already made. I needed no convincing of what a decent man he is, or that he is prepared to listen to the Opposition's arguments, which are also persuasive, as he has acknowledged. He is moving ever closer to the position articulated by Conservatives and even by Liberal Democrats. Indeed, it is such a persuasive case that it has driver the Liberal Democrats and us—I speak personally in this respect—into a union. Members of the House who know me well will know how difficult that is to achieve, and how important these matters must therefore be.
      The Minister says that his whole strategy would be destroyed if he accepted the Lords amendments. That is not true. The proposals on sub-regional strategies, as requested by Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members in the other place, would add to the Government's intent of producing a system that is coherent and consistent. He says that they will lead to obfuscation and delay. If the price is a system that is effective, truly representative, and that allows properly for the sensitivities and considerations of localities to be taken into account in drawing up these plans, it is a price that we, as democrats, are obliged to pay. Democracy is

      1041
      often inconvenient and sometimes slower than systems that are less democratic, but it is none the worse for that. All Members of the House must defend the right of ordinary people to have their say in these matters, which affect the quality of their lives so directly, and I know that the Minister would be first in the vanguard of that defence. He therefore, ultimately, makes an unconvincing case.
      I find—[Interruption.] I see that the Minister is taking advice from a senior colleague, and perhaps he is going to move even closer to our position. I cannot believe that with his good offices, and with the spirit in which he has spoken to the House today, knowing that the other place is ever willing to try to find a way through these problems, a solution cannot be found. Perhaps it will not be found until this House—or the Opposition at least—has taken the opportunity to press these matters to a vote.
      2.30 pm
      The Minister must, I think, acknowledge that, not for the first time, the Lords speak for the people and the Government speak merely for themselves. That is not just my view. Perhaps surprisingly, the Minister's noble Friend Lord Rooker said in the other place
      "Noble Lords are much more in touch in some ways with what is happening than is sometimes the case elsewhere in this building."
      He recognised that the Lords are often able to articulate a case on behalf of the common man in a way that is sometimes lost to those who have grown grand and privileged on the luxuries and benefits of office. That is not, of course, a position in which we find ourselves, but perhaps one day we shall be subject to the same temptations. I hope that we will resist them in true Tory spirit.
      I note that when word goes out around the Palace that Hill and Hayes are talking again. the Tea Rooms and Restaurants empty and Members flood the Chamber. The Labour Bench is particularly well populated for this debate, by Members who knew that they would be subject to a rare treat in the form of the Minister's peroration.
      The Minister accused me of cynicism, but let me say this: the Lords have properly identified the substantial democratic deficit that lies at the heart of the Government's intentions. I hold no candle for regional assemblies, but I do make a robust case for democratic legitimacy and proper accountability and that is what we are really debating today.
      Three points need to be made. To avoid repetition, for as a matter of habit I try to do that—for the sake of clarity and the record I should perhaps say that, as a matter of habit, I avoid repetition—let me say that the case that the Lords make is threefold.
      First, we have the argument about democratic legitimacy, well made both here and there. The idea that we should transfer or indeed confirm powers—I know the Minister makes the case that they were originally given to regions by a Conservative Government—to bodies on which there are no elected people seems to me unacceptable, and I suspect that it is unacceptable to many Labour Members. We heard, for example, the concerns of the hon. Member for North-West
      1042
      Leicestershire (David Taylor), who often speaks and, as the Minister says, votes with his conscience rather than merely on the instructions of heavy-handed Government Whips. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) shakes his head. He is not one of those; he is one of the more human faces at the Whips Office. There must, however, be others who are altogether more heavy-handed.
      The second key issue is that of effective accountability. That means having access to where decisions are made, and having faith in the process. The further we move the exercise of political power from the people, the less trust the people are likely to have in the exercise of political power. The plans must be made close to people, and people's loyalty, faith and adherence must be inspired. They must believe in the plans. For, as my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield said in the other place, this is a distinctly personal matter. That gentleman, who has a distinguished record both in the upper House and in local government, said:
      "There is no more personal thing in local government than planning. The Government should not think that they can ignore the democratic processes."
      Lord Marlesford, who spoke persuasively, said:
      "the Government somehow believe that the higher the level at which strategic planning is done, the better."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 2004; Vol. 660, c. 565–9.]
      In fact, the opposite is true. It is of course important for us to have a bigger view, but that bigger view must take proper account of the concerns of local communities; and the lower down the system those concerns can be expressed effectively, the better. The involvement of local communities confers legitimacy on the plans that ultimately emerge.
      That brings me to the third issue: sensitivity to local people, understanding of local needs, and responsiveness from a system that, as the Minister has acknowledged on previous occasions, is often seen as esoteric, bureaucratic and excessively burdensome—one might even say Byzantine.
      We remain unconvinced by the Government's case, although we welcome the Minister's spirit and tone. I do not find that surprising. I have found the right hon. Gentleman to be a receptive Minister who genuinely listens to a proper case put from any part of the Chamber. Now is his chance to show just how responsive and receptive he is by taking on board arguments that he has acknowledged to have been well made.
      I know that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) wants to speak. I look forward—I almost said "for once", but that would have been uncharitable—to his speech, because I know he has many good and useful points to make. Let me end on this note. As I said, the Minister accused me of cynicism; but he knows that romantics like me are immune to cynicism. This is not a matter of cynicism. It is a matter of good government, good planning and good leadership. I hope that what the Minister does today and hereafter will show all three.
      I recommend to my colleagues that in this instance we support the Lords. We will be voting "No", not because we do not think that there is good will, but because we feel that the time has come to stand our ground on these

      1043
      important matters in defence of the common people of our country. I hope that, ultimately, the Minister will reach the same conclusion.
      Matthew Green: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his approach, not just in the past week but since he took charge of the Bill. We could say that considerable concessions have been made; we could say, if we were being charitable, that people of like mind have reached agreement. There has been movement on the Government's part, and also on the Opposition's part, since we embarked on the Bill nearly 18 months ago. Some of us have served all 18 months, and it seems a very long time.
      The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and I agree on the fact that this is about creating a good planning system. As the Minister will know, a good planning system carries the confidence of the people who use it, and people are most confident when a system is democratic. The Minister cannot suggest in any circumstances that the Government's proposals or the amendment make this system democratic.
      Rather than going over ground that we have been over many times, I want to comment on the Government's proposed amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 1B. I am afraid that, for once, the Minister has produced a smokescreen. The Bill proposes that 30 per cent. of members of the regional planning body should come from the business sectors rather than the councils. It is now being suggested that 60 per cent. should come from the councils, so there is presumably 10 per cent. of flexibility. That will mean that many councils that are losing powers—the primary tier, the county councils, the metropolitans and the unitaries—will not be represented. Indeed, the Minister's amendment includes district councils, which are not losing powers. It is an odd amendment, which for once lacks coherence and intellectual clarity.
      The Minister knows that there is potential for common ground, but his amendment is not that common ground. I do not think that he will be surprised to hear me say that. He will, I believe, struggle to justify the continued removal of powers from directly elected councils, and the granting of those powers to, at best, a partly indirectly elected regional planning body, which will have a considerable influence on what happens. Democracy is not, perhaps, always the quickest form of government, but it is the best that we have, and I am surprised that the Minister is prepared to overlook democracy in the name of expediency, which is exactly what is being proposed.
      There is some room for common ground, and the Minister knows that a sensible compromise could be reached. I welcome the fact that he is prepared to reconsider the other part of this group of Lords amendments, which affects the sub-regional plans, and that again shows the spirit that has been evident from him so far. If he will show the same sort of flexibility on the Lords reason, then we are very close to considerable agreement on the Bill. However, the Minister will have to move further than the amendment that the Government have tabled. That does not move; it just
      1044
      states what exists on the ground in regional planning bodies at the moment, and does not in any way increase their democratic involvement.
      I hope that the Minister thinks again. We, too, will vote against the Government's insistence on disagreement and their amendment in lieu. I hope that he will take the opportunity before this matter returns to the Lords again to reflect on the position that has been outlined, and see wether a more sensible compromise can be reached.
      Keith Hill: I feel that I need to respond briefly to the points that have been made. I first turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who dwelt on democratic accountability. I am pretty certain that I am accurate in saying that he claimed that our proposals would mean a transfer of powers to bodies with no elected members. For reasons that I shall demonstrate, there is no transfer to the regional bodies in the proposals, because the powers are already there. I contend that we are introducing a process that is more transparent and has more community involvement. The regional spatial strategy will be tested in public by examination in public—again, evidence of the extent to which we are introducing a process that is more transparent and, I assert, more democratic than that which prevails at present.
      I remind the hon. Gentleman that the existing bodies have elected members. They all have a majority of elected members. Indeed, on six of the eight regional chambers that act, as regional planning bodies, the Conservative party has the largest number of members. They are hardly institutions immune to the expression of representative opinion at local level, opinion that might be not entirely sympathetic with Government views on regional development.
      Matthew Green: Surely even the Minister will admit that that is a somewhat cheap jibe at the Conservatives—I say that as a Liberal Democrat—for the simple reason that we are talking about the principle of whether something is democratic, not about which party currently has the largest number of councillors on an indirectly elected body. Those members are elected to their council, but then appointed to a regional planning body, not necessarily from all the councils in turn. The Minister should admit that he is not being fair in his reflection.
      Keith Hill: My comment was not intended as a jibe, and was more of a reminder of the opportunities that exist. I accept that there would be an even more compelling case if there were to be elected regional assemblies, and I certainly welcome the Conservative party's new-found enthusiasm in the amendments for elected regional assemblies. They will be aware that elected regional assemblies are not yet proposed for the entirety of England. Although we anticipate the success of the referendums for regional assemblies in the northern parts of the country, we recognise that there might be some slight delay in their introduction elsewhere, and it is in the regions without elected assemblies that it would be nonsense to scrap the regional planning function that was the child of Conservative Government policy making way back in 1990.

      1045
      2.45 pm
      I turn to the charge of loss of democracy in the new system made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). What really matters to people is that they can have their say, and have their views listened to in the planning process. He will know that central to our reforms at regional and local level is greater community involvement, and he has welcomed that on many occasions. Our amendment would require the regional planning body, as he knows, 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 require the regional planning bodies 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.
      Matthew Green: The logic of what the Minister has just said is that an autocratic regime that consults its citizens is better than a democratic one, and that consultation is a substitute for democracy. I am sure that he did not mean to say that to the House.
      Keith Hill: I certainly did not mean to say that, and indeed I did not. Of course consultation is no substitute for democracy. However, greater consultation and greater community involvement, within the framework of a democratically accountable process—which is exactly what our planning reform agenda and our regional spatial strategy proposals are all about—certainly strengthens democratic and popular involvement in the process. That is not there at present, but will be introduced by these measures.
      Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that clause 7 provides for independent public examination of the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy, during which people will be invited to speak. That will take place in all but exceptional circumstances. I have mentioned draft planning policy statement 11, which sets out ways in which the regional planning body can and should involve stakeholders and the wider community on an ongoing basis, as initial ideas and options are turned into firm proposals.
      We are not squeezing democracy out of the system. Under the Bill's provisions, as now, it will be for the regional planning body to propose the number of new dwellings that should be provided in its region. We are simply changing the basis on which those figures can be allocated down to the next level, and instead of that being determined by county boundaries, regional planning bodies will be able to make allocations on a sub-regional basis, taking account of housing market needs.
      We are at the end of an exceptionally long process with the Bill, which was first introduced to the House in December 2002, and that process has been a great pleasure. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is to pick up the reins and steer this great carriage forward. I regret the fact that the Opposition parties continue to oppose these measures, but I hope that the winning post is now in sight, and that, with a further burst, the endgame can be secured.
      Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 140.

      Division No. 154]

      [2:50 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dismore, Andrew

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Ainger, Nick

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Allen, Graham

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Edwards, Huw

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Austin, John

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Farrelly, Paul

      Baird, Vera

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Barnes, Harry

      Fisher, Mark

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Beard, Nigel

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Blizzard. Bob

      Foulkes, rh George

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Gardiner, Barry

      Borrow, David

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Brennan, Kevin

      Gilroy, Linda

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Griffiths, Win (Bndgend)

      Browne. Desmond

      Grogan, John

      Bryant, Chris

      Hain, rh Peter

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Burden, Richard

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Burgon, Cohn

      Hanson, David

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Healey, John

      Cairns, David

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Heppell, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hesford, Stephen

      Caton, Martin

      Heyes, David

      Challen, Colin

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Chaytor, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clapham, Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Hutton, rh John

      Clelland, David

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Illsley, Eric

      Coaker, Vernon

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cohen, Harry

      Coleman, lain

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Connarty, Michael

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cummings, John

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      David, Wayne

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kidney, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      1047

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lammy, David

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lepper, David

      Sawford, Phil

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Linton, Martin

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Love, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Sheridan, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Short, rh Clare

      McCabe, Stephen

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McFall, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Mactaggart Fiona

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McWilliam, John

      Soley, Clive

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Spellar, rh John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stevenson, George

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Moran, Margaret

      Trickett, Jon

      Morgan, Julie

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Mountford, Kali

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mullin, Chris

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Ward, Claire

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Watts, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      White, Brian

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Perham, Linda

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Picking, Anne

      Winnick, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Woodward, Shaun

      Plaskitt, James

      Woolas, Phil

      Pope. Greg (Hyndburn)

      Worthington, Tony

      Pound, Stephen

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Rammell, Bill

      Wyatt, Derek

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Tellers for the Ayes:

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

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and Ms Bridget Prentice

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Burnett, John

      Allan, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Burstow, Paul

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Bacon, Richard

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Baldry, Tony

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Barker, Gregory

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Cash, William

      Barrett, John

      Chidgey, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clappison, James

      Bercow, John

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Beresford, Sir paul

      Collins, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Cotter, Brian

      Brazier, Julian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Breed, Colin

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Browing, Mrs Angela

      1048

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Goldfield)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Moore, Michael

      Duncan, Alan (Rut/and)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fabricant, Michael

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Fallon, Michael

      Paice, James

      Field, Mark (Cities of Lo. don & Westminster)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Flook, Adrian

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Francois, Mark

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gamier, Edward

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Goodman, Paul

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Ruffley, David

      Greenway, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Selous, Andrew

      Hague, rh William

      Shephard. rh Mrs Gillian

      Hammond, Philip

      Shepherd, Richard

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Harvey, Nick

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Heald, Oliver

      Spring, Richard

      Heath, David

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Hendry, Charles

      Steen, Anthony

      Hermon, Lady

      Streeter, Gary

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Swayne, Desmond

      Holmes, Paul

      Syms, Robert

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Tredinnick, David

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lamb, Norman

      Watkinson, Angela

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Whittingdale, John

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Willetts, David

      Lidington, David

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Willis, Phil

      Loughton, Tim

      Wilshire, David

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Young, rh Sir George

      Maclean, rh David

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Maples, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mr. John Randall and Mr. Hugo Swire

      Mercer, Patrick

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
      Lords Reason: No. 3B
      The Lords insist on their Amendment 3 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason—
      Because regional spatial strategies should be based on the views of local communities
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Keith Hill.]
      The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 141.

      Division No. 155]

      [3:01 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Edwards, Huw

      Ainger, Nick

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Allen, Graham

      Farrelly, Paul

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Fisher, Mark

      Fitzpatrick Jim

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Austin, John

      Foster, Micheel Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Baird, Vera

      Foulkes, rh George

      Barnes, Harry

      Gardiner, Barry

      Barron, rh Kevin

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Gerrard, Neil

      Beard, Nigel

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Blizzard, Bob

      Godsiff, Roger

      Borrow, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Grogan, John

      Brennan, Kevin

      Hain, rh peter

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Hall Wallsend)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Hanson, David

      Browne, Desmond

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Bryant, Chris

      Healey, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Burden, Richard

      Hendrick, Mark

      Burgon, Colin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Cairns, David

      Hesford, Stephen

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Heyes, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Caton, Martin

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Challen, Colin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Chaytor, David

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Clapham, Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hutton, rh John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Illsley, Eric

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Clelland, David

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cohen, Harry

      Johnson, Ass Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Coleman, lain

      Connarty, Michael

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cranston, Ross

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Keen, Alan (Feltharn)

      Cummings, John

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      David, Wayne

      Kidney, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Dismore, Andrew

      Lammy, David

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Lepper, David

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Lewis, Teny (Worsley)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Linton, Martin

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Love, Andrew

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      1050

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sawford, Phil

      McFall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKechin, Ann

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Short, rh Clare

      McNulty, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Skinner, Dennis

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Soley, Clive

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Spellar, rh John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Martlew, Eric

      Stevenson, George

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Moran, Margaret

      Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

      Morgan, Julie

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mountford, Kali

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Mullin, Chris

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Ward, Claire

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Perham, Linda

      Watts, David

      Picking, Anne

      White, Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Plaskitt, James

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Winnick, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Rammell, Bill

      Worthington, Tony

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

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

      Wyatt, Derek

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Ms Bridget Prentice and Mr. Fraser Kemp

      Ruddock, Joan

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Bacon, Richard

      Cash, William

      Baldry, Tony

      Chidgey, David

      Barker, Gregory

      Clappison, James

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Barrett, John

      Collins, Tim

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Bercow, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Brazier, Julian

      Breed, Colin

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Dodds, Nigel

      Burnett, John

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Burns, Simon

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Burstow, Paul

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Fallon, Michael

      1051

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Flook, Adrian

      Paice, James

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Francois, Mark

      Garnier, Edward

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Redwood, rh John

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Robathan, Andrew

      Goodman, Paul

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Greenway, John

      Robertson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hague, rh William

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hammond, Philip

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Ruffley, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Harvey, Nick

      Selous, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Simmonds, Mark

      Heath, David

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Hendry, Charles

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Hermon, Lady

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Spring, Richard

      Holmes, Paul

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Steen, Anthony

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Streeter, Gary

      Hunter, Andrew

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Jack, rh Michael

      Syms, Robert

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tredinnick, David

      Lamb, Norman

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Watkinson, Angela

      Lidington, David

      Whittingdale, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Willetts, David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Maclean, rh David

      Willis, Phil

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Wilshire, David

      Maples, John

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Young, rh Sir George

      Mercer, Patrick

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Moore, Michael

      Mr. John Randall and Mr. Hugo Swire

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      It being more than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [19 April].
      Lords amendment No. 41B agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on disagreeing to their amendment No. 3; Paul Clark, Matthew Green, Mr. John Hayes, Keith Hill and Linda Gilroy to be members of the Committee; Keith Hill to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Paul Clark.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  Opposition Day
    7TH ALLOTTED DAY—SECOND PART

      Animal and Plant Diseases
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
      3.13 pm
      Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move,
      That this House recognises the potential risk posed to British agriculture and to the environment of the UK by the importation of animal and plant diseases; acknowledges the crucial importance of preventing diseases from entering the country; notes with concern the increase in the number of diseases in Britain emanating from abroad and the spread of virulent epidemics across the world; recognises the implications for biosecurity of the enlargement of the European Union; condemns the Government for failing to learn the lessons from the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease; regrets the failure of the Government to address these problems and to instil confidence in the farming community; and calls on the Government to take urgent action to put in place the stringent measures necessary to prevent animal and plant disease from entering the UK.
      This morning I received a letter from the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environment Quality explaining that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was not available to respond to this debate because she was attending a meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development in the United States. He also told me that the Minister of State was at the same conference—two Ministers and staff in America at taxpayers' expense—and that he himself would be unable to respond to the debate because he was speaking at a rural affairs conference at the invitation of the Irish Government.
      The Government have had a week's notice of this debate. It is perhaps understandable for one Minister to be unavailable, but for three Ministers to fail to respond to a debate on a subject that threatens the livelihood of British farmers is not only to treat the House with contempt, but sends a clear message to farmers that the Government are not interested in them or their future. Once again, the Government are letting British farmers down. I look forward to hearing the contribution of the Under-Secretary. I doubt whether the House will want to hear from him twice in the same debate, but we will see how it unfolds.
      The year 2001 was possibly the blackest period in modern history for British agriculture. Our green and pleasant land became the scene of death and destruction. Our television screens were filled with images of funeral pyres, rotting carcases and smoke-filled air. The pain and suffering caused to Britain's rural communities was etched on the faces of those farmers who saw their lifetime's work destroyed by a contiguous cull on a massive scale. As a result of foot and mouth disease, 10 million animals were slaughtered, our countryside put up closed signs and some were forced not just to the point of bankruptcy but of suicide. For our farmers, it seemed like the end of the world as they knew it: for many, it was.
      The subsequent report from the National Audit Office said that the outbreak cost Britain £8 billion—a £3 billion cost to the public sector and hence the taxpayer,

      1053
      and more than a £5 billion cost to the private sector. The Institute of Directors put the cost higher at £20 billion. We all understand that outbreaks of diseases such as foot and mouth affect not just our farmers, but the wider economy, the service industry and tourism. We owe it to all of them to ensure that it can never happen again. It is our duty, and the duty of any Government, to ensure that it can never happen again. Yet my colleagues and I have yet to meet a farmer who believes, that we are better prepared for a future outbreak. The fact remains that the Government have lost the confidence of our farming industry in respect of their ability to prevent disease from entering Britain.
      Andrew George: What did the farming community tell the hon. Lady about the £4 billion loss and the destruction of the livestock sector caused by the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy?
      Mrs. May: There is no doubt that British farming has suffered a number of difficult periods in recent years. That is why it is all the more important that the Government put in place the action necessary to ensure that we never see such devastation happening again.
      The farming community's lack of confidence in the Government is in no small part due to their decision to deny a full and independent public inquiry into foot and mouth. Of course, we have seen a number of commissions and reports into the outbreak, but Government have steadfastly refused to conduct a transparent inquiry into the events and circumstances leading up to and during the course of the outbreak. The only public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak was the result of pressure by Conservative Members of the European Parliament and was opposed tooth and nail by Labour MEPs.
      Mr. Eric Martlew: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), carried out an investigation into foot and mouth disease in this country?
      Mrs. May: I am grateful for that intervention, but I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about the full and independent public inquiry that the British farming industry wants the Government to call in order to get answers about why the outbreak happened.
      Since it became public knowledge that we were holding this debate, my staff have fielded a stream of telephone calls, e-mails and messages from people throughout the country. Those people feel strongly about the issue: each has something to say, and is able to uncover another piece of the jigsaw in respect of what happened in the outbreak. That shows that the Government, far from reassuring people and answering their questions and concerns, have simply chosen to ignore them. However, those questions and concerns will not go away.
      We have had the inquiry into lessons learned headed by Dr. Anderson, but have we really learned any lessons? Following the 1967 outbreak, we knew not only how the disease came into the country, but the very yard where the outbreak happened. However, despite all the
      1054
      improvements in science and forensics, and the leaps forward in DNA testing, we still do not know how the virus responsible for the 2001 outbreak came into the country, or why. The public's obvious concerns will not be allayed by the recent revelations concerning Jim Dring, the vet responsible for inspecting the premises in Heddon-on-the-Wall where the outbreak is suspected to have started.
      Mr. Dring is an honourable and conscientious man. He concluded that the foot and mouth crisis would never have happened if his inspection of Bobby Waugh's Northumberland pig farm in the weeks leading up to the outbreak had been more rigorous. However, he said that he had been hamstrung by a lack of veterinary resources.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Oh no he did not.
      Mrs. May: The Minister, from a sedentary position, says that Mr. Dring did not say that. However, in his report, Mr. Dring said, in relation to his inspection to review the Waughs' article 26 licence:
      "Had this inspection been more rigorous than it was, had the licence not been renewed, or renewed only subject to radical revision of the Waughs' patently deficient feeding technique, then this awful 2001 FMD epidemic would never have come about."
      Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend will recall that we discussed the Dring report in Westminster Hall on 16 March. I raised with the Minister the fact that that report was not available in full at the time of the Anderson inquiry. He declined to comment on that, but merely said that he would put the papers in the Library. Does my hon. Friend agree that we deserve an answer as to why the Government withheld that information from the Anderson inquiry?
      Mrs. May: I certainly echo the comments made by my hon. Friend. The report is a very important part of the evidence as to what happened during the foot and mouth outbreak. It is unfortunate that the Minister has tried to deny, from a sedentary position, what the Dring report contained.
      The matter is about more than one man's mistake. It is thanks to Mr. Dring's courage and honesty that we have this vital piece of evidence. It was withheld from the Anderson inquiry, to which it should have been available. I echo the challenge to the Minister to explain why the information was not made available.
      The House may not know that, when it became clear that the report existed, the Government claimed that it was an aide memoire—even though it is 26 pages long, and consists of some 11,700 words. It is an important piece of evidence that should have been available to the Anderson inquiry.
      On 24 March, Lord Whitty told the other place that
      "it is clear from the cover note and from what Mr. Dring has said that he wanted his personal statement to go to the inquiry in some form. The legal advice was that it could be prejudicial to the trial of what almost certainly was the starting point of foot and mouth and therefore to any judgment that that court made. In a sense, that was understandable legal advice."—[0fficial Report. House of Lords, 24 March 2004: Vol. 659, c. 701.]

      1055
      However, to say that releasing the Dring report could have prejudiced the trial does not stand up to scrutiny. Mr. Waugh's trial was over before the Anderson inquiry reported. Moreover, publication of the report could have been put back until the risk of prejudice had passed.
      There is no question that anyone wants to blame Mr. Dring. We want a definitive answer as to how the 2001 FMD epidemic started, and to ensure that its lessons are fully learned. One of the issues raised in Jim Dring's report is that the state veterinary service was under pressure because of lack of resources.
      It is understandable that a man under pressure might make a mistake: what is not understandable is how the Government could allow the pressures to get to that point, knowing the risks that that entailed. What cannot be forgiven is that the Government tried to hide the evidence and to keep it from people. How can members of the farming community have confidence that the Government have given them the truth, when the necessary information comes, not from Ministers or the Department, but from the pages of the farming press?
      It is understandable that farmers might ask why, if one damning piece of evidence can be withheld, should not other evidence also be hidden in Ministry filing cabinets.
      Mr. David Drew: I am sure that the hon. Lady has read the Select Committee report on the state of the veterinary service, which does go along with some of her points. We may never know what caused foot and mouth in this country, but we certainly know that the transmission mechanism was down to the fact that we have a process based on production subsidies, which means that animals are pushed around the country to earn a few pence. The Government have had to learn a lesson from that, and we are, thankfully, moving away from production subsidies. When the Conservatives were in power, what did they do to deal with that?
      David Maclean: Markets are not the problem.
      Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the Opposition Chief Whip to make comments from a sedentary position?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Comments from a sedentary position are never welcome in any debate at any time.
      Mrs. May: What we certainly know is that the Government have not put in place the inquiry that is necessary to make sure that we get answers on why the outbreak occurred and the disease came into the country. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) implied that we would never be able to get to that answer. We did in 1967, when the inquiry not only got answers but set out lessons to be learned.
      We now know, of course, that an internal DEFRA investigation has cleared Ministers and officials of any wrongdoing or attempt to mislead. I might add that the existence of that internal investigation was revealed only
      1056
      after it had concluded that everything was above board and squeaky clean. That will give no reassurance to the many farmers who want to get to the truth. It is, after all, only a few weeks since another internal investigation cleared another Minister of wrongdoing, only for her to be forced to resign after fresh evidence came to light a few days later.
      I raised the possibility earlier that more pieces of evidence like Jim Dring's report might be sitting in Ministry filing cabinets. I would be willing to give way now to the Minister if he wanted to rise to guarantee to the House that no other information has been withheld and that Dr. Anderson received each and every piece of relevant information relating to the outbreak. I should be happy to give way if the Minister wished to do that, but I am afraid that the fact that he is not—[Interruption.] Oh, he is.
      Mr. Bradshaw: I have asked that question of officials and have been assured that that is the case.
      Mrs. May: Well, we have had a lot of Ministers standing up to talk about what officials have or have not done. It is about time Ministers took responsibility for what happens in their Departments.
      Geraint Daviesrose—
      Mrs. Jackie Lawrencerose—
      Mrs. May: I shall not give way because I want to make progress. [Interruption.] No. I shall make some progress.
      The only way to restore our farmers' confidence in the process is to have a full public inquiry. I call again on the Government to do just that. We need plain und honest answers to simple questions.
      We must all realise that the threat of another outbreak of foot and mouth or other equally virulent diseases is ever increasing. The increase in air travel and hence in the flow of people and goods makes the transmission of hazardous products all the more likely. In recent times, we have suffered swine fever and foot and mouth disease. Over the past six months, we have seen a growing number of diseases crossing our shores. In the south-west, we have had the first outbreak of brucellosis in England in 10 years. The previous case in the United Kingdom was an outbreak in Scotland, caused by infected cattle from France. Yet, to date, we have no idea where the most recent outbreak came from. One thing is sure, however: this and other diseases are not native to Britain; they are foreign diseases that enter our country from overseas.
      We must consider not just animal diseases. In recent months, we have had outbreaks of brown rot and ring rot, the most contagious disease to affect potatoes, which recently caused devastation when it took hold in the United States of America.
      Mrs. Lawrence: The hon. Lady may or may not be aware that the potato ring rot outbreak in Wales was contained entirely efficiently and did not spread to other farms. Would she like to congratulate the Welsh

      1057
      Assembly Government and the Westminster Government on their efforts to ensure that it did not spread?
      Mrs. May: It is interesting that when there is a problem it is the officials, not the Minister, who take the blame, yet when there are congratulations to be made it is the politicians, not the officials, who are congratulated. I am happy to say "Well done" to those on the ground who were responsible for containing that disease, but the fact that it arrived in this country and that other diseases are being found is a cause for concern and we should look into why that his happening.
      Another example of a plant disease is sudden oak death syndrome or phytophthora ramorum, as it is known. [Laughter.] I may not have pronounced that right and I hesitate to do so again. It may sound more like a spell from a Harry Potter book, but it is a serious disease that has taken hold in some parts of the country. It threatens our oak and beech tree populations.
      Mr. David Heath: It has been endemic in rhododendrons for years.
      Mrs. May: Yes, indeed, it starts From rhododendrons but it then passes to oak and other trees. There is evidence of that in certain parts. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take part in the debate or to intervene, I should be grateful if he would rise in the usual way. Interventions from a sedentary position are extremely disruptive.
      Mrs. May: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervent on was wrong as well as unhelpful.
      The important point raised by diseases such as sudden oak death syndrome, which has caused the destruction of rhododendron plants of up to 150 years old, is that people feel free to bring back plants from abroad. They do not realise the dangers of that to species in the United Kingdom. It is time that people were made more aware of the risks of importing plants. We must bear in mind the fact that with the enlargement of the EU on Saturday our borders will be wider and more difficult to control.
      We expect our farmers to be vigilant, to look out for signs of disease and to put in place necessary biosecurity measures, but we must also play our part. It is all very well to ask farmers to improve biosecurity, but the single most effective way of preventing disease from spreading across our country is by preventing it from entering the country in the first place. We need to put in place stricter measures, such as are seen in other countries. What a difference there is between our lack of import controls, and, for example, the strict import controls seen in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. I heard recently of a tourist from Somerset who was surprised on going to Australia to be fined £1,500 after being arrested at Perth airport for importing an apple, a pear and five tangerines. By comparison we are lax on import controls.
      Geraint Davies: How is it that today the hon. Lady is calling for more EU regulations to bring us into line with
      1058
      the United States and more investment in veterinary services and protective mechanisms of security when only yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said that he would reduce EU regulations by a third and make reductions? They are completely contradictory. How much would all this cost?
      Mrs. May: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene in the debate, he should listen to it before he asks his question.
      I welcome the Government's new campaign against meat smugglers. Posters and leaflets are being circulated at air and ferry ports to make travellers aware of the potentially devastating consequences of illegally imported products, but leaflet campaigns are superficial. The subject should not take the Government by surprise. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), is not present because I should like to pay tribute to him for his work on raising the issue of bush meat imports. He has raised this issue on a number of occasions. We should all recognise that illegal meat imports pose a major threat to the health and biosecurity of the nation.
      We are not talking about a ham sandwich brought in by an unsuspecting tourist in their handbag or a half-eaten foreign delicacy. The trade in illegal meat is a multi-million pound a year criminal trade being run in an organised, systematic manner. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the views of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and the independent consultants SafetyCraft, which conducted research for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which estimated that an average of 7,500 tonnes of illegal meat products are imported into the UK every year, a figure greater than the combined legal imports of beef into the UK from France, Uruguay and Argentina. That may amaze some hon. Members, but they should not be shocked, because the research also said that the figure could he as high as 17,500 tonnes a year. It is reported that baggage handlers at Heathrow airport have repeatedly raised concerns over personal luggage arriving on flights from Africa that are full of bush meat. Luggage has been found covered in maggots and some has left a trail of blood in the arrival halls. Often, the meat is detected by nothing more than its pungent smell.
      Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady is wrong about rhododenrons, but she is right about this issue. There is a laxness about our border controls across the spectrum. It would be far better to have a single uniform border force that could cope with Customs and Excise functions, immigration functions and policing functions, as well as the intelligence work that accompanies those functions. It could provide proper interdiction of the import of illegal meats at all of our ports of entry, not just those where there happens to be a customs officer on duty.
      Mrs. May: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a real need for us to focus on the issue and to consider improving our import controls. However, I am not convinced that that would best be done by a single agency that would bring people together in the way that he suggests, because of the specialisms needed to make assessments across the spectrum of issues. The hon.

      1059
      Gentleman has highlighted the need to take the issue seriously, but I am sad to say that the Government do not appear to do so.
      I recommend that the Minister look at the website of the Bushmeat campaign or speaks to Mr Clive Lawrence, formerly of Heathrow-based Ciel Logistics. It says on the website that Mr Lawrence has witnessed seizures of between 400 and 500 kg of illegal bush meat from just two passengers entering the country from Africa.
      According to Department for Transport statistics, 64 million passengers landed at or departed from Heathrow airport in 2000 alone. Of course approximately half of those are leaving the country, rather than coming in, but nevertheless, they are massive numbers. However, according to the Customs and Excise annual report for 2002–03, 10,528 people coming in to the UK in total were searched, for all forms of smuggling. Illegal meat imports can be anything from beef, pork and chicken to exotic products such as monkey, antelope, grasscutters—which I am reliably informed are giant rats–porcupines and bush rats. Very real concerns have been raised that bush meat could potentially be infected not just with animal diseases such as foot and mouth and swine fever, but also with diseases such as Ebola and monkey pox which could have a devastating impact on human health in this country.
      We should also not underestimate the dangers posed by avian flu, a highly contagious disease in poultry that has caused devastation in the far east. In the last few months, tens of millions of chickens and ducks have been slaughtered across Asia. Sadly, bird flu has also killed 22 people in Vietnam and Thailand. This is a disease threat that must not be underestimated. Nor is it a disease restricted to foreign or distant lands. Last year, 10 million chickens were culled in the Netherlands in an effort to stop the spread of an outbreak of the disease, at a cost to the Dutch industry of an estimated €200 million. It is a disease that has already struck in mainland Europe. We do not have any guarantees that it will not enter the British isles, and the implications could be far worse than foot and mouth disease. Only last week, Dr. John McCauley, of the Institute for Animal Health, said that the virus could be 20 times worse than the 1918 flu pandemic. He said that there was also a realistic chance of the current avian flu virus evolving to threaten people directly. It is important that we discuss such issues in a calm and considered manner. The last thing our farming industry needs is another food scare.
      Although we must not cause a public health or food scare, we must also be sure not to take this issue lightly. As Gareth Vaughan, president of the Farmers Union of Wales, said only last month:
      "Foot and mouth devastated the British countryside. We do not want to see a repeat of those dreadful scenes because of poor important controls allowing that or some other terrible disease back into the country."
      That is why I say that it is an issue that the Government should take seriously.
      Mrs. Lawrence: The figures that I have show that the Government spend £22 million a year on the control and
      1060
      diagnosis of animal diseases and import measures. They also spend £15 million a year on research into bovine TB in badgers, making a total of £37 million on just those two points. Should the Tories get into power, will the hon. Lady give a commitment that they will not cut that expenditure in any way?
      Mrs. May: If the hon. Lady is a little patient, I shall come on to the Government's spending figures shortly.
      The trade in illegal meat not only threatens the risk of further disease, but poses a serious threat to highly endangered wildlife in Africa and across the globe. The world's leading scientists have stated that species such as gorillas will face extinction within a generation unless immediate international action is taken. The necessity to deal with this problem is not only economic; it is environmentally and ecologically right to put an end to this illegal trade. However, it is a lucrative and an organised trade, worth up to an estimated £1 billion per year, and it is easy to see why. A grasscutter rat can be bought in an African bush meat market for a few pounds but, in tho UK, each carcass can command a price well in excess of £100.
      The Veterinary Laboratories Agency calculates that roughly 85 per cont. of the bush meat entering the country illegally comes in via personal luggage, that 11 per cent. is smuggled in ship containers, that 3 per cent. comes in via transit sheds and that the remainder arrives by post and courier. Eastern Europe, west Africa, southern Africa, eastern Asia and the near and middle east account for 83 per cent. of the total flow of illegal meat into this country. Once here, it is estimated that 55 per cent. is intended for commercial use. The majority is therefore not for the personal consumption of those bringing it in, but is sold on at vast profit.
      The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence)referred to the figures that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is spending. It has invested £25 million in a three-year action plan to tackle the illegal trade, and that is welcome news. The initiative includes a new frontier enforcement strategy involving Customs and Excise, four new national strike teams of Customs officers to detect meat and animal products, continuing intelligence gathering and publicity drives and—wait for it—increasing the number of sniffer dogs from two to six. There will be six sniffer dogs when the UK has 110 ports of entry. As we have heard, Heathrow alone deals with more than 64 million passengers a year, and the Minister is offering us six sniffer dogs to deal with the problem.
      I do not believe that the Government have taken the threat seriously enough. We have seen a 10 per cent. nationwide reduction in front-line Customs staff, rising to 40 per cent. in some parts of the country such as Wales. That means that ports of entry are often left unmanned. Strike teams and improved intelligence gathering have replaced, rather than supplemented, the existing service.
      It may be worth while to compare the figures that the Government are spending with the sums spent in other parts of the world. Some £25 million is being spent over three years to address illegal meat imports in the UK, but Australia is spending £246 million in one year alone—this year—to counter threats from exotic pests and diseases. In addition, the Australia Quarantine and

      1061
      Inspection Service receives £116 million. Is it any wonder that our farming community has no confidence in the Government's commitment to disease prevention?
      Mr. Russell Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. May: I shall not give way again.
      The lack of resources is evident in one further area—prosecution rates. Only two prosecutions have been brought against people caught bringing illegal meat, including bush meat, into the UK since Customs and Excise assumed responsibility for the task a year ago. An estimated 7,500 tonnes of illegal meat is entering our country, yet there have been only two prosecutions in 12 months. Even when there are prosecutions, the courts are so lenient that prosecution acts as little deterrent. The first case involved a 48-year-old woman who was charged with illegally importing 186 lb—more than 13 stone—of fish, goat meat and snails from the Gambia through Gatwick. She was fined £150 with £140 costs at Mid-Sussex magistrates court. The second case was that of an American man who was fined £300 with £140 costs. What sort of message does the Minister think that sends out to the organised gangs involved in commercial smuggling?
      I began the debate by referring to the scenes of devastation in our countryside in 2001. That was not just about pictures on the television screen. That devastation was felt by many people in their lives, as farmers watched years of painstaking work being destroyed before their eyes and many farmers and others saw their livelihoods vanish. We all have a duty to make sure that that cannot happen again.
      Sadly, the Government are failing in that duty. Their failure to deal with illegal meat imports and their lack of import controls are putting British farming and potentially the health of the nation at risk. It is time the Government listened to farmers and others, including those on their own Back Benches who have been highlighting the risk. It is time the Government took the risk and the issue seriously. Their failure to act is letting all of us down.
      3.46 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House." to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
      "commends the action taken by this Government to eradicate exotic plant and animal disease when it occurs, and to control endemic disease; congratulates the Government on its actions that have succeeded in reducing the number of BSE clinical cases to just 184 last year; further congratulates the Government on eradicating a major outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in seven months and on implementing the recommendations of the Lessons Learned and Royal Society Inquiries so that Government is better prepared to tackle a future outbreak of a major livestock disease; welcomes the significant progress made to tackle illegal imports both by increasing enforcement activity at the border and by increasing public awareness; applauds the Government on its action taken against other animal and plant diseases, notably Salmonella Java and potato ring rot; and notes the Government's continuing commitment to prevent serious animal and plant disease."
      1062
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for initiating the debate. I am sorry that she felt it necessary to take a cheap swipe at my ministerial colleagues who cannot be present today. As the Minister responsible for animal health, I am pleased that I can be here. It gives me the opportunity to outline some of the measures that the Government have taken to protect and improve our animal and plant health record.
      When Labour came to power, there were out-of-date and insufficient plans for tackling major outbreaks of exotic diseases, yet the Government managed to control and eradicate in only seven months the largest outbreak of foot and mouth disease ever, and contrary to the wording in the Opposition motion, we have learned the lessons from that outbreak. We have taken new legislation through Parliament to ensure that we have better powers to tackle not just foot and mouth, but other exotic diseases in future. We have put in place new measures to protect against the import and spread of disease, and we have consulted on and published detailed contingency plans for tackling those diseases in the event of an outbreak.
      We have also set about addressing what the overall approach to animal health and welfare should be, a subject on which the hon. Lady had nothing to say. The Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming, known as the Curry report, was highly critical back in 2002 of Britain's animal health record under the previous Conservative Government. The present Government are committed to restoring our national reputation and we will do so by working with all interested parties. It is this approach that underpins the current development of our animal health and welfare strategy.
      That will set out the roles of Government and others in protecting ourselves against the incursion or spread of animal disease. There will be incentives to good practice and a greater sharing of responsibilities and burdens between taxpayer, consumer and the agriculture industry. A key strategic aim will be to ensure that animal owners adopt a far more proactive approach to preventing disease and welfare problems and address practices that increase the likelihood of disease.
      There are also some fundamental challenges for the veterinary profession. The recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on vets and veterinary services raises issues about the extent to which the veterinary profession will be able to deliver the aims of that strategy. We are working closely with the entire profession and with livestock farmers, and we will respond to the Committee before the summer recess.
      Mrs. Browning: Does the Minister share my concern that while we rightly allow veterinarians from within the EU, which is a single market, to come and practise in this country, it is clear that the amount of work they do on farm animal husbandry during their training is miniscule compared with the amount involved in veterinary training in this country? Does that cause him concern?
      Mr. Bradshaw: No, it does not. It would be wrong of the hon. Lady to decry the contribution made in this country by vets from other EU countries. Their

      1063
      contribution has been massively important, not least in the foot and mouth outbreak and since. They have a contribution to make and they would not be allowed to work in this field if they did not have the relevant qualifications. Our veterinary student numbers are at record levels, so I do not share the concern that she expresses.
      Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Bradshaw: No; I should like to make some progress.
      The Government also accept that we have a key role to play in protecting public health, in protecting and promoting animal health and welfare, in helping to control or eradicate disease and in securing opportunities for international trade. We must recognise that the UK benefits enormously from that trade. In the last year for which we have figures, 2003, our livestock exports were worth £1,667 million to this country. Our export of crops was worth £825 million and exports of pig and pigmeat products alone amounted to some £107 million.
      Imports are also important, because they enable us to produce a wide range of value-added products that we could not produce if we had to rely on UK materials. This is good for jobs and good for the UK economy generally. The hon. Member for Maidenhead was right to say that controls on imports from third countries are a major weapon in the fight against the introduction of disease via imported animals, animal products or plants. The vast majority of import controls are part of EU law. Where there are gaps, we apply domestic measures on the basis of a risk assessment.
      Live animals and animal products may be imported only from third countries approved by the European Commission, and only from approved establishments in those countries. They must have an official veterinary certificate guaranteeing their health status and may enter the EU only via an approved border inspection post at the port or airport of entry. There, comprehensive veterinary checks are carried out to ensure that all the import conditions specified in Community law are met. Only then will they be released for import.
      Imports from other EU member states will have been subject to controls before they were exported, to ensure that they meet Community rules. Where there is an outbreak of certain diseases in a member state, exports are not permitted.
      Mr. David Kidney: My hon. Friend has just explained the legal and commercial route for livestock and foodstuffs through border import posts. As I see it, that system has worked robustly and well for a long time, but the fears articulated in the debate seemed to overlook that system completely. Does he think that paying more attention to the successes would be very helpful in reassuring people when we start to clamp down on the areas that need more attention?
      Mr. Bradshaw: It is important that we draw attention to our successes, which is partly what I am trying to do,
      1064
      but there are also genuine concerns about the other side of these matters, including the illegal smuggling mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, to which I shall refer in a moment.
      There are similar import restrictions in relation to plant health. Where there is a plant health risk, all plants and some plant products must have an official phytosanitary certificate guaranteeing their health status, and some are prohibited altogether. All consignments are liable to inspection on arrival either at the port of entry or at an inland inspection point, whether or not a certificate is required. UK checks are targeted at trades and consignments deemed to represent the highest risk. For intra-Community movements, the onus is again on control in the member state of origin, through a system of plant passporting backed up by a comprehensive system of monitoring and trace-back arrangements in the event of a problem being identified.
      Following the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, the Government have made significant strides to improve our ability to detect and prevent illegal imports of animal products from third countries. We have provided new money amounting to £25 million over three years to enhance controls. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise took over responsibility for border controls targeted against smuggled imports in 2003. A range of new measures have been introduced, including additional staff, better intelligence gathering behind the scenes and teams of detector dogs, of which there will shortly be 10. There has also been a significant increase in publicity material, and new posters and leaflets are now available to increase public awareness.
      Mr. Alan Reid: In a written answer on 23 February, the Economic Secretary referred to last year's trials of X-ray technology, which has not been put into practice. Will the Minister tell us the result of the trials and whether X-ray technology will be used?
      Mr. Bradshaw: I will write to the hon. Gentleman on his specific question about X-ray technology. As a result of the measures that are in place, seizures of illegally imported meat have increased massively, and I shall give him some figures later in my speech.
      Mr. George Osborne: The Minister is talking about measures that the Government have taken. Does he agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who has great independence of mind, that
      "There will be an epidemic and some form of transmission into the human population. It is a matter of mathematics. No one can say when it is going to happen, but it will happen"?
      What has he got to say about those comments from a fellow Minister about the Government's regime?
      Mr. Bradshaw: I hesitate to comment on quotes provided by Opposition Members that I have not read before, which may out of context, but I will check up on that point. Yes, the threats are serious. Extra challenges arise as trade, from which we all benefit, increases, but I argue that the Government are meeting those challenges. The hon. Gentleman is right that, not

      1065
      least in the hands of terrorist organisations, zoonotic diseases could be a serious threat not only to the UK but to countries throughout the world, which is why we are implementing our measures.
      In my reply to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), I said that seizures have risen significantly. There were 2,053 seizures in 2001–02, and that figure increased almost fourfold to 7,819 in 2002–03. The latest indications are that that upward trend has continued, and the figures for 2003–04 will be published in June in our annual review of controls on imports of animal products.
      I have indicated that we can never achieve 100 per cent. protection against disease entering the country. One factor that can reduce or increase the spread of livestock disease is the quality of biosecurity within the UK. Biosecurity includes the extent, to which livestock are moved around the country, and standards in markets, which is contrary to the contribution from the shadow Chief Whip, who indicated that livestock markets play no role and that biosecurity at livestock markets is not important. A high level of biosecurity is vital in helping to prevent the spread of disease.
      Back in 2001, livestock movements in this country were virtually unrestricted except for pigs, but foot and mouth taught us that we could not continue like that. Farmers and others in agriculture obviously want to trade when and where economic conditions encourage it, but equally, the Government have a responsibility for the protection not only of the public interest but of animal health, and we have tried to find the appropriate balance between those two potentially conflicting points of view.
      Initially, we extended to all species the 20-day standstill for pigs, but we also commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of various movement standstill regimes. We concluded that the 20-day standstill should remain for pigs, but for other species we should not revert to the pre-2001 laissez-faire approach but should instead introduce a six-day standstill, which we introduced in August 2003, with the involvement and overwhelming support of stakeholders in the livestock industry.
      We have made it clear that if disease threatens, we will revert to a 20-day standstill, and that if disease returns, a complete movement ban will be imposed initially. The same approach has been taken to developing controls in markets and elsewhere. Biosecurity proved paramount in the eradication of foot and mouth disease in 2001. We have learned that the livestock industry must observe higher standards than in the past in order to reduce the risk of livestock disease spreading, and that we must improve detection of those who fail to comply.
      Markets and livestock shows now have to be licensed to make sure they maintain biosecurity, as the mixing of a large number of animals from different origins could allow disease to spread very quickly. The cleansing and disinfection of livestock vehicles is also key to preventing the spread of disease. Strict rules were in place for some time, but we learned from the foot and mouth disease outbreak and improved the rules so that they can be better enforced.
      With regard to the measures that are being put in place to deal with any future outbreaks of exotic animal disease, contingency plans that fit within the framework of EU-approved contingency plans have been and
      1066
      continue to be developed. The latest version of DEFRA's foot and mouth disease contingency plan, which provides the structures, roles and responsibilities to ensure a robust framework for the response to a future exotic animal disease, was laid before Parliament at the end of March 2004.
      Let me comment on what the hon. Member for Maidenhead and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said about the foot and mouth outbreak and the role of the state vet, Mr. Jim Dring. I accept, as do my ministerial colleagues, that it was a mistake not to pass Jim Dring's testimony—or whatever one wants to call it—on to the Anderson inquiry. We have also made it clear that, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead said, the decision was made on understandable legal advice about the possibility that it might prejudice the forthcoming trial of the Waughs. As soon as Jim Dring's testimony was drawn to my attention, I asked for it to be published and placed not only in the Library but on DEFRA's website.
      I am afraid that the hon. Member for Maidenhead did what some in the media have done in quoting selectively and tendentiously from Jim Dring's very long testimony, to suggest that during the inspections immediately prior to the foot and mouth outbreak he complained about a lack of resources. He did not. The only reference that he made to the service being stretched was in connection with an earlier outbreak during the previous year. It is best to read Mr. Dring's report in full. He has said that there was no knowledge that he possessed at the time that was not passed on to the Anderson inquiry. Professor Anderson, whom I asked to read Jim Dring's report in full, has also said that nothing contained in it would have made any difference to his recommendations.
      I have to tell the House that Mr. Dring is furious about the misrepresentations made in some media reports, which I am afraid were repeated by the hon. Member for Maidenhead and which seem to try to divert blame for the foot and mouth outbreak from those who were responsible on to a conscientious and hard-working vet.
      Andrew George: In questioning this matter there is no attempt, certainly on my part, to put the blame on Mr. Dring. I raised the issue in the House on 11 March and wrote to the Secretary of State, who originally said that the Dring report consisted merely of "musings". When the report came out, the Minister failed to publish the covering note making it clear that it was intended for Dr. Anderson's inquiry. Does not the Minister understand that we are questioning the integrity not of the vet but of the Ministers from whom we had to drag this information out bit by hit?
      Mr. Bradshaw: It did not have to be dragged out from me. As I said, as soon as I was aware of the report, I put it into the public domain. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I usually have quite a lot of time, falls into the same trap as the hon. Member for Maidenhead and some of the media by misquoting not only Mr. Dring's report, but quotes in this House by my ministerial colleagues. The Secretary of State did not describe the Dring report as merely "musings", and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman check his facts in Hansard before misquoting hon. Members.

      1067
      I want to say something about endemic diseases. Again, the Government's record shows that we can get those under control, as is illustrated by BSE, which is now in sharp decline. From a peak of more than 37,000 clinical BSE cases in 1992, there were 184 clinical cases last year. We hope that beef exports banned under the previous Conservative Government will soon be able to resume.
      Brucellosis was confirmed in a Buckler beef herd in Cornwall last month. The outbreak was detected early and dealt with swiftly, and has not affected our officially brucellosis-free status within the EU.
      Bovine TB is perhaps the most difficult animal health issue that we face. We recognise the distress and hardship to those whose businesses are placed under restriction, but there are no easy answers. This is a complex disease, and many of the scientific issues associated with it are poorly understood. However, the Government are determined to tackle the problem by working in partnership with farmers, vets, wildlife groups and others.
      There have been increasing calls by some for a policy of badger culling. The finding last year that reactive culling increased the number of TB breakdowns in cattle, compared with control areas, illustrates the need for caution. As I have said before, the Government are prepared to consider a badger-culling policy, but not in the absence of robust scientific proof that such a strategy would help.
      Mrs. Browning: The Minister must be only too well aware that that work has already been done in the east Offaly projects in the Republic of Ireland.
      Mr. Drew: No!
      Mrs. Browning: Yes, it has. I took a briefing from the chief vet there only last year on the follow-up to the projects. Why has the Minister not gone to Ireland and listened to what the Irish have done?
      Mr. Bradshaw: I have regular contact with my Irish colleagues, and if the hon. Lady had taken the trouble to ask them, she would have received the answer that the report has not yet been published. As soon as it is, we shall respond to it.
      Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for my sedentary intervention. The problem with the Irish experiment is that it is not underwritten by any scientific rationale. That makes it highly defective, but we will learn that lesson. Given that my hon. Friend seems to have spent an awful lot of time answering questions from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who is unfortunately not with us today, would it not be helpful, in addition to considering the Select Committee report, to bring hon. Members in to look at the latest scientific evidence on bovine TB? I am alarmed that those on both sides of the debate seem to want to push it in a direction that is not underwritten by science. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way to get on top of this disease is to use the science in a satisfactory way?
      Mr. Bradshaw: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks very good sense, based on a wealth of experience. He might
      1068
      be interested to know that, on a number of occasions, I have offered a specialist briefing to the hon. Member for North Shropshire, but he has so far not taken up the invitation.
      Andrew George: I am grateful for the Minister's forbearance and I entirely endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The Minister said earlier that it was absolutely paramount that biosecurity measures should be put in place and that his Department placed a high priority on that issue. What priority does it place on fallen stock, in respect of the animal by-products order? When we debated the order in Committee on 15 September last year, he told me that he hoped that the fallen stock collection scheme that the Government were planning would be up and running in time for the new year. In a written answer to me on 12 January, he said:
      "We hope to be able to make an announcement on the start date shortly."—[Official Report, 12 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 495W.]
      In fact, the scheme might not be in place until the autumn, at the earliest. What does that tell us about the priority being given to this important matter by the Department?
      Mr. Bradshaw: I regret that the scheme is not already up and running. It is not exactly hot news that it is going to be delayed until the autumn; an announcement was made to that effect about a month ago. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we encountered a number of problems getting the agreement of the industry on the levels of charges for the different sectors and different sized holdings, for example. We also encountered specific problems relating to sheep fleeces, among other problems, which needed ironing out. The delay that we are facing does have the support of the industry, and I am confident that the scheme will be up and running this year.
      I need to say a little about plant health, because the hon. Member for Maidenhead addressed that issue in her speech. This country's record on protecting Britain from plant pests and diseases is an excellent one. The high level of UK expertise in this area, both in terms of the quality of scientific input and the effectiveness of on-the-ground inspecition and enforcement is widely recognised. Indeed, that recognition has been acknowledged in the National Audit Office report, "Protecting England and Wales from plant pests and diseases", which also noted the country's good record on containing and eradicating outbreaks.
      Clearly, the best first line of defence is to keep pests and diseases out, and again the UK's record is good in that regard. But without a complete ban on trade it is not possible to prevent totally the entry of pests and diseases. and even then some will make their own way here. The plant health service's ability to respond rapidly to outbreaks is therefore vital. As my hon. Friend said, the response to last year's outbreak of potato ring rot in Wales was widely acknowledged in both Government and industry circles as textbook, and was illustrative of the professionalism of DEFRA's plant health service.
      Current and recent challenges, such as potato ring rot last year and the fungal disease phytophthora ramorum—sudden oak death—have highlighted the

      1069
      need for close collaboration between Government and growers. The potential impact of phytophthora ramorum on some of our native and non-native trees and other ecologically important species is a particular concern. As soon as the link between the strain found in Europe and the US was established, by a Forestry Commission scientist, the UK was instrumental in securing an EU co-ordinated approach to tackling the disease. I have heard it said several times that the disease continues to be imported into this country. However, the majority of the findings confirmed so far are of UK origin. That is why, at the end of last year, in addition to the EU measures, I agreed a 50 per cent. increase in resources devoted to the detection of the disease and research.
      Although it is still too early to be certain, our strategy appears to be working. Comparing the first three months of 2003 with 2004, the number of new outbreaks has dropped by 67 per cent. The first major Forestry Commission phytophthora ramorum woodland survey has also recently been concluded. The disease was not found during the survey of 1,348 sites visited across Great Britain. That is encouraging news but we still have a lot of work to do. I have seen for myself in California the devastation that this fungus can cause. It is imperative that we gain a clear understanding of the potential impact here, and in the meantime that we continue to take a precautionary approach. I am very conscious that that is creating difficulties for those affected in a number of areas. I am grateful for their continuing co-operation and understanding. For the Government's part, we will do our best to work with those concerned to ensure that the impact on their businesses of any necessary action is minimised.
      The hon. Member for Maidenhead had something to say about money. I was pleased about that. I shall give her a couple of examples comparing spending on this area now with spending under the previous Government. The total DEFRA spend on veterinary research in the last year of the Conservative Government, 1996–97, was £24,240,000. In the last year for which we have figures, 2001–02, it was £37,576,000. That is a huge increase, of 54 per cent. Similarly, with regard to resource allocation to the state veterinary service, the spend back in 1995 was £1.1 million, compared with £1.445 million now. I cannot do the maths off the top of my head, but that seems to me to be a 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. increase. Again, that is a huge increase in the Government's commitment to tackling the issue.
      Back in February, I wrote to the hon. Lady asking her about her financial commitment not just to this area of policy but to DEFRA as a whole. As we all know, her colleague the shadow Chancellor announced that only education and health would be protected in terms of spending in the first two years of the next Conservative Government, and that the cut that would have to be inflicted on DEFRA was equivalent to about £140 million. I sent that letter on 18 February, and I still have not received a reply. Perhaps when her colleague sums up at the end of today's debate, he might outline for the benefit of the House exactly where the Tory cuts on plant and animal health will fall.
      If one goes through a list of all the potential plant and animal diseases, and their prevalence in this country, the rest of Europe and other parts of the world, one sees that
      1070
      we have a much better record on plant and animal health than is generally assumed because of the major problems caused by BSE, foot and mouth and bovine TB. On plant health, we have one of the best records in the world. Diseases or pests that are common or endemic elsewhere, such as Colorado beetle, potato ring rot and thrips palmi are rare or absent here.
      Animal diseases such as rabies, swine fever, avian flu and brucellosis which are endemic or cause regular problems abroad are absent from this country today. In fact, contrary to what is said in the motion, there has been a positive trend despite a massive increase in trade. Activity to eradicate animal diseases has continued over the last 40 years under successive Governments, and foot and mouth, classical swine fever, brucellosis and Aujezsky's disease, for instance, are no longer endemic here. Any incursions of disease have been dealt with effectively to maintain our disease-free status.
      The foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 was brought under control in record time, and measures are now being taken on the basis of recommendations made by the Anderson and Royal Society reports. We are working with the farming industry to tackle tuberculosis in cattle, a problem that we share with a number of other countries including Ireland, the United States and New Zealand. We have also developed, for the first time, an animal health and welfare strategy, so that we can learn from the problems we have experienced and from best practice abroad.
      Mrs. May: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Bradshaw: I am sorry, but I am about to finish my speech. The hon. Lady had an opportunity to intervene earlier.
      The strategy will help producers to improve and protect their animals' health. It will provide incentives for good practice, and it aims to make the balance of the cost between producer, consumer and taxpayer more equitable if problems do occur.
      Against that background, I urge the House to reject the motion and support our amendment.
      4.16 pm
      Mr. Roger Williams: First, let me draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members' Interests in relation to livestock farming.
      I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate these issues today, as too often we have been prevented from doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) has frequently chided the Secretary of State for treating the House as a notice board rather than as a debating chamber where we can scrutinise Government policy, and perhaps contribute to making it more beneficial to the British agriculture industry. I would go a little further: I think that DEFRA does treat the House as a notice board, but often it has no messages to put on the notice board.
      The farming industry finds it very difficult to plan for the future when so little information is given to it. We are still waiting, for instance, for information on tenants and new entrants in the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. They are the most vulnerable people in the industry. The over-30 month scheme seems to

      1071
      have disappeared over the political horizon, and if we had to depend on the Government for the fallen stock scheme the stock would remain fallen on the farms, which would cause a great problem for everyone.
      Mr. James Gray: Thank God for the hunts.
      Mr. Williams: Yes!
      Bovine TB is getting out of hand. It is spreading across the country at an alarming rate. What causes farmers the most distress, though, is the Government's inactivity and lack of resolution.
      Mr. Martlew: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the spread of bovine TB. In Cumbria we were exempt, but when we were "killed out" after foot and mouth we imported cattle with TB from the south-west. It was not badgers that spread the disease in our area.
      Mr. Williams: I do not think we have yet resolved the question of whether TB is always spread from bovine to bovine, or from wildlife to bovine animals. Part of our concern is the need to get on and do the fundamental research that is so important. As the Minister said, we must make decisions based on sound science. If we start to base them on knee-jerk reactions, we will probably end up in a worse situation than at present. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made a good point on the movement of cattle. We are considering the consultation document on TB and will have something to say on pre-movement and post-movement testing.
      The Government seem to have no confidence in themselves to deal with a number of the issues, and as a result, the industry has no confidence in the Government. That is a poor base on which to establish a sound and realistic approach to preventing disease from entering this country, and to stop the spread of disease if it does enter the country and take hold.
      Of course, I accept that the Government have had to start from a very weak base. It was the Conservative Government who closed veterinary investigation centres and presided over the closure of veterinary departments in universities. Had it not been for work done by my predecessor, they would have closed the veterinary department in my university, Cambridge, but luckily, that survives. They also centralised the state veterinary service and reduced the number of vets involved in it, and I shall come back to that. As the Minister said, when this Government took over, the contingency plans in place were often incomplete, inadequate or incomprehensible to read, and they were of no use in dealing with diseases when they occurred.
      Much mention has been made of the problem with imports, which is fundamental. I am sure that farmers' and the agriculture industry's trust in the Government would be enhanced if the Government were much more open about the importance of import controls. We can hardly hear them speak about import controls without their then going on to talk about biosecurity in the
      1072
      farming industry. Farmers accept that, but they would also like to see a much more open, definite and strong voice when the Government talk about import controls.
      Some 18 months ago, I spoke in support of a ten-minute Bill in the House that asked that import controls be put in the hands of one agency. I was therefore very encouraged when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced one day that that would happen, and that controls would be put into the hands of Customs and Excise. That is the right move, but I do not know if it has achieved as much success as we would have liked. The sheer quantity, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) pointed out, of illegal meat that comes into this country makes it almost certain that at some stage we will get an exotic disease that is either infective to animals, whether to domestic animals or wildlife, or is a zoonotic disease—one which spreads to human beings. All the public uproar that we had over BSE and foot and mouth would be as nothing compared with the public uproar if a disease came in that affected the human population.
      Mr. Russell Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Much is said about import controls, and I wholeheartedly agree that despite what we have done, we need to toughen them up. Much emphasis is given to what the United States does, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady that what we have seized in this country is only a fraction of what they have seized in the United States. We say that that country has a good system, but it seizes literally hundreds of thousands of kilos. That seems to be forgotten.
      Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but there is a huge market in ethnic foods in this country, which contributes to the scale of the problem.
      I have visited Heathrow, through which, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead said, more than 60 million people a year pass. That is an enormous number of inspections to carry out. We will never tackle this problem if we attempt to do so on a random or lottery basis, and greater emphasis must be placed on an intelligence-driven system. The people involved in illegal meat imports are often the same people who are involved in narcotic and drug imports. They see the former as an almost equally profitable business to be in, but without the great danger of being apprehended, and with virtually no danger of any punishment if they are caught.
      In addition to an intelligence-based system, we want magistrates and judges to be given more training in the nature of this offence, and to be made aware of the severe consequences if illegal meat imports continue. The best deterrent of all is a very stiff sentence. We look to the courts and the training systems to ensure that that issue is addressed.
      Mr. Kidney: I missed the hon. Gentleman this morning at Windsor Great Park—[Interruption.] I was there and he was not. He is making some very constructive suggestions in respect of illegal imports, but will he distinguish—as I asked the Minister to do—

      1073
      between such imports and legal commercial imports conducted through import posts, at which the inspections are thorough and reliable?
      Mr. Williams: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman. If he is talking about commercial meat imports into this country that come through recognised ports and which are declared, I take his point. We still have a problem with beef imports from south America, for example, where foot and mouth remains endemic. We import from areas that are "foot and mouth free", and we depend very much on the work done in those countries to ensure that meat is sent there with a credible assurance that it is free of foot and mouth.
      One of my concerns is that when cargo consignments enter this country, they are often labelled as consolidated, with no indication given of what might be in the container or package. Clive Lawrence—he has been mentioned before—points that out as a great weakness in the system. It would be of great help at airports and seaports if full details of the contents of imports were given on containers.
      Mr. Drew: The problem with the debate about illegal imports—and legal imports, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) alluded to—is that it is not as straightforward as it appears. The EU has been in dispute with the US for countless years about hormones in beef, and in my view the EU is right; indeed, I had an argument with my noble Friend Lord Rooker about whether such opposition is legitimate. The situation is not as straightforward as "Illegal imports bad, legal imports good."
      Mr. Williams: I take the point that the situation is more complicated than that.
      I shall have to gallop through the remainder of my speech if other Members are going to contribute. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives raised the subject of foot and mouth and Mr. Dring's report in the House on 11 March, and he wrote to the Secretary of State on 17 March. My party is no longer calling for a full public inquiry into foot and mouth because we believe that the time for such an inquiry has passed, and the expense and various organisational problems involved in having one are not justified. Things have moved on, the reports have been produced and vaccination is obviously going to play a bigger part in combating any future outbreak. However, Mr. Dring's comments do bear further investigation. We need to look into what happened at the Waugh farm, and why the problems were not dealt with sooner, and perhaps the licence revoked.
      BSE is a classic case of our not addressing the fundamental science. We still do not understand the nature of the infective agent. We do not understand entirely how it spreads from bovine to bovine or whether it is also found in ovine animals. Equally, we do not know with any certainty how it spreads from cattle to human. That has resulted in huge problems of expense. No one who has had a blood transfusion since, I think, 1980 can donate blood, because we did not understand then and we do not understand now. Investment in fundamental science is always cost-effective for the nation, because it allows us to make decisions with certainty rather than guessing.
      1074
      Has the Minister fully investigated the problems of developing an effective vaccine for tuberculosis? Is it being held up by financial considerations, or by the fact that it takes a number of generation times to do the development work—or are we simply not putting enough pressure on the research establishment? Very difficult decisions will shortly have to be taken.
      Professor Godfray's report said that Professor Bourne's recommendation not to continue with active culling was implemented too soon. That is a classic example of two different interpretations' of the same evidence.
      Mr. Bradshaw: There has been a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what Professor Godfray said about the abandoning of the reactive cull. Neither he nor John Bourne said, contrary to some press reports, that it was the wrong thing to do. They both said that, in terms of science, it would have been preferable for the cull to have continued, but given the fact that the independent scientific group found—Professor Godfray did not challenge this—that the reactive cull had increased the incidence of TB in cattle by 27 per cent. in the affected areas, both gentlemen understood why, politically, the Government could not possibly have continued with the cull.
      Mr. Williams: If we consider the whole process of the Krebs trials, we see that several issues need clarification, either from the Minister or from his officials.
      We are very pleased that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is conducting another investigation of TB. I do not see the Chairman here today, but I urge the Committee to visit Ireland. There is a lot of discussion about whether the work being done there has the imprimatur of the peer review that is so essential to science, but the Committee should go there and scrutinise it, just to see whether it has any implications for the British situation, because there are a lot of similarities in relation to the countryside and the nature of our agriculture.
      The outbreak of ring rot in potatoes was in my constituency. There was disagreement in the House about who was responsible for controlling it—the politicians or the officials. We should all have enough good grace to say that the person really responsible for ensuring that the disease did not spread was the farmer. We talk about biosecurity, and he had excellent records and could trace the path of every single potato that had left or entered his farm. I do not want to make the point again in great detail today, but Ministers refused my invitation to meet the farmer, John Morgan, who could explain the position to them. There is a man suffering huge financial losses, for which no blame has been apportioned. I believe that his position should be examined: it is a one-off, and if it had not been for his immaculate work in maintaining records and doing his job, the problem could have been a lot worse than it is.
      I finish with a brief review of the veterinary service in Britain. The state veterinary service has been centralised and reduced: it is no longer as reactive as it was to local developments. The British Veterinary Association made contact with me today and asked me to ask the Minister how many times vets go out on livestock farms nowadays to examine the livestock itself. Not only is the

      1075
      state veterinary service much reduced, but because the livestock industry has gone through difficult financial times, large animal practices are not as thick on the ground as they were. More and more of vets' work is connected with pets and small animals. Vets seldom go out to look at the stock on farms. Indeed, even during emergencies, few vets are available to treat large animals. I could provide many examples to back that assertion, if necessary. Will the Minister respond to my points about the state veterinary service and private veterinary practice? I reiterate my point about the importance of reflecting on what is happening in Ireland.
      The Minister provided some evidence to show that the Government were spending more money on research, but we say that it is very well spent indeed, and if there is any more investment is to be made, it should be in the fundamental sciences, because in the long run, they will prove most effective in dealing with the problems that we are debating this afternoon.
      4.37 pm
      Mr. Eric Martlew: I shall start by attacking the Opposition's logic in claiming that the Government's record does not bear looking at. I shall then gently criticise my Government for some of the things that they have not yet done.
      It seems to be my lot to speak about agriculture. Over the years, I have tried to get away from it, but the reality is that I am in my place to talk about it again. In 1986, I was working for one of the largest dairies in the country when the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl took place, nearly closing the factory. To be honest, biosecurity would have had no effect on that particular incident.
      It may be asked why I am bringing up events that happened in 1986. First, I remember that in 1986 the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—now the noble Lord Jopling—said that the matter was under control and that the problem would be solved in six months. However, farms—many in Wales and, I understand, some in my county of Cumbria—are still affected by radiation from Chernobyl. So nearly two decades on, we are still suffering from problems stemming from Chernobyl. The Government of 1986 allowed lamb contaminated with radiation to enter the food chain. When I became a Member of Parliament, I sat on the Agriculture Select Committee, which conducted an inquiry into that matter.
      Shortly after that, I recall the problem of salmonella. It was a major issue because the responsible Minister and former MP, Edwina Currie. said that most British eggs were contaminated with it. That created panic in the country and meant the destruction of millions of hens. It took the industry years to recover and brought an end to a ministerial career. I recall debating the issues in the House and quoting Peter Rabbit—the Minister of
      Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the time was John MacGregor, and it seemed appropriate.
      Some people say that the problems caused by foot and mouth disease are of the same magnitude as those caused by BSE. They are not. The difference is that BSE has killed 140 people, including an 18-year-old constituent of mine.
      1076
      Moreover, BSE was not imported, and did not come to Britain in someone's suitcase. It was manufactured in the UK, by the previous Conservative Government, who allowed a reduction in the rendering temperatures used on material going into food. I do not say that they manufactured BSE deliberately, but the problem arose directly out of that decision.
      Today, the Opposition's criticism of the Government does not amount to very much, as an inspection of the motion makes clear. Some Opposition Members attending this debate were in the House at the time of the BSE scare, and some were even Ministers. In fact, I accept some responsibility too, as I was a member of the Select Committee that investigated the matter. We concluded that it was safe to eat beef, but we were wrong. It was not safe to eat beef at that time, but we did not know the science involved. Later, I was in a car on the way back from a by-election when I heard the then Secretary of State for Health admit to the House that BSE could be transmitted from animals to human beings. We must not think that BSE and foot and mouth are of equivalent seriousness, as the foot and mouth outbreak did not lead directly to any human deaths.
      I want to say, by way of a gentle word to the Minister, that it is not a good idea to keep on saying that the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak was the largest in Europe, or the world. I do not think that this Government, or any other, could have tackled it any better, but the truth is that they did not tackle it very well. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) is not present, as the foot and mouth outbreak was tackled well across the border in Scotland. The problems there were far smaller than in England.
      I represent Carlisle, so I was at the epicentre of the outbreak. It was not very pleasant, and I accept that the problem went far beyond the loss of animals. A whole way of life was lost, and many people lost their life's work. That was very distressing.
      My constituency is mainly urban, and I live in the centre of it. However, I could smell the meat singeing on the pyres all around. I vowed that we should never have to go through that again—in my constituency or anywhere else.
      Part of the problem in tackling the outbreak stemmed from the fact that the previous Conservative Government had reduced the number of veterinary surgeons. If another outbreak occurred today, we would not have enough vets to deal with it. I suggested, during the 2001 outbreak, that we should establish the veterinary equivalent of the Territorial Army. Under that plan, we would have vets in reserve who could be called on in emergency. I am not sure that we have done that.
      My biggest criticism of the farming industry and the Government—and the Opposition too—is that, both during the outbreak and since, everyone has avoided tackling the question of vaccination. I do not believe that we can make the country's borders secure. In 2001, the foot and mouth epidemic caused the general election to be delayed. If people wanted to create panic in this country, all they have to do is import the foot and mouth virus. That would be bioterrorism, and it could happen.
      In such circumstances, it would not matter how many sniffer dogs we had at our ports. I remember asking my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, the hon.

      1077
      Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who in 2001 was Minister for Fisheries and the Countryside, if he knew the names of the only two dogs that we had. For the first time in my experience, he was not able to answer the question. In reality, our borders will never be secure. Although I agree that we should try our best to make them so, there will always be the chance of disease coming into the country. That is why I believe that we should make sure we never have foot and mouth again by introducing routine vaccination. It is sad that this country—under the previous Government, though I do not blame them for that—persuaded the rest of Europe away from vaccination. Unless we introduce that as policy, we will, sooner or later, have another outbreak of foot and mouth.
      Mr. Kidney: We all hope that there will never be another outbreak of foot and mouth disease, or that if there is, it is as long until then as the last one was from the one before. Vaccination is important, but when we considered it at the height of the last outbreak, retailers would not accept it for meat to be sold and we thought that the public would not buy meat if animals had been vaccinated, which was the justification for the retailers' decision. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should now be raising awareness and winning minds about vaccination for the future?
      Mr. Martlew: I totally agree. The company that runs the dairy where I used to work threatened to close it if we introduced vaccination, because it believed that the product would not be acceptable. That was nonsense. We need only to think of the number of other things for which animals are vaccinated. It was a panic reaction by the retailers. Even so, people in Cumbria practised on oranges—that is how close we came to vaccination. In the end, the National Farmers Union decided that it was not a good idea, although I suspect that most farmers in the area thought that it was. We have to take the opportunity now when there is no panic to get retailers, wholesalers and the industry to accept vaccination. It will be too late once there is another panic, as my hon. Friend says. Vaccination is the way forward.
      The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) mentioned a vaccine for bovine tuberculosis, and I agreed with what he said. Ahout 12 years ago, I tabled a parliamentary question asking why we had not developed a vaccine for that. We have had one for human TB for 50 or 60 years. The answer was that research was going on, but that a vaccine was a long way in the future. Twelve years is a long time into the future, and I do not think that the issue has been given enough priority. One reason for that was that everyone hoped it would go away. It will not.
      Unless we have a vaccine, some difficult decisions will have to be taken. On one side, the farming community will rightly want to protect stock, and the Government will spend millions of pounds paying them compensation. On the other side will be the animal welfare people. It is a delight to see a badger in the wild. Any Government who underestimate the effect of carrying out a major badger cull are deluding themselves. I hope that we shall work hard on a vaccine. If the problem is resources, perhaps we should switch them from somewhere else, because that would save money in the long run.
      1078
      I will conclude because I notice that a lot more people want to speak than I had expected. The Opposition had no right to table their motion because their record does not stand looking at. That is true on how they responded to Chernobyl, on salmonella and, especially, on how BSE started in this country, not just affecting farm incomes and animals, but affecting humans. Even now, it is unsafe for the vast majority of us to give blood because of BSE under the previous Government. Foot and mouth taught us a lesson, although I am not sure that the Government have learnt it totally.
      I have explained my particular solution. It does not worry me that we might have an outbreak of foot and mouth disease tomorrow. We know what to do because we have just done it. People will be put in place and it will be sorted. What really worries me is if we have an outbreak in 15 or 20 years, by which time the lessons will have been forgotten and some community will suffer as mine did.
      For those reasons I will support the Government today, but I am concerned that they have not learnt all the lessons from the foot and mouth outbreak.
      4.50 pm
      Mr. Adrian Flook: So far there has been much discussion of the foot and mouth outbreak of three years ago, but I should like to address a specific problem that is current and is getting worse, and that is bovine tuberculosis. Large swathes of my constituency are already affected and infected. That is true also along much of the Somerset and Devon border. I am sure that my colleagues who are here today will also wish to comment on bovine TB.
      Nationally we are aware that the problem is getting worse. In the past year there have been 18 per cent. more incidents and 20 per cent. more cattle have been culled. It is quickly becoming, not an endemic disease, but an epidemic. On several occasions the Minister has rightly acknowledged that there are a number of difficulties. The Government have published a strategy, imposed further measures to stop the spread from cattle to cattle, although some of those worries are much exaggerated, and have discontinued trapping badgers in reactive areas in the Krebs trials.
      It is probably worth spending a few moments on the costs of those trials. They have already cost tens of millions. Compensation paid to farmers is increasing dramatically from just over £3.5 million four or five years ago to £31 million in 2002—03. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has done a lot of work, and as we know, asked a lot of questions on this subject. He has ascertained the sum that could well be spent. According to a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report, "Preparing for a new Strategy on Bovine TB", it would appear that over the next eight years we could well spend £1,000 million on just trying to contain, and not even beat, bovine TB. That figure does not measure what will have to he spent by farmers themselves, so the total figure will be in excess of £1,000 million.
      The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) is concerned and in an intervention mentioned cattle to cattle spread. It appears from a demonstration from reactive areas that the Government are doing only half their job. We know, to put it bluntly, that if we remove

      1079
      infected cattle but leave behind the source of the infection, which is arguably now proven to be the badgers in large areas of my constituency, the problem remains. More cattle become infected. That does not make sense.
      My constituency has "no cull" areas, centred around Huntsham in Devon and in Ashbrittle, Chipstable, Skilgate and elsewhere in Somerset. It also has a proactive Krebs area centred on Hawkridge, which includes Dulverton, Winsford and Withypool—all mainly on Exmoor, as the Minister will no doubt know. The reactive area was centred around the Brendon Hill and Brompton Regis area. As it has been abandoned now, there are at least 40 farmers in my constituency who are impacted. In short, the cessation of the Krebs reactive badger cull has not removed the infected badgers; they are allowed to roam around. Being weak and suffering from a disease effectively means that they are moving into other areas. In that way more and more farmers are being impacted. The Minister gave the order to stop the reactive trials because, he said, there had been an average 27 per cent. increase in the number of cattle herds that had been infected in the trial areas—but the numbers ranged from 3.5 to 53 per cent. That is even worse than the spread to clean farms in the no badger cull areas. The implication was that the reactive cull had spread the weaker badgers infected with TB even further afield.
      Christopher Thomas-Everard and his son have a farm in my constituency, and the Minister will probably have heard of them. They have made a detailed study of the issue. In 1979, only 0.1 per cent. of herds in the UK had TB, although the figure was 0.5 per cent. in the south-west. The disease was nearly eradicated, but now 40 per cent. of herds in the hotspot area of west Somerset in my constituency cannot sell any cattle because they have TB. There are now 20 parishes in west Somerset with TB, as opposed to one a few years ago. In Cornwall, Devon and Somerset, the incidence of bovine TB in clean herds has gone from 403 in 2000 to 1,240 in 2002.
      How was the disease introduced to west Somerset? Some people believe that it was brought in when some Animal Liberation Front activist moved TB-infected badgers from Chagford, near Dartmoor, on to Exmoor. There is good evidence for that, but the problem is now well out of control. One of the saddest aspects, for those of us who care about animal conservation, is that the massive rise in the incidence of the disease has meant that lots of badgers have died, cattle have to be slaughtered before time and farmers have to put in great efforts to make the testing work.
      The hon. Member for Carlisle made an impassioned plea for a vaccination. It is clear from Professor Godfray's report, and recent parliamentary answers, that there is no prospect of a vaccine being developed in time to save the Minister from having to make difficult decisions. However, given the amount of money being spent, someone in the Treasury may make the decision for the DEFRA Ministers.
      We could do more to improve matters now, such as introducing gamma interferon testing. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's views on that. I am told that DEFRA completed a feasibility study in 2001, three years ago, but we still have no word on when the tests
      1080
      will be available for wider use. The Government have not published a progress report on their strategy to tackle TB in cattle since January 2001, and the Minister says that he is consulting—yet again—until June 2004. Farmers are not being helped. We need to use today's knowledge and sound science, and the Government must get a grip on what they intend to do and do it, instead of just consulting.
      One option is to introduce "clean ring" testing of badgers in TB areas. We could also explain, without emotive use of language, that TB is a badger disease as well as a cattle disease. It has horrible effects on badgers as well as cattle and we need to do something about it, for the sake of the badgers and not just for the sake of cattle herds. We also need to provide a reliable TB test that does not show so many false positives.
      The Government have failed to address many of the real problems of bovine TB, not only in my constituency but in the whole of the south-west. They have let down the very people they are there for—the British farmers—and caused unnecessary suffering to many animals. When the broader population find out—I have many urban constituents—that the problem has and will cost taxpayers a fortune, they will be very annoyed with the Government, and rightly so.
      5 pm
      Mr. David Kidney: Thank goodness, I have the opportunity to explain my presence in Windsor Great park this morning before a story gets out involving a scandal and the allegation that I met the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). This morning saw the launch of a campaign by the Ancient Tree Forum and the Woodland Trust for greater recognition and protection of ancient and historic trees. Given that this country has about 80 per cent. of Europe's ancient and historic trees, we bear a pretty heavy responsibility. I shall return to that subject on a more appropriate occasion.
      I wish to refer to the foot and mouth outbreak two years ago. It was a most distressing time. I remember the day that I went to my local district veterinary office in Stafford. Along with the Army and the veterinary service were vets who had been brought in from all around the world to help. I met a vet from New Zealand, a Spanish vet and a South African vet on that day. It was a Sunday, but the place was teeming with people trying to get on top of the outbreak. I also met many farmers and none greater than John Lewis, who was there to liaise between the veterinary service and local farmers. He was rightly recognised in the Queen's honour list for his work during the outbreak. I saw all the heartbreak and upset, but I also saw the closed countryside and the businesses involved in catering, leisure and tourism that suffered too. That is how serious the problem was.
      We all hope than such an outbreak will never happen again, but how realistic is that hope? We clearly need to plan just in case it ever happens again. One of the lessons learned from the outbreak that appeared in the Anderson report was that it is one thing to write a report afterwards and draw up a contingency plan but, if there is no outbreak for years afterwards, that plan will become out of date. The contingency plan that was dusted off two years ago from the great outbreak in the 1960s in Staffordshire and Cheshire proved to be a waste of paper.

      1081
      The crucial differences are that a notifiable disease was not notified on the latest occasion and the great increase in the number of, and speed at which, animals are transported around the country. Who knows what the great differences will be in the next outbreak? It is important that we keep contingency planning up to date, and DEFRA has at least made the commitment that it will do that.
      Mr. Huw Edwards: On contingency plans, I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to acknowledge the work that is being undertaken and is being co-ordinated by DEFRA that will culminate in June in Operation Hornbeam. It is a massive contingency simulation exercise.
      Mr. Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that fact and how important it is. He is right to say that we must ensure that contingency plans are up to date by carrying out operations from time to time.
      On foot and mouth, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the vaccine. If an outbreak took place tomorrow, we know from the contingency plan that there would be an immediate stop to transportation and to exports. We know that the countryside would not all be closed, but it would be selectively closed. Crucially, we also know that cattle would be culled again. That is still the official policy of the Government and this Parliament, and we are not going to disagree with the Government. A future outbreak will be controlled by a cull. If we want to do something different, it is important that we have the debate, provide the education and engage in awareness raising and the winning of minds between now and the next outbreak. That is an important issue for us to deal with in future.
      I shall deal next with illegal imports. Perhaps I can elaborate now on my interventions about border import posts. I have had many meetings with local farmers in my constituency and they often raise the issue of illegal imports of meat. It is extremely important to them. Whenever I mention border import posts, it is clear that many people do not understand that there is a system that works effectively in respect of the proper commercial import of food into this country. As far as I am aware, no one questions the effectiveness of that system which, let us remind ourselves, is multi-agency, involving trading standards, Customs and Excise, immigration, Home Office and so on. Between 20 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the whole delivery of meat is inspected for quality on each occasion. That is why 1 say that the system is substantial, reliable and, as far as we can tell, robust. It is an important message of reassurance to our public that there is a system and it works.
      We are focusing today on an area where things may not work as well as they should—that is, illegal imports, which cover a wide range. Then are the personal imports by people coming into the country. I have stood in the arrival lounge of an airport and seen the flood of people coming off an aeroplane. If we stopped them all in a queue and searched each of them and their luggage, there would be a total breakdown of travel by air. I have stood on the ground at the port at Dover and watched a ferry unload all its vehicles—cars and lorries—which
      1082
      have all come past me in a great rush. Again, if we stopped and inspected each of those, there would be a total dislocation of travel and trade in this country, so those are not realistic solutions.
      Part of the solution must be the collection of intelligence and risk assessment, to pick out the people and vehicles that need to be stopped and searched. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, that when we catch people who are breaking the law in that way, they must go to court and they must be severely punished. We need to make sure that that message gets back to everybody else as a deterrent. If the courts are letting us down on the sentences, I do not see how we can say that is the Government's fault. We in this place must raise the awareness of judges that they are letting the country down with lenient sentences.
      As a footnote to this part of my contribution, I point out that about two years ago, before the new strategy for controlling illegal imports, including the transfer of responsibility to Customs and Excise, was put in place, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs organised a seminar for Members of both Houses to discuss the best policy for illegal import controls. Measures that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs described as successes have been adopted since that seminar. I do not say that hon. Members like me who attended that meeting contributed all the good points that became Government policy, but it would be good of the Government to acknowledge that others contributed to the development of their policies that have been successful.
      I agree with hon. Members who asked today why there cannot be similar input from us on TB. I remind the Minister that two debates ago on bovine TB in Westminster Hall, I suggested to him that a seminar would be a useful part of the process of developing his new strategy, and he agreed to hold such a seminar. I hope that that will take place soon.
      I have one last point to make on the effectiveness of our immigration controls for meat. It is anecdotal, but hon. Members tend to judge issues by their casework, do they not? I never had a complaint about illegal imports of meat from an illegal importer before we passed over responsibility to Customs and Excise, but since we did so, I have had two complaints of excessive attention to duty by Customs and Excise in seizing meat from constituents of mine—one case involved a car coming into the country by ferry at a port, and the second, a minibus coming by ferry through Dover, when every one of the minibus passengers had their luggage searched and illegal meats seized from them. That is anecdotal, and perhaps other hon. Members can say whether they have had similar experiences. At least it shows some evidence of the effectiveness of the new policy.
      My final contribution to the debate is on the subject with which the Minister began his contribution—animal health and welfare. He mentioned that later this year the Government's strategy on that would be developed. I agree with him about good animal husbandry, and biosecurity is a fundamental building block of security for the future of the country's animal welfare. Will there

      1083
      be legislation to underpin the strategy? It is understandable that the House is clamouring for more controls, but will that lead to more regulations that place more burdens on farmers, who are hard-pressed to deal with current regulations? I would hate to think that, with the best of intentions, hon. Members might impose on farmers new burdens that they could do without.
      Let me share with the Minister my view of the solution. The more we can move towards a whole farm approach, the better. I know that we have tried a little bit in that context with regard to payments and audit, but we should view the whole farm as a unit for animal health and welfare assurance, including the inspection that goes with such an approach and with regard to risk assessment. Perhaps we could use new legislation to say that we are lifting burdens away from farmers while establishing new and better practices for the future. I hope that that is a constructive suggestion that I can leave with the Minister.
      5.11 pm
      Mrs. Angela Browning: I should like to begin with a point about which I intervened on the Minister. Other hon. Members have mentioned veterinarians, and I wish to reiterate the genuine concern that exists about the number of vets available whose training is based on farm animal welfare. As we have heard. many vets today decide to specialise in companion animals, which means that fewer of them have farm animal experience of the sort that the Department needs to call on when there is a crisis such as foot and mouth.
      I repeat to the Minister that there is clear evidence—I am sure that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has spoken to him, and if not, I am sure that it would do so—about the fact that the training of qualified vets in other EU countries does not concentrate as much on farm animal husbandry in its course and syllabus as our own veterinary qualifications.
      This is not an issue of knocking people from European countries who come to work as vets in this country, as they are clearly entitled to do; it is about looking at the resource of qualified veterinarians who have the expertise that might need to be called upon in an emergency. One of the lessons that was learned from the last foot and mouth disease outbreak was that many retired vets who were living in the community could have been called upon and would have brought to the situation not only their expertise as veterinarians, but a valuable resource that was clearly needed during the foot and mouth crisis—local knowledge. That would have helped vets who were called in from throughout the country to assist.
      I raised the issue of security at ports and airports on several occasions during the passage of the Bill that became the Animal Health Act 2002, as I served on the Committee that considered that Bill. The Government have made some gestures, but I am not happy in my mind that these matters are clear in practice. There is a paucity of people coming before the court to be tried and convicted, and we have heard about the rather laissez-faire attitude of the people who sit and hear the very few such cases that do come before them.
      1084
      In 2002, I tabled a written question asking the Secretary of State
      "what plans she has to introduce amnesty collection bins for food products at UK air and seaports."
      The reply stated:
      "We are currently consulting the Home Office, the Department for Transport, HM Customs and Excise, and the relevant ports and airports … on … amnesty bins or equivalent measures".—[Official Report, 5 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 228W.]
      I do not travel abroad widely or extensively; as the Minister knows, I live in God's own county, and who would want to travel abroad when they live in Devon? None the less, I do so occasionally, and I think that in the past year, I have visited Canada and two or three EU countries.
      Mr. Russell Brown: What about Belgium?
      Mrs. Browning: I have not visited Belgium; a little shiver just went through me.
      The provision at Dublin airport was implemented as a direct response to our foot and mouth problem in the UK, and the airport lounge contains not only amnesty bins, but a veterinary office. Other countries perceive the issue in that way, and I would like an update from the Minister on illegal imports, which other hon. Members discussed today, and personal imports.
      It is important that passengers on planes are asked to fill in a slip and declare what they have. When one enters the United States, for example, one is asked to tick a box. Dogs can deal with the problem without holding up passengers who are moving through airports, because they can sniff out imports without bags having to be opened and examined. More dogs should be involved, because they deal with the problem so effectively.
      When the Secretary of State responded to the foot and mouth disease inquiry reports on the Floor of the House, she made a clear commitment, and it would be good if the Minister were to update us on why so few people are apprehended at our ports and airports. Are all ports and airports covered or are there gaps? What happens to people who arrive in this country by sea from the Channel Islands or mainland Europe? When one arrives at a major airport in this country—in particular, Gatwick and Heathrow—one sometimes does not see any officials, and I should like to hear more about that point.
      I shall briefly discuss one or two specific animal diseases, on which I should like to hear the latest updates from the Minister. The Animal Health Act includes measures to rid our national flock of scrapie, which is a laudable aim that I support. When we debated the 2002 Act, however, the fact that scrapie is rife in eastern European countries was mentioned, and I discussed the matter with the Minister for the Environment. What will happen to our scrapie policy after 1 May, when some of those countries join the EU? It would be nonsensical to rid the UK flock of scrapie only to expose it to imports of breeding stock or meat—I do not mean that sheep eat sheep. What procedure will be implemented to protect the national flock from increased access to scrapie from eastern European countries?
      On avian influenza and Newcastle disease, some hon. Members attended the British Poultry Council's lunch, at which Lord Whitty and Mr. John Maunder, who is

      1085
      my constituent and the retiring chairman of the British Poultry Council, gave a presentation. In his address, Mr. Maunder mentioned that the council works with DEFRA on environmental matters and contingency planning for an outbreak of avian influenza or Newcastle disease. He said:
      "The Plan is good and"
      the industry
      "will work within it. There are some aspects such as movement licences that still have to be finalised."
      When will those movement licences be finalised to complete the protection against avian flu?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and several other hon. Friends mentioned bovine TB. When I was a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from 1994 to 1997, I was aware of bovine TB, because, when I was elected in 1992, it had just spread down from Exmoor to affect the area to the north of my constituency. Bovine TB has now spread through my constituency, and it would be on its way into the Minister's constituency if the Minister's constituency contained any farms. The Minister will know from his knowledge of the geography of the south-west peninsula that bovine TB descended across Bodmin moor from higher moorland areas such as Dartmoor and Exmoor.
      From 1994 to 1996, I could see the disease moving to other parts of the country, going round the corner to Bristol and up to the borders of Herefordshire and Worcestershire. The policy that we had put in place to deal with and control the disease appeared not to be working. I had many meetings to discuss the problem, including with the Irish Government, who had put into practice a cordon sanitaire. My boss—the Agriculture Minister—and I agreed to set up the Krebs committee because we felt that any dramatic change in policy had first to be assessed by an independent panel, then brought back to this House. However, the election and the change of Government intervened.
      If the Minister really wants to stop the spread of the disease, which is rather different from containing it where it already is, will he consider what has happened in the Republic of Ireland? As I see it, the only option is to throw a cordon around certain are as where we can see that it is travelling up or—as in the south-west peninsula, where the Minister and I have our seats—down the country. Having held the office that I did for three years, I understand the problems and risks involved and realise that it is a hugely difficult call politically, but it is one of the options that he must consider.
      Linked to that, it is well worth considering the work that is being done in the Republic of Ireland on vaccination. One of the things about research—I was always sensitive to this, as is the Minister, I am sure—is that scientists want to bid for those valuable pots of money, whether public or private, to follow their own interests in terms of what research might bring. However, we should not let the fear of duplicating effort preclude us from looking beyond these shores to where research is being done that might help to fast-track some of the solutions that we need, particularly in the difficult area of bovine tuberculosis
      5.22 pm
      Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: My constituency is a large rural constituency, and I believe that we have approximately 1,800 farms in the whole of the county that is covered by my seat and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger).
      I came to the debate intending not necessarily to take part but to listen to what the Minister had to say about several issues about which I have written to him—not least bovine TB. The title of the debate as it appears on the Order Paper is "Government's Record on Animal and Plant Diseases", and I was stunned that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made no reference to the impact of bovine TB or BSE on the farms in my area. That is a clear indication of how out of touch Tory Front Benchers are in relation to issues that affect my farmers. I am pleased that at least the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) recognised the importance of bovine TB to farmers in west Wales, which is a large dairy area.
      Mr. John Whittingdale: The hon. Lady is accusing Opposition Front Benchers of not being interested in bovine TB, yet the Minister repeatedly criticises my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) for asking questions on that subject, which he and the hon. Lady are right in saying is of enormous concern to farmers.
      Mrs. Lawrence: If it was deemed so important, one might thought that a significant portion of the speech by the hon. Member for Maidenhead would refer to it, but anyone who was present would realise that that was not the case.
      I want to refer to issues that have been brought to my attention by farmers in my constituency. Pembrokeshire and west Wales generally is a major dairy-producing area in the UK. Every time I meet farmers, they give me anecdotal evidence that the problem of bovine TB has increased dramatically in recent years. That was also reflected in the comments of the hon. Members for Taunton and for Tiverton and Honiton. Anyone who has anything to do with farming knows the devastating impact on farmers of finding out that they are personally affected—and I know that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) had farming experience before he came into this place.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) and I usually meet jointly with our local farmers, and we have written to the Government urging them to take action on this issue for west Wales farmers. I have to say that, in general, the response has been very positive. However, I would like to raise one or two points today. The first involves road-kill. One of the major issues raised by my farmers is the fact that so many badgers are killed on the roads these days. If there were a means by which they could be analysed to find out the extent of the incidence of TB, it would go a long way towards helping us to obtain the necessary scientific information. I was pleased to hear that the Minister had no objection to a cull based on scientific evidence. Our farmers are saying

      1087
      that there is a desperate need to pursue that information, and the examination of road-kill badgers could certainly help in that regard.
      The issue of bovine TB is often seen in terms of a conflict between farmers and badger groups, but it should not be. The hon. Member for Taunton touched on this point. It is not an issue of conflict. It is in the badgers' and the badger groups' own interest to ensure that the issue is dealt with and that the badger population is kept healthy.
      Mrs. Browning: I have found that one of the real difficulties is persuading badger groups that badgers are responsible for bovine TB. They are in denial about that, and although we present the evidence of diseased badgers, they do not necessarily accept the connection.
      Mrs. Lawrence: The hon. Lady is absolutely right; that is the point that we have to make.
      At the moment, the evidence is anecdotal. We need scientific evidence to show that connection. We need to say to the badger groups, "Yes, you have the badgers' best interests at heart, but you are not in conflict with the farmers because it is in their interest—in regard to their cattle—and the badgers' interest to get to the bottom of this. That is the way to ensure that as well as having a healthy environment in which the farmers can be sure the disease is not being passed on to their cattle, there is also a healthy badger population." TB is an awful disease. We know that from history, from when it affected the human population, and we need to get across to the badger groups the message that it should not be something that they want to see perpetuated in the badger population.
      I return to the point that I made in my earlier intervention. The issue is money. All this work costs money. The figures that I have seen show that the Government spend £15 million a year on TB research, and £1.5 million on TB vaccination research. I also have figures showing that £74 million is spent on the TB programme overall. That is a significant amount of money. Why will the Opposition not state categorically that they would be prepared to continue with that investment, rather than cutting back on it in line with their shadow Chancellor's statement on public spending?
      The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned the state veterinary service, which is an important factor, as is the availability of vets to treat farm animals. In rural areas such as mine, that availability seems to be diminishing, and that must be addressed. No one has mentioned veterinary medicine today. Farmers tell me time and again that they end up paying so much more for drugs here than people do in countries such as Ireland. I have experience of that myself. I went on holiday to Ireland with my dog, which required treatment, and I was stunned to discover how cheap it was to get an animal treated there. I urge the Government to ask the Competition Commission to investigate this issue. It would be wholly wrong if British farmers were paying more than necessary for essential drugs in fighting disease.
      One more issue in relation to the availability of veterinary medicines is that the European draft directive on the dispensing of veterinary medicines could mean
      1088
      that medication that is currently available through agricultural suppliers will no longer be available through that means. Farmers will therefore have to pay for a veterinary surgeon to prescribe medication. That issue is of major concern to local farmers in my area, and has been raised with me, which is why I want to raise it with the Minister.
      Finally, on bush meat, I congratulate the Farmers Union of Wales and the International Fund for Animal Welfare on their work to combat the trade generally. It is an important health issue and a conservation issue. In terms of health, it has been shown that there are links, for example, between simian immunodeficiency virus in primates and HIV/AIDS, and diseases crossing species barriers.
      Again, however, we return to the issue of funding. We have seen in recent years a massive increase in this Government's spending on international development. Bush meat studies have shown a distinct link between the production of bush meat and poverty. DEFRA has given £80,000 to the bush meat working group to fund examination of the issue generally, and the Government have made a commitment to reach 0.7 per cent. of GDP for international development. If we are serious about tackling all these problems, we must make a commitment to maintain and increase that funding. I regret that those on the Conservative Front Bench refuse to do that, and I would very much like to hear them make that commitment.
      5.31 pm
      Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I want to read out a piece from the Western Daily Press two days ago written by the farming correspondent Chris Rundle, which sums up the situation nicely:
      "The leader of Britain's livestock farmers has called on his members to start boycotting badger testing—because of the Government's failure to control TB.
      South Devon cattle farmer Richard Haddock says ministers are sitting back and allowing the disease to spiral out of control."
      The Minister will know Richard Haddock extremely well, because he is a south-western farmer based close to his seat, and he has been a crusader, to put it crudely, against TB for many years. It is significant that a major daily regional paper should carry such an editorial, which concludes:
      "But the NFU has reacted bitterly to the announcement, with officials protesting that MPs have still failed to grasp the urgency of the situation—and pointing out that another inquiry would do nothing to slow the advance of TB."
      That sums up neatly the feeling of south-western farmers.
      My constituency includes Exmoor—
      Mr. Bradshaw: The inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the next inquiry planned by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The Government have nothing to do with that; it is up to the Select Committee.
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I do not disagree with the Minister, but I think he will find that yet another inquiry is being requested in relation to TB because of the ending of the Krebs testing.

      1089
      The spread across Exmoor increased during the time when foot and mouth was prevalent in that area. Its spread across Exmoor and Britain is at 18 per cent. per annum. Within five to 10 years, virtually a third of the country will be covered by TB unless we do something about it now. It cannot wait. Regardless of which Government are in power, decisions must be made now.
      Interestingly, the DEFRA homepage says:
      "A number of wild animals … badger … brush-tailed possum, buffalo, bison and several species of … deer … can act as reservoirs"
      for bovine TB. Given that we have only deer and badgers, that narrows the problem down fast. On Exmoor, the worry is that more and more farmers, because they are getting concerned scared and worried, are taking the law into their own hands to try to resolve the problem, which is not acceptable to anyone in the House or outside it. Because of foot and mouth and other factors the Krebs testing had to be cancelled last November, but it showed that in cull areas the disease was still spreading. That problem will continue.
      The Krebs testing set the basis for where we are going. Krebs stated that MAFF had spent approximately £16 million a year on TB compensation The testing cost £45 million. Farmers received 100 per cent. Government funding, which went from £3 million in 1989—90 to £31 million last year. The Government spent £73 million last year, of which £31 million was for compensation, £29 million for testing alone, and £13 million for research. It is costing the country a fortune not to be able to eradicate the disease by means of either vaccination or better security.
      As a result of the foot and mouth outbreaks, there is now a huge backlog of testing of the 65,500 registered herds. If the present rate continues—62 overdue tests completed every three months—it will take up to 16 years to clear the backlog. That is ridiculous. If testing is not effective and up to date, how on earth can we predict what the disease will do?
      Professor Godfray's report recommended that the formation of a TB strategy should not wait until any further badger-culling trials had been completed. Can the Minister tell us where we are going on this? If the policy continues to drift, the spread of TB will continue unchecked. In places such as Exmoor and the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that is entirely unacceptable. We have enough problems in the hill areas already, especially with the single payments scheme that is being introduced.
      Foot and mouth has cost the country between £3 billion and £5 billion. We do not want that massive epidemic to be repeated. I am not convinced that the Government have managed to do all they said they would do in terms of security. Dr. Iain Anderson's report includes five points, which I want to impress on the Minister. First, it recommends:
      "Contingency plans to be reviewed to ensure all departments can prioritise rapidly in the event of a crisis."
      I am fairly sure that that process has not been completed, and that not all Departments are prepared for another major epidemic. Secondly, it recommends:
      "Development of a national strategy for disease avoidance and control."
      1090
      Is that up and running? Has it been completed? If there is a certain amount still to be done, are we discussing the issue with those in other European countries, such as the Irish, who are also involved?
      The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) made it clear that an exercise was about to begin to test the resolve of those drawing up contingency plans, and to assess whether they would work. I established that those in my area, Exmoor, and in Somerset were not aware that there was a local contingency plan. I am not saying that that is the fault of the Minister or anyone else—perhaps the message has not reached that level—but will the Minister ensure that those in Somerset and Devon, for instance, know what the plans are? That may be up to MAFF, or to the Government office in the south-west.
      I should also like to know what stage we have reached with the electronic livestock tagging system. It is quite highly developed in the case of sheep, although for obvious reasons there is not the same problem in that instance. It would be one way of passporting cattle with absolute accuracy. I need not tell the Minister that passports and tags have an annoying habit of dropping out. All right, there are certain people who might use it for other reasons, but an electronic tagging system would leave no doubt about where that cow, calf or bull had been and what it had been up to.
      The final point, of which I have some experience, concerns better training for farmers and others in biosecurity measures. Everyone knows the vital importance of training farmers. They do not have enough time as it is, but we have a problem because many of our agriculture colleges are not having the resources put into them to enable them to provide that training. My agricultural college in west Somerset, which my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton and for Taunton (Mr. Flook) have been fighting for, is on the point of collapse and closure, and has been taken over. When I got in touch with it about this, it did not have any idea what it was meant to do to train farmers in biosecurity. It offers that as part of an agricultural course, but that tends to be for young farmers, and not, dare I say it, farmers who are slightly longer in the tooth—no disrespect to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams).
      The Government must look at that problem in a controlled manner. Another matter on which I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments is the Haskins report, which made many recommendations on the streamlining of the systems that control the country, including English Nature and DEFRA. The Secretary of State rejected most of it. I thought that it was a very balanced report, which Lord Haskins had lived through because of his experiences in the north-west, in Carlisle and other areas, which he brought together to show that we needed a much more streamlined system to be able to look after ourselves should there be an epidemic. I wonder what pressure was brought to bear on the Secretary of State on that matter by larger organisations such as English Nature, which may have said that they must not be amalgamated because they would not then be effective. Surely the whole answer is effectiveness and speed. The one thing to come out of the epidemic was the knowledge that we were woefully slow in bringing our defences up.

      1091
      The first report on foot and mouth, by the Royal Society, in 1715, suggested burning and burying. How far have we come since then? Pitifully, the answer is not very far. The only difference is that we will not now burn on farms, but want to incinerate.
      Mr. Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that burial was not an option this time because of the problems with BSE?
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In an emergency, burial is as good a way of getting rid of carcases as any other, but he is absolutely right to say that we should be going for incineration. My point is that should there be another epidemic, there would not be the capacity in this country to incinerate the necessary number of animals safely. I know that on-farm burning is still an option, but as one who lived through it, I would hesitate over that, and would not want to see it again.
      In conclusion, in areas such as Exmoor and Devon, which my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton and for Tiverton and Honiton also represent, we cannot get this matter wrong. If we do, whole swathes of this country suffer, as we have seen. Many things have been recommended by various reports, but they have not been brought together. There are too many loose ends, and unless the Minister and the Government pull them together, if we have another epidemic, either because TB grows faster or foot and mouth returns to this country, we will not be prepared to deal with it. People such as Richard Haddock and farmers throughout the country will be quite rightly furious with us as MPs, and with the Government in particular.
      5.43 pm
      Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to the debate, and perhaps 1 may comment on one point that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) just made on agricultural colleges. I am sure that he shares my concern that with the decline in the number of people wanting to enter agriculture at a young age, the agricultural colleges have diversified into such subjects as equine services and countryside management. Those are perfectly worthy activities, but the colleges have not been able to give as much investment or support to existing farming communities—the farmers who are long in the tooth whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
      It has been a pleasure to follow some of the speeches of my colleagues, and my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made good contributions. My constituency was badly affected by foot and mouth, and some of the issues that we have discussed today have been brought to my attention by farmers in my constituency.
      I agree with probably two thirds of the official Opposition's motion. I agree that illegal imports pose a threat to this country and that vigorous controls are needed. I do not agree, however, that the Government have learned no lessons since the foot and mouth outbreak. Lessons were incorporated in the Bill on
      1092
      animal health, many clauses of which the official Opposition opposed; indeed, they may even have opposed the Bill in principle.
      Another lesson that has been learned is the importance of contingency planning. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford I mentioned Operation Hornbeam, a major simulation operation that will take place in June to test contingency plans for another foot and mouth outbreak, and which will cover all parts of the country.
      I acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who spoke about how well the ring rot outbreak in his constituency was contained, especially thanks to the responsible actions of the farmer concerned. I should also point out that it was a great honour to attend last Saturday the funeral of Geraint Howells, former Welsh Liberal Democrat leader and former Member of Parliament for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. He would have contributed to this debate in his usual, very deliberate way.
      I was rather surprised when the Minister opened his speech by applauding the fact that the foot and mouth outbreak was contained within seven months. That seemed like a bit of positive spin that was perhaps written by a special adviser. There was more than a year of absolute hell in my constituency. I attach no blame to anybody in this regard. The situation overwhelmed everybody: Ministers, farmers—
      Mr. Bradshaw: Given that the Government managed to eradicate the 2001 outbreak more quickly than the late 1960s outbreak was eradicated, and that the latter was far more restricted geographically, does my hon. Friend accept that that was an achievement?
      Mr. Edwards: It was an achievement that the outbreak was eradicated. I, too, saw that briefing, but I decided not to make that claim in my contribution.
      Mrs. May: Perhaps I might assist in this debate. The Anderson inquiry, entitled "Lessons Learned", makes it clear that the 1967—68 epidemic lasted 222 days and the 2001 epidemic 221 days. So, far from its being eradicated in record time, it was eradicated in about the same time.
      Mr. Edwards: I shall not comment further on that, except to say that many lessons have been learned.
      I do hope that consideration will be given to a vaccination programme. I well remember the Prime Minister coming to my constituency at the height of the 2001 outbreak. The Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union made very strong representations to him. They were against a policy of vaccination, even though I was receiving dozens of letters from constituents who found the process of culling, fires and burials absolutely repulsive. They expected that consideration would be given to vaccination.
      The FUW has impressed on us the importance of the issue of illegal meat imports. A year or two ago, I attended a disturbing seminar by some experts. Evidence was shown of the amount of illegal imports coming through airports, and there was evidence from

      1093
      environmental health officers concerning the illegal production of meat. We in Wales have a particular problem with the production of smokies, which are a delicacy that is well liked by members of the West Indian community, and which involve the blow-torching of pork or beef. The illegal production of smokies has led to arrests in west Wales. The FUW is suggesting that the matter be brought into the open by enabling legal production of smokies in a properly controlled way. I hope that consideration can be given to that idea.
      Mr. Russell Brown: I ask my hon. Friend to choose his words carefully. North of the border, smokies are a completely different thing; Arbroath smokies are well known and very well liked by all.
      Mr. Edwards: I would like to clarify that we are talking about two different products.
      The farming community is calling for more rigorous controls on illegal imports. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) referred to recent cases in which people convicted of illegal importing were given derisory fines of £140 or £150. If illegal imports were an important factor in the foot and mouth outbreak, let us consider the cost of that by comparison. Surely there should be an onus on the courts to sentence appropriately. Perhaps the court in Uxbridge is not close enough to a farming community to impose the penalties that might have been imposed had the cases been heard in west Wales or in a court in the farming community in Monmouthshire.
      It would also be right for all embassies to urge their citizens not to travel with meat products and other foodstuffs. When we go to America or Australia, we even have to declare whether we have been on a farm in the last four weeks or whether we have mud on our rugby boots. We have to declare any foodstuffs. We could have more rigorous controls in this country.
      It has been a pleasure to contribute to this debate. Hon. Members of all parties have spoken with authority and knowledge, and we all hope that we can avoid any further outbreak of foot and mouth and, if necessary, impose much stricter controls on illegal meat imports.
      5.51 pm
      Mr. John Whittingdale: This has been a good debate on an issue of tremendous importance to British agriculture, animal welfare and our rural economy. I echo the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that it has been marred only by the fact that the Secretary of State and both Ministers of State decided that they had higher priorities elsewhere and left the Under-Secretary as the sole representative of his Department on the Treasury Bench.
      Much of the debate has concentrated on foot and mouth, which is not surprising, as it is only three years since we suffered the worst epidemic of the disease that the world has ever seen. More than 9,500 premises were affected directly, and up to 60,000 farms were subjected to movement restrictions. In my constituency, we were perhaps fortunate in having just the one outbreak, but that meant that it was an infected area, so all the farms were subjected to movement restrictions. I remember only too well that in many ways the hardship resulting
      1094
      from those restrictions was just as great for the farmers concerned, who of course received no compensation payment.
      The total number of animals slaughtered in the outbreak represented roughly an eighth of the entire farm livestock herd. The cost to the British economy was, according to official figures, about £8 billion, and according to some estimates, anything up to £20 billion. The outbreak left many farms devastated, with farmers seeing a lifetime's work destroyed.
      Even now, as this debate has shown, some questions remain unanswered. We still do not know how the disease entered this country or when, or indeed whether the first cases really were at the pig farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall, or whether, as some suspect, the disease might even have been in sheep for several months before. We still want to know why the Government ignored so many of the recommendations of the 1969 Northumberland report on the previous outbreak. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, a lot of people believe that, if the Government had implemented those recommendations, the outbreak would have been contained far sooner.
      We still need a proper investigation of the efficacy of the contiguous cull policy, under which millions of uninfected animals were destroyed, and an answer to the question whether that cull was even necessary. We still want to know why a vaccination programme was not introduced at an early stage. I share some of the views of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Such a programme might have prevented the spread of the disease and led to its being eradicated far more quickly. That policy was adopted in Holland when 25 outbreaks of the disease occurred in April: it worked, and as a result, Holland was able to recover its export status just four months later. I have to say that that makes the Minister's remarks about achieving a solution in record time rather strange, as the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) pointed out.
      Mr. Martlew: I remember attending a conference in Brussels soon afterwards. The Dutch were not at all pleased with what had happened—what they did not like was vaccination to kill. If we are to have a vaccination policy, it has to be a policy to live.
      Mr. Whittingdale: Those are all questions that should have been, and still need to be, dealt with by a full public inquiry, which we have never had.
      The Minister referred to biosecurity, which we all agree is terribly important. He implied, as have some of his predecessors, that farmers were somehow at fault in failing to take proper precautions. I have to say that farmers are deeply angry about that claim, particularly when the vast majority were scrupulous in observing biosecurity. At the same time, they had to observe contractors employed by the Minister's Department who showed scant regard for biosecurity. Indeed, farmers had to watch lorries filled with infected carcases driving through uninfected areas.
      Mr. Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Whittingdale: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have little time left.

      1095
      All those questions should have been examined by a full public inquiry into how the epidemic originated and how the Government managed it. Instead, we had three different inquiries, focusing on different narrow aspects of the crisis, none of which persuaded farmers that a proper investigation had taken place.
      That lack of confidence has now been compounded by the revelation of the submission by Mr. Jim Dring. His statement that, if the inspection of the Waugh farm had been more rigorous, the foot and mouth epidemic might never have come about, is clearly immensely important. Mr. Dring has said that he intended his statement to go before the Anderson inquiry. His submission certainly amounted to more than, in the Secretary of State's words,
      "musing about the matter, examining his conscience and asking, 'Oh dear—is there more that I could have done'".—[Official Report, 11 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1640.]
      That is what she said, though the Minister tried to deny it. At least Lord Whitty has admitted that Dr. Anderson should have received that report—[Interruption.] However, we are now told that the Secretary of State held an internal investigation, which concluded that there was no intention to mislead the inquiry and that that evidence would not have made any difference in any case. As the Western Morning News said in its editorial, the exposure of Jim Dring's evidence served only to strengthen the overwhelming case for a public inquiry into the foot and mouth disaster. That case remains as strong as ever. We agree.
      The foot and mouth epidemic was by far the biggest disease outbreak to affect British agriculture, but it is not the only one. My hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Flook), for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), as well as the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), have all spoken about the crisis resulting from the spread of bovine tuberculosis. The Government's own consultation document predicts that, without major changes in policy, the incidence of TB will go on rising by about 20 per cent. every year. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater pointed out the costs to the taxpayer. The Government's own document forecasts that that cost will accumulate, over the next 10 years, to £2 billion, yet they have no answers and say that they are waiting for the results of the Krebs trials, which may not be available for several more years.
      Several of my hon. Friends suggested that we simply cannot afford to go on waiting. Just a few weeks ago, the report by Professor Godfray called for immediate publication of the interim results and said that we could not afford to wait for the trials to be completed. He suggested that policy had to be based on the assumption that badgers were involved in disease transmission, but the Minister's only response has been to extend the period of his Department's latest consultation. The Minister has to grasp the nettle and act to stop the spread of the disease now.
      We are also seeing worrying signs of the presence of other animal and plant diseases in this country. Last week, we saw the first outbreak for 10 years of brucellosis in cattle. Happily, it was quickly contained.
      1096
      This week, we have heard about the danger of blue tongue virus entering this country if temperatures continue to rise. We are also aware of the dangers to human health if avian influenza is allowed to enter the country.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire both raised concerns about the lack of large animal practice vets and consequent difficulties, particularly in respect of preventive measures. The Government need to address that serious problem.
      In plant health, we have suffered the first-ever outbreak of potato ring rot in the UK. Luckily, the responsible attitude of the farmer, Mr. John Morgan, and the quick action of the Department's officials, meant that that was contained. However, it has cost Mr. Morgan well over £500,000, with no possibility of compensation. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) that that seems deeply unjust. It also raises the real fear that other growers will be highly reluctant to report any suspicions about a further outbreak.
      The campaign by Farmers Weekly called "Keep British Crops Healthy" highlights the fact that we badly need a compensation scheme that protects all growers from the financial burden of early outbreaks of pests or diseases, and which provides an incentive for openness and honesty. Perhaps the most important way to improve our biosecurity is to take far tougher action to stop the illegal importation of food.
      The first recommendation of the Devon public inquiry into the foot and mouth epidemic called for import controls to be tightened to the highest international standards and, if necessary, to be the subject of new legislation. Yet the Government's Animal Health Act 2002, introduced in the aftermath of the epidemic, did not even deal with that issue.
      In the past three years, the Australian Government have recruited more than 1,000 extra staff for border operations, doubled the number of X-ray machines used for quarantine screening, and have increased the number of detector dog teams from 33 to 48. We welcome the news from the Minister this afternoon that the UK is to have 10 dogs. However, given the number of points of entry, that does not inspire much confidence that we can seriously contain the problem. It is estimated that, on average, about 7,500 tonnes of illegal meat products are imported to the UK each year, much of it in suitcases and hand luggage.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead mentioned the concerns about the risks to the health of people, as well as of animals. Yet, three weeks ago, a Health Minister answered a question from me by saying that the Food Standards Agency does not consider that there needs to be a formal risk assessment of the threat to public health posed by illegal meat imports.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead also referred to the convictions of two people, and the level of fines that were imposed on them. However, as the president of the Farmers Union of Wales asked, what is the point of arresting people for bringing hazardous foodstuffs into this country if magistrates hand out such pathetic fines?

      1097
      British farming has already suffered one disease outbreak that led to misery for thousands, and the deaths of millions of animals. The industry will not survive another outbreak yet, owing to our failure to take adequate precautions, one could happen at almost any time. The Government should act now, before it is too late.
      6.4 pm
      Mr. Bradshaw: With the leave of the House—
      Mr. Eric Forth: No.
      David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Mrs. Lawrence: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate was called by Her Majesty's Opposition to secure answers from the Minister. Is it now appropriate for them to take this action to prevent him from replying?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): It is entirely a matter for Her Majesty's Opposition.
      Mr. Martlew: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right for Opposition Members to say that they look forward to the Minister's reply, and then to move a closure motion? It sounds as though the vote is not following the voice.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: These are purely matters for debate.
      Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For clarification, I should point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), a shadow Cabinet member, opened the debate. However, the Government did not have the courtesy to have a Minister of Cabinet rank to respond, and—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. We have debated the matter, and leave for the Minister to respond has been refused by the House. I am now about to put the Question.
      Mr. Flook: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As one who made a speech and asked the Minister to respond to it, I should be happy for him to write to me.
      Mr. Edwards: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Was not the debate timetabled for three hours? If hon. Members on either side of the House wish to catch your eye, should they not have an opportunity to contribute?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Closure has been moved, and I shall now put the Question on that.
      Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
      The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 235.

      Division No. 156

      [6:05 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Allan, Richard

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Amess, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Leigh, Edward

      Bacon, Richard

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Baldry, Tony

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Barker, Gregory

      Lidington, David

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Barrett, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Bellingham, Henry

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Bercow, John

      Maclean, rh David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Maples, John

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Maude, rh Francis

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Brazier, Julian

      Mercer, Patrick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Burns, Simon

      Burstow, Paul

      Moss, Malcolm

      Burt, Alistair

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Norman, Archie

      Cash, William

      Öpik, Lembit

      Chidgey, David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Clappison, James

      Page, Richard

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Paice, James

      Collins, Tim

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Redwood, rh John

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Fabricant, Michael

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Fallon, Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Selous, Andrew

      Flook, Adrian

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Forth, rh Eric

      Shepherd, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Francois, Mark

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Gamier, Edward

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Spring, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Streeter, Gary

      Grayling, Chris

      Stunell, Andrew

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Greenway, John

      Syms, Robert

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gummer, rh John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Harvey, Nick

      Tredinnick, David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Heald, Oliver

      Waterson, Nigel

      Heath, David

      Watkinson, Angela

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Whittingdale, John

      Hendry, Charles

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Wilkinson, John

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Holmes, Paul

      Wilshire, David

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Hunter, Andrew

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Jack, rh Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Mr. John Randall and Mr. Hugo Swire

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      1099

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Ainger, Nick

      Farrelly, Paul

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Allen, Graham

      Fisher, Mark

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Follett, Barbara

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Austin, John

      Bailey, Adrian

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Baird, Vera

      Gardiner, Barry

      Barnes, Harry

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bayley, Hugh

      Gilroy, Linda

      Beard, Nigel

      Godsiff, Roger

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Betts, Clive

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Blizzard, Bob

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Borrow, David

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Healey, John

      Brennan, Kevin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Browne, Desmond

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Bryant, Chris

      Hesford, Stephen

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Heyes, David

      Burden, Richard

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Burgon, Colin

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Burnham, Andy

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cairns, David

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hutton, rh John

      Caton, Martin

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Challen, Colin

      Illsley, Eric

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Chaytor, David

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Clapham, Michael

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Clelland, David

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Coleman, lain

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Connarty, Michael

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cousins, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Cranston, Ross

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Crausby, David

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Kidney, David

      Cummings, John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      David, Wayne

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Davidson, Ian

      Lammy, David

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Linton, Martin

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Love, Andrew

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Drown, Ms Julia

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McFall, John

      Edwards, Huw

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Efford, Clive

      Mclsaac, Shona

      1100

      McKechin, Ann

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McNulty, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sheridan, Jim

      McWalter, Tony

      Short, rh Clare

      McWilliam, John

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mendelson, rh Peter

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Speller, rh John

      Martlew, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Stevenson, George

      Merron, Gillian

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Moran, Margaret

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Morgan, Julie

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Mountford, Kali

      Timms, Stephen

      Mullin, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Trickett, Jon

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Perham, Linda

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Picking, Anne

      Ward, Claire

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Plaskitt, James

      Watts, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      White, Brian

      Pound, Stephen

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Winnick, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Woodward, Shaun

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Woolas, Phil

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Worthington, Tony

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

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wyatt, Derek

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and Joan Ryan

      Sawford, Phil

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That this House commends the action taken by this Government to eradicate exotic plant and animal disease when it occurs, and to control endemic disease; congratulates the Government on its actions that have succeeded in reducing the number of BSE clinical cases to just 184 last year; further congratulates the Government on eradicating a major outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in seven months and on implementing the recommendations of the Lessons Learned and Royal Society Inquiries so that Government is better prepared to tackle a future outbreak of a major livestock disease; welcomes the significant progress made to tackle illegal imports both by increasing enforcement activity at the border and by increasing public awareness; applauds the Government on its action taken against other animal and plant diseases, notably Salmonella Java and potato ring rot; and notes the Government's continuing commitment to prevent serious animal and plant disease.

    DRAFT CHARITIES BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    Ordered,
    That the Lords Message of 19th April relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Charities Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, be now considered.
    That this House concurs with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Charities Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the Committee shall report on the draft Bill by 30th September 2004.
    That a Select Committee of six honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Charities Bill.
    That the Committee shall have power—

    (i) to send for persons, papers and records;

    (ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

    (iii) to report from time to time;

    (iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

    (v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.

    That the quorum of the Committee shall be two; and
    That Mr Alan Campbell, Mr George Foulkes, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr Alan Milburn, Mr Andrew Mitchell and Bob Russell be members of the Committee.—[Paul Clark.]

    STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
    Ordered,
    That Richard Ottaway be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and that Mrs Angela Browning be added.—[Paul Clark.]

    Rail Transport (Kent and Medway)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]
    6.17 pm
    Jonathan Shaw: This debate is a response to the Strategic Rail Authority's consultation on the new integrated Kent rail franchise. The proposal to provide high-speed channel tunnel rail link domestic services from Folkestone, Thanet, Canterbury, Ashford, Swale, Medway and Gravesend has been warmly welcomed by Kent and Medway. The £5 billion high-speed rail service will provide a significant boost to the sub-regional economies and coastal towns of Thanet and, importantly, will allow for the sustainable development of the growth areas in Ashford and the Thames gateway. It is also welcome that the SRA has responded positively to, and is examining the possibility of, the proposal to extend the line to Dover.
    For the Medway towns, the high-speed rail link will mean more than just new rail services. It will be a magnet, drawing in inward investment and building on the regeneration that has already taken place. The case that has been put forward by those of us in Kent and Medway for the channel tunnel rail link domestic service in debates, questions and meetings with Ministers over the years has always been about additional capacity, not replacement of services. It is therefore not surprising that the majority of existing passengers in the Medway towns do not see how St. Pancras can meet their current travel needs. They therefore see no justification for reducing the fast services to London from Medway, as set out in the SRA's document.
    Although I warmly welcome the channel tunnel rail link's domestic service proposals, I need to focus my comments on the SRA's proposals under the current integrated Kent franchise. This is the first major review of the Kent rail timetable since electrification in 1963. That was the time when technology was thrusting us into a brave new world. It was the year that Harold Wilson told the Labour party conference in Scarborough that Britain was going to be forged by the white heat of the scientific revolution. Over the past 20 years or so, in Kent, we have not seen that much in the way of white heat and scientific revolution when it comes to our train service.
    Every day thousands and thousands of people living in Kent travel to London for their work, and their experience over the years has been, to put it bluntly, pretty grim. We have seen fragmentation; we have seen privatisation; we have seen deterioration due to a lack of investment; and we have seen off Connex.
    Kent is part of one of the most complicated franchises in the entire rail network, with 182 stations, 773 km of track and 120,000 morning commuters. Of the 1,700 train journeys, 1,400 go into London carrying 13.2 million passengers every year. With the growth in numbers travelling to London—I shall come to that point later—the antiquated infrastructure often struggles to provide and maintain a reliable service. It is beset with problems. As well as the old age of some of the signalling, many of the stations are appalling. The prize for the very worst perhaps goes to those along the

    1103
    Medway valley line, which sadly runs through my constituency and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).
    It is true, as the SRA argues, that its network is complex and congested, and delays can very quickly snowball. Yet this should not, in itself, be a justification for running fewer trains. The network needs to have the capacity for the number of people who want to use it—whether that is for business or pleasure. If there are fewer trains, there will simply be more overcrowded trains. In Medway, on the Cannon Street service, which runs to the City, where many of my constituents work, we currently have seven fast trains at peak times. Under the SRA's proposals, that number will be reduced to two. The Victoria fast service from Medway, which stops at Bromley, currently has 15 trains. Under the SRA's proposals, the number will be cut to 10. With reductions via Dartford, the total reduction—even when we take account of the new channel tunnel rail link domestic service trains—will be from 32 to 26 trains.
    It is not just the number of trains that is the problem; it is the number of seats as well. My hon. Friend the Minister advised me in a written answer on 30 March that there are just over 20,000 seats available from Medway during peak-time services at present. There is no certainty about the number in the future, not least because Rochester and Strood platforms are currently unable to accommodate the 12-car trains with 700-seat capacity that will be the new CTRL domestic service. Instead, he has advised me in written answers that these stations will have a service of six-car trains, halving the possible capacity. Upgrading the platforms, he advises me, would cost £12.4 million at Rochester and £1.2 million at Strood.
    I understand the financial pressures that the Department and the SRA are under, but why has the SRA not looked more imaginatively at, for example, selective door opening? I grant that that is far from ideal, but capacity has to be at the forefront of our ambitions. As I said, if we have fewer trains, we will have more crowded trains or we will force people on to the roads to drive to Ebbesfleet. The idea that the new franchise will force commuters to drive further along the A2 flies in the face of what we are trying to achieve with an integrated transport system.
    Moreover, in Medway our bus company, Arriva, will commission its new bus service in June. Some £10 million, an unprecedented sum, is being invested in a new bus fleet, added to which a new timetable will offer more frequent journeys. Car parking has always been a problem in Medway stations. My hon. Friends and I want to see Arriva picking up customers. The current proposals, I fear, will further discourage train commuters from taking the bus to the station. It has been estimated by Medway council that the number of seats available could be reduced by as many as 7,000.
    We welcome the fact that the Strategic Rail Authority document states that the integrated Kent franchise recognises its contribution to regional planning goals, including the regeneration of Kent and the Mayor's London plan. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark). His high office prevents him from making an outstanding contribution this evening. In his work on
    1104
    the Thames gateway he has worked tirelessly to ensure that the planning and transport systems are joined up. As I said, 1963 is a significant date in terms of electrification. On this very day in 1963 my hon. Friend was six years old. Gillingham's No. 1 son celebrates his birthday today.
    We welcome the strategic approach to planning and transport, but we—
    Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: On the strategic basis that he just mentioned, will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.] I should very much welcome the Minister's attention to the intervention that I am about to make, facile though that may at first appear. Is it not the case that the Medway towns have been the beneficiaries of more inward investment from the Government than any other single conurbation in the United Kingdom? All of us in the Chamber welcome that with open arms. The Minister might find it rather difficult to hear me say that one of the Government's great achievements is in my constituency. The Minister previously said he could not understand why the Government had given so much money to my constituency.
    Before you tell me that this is an incursion or an invasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Minister to answer this question: is it not right that, given the enormous investment in the capital structure of the Medway towns, we must have a concomitant investment in our infrastructure to give us the speed and the ability to feed into London? That must be a structural and strategic gain—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. That is rather long for an intervention. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is drawing his remarks to a conclusion.
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: You have been more than beneficent as regards my intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have understood the point that I am making.
    Jonathan Shaw: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's contribution. He is right. We have seen considerable investment in the regeneration of the waterfronts and moneys for our universities. That was one of his aspirations when he stood for the Medway constituency in the 1992 general election. That aspiration has been driven forward by many people in the Medway towns. His contribution, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, has been important. We now see students receive higher education in the Medway towns, and they too will need a transport system.
    We are concerned about the strategic aspects of that, and we are worried that the SRA does not appreciate the scale of development in Medway. Unlike other areas, there has been no quantitative estimate of the scale of development. Development is taking place on Strood, Chatham and Gillingham waterfronts, and importantly, those are all within walking distance of a train station.
    Today 20,000 residents—17 per cent. of the work force—travel to London. We are generating new employment opportunities, as my hon. and learned

    1105
    Friend the Member for Medway pointed out, and the channel tunnel rail link domestic service will assist us further.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: My hon. Friend is making powerful arguments for linking the channel tunnel rail link with some of the strategic centres of Kent. Does he agree that the port of Dover ranks highly among those strategic centres? Does he support the view in east Kent that we should be linking the busiest city in this country with the busiest ferry port in the world? At the same time. when we look at such major strategic matters, we should not lose track of the issues that he has already raised regarding services to some of our small stations. I have in mind places such as Kearsney, which is just a stone's throw from my home, Martin Mill and of course Snowdown.
    Jonathan Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked tirelessly in respect of Dover. As I said, the Strategic Rail Authority has left the door open and is exploring the matter, which is testimony to the hard work that he has put in on behalf of his constituents.
    As I said, 17 per cent. of the work force travel to London. The population is set to increase from the current 250,000 to 300,000 by 2024. That means that commuting could rise by 30 per cent. over the next 20 years—the equivalent of 1.3 per cent. a year. By the time the new trains start running in 2008, demand is likely to be 5 per cent. higher than now, and it is likely to be 10 per cent. higher in 2012.
    There is welcome news in the SRA document, as well as the channel tunnel rail link domestic service, and it is important to place that on record. On the Ashford, Maidstone and West Malling line, which serves the southern end of my constituency, there are set to be three additional peak period trains to Victoria. The Medway valley line, to which I referred earlier, will have trains running through to Tonbridge. That will make the line significantly more attractive to use. However, the proposal to reduce stopping times is unacceptable, and I, together with parish councils at Cuxton, Snodland, East Malling, Larkfield and Aylesford, have met the SRA and voiced our objections.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) said, throughout the county, people are very hostile to reductions in off-peak rural services. Rather than save a few minutes, the people of Kent would like to retain existing services. There is a significant opportunity to grow off-peak services and to provide better stations, information and revenue collection, which is simply not undertaken on some lines.
    My hon. Friend the Minister understands our anxiety. I know that he not only fully appreciates what we are seeking to achieve in Medway and the Thames gateway, but actively supports it. As a former planning Minister, does he share our belief that changing the timetable in such a revolutionary way is very dangerous? If there is one lesson that we have learned in recent years, it is that we cannot achieve a quick fix for the railways. If there are to be changes, they have to be not revolutionary, but evolutionary. Passengers will need time to adapt to changes. It is important that a level of flexibility is built in, so that where we see growth occurring, the rail system can meet that demand.
    1106
    The task ahead is difficult, with many competing demands for priority. We are seeing investment in our rail service. Some £600 million has been invested in new trains on the south-east network, and they are being rolled out. They are air-conditioned and are far more able to respond to the climatic challenges of snow and ice. The Government have a track record of £75 million a week in investment. Hatfield lifted the lid on the appalling state of our track. The Tory legacy of botched privatisation has been long, painful and very expensive. It has caused delays, but we cannot move forward without a safe network.
    The review is the first of the Kent rail timetable since 1963. The great train robbery took place in that year, when £5 million was snatched from a Royal Mail train in Buckinghamshire. The Strategic Rail Authority's proposals will amount to the great train robbery of Kent if they are allowed to go forward. We do not want a reduction in our train services. We have what Martin Luther King had in another significant event in 1963—a dream. We have a dream of a more reliable rail service that is fit for the future, and fit to carry the people of Kent around the county and, in what has been the focus of the debate, to carry them to and from our capital city.
    6.35 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on securing the debate—in one sense, it is timely; in another sense, it is not, and I shall come on to the reasons for that. I further congratulate my hon. Friend on mentioning Martin Luther King, Ronnie Biggs and my lion. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) in one cogent, clear speech.
    I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford and for Dover (Mr. Prosser), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) on the way in which they have argued their case not only in public forums such as this, but throughout the process from specification to consultation, which may appear tortuous. I include my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, who is more mute than usual because of his high office, in those congratulations.
    I congratulate my hon. Friends on placing this debate in the context of the significant activity by the Government in Kent throughout 1997. The debate is timely, in that the Strategic Rail Authority concluded its 12-week consultation on the integrated Kent franchise—hereafter IKF—on 23 April, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford knows that the SRA is seeking to move to invitation to tender by June, at which stage the results of the consultation will be announced. The debate is not timely, in that, whatever I say, I cannot prejudge the outcome of the consultation, but I assure my hon. Friends that their comments will be fed into it, although I am sure that those points are already part of the consultation.
    My hon. Friend is right that rail services in Kent have suffered from under-investment, a slow network, unsatisfactory reliability and outdated rolling stock. As he says, the timetable in Kent and south-east London has remained largely unchanged for the best part of 40 years, and it needs to change to reflect current and

    1107
    future needs, to deliver improved reliability and to build on the capital infrastructure that we have put in. I take the point that our objectives must be concomitant, at least in part, with not only that capital infrastructure investment, but our plans for the entire area.
    My hon. Friend knows that passenger services throughout Kent, parts of Sussex and south-east London are currently operated by South Eastern Trains, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the SRA and took over the services from Connex. The key objectives in SET's business plan for 2004—05 are to stabilise the business, to provide a higher standard of service to passengers and to introduce new trains to replace the Mk 1 slam-door fleet. That is important because we are discussing a service that will not be introduced until 2007 and beyond, so there is still an interim period. I hesitate to say it because I know that it will come true and bite me, but I am sure that a "save our slam-door trains heritage society" will be formed at some stage. I do not know whether such a society exists yet, but the sooner we get the new stock in, the better.
    As my hon. Friend said, the proposed franchise represents a significant milestone in the development of Britain's railways, and a major opportunity for Kent. It is a stark fact that the channel tunnel rail link is the first major railway to be built in this country in more than a century, and section one opened on time and to budget in 2003—I had the great pleasure of visiting Leeds castle for the sideshow that took place at the same time as the main opening. Section two of the CTRL is due to open in 2007, providing faster journey times and opening up new travel opportunities. In developing the IKF, the SRA wants to make the best use of the whole railway network in the region, including the CTRL. As my hon. Friends said, that is a matter of balancing the strengths and advantages of the high-speed line with the needs of the existing network.
    The objective is to specify a passenger train service provision that is based around current and future demand while delivering better reliability at a cost that is both value for money and affordable. The SRA is proposing a revised timetable of services for the integrated Kent franchise that is based on an all-day regular service pattern that is easy for customers to understand.
    New stations at Ebbsfleet and at the other end of Stratford will assist regeneration in the Thames gateway, including north Kent, and provide new access to the rail network, some improved journey times and service reliability, which will benefit other centres on the network.
    The IKF timetable specification document is the final step in the formal consultation to develop a detailed franchise proposition. Earlier consultations addressed CTRL domestic services and the proposal for an integrated franchise of services running on CTRL and the national rail network. I do not need to rehearse the proposals for the Medway towns, because my hon. Friends will certainly know about them. I am grateful to them for highlighting the advantages, in terms of their constituency interests and the interests of the county, of adding to what already prevails. I am sure that they will have pointed out some of the gaps to the SRA.
    1108
    The SRA forecasts demand patterns for peak and off-peak periods that will require significantly different service patterns, especially in the context of maximising the use of dedicated CTRL domestic rolling stock at peak times. The calling pattern of peak services will have to reflect available platform length at certain stations together with any further constraints that may emerge through the SRA's detailed timetable development work.
    Jonathan Shaw: My hon. Friend mentioned platforms. As I said, some of the platforms at Rochester and Strood are too small to accommodate all 12 carriages. Does he agree that the SRA should consider flexible options whereby only some of the doors are opened? That would not be ideal, but it could be a possibility.
    Mr. McNulty: I do not doubt that it is a possibility, because it already happens on some lines. I am sure that my hon. Friend has made that point to the SRA.
    There has been a substantial consultation process. During previous consultations, people have made it clear that they want faster, more reliable trains. In response to those demands, the SRA's service specification aims to deliver faster journeys. Every station stop typically adds some two minutes to journey time on a medium-speed railway, perhaps slightly less in inner suburban areas and more where prevailing line speeds are higher. There has to be a balance between achieving high speeds and constantly stopping. The SRA will say that it has got that right, whereas my hon. Friends will have made strong representations on behalf of their constituents that that is not the case.
    One area of concern has been the proposal that services should serve different London terminals. The SRA is reviewing the specification and testing the feasibility of alternative options suggested by consultees in conjunction with Network Rail. As my hon. Friends will know far better than I, going into different terminals can have a ripple effect throughout the network.
    Others have expressed concern about services for people travelling to local schools and colleges. The SRA is considering the need to reflect those traffic flows and collating information on particular passenger numbers and flows.
    Reductions in peak services at some stations also attracted comments including from passengers who use Farningham road station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). It is expected that a significant number of people from the catchment area of that station would transfer to CTRL services from Ebbsfleet, thus reducing the level of passenger demand at Farningham road.
    Whatever is outlined in the invitation to tender in June as a result of the consultation, I accept that, given the growth and activity that will take place in Kent over the next 10, 15 or 20 years, it must have a degree of flexibility. But as I have said, the consultation period for this initial phase closed on 23 April, and all responses and comments are now being considered and the feedback analysed. When the final invitation to tender for the new franchise is issued to bidders in June, the SRA will shortly afterwards provide a "stakeholder briefing information document"—its words, not mine—

    1109
    to key stakeholders, to explain exactly what is in the bid. It will contain similar information to that provided to the bidders about the IKF service provision requirements.
    The SRA has a strong shortlist of Four bidders for the IKF franchise: Danish State Railways; GNER; First Kent Integrated Railways Ltd; and London South Eastern Railway Ltd. All four organisations have proven experience in delivering railway services. The SRA continues to work on the process for delivering the IKF franchise, and aims to have it in place by early 2005.
    The integrated Kent franchise provides an opportunity to design a train service for Kent that exploits the potential of the channel tunnel rail link by speeding up journeys and providing new, direct links to new stations at Ebbsfleet, Stratford and St. Pancras, with the connections to other parts of the country. As I have said, the IKF specification is a very complex issue, involving many difficult choices and trade-offs. I believe there will be very many winners, but I accept that some people will be unhappy with some of the proposals—perhaps when the invitation to tender comes out.
    The consultation has been a very open process and I know that the SRA chairman has met several hon. Members to hear their views. Also, various meetings were arranged by the SRA at the beginning of the final stage of the consultation process, and a number of smaller meetings with stakeholders have subsequently been hosted by the SRA or attended by SRA representatives at various locations in the south-east.
    1110
    The views of hon. Members, other stakeholders and passengers are now being analysed in detail and the SRA has the challenge of finding the best balance between the needs of passengers and of taxpayers.
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: At the end of what has been a very detailed and considered response, may I ask the Minister simply to give us a general undertaking that, when the Government invest vast sums of money in an area—as they have done in ours—they will also in the long term undertake a concomitant responsibility to ensure that the infrastructure in those areas will bear a resemblance to what has been invested?
    Mr. McNulty: I thought that I had made it clear earlier that that is the approach that the Government take. It is a matter of interpretation and dispute whether the SRA has achieved that in the context of the IKF, and we shall wait to see what the invitation to tender says about specifications.
    I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today. This is about finding the best balance between the needs of passengers and the call on public resources, and between meeting the needs of those who want an integrated, comprehensive all-stopping service and getting full utilisation of the high-speed link.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. DAVID CHIDGEY in the Chair]

Occupied Palestinian Territories
[Relevant documents: Second Report from the International Development Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 230, and the Government's response thereto, HC 487.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Derek Twigg.]
2.30 pm
Tony Baldry: The Select Committee on International Development report entitled "Development Assistance and the Occupied Palestinian Territories" was published in January, and the Government's response to that report was published on 11 March. Shortly afterwards. the Government published for consultation their draft "Country Assistance Plan for Palestinians: 2004–2006". There are effectively three relevant documents for this debate.
The International Development Committee report and our conclusions were unanimous. I know that several Select Committee members would have liked to be here but they are otherwise engaged on parliamentary business. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is in Afghanistan, while the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) and for Putney (Mr. Colman) are on an overseas visit organised by the Quadripartite Committee.
I do not believe that any hon. Member does not fully support Israel's right to exist within secure and settled boundaries and the right of every citizen of Israel to the quiet enjoyment of their country. There is not a scintilla of a suggestion in our report, nor would I expect any hon. Member to utter any word, that impugns the integrity of the state of Israel.
I do not believe that any hon. Member would do anything other than unconditionally and unreservedly condemn suicide bombings as a crime under domestic and international law and an unforgivable crime against the law of God, whom we worship whether we are Christian, Jewish or Muslim. There is not a word in the Select Committee's report that could give an iota of succour to suicide bombers.
During our visit to the occupied territories, we took every opportunity to point out to Palestinians that such killings are not only morally abhorrent but, as our report states at paragraph 73,
"a catastrophic tactic that has done great harm to the Palestinian cause".
As our report says at paragraph 7 on page 10, the result has been that the Government of Israel
"and many Israelis, now see every Palestinian as a potential 'suicide bomber'."
Not many Palestinians have access to television and are able to watch CNN, but understandably and rightly, whenever there is a suicide bombing, it is a significant item on American and international television. Also
330WH
understandably and rightly, those watching the breaking news items that are the consequence of suicide bombings are filled with overwhelming revulsion that anyone could perpetrate such acts of wickedness. That revulsion reflects itself on the whole Palestinian community and drowns out human concern for and media attention on the daily grind of life for Palestinians who have to subsist day by day. As our report notes in paragraph 6, page 10:
"Rates of malnutrition in Gaza and parts of the West Bank are as bad as anywhere one would find in sub-Saharan Africa. The Palestinian economy has all but collapsed. Unemployment rates are in the region of 60–70 per cent. and many of those who are employed are dependent upon NGOs or international relief organisations for employment."
I suspect that it is difficult for television or the media adequately to portray the everyday desperateness of Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank. It is also difficult for us to understand the continuing loss and statelessness felt by Palestinians both within and outside the occupied territories. Such loss is well summarised by Marwan Barghouti in his book, "I saw Ramallah". In it, he says that
"occupation prevents you from managing your affairs in your own way. It interferes in every aspect of life and of death; it interferes with longing and anger and desire and walking the street. It interferes with going anywhere and coming back, with going to market, the emergency hospital, the beach, the bedroom or a distant capital".
He also observes:
"The Occupation has created generations without a place whose colour, smells and sounds they can remember; a first place that belongs to them that they return to in their memories in their cobbled together exiles … the occupation has created generations … that have to adore an unknown beloved; distant, difficult, surrounded by guards, by walls, by nuclear missiles, by sheer terror. The long occupation has succeeded in changing us from children of Palestine to children of the idea of Palestine."
I turn to the Committee's conclusions and recommendations. For there to be a peace process, there must be some Palestinian body with legitimacy with which Israel and the international community can negotiate. Moreover, if there is ever to be a viable Palestinian state, there must be an embryonic Administration capable, in due course, of properly administering that state.
The Palestinian Authority arose from the Oslo agreements. Paragraph 58 on page 30 of the report states that
"the PA is in itself a strange institution, created through negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, as part of an interim arrangement until the creation of proper national institutions in a Palestinian state. The PA's creation under the Oslo Accords never envisioned it as a sovereign state, but rather a restricted institution with a very short lifespan. It has always had limited capacity as a service provider and has been plagued by corruption and allegations of corruption, credibility problems, and great difficulties in providing the Palestinian people with sufficient representation."
I did not meet Yasser Arafat when the Select Committee visited the occupied territories, but I met him more than a year ago on a previous visit to the occupied territories with Christian Aid—it was entered in the Register of Members' Interests. I found it instructive that, although he talked at me for nearly an hour, at no time did he mention the future. The whole of his discussion was about the past and, to a lesser extent,

331WH
the present, and how the Palestinians had been made, and continued to be, victims—victims of history, of circumstance and of Israel.
When someone considers themselves to be simply a victim, they tend to seek to absolve themselves from any responsibility for present circumstances or future well-being. I certainly do not see Yasser Arafat as part of the solution. Ironically, however, the harder the Israeli defence forces bear down on the Palestinian community, the more Arafat seeks to, and seems to, become a figurehead as the father of the nation.
Disregarding Arafat, it is fair to observe that in June 2002 the Palestinian Authority launched a reform programme to improve its accountability and efficiency. The Department for International Development's consultation paper observes, on page 14:
"Significant achievements have been made by the PA in the fields of administrative, financial, and economic reform. The most important reform measure of 2003 was the decision to establish a post of Prime Minister, who is responsible for selecting ministers and directing the PA's overall work programme. This is now being complemented by steps to develop a system of Cabinet government and a longer-term programme to improve the performance and accountability of the civil service. Financial management and transparency have been much improved under Finance Minister Salam Fayyad. Reforms include: consolidation of all PA revenues in a Single Treasury Account under the Ministry of Finance; publication of the Palestinian Authority's budget on the internet, including monthly spending reports; steps towards the unification of the payroll and payment of salaries through the banking system; consolidation of all PA commercial activities into a properly audited Palestinian Investment Fund."
That all seems to be intended, quite rightly, to marginalise Arafat and to try to provide some sensible, rational organisation with which Israel and the rest of the world can negotiate. The Economist recently observed that, if Prime Minister Sharon were unilaterally to withdraw from the settlements in Gaza, Israel would need someone on the Palestinian side with whom it could negotiate.
The Select Committee met Salam Fayyad, the Minister of Finance. We were generally impressed by him. He struck us as someone who was determined to ensure the transparency and accountability of the Palestinian budget, and particularly accountability of funds received from international donors. Conclusion 16 on page 73 of the Committee report states:
"It is in everyone's interest that every penny of international development aid to the PA, whether from DFID or charities, is fully and transparently accounted for. Some of the PA's critics would prefer to see donor funding stopped. But we believe this would do more harm than good. It would push more Palestinians below the poverty line and lead to total collapse of the PA. A collapse which would have a detrimental effect on the peace process. In the absence of the PA, people would be more likely to turn to extreme positions and measures and support terrorism."
Of course, much more needs to be done. Conclusion 16 also says that
"there is still need for further reform in the Palestinian Authority, particularly in relation to the accountability of the presidential accounts and in terms of the legal, executive and judicial reforms outlined in the 100 day reform plan. Continuing to drive through planned reforms is the best way for the PA to deal with its critics."
As the DFID consultation paper makes clear:
"Serious challenges remain … particularly in addressing internal resistance within the PA to reform. This is especially evident with regard to the security services".
332WH
The paper says that a number of
"Key reform benchmarks … remain outstanding".
In our collective judgment, nothing will be achieved by undermining the PA. Rather, we should simultaneously seek to build responsible capacity in the PA and to ensure that it delivers on further agreed reforms.
If there is to be a Palestinian state, it will work only if it is a viable state. I shall comment briefly on settlements and the barrier. We saw it with our own eyes. We comment at paragraph 23 on page 16 of the report:
"The network of settlements and their segregated access roads also contribute to the fragmentation of the OPT … Settlements and their associated infrastructure have a major impact on Palestinians. A network of 'by-pass' roads is arranged to provide access between settlements and links to Israel. Palestinians cannot use them. The by-pass roads add to the sense among Palestinian communities of being penned into enclaves, movement between which is at the discretion of the IDF. Land is confiscated without compensation on which to build settlements, their access roads and infrastructure. Palestinian infrastructure is often destroyed in the process and Palestinian agricultural lands are cut through. The settlements also enjoy privileged access to natural resources. Water consumption by settlers in … Gaza and the West Bank is four to five times that of Palestinian villagers."
We received countless written submissions. We heard farmers whom we met in the occupied territories give their own testimonies of their difficulties. It is sometimes argued that Palestinian farmers do not have title deeds to their land, so it is not theirs. In fairness, I think that that is a somewhat disingenuous argument. As we all know, all this territory was, before the first world war, in the Ottoman empire. The Ottomans levied a land tax, but obviously the further away from Constantinople, or Istanbul, the land was, the more difficult it was for them to extract the tax. As a consequence of the tax, farmers in the Ottoman empire were, understandably, not desperately keen to demonstrate how much land they owned. However, much of the land that has been confiscated in the west bank has clearly been in and worked by Palestinian families for generations.
There is a broader point. If Israel continues to allow consolidation and expansion of existing settlements and the setting up of new settlements, just what does it see as the borders of a viable Palestinian state? Does Israel actually want there to be such a state? If all that Israel wants to offer is a number of Palestinian enclaves under some semi-autonomous Palestinian local government control, it is very difficult to see how everyone living in the west bank will not sooner or later, de facto and de jure, become citizens of Israel. It simply is not possible to have a large number of people who are in effect without statehood, citizenship rights or remedies indefinitely.
When the Select Committee was driving to Tel Aviv to meet Israeli Ministers, senior members of the Israeli defence forces and others, we had as our guide a young, very bright official from the Israeli Foreign Ministry. One member of the Committee asked why there were so few settlements between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. I suspect that the official's response was somewhat tongue in cheek, but it still makes the point. He said, "This land is indisputably Israeli, so we don't have to make a point here." If the point of building the settlements in the west bank is to make the land Israeli. there comes a point when a two-state solution is no longer possible. The logical consequence of that must be the creation of a

333WH
single state. Paragraph C5 on page 18 of the Government's consultation paper, "Country Assistance Plan for Palestinians: 2004–2006" points out:
"There is a second threat to a two-state solution: a majority of Palestinians may stop wanting it, preferring a single state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. Palestinians would outnumber Jewish Israelis in such a state within 10–15 years. Such a state could thus not be democratic and preserve the Jewish character of Israel."
That is, the paper observes,
"a reminder of the logical consequences of indefinite occupation."
No one challenges Israel's right to build a barrier if it so wishes. We stated in the report, in conclusion 5 on page 71:
"We can understand why Israel, fearful of its security, wants to build a barrier."
However, we go on to observe that
"any such security fence should be constructed on Israeli, not Palestinian, land. The construction process and path which the barrier takes support Palestinian fears about the motivation which lies behind it. The barrier destroys the viability of a future Palestinian state."
According to the latest projections of the Israeli Government, approximately 210,000 acres—just under 15 per cent. of west bank land, excluding east Jerusalem—will lie between the separation barrier and the internationally recognised green line separating Israel from the Palestinian territory. That land is some of the most fertile on the west bank and is home to 274,000 people, many of whom do not have Israeli residency permits. More than 400,000 other Palestinians living to the east of the barrier will need to cross it to get to their farms, jobs and services. In total, approximately one third of Palestinians in the west bank will be directly affected by the barrier. Little of the barrier follows the green line; some 90 per cent. of it has been built on Palestinian land. Those statistics are from paragraph 8 of the Department for International Development consultation paper.
The Select Committee and the Government are as one on the concerns about the barrier. The Government's response to our conclusion on the barrier states that they
"support the Israeli government's right to take legitimate measures to protect its citizens. But unilateral measures, such as the barrier, will not provide lasting security. This can only be delivered by a negotiated settlement. Construction of the barrier on occupied territory is unlawful, inflames Palestinian public opinion and harms the prospects for pace. The confiscation of Palestinian land associated with the construction of the barrier is also unlawful and creates a physical obstacle to the two-state solution."
Joan Ruddock: I too recently visited Palestine with Christian Aid and put it in the Register of Members' Interests. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just a case of illegality and taking land? The barrier separates farmers and families from the crops that they must grow, attend to and harvest. It separates school children from their schools. It separates sick people from the hospitals that they desperately need. That adds up to a real humanitarian crisis beyond notions of illegality.
Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady makes a good point. I hope that this afternoon we will all—collectively and individually—be able to add to the texture of the
334WH
desperateness that many Palestinians experience in circumstances that are clearly beyond their control. My only concern is that, if I start to describe some of the scenes that I witnessed, I may lose the objectivity that, as a Chairman presenting a unanimous report on behalf of a Select Committee, I am trying to hold to.
It is fair to say that, in their response, the Government agree with the Committee's 53 conclusions and recommendations. However, there are two areas of disagreement, on which I shall briefly comment. It was clear to us that
"The reality is that at the present moment there is no 'peace process' in the Middle East … There are, within Israel and the OPT, two groups of people—the 'occupiers' and the 'occupied'.
The fact is that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have no state, neither de jure, nor de facto; no citizenship; no rights; no remedies, and no one from the international community taking the responsibility to seek to ensure that an occupied people in these circumstances are treated as humanely as possible."
2.50 pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
3.15 pm
On resuming—
Mr. David Chidgey: Before we continue, I should advise hon. Members that the debate will continue until 5.55 pm to make up for the two Divisions. A large number of hon. Members wish to speak, so I ask them to keep their contributions as short as possible. I intend to leave the last half an hour of the debate for the winding-up speeches from the spokespersons from the Opposition parties and the Government.
Tony Baldry: Before the Divisions, I was explaining that Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza have no rights or remedies, as the Select Committee report sets out at conclusion 41. It recommended in conclusion 43:
"In addition to strengthening the role of UNSCO and the Special Co-ordinator, it is time for the Secretary-General of the United Nations—with the authority of the Security Council—to appoint a further Humanitarian Envoy or Special Representative to undertake the specific task of ensuring that the occupation is as humane as possible and that there is a coherent and co-ordinated international scrutiny of what is taking place in the OPT. Such an appointment will need to be accompanied by provision of the necessary money, materials and resources."
In his statement to the House on 19 April, the Prime Minister said that we should acknowledge what he described as the "realities on the ground". The reality on the ground is that, as the Government acknowledge in response to our conclusion 22:
"The Government of Israel could do a great deal more to ease the humanitarian and economic situation of the Palestinian people without threatening Israeli security. Improvements in the freedom of movement of people and goods would be the most significant step towards the recovery of the Palestinian economy. We have urged the Israeli government to take these steps."
There needs to be someone of sufficient international authority to see that all that can be done is done by Israel to
"ease the humanitarian and economic situation of the Palestinian people without threatening Israeli security."

335WH
It may be that the Government have made such a suggestion to Israel and the United States and have simply been rebuffed. On Saturday 27 March, The Times observed:
"President Bush has rejected Downing Street pleas for an American-led 'monitoring force' … to act as a buffer between Israel and the Palestinian Authority … the decision is understood to have dismayed Tony Blair who has gambled huge quantities of political diplomatic capital on his relationship with the President, not least in securing American backing to the Middle East Peace process."
The other area of disagreement between the Select Committee and the Government is over the EU trade agreement. Conclusion 23 states:
"Movement restrictions have caused an unacceptable situation whereby EU trade agreement is obstructed by a party (Israel) which itself benefits from preferential EU trade terms."
Conclusion 24 states:
"Trade agreements are usually based on the principle of reciprocity; market access, freedom of movement and tariff and duty regimes applied by one state or authority normally has to be applied even-handedly and in the same way by all participants in a regional trade agreement. Unfortunately Israel's restrictions on the movement of Palestinian goods, its destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, and its total control of the OPT's borders, are denying Palestinian exporters access to EU markets. We therefore urge the UK Government to propose to the EU Council of Trade Ministers that Israel's preferential terms of trade with the EU be suspended until it lifts the movement restrictions which it has placed on Palestinian trade."
The fact is that, because of the closures, the Palestinian economy has collapsed. It is not possible for Palestinians to export strawberries from Gaza, or simple bars of olive oil soap from the west bank. The Government's response to these recommendations by the Select Committee is
"constructive engagement with Israel is the best approach to exert influence."
What evidence is there that such constructive engagement by the UK Government is exerting influence? Our report and the Government's response were of course published before the recent meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon. Obviously, as a consequence, the Select Committee has not had the opportunity collectively to consider the effects of what I think is now known as the Washington accord, so for the moment I speak for myself and not for the Committee.
I entirely agree with the Prime Minister that the road map remains the best way to peace, and that the UK Government and the international community should, as he said in the House,
"help the Palestinian Authority take the necessary economic, political and security measures so that a viable Palestinian state becomes not just a concept but a real possibility."—[Official Report, 19 April 2004; Vol. 420. c. 22.]
But I do not see how Israel disengaging from Gaza while continuing to occupy large parts of the west bank conceivably offers an opportunity to return to the road map.
Hon. Members will have seen the letter to the Prime Minister from 52 former ambassadors and heads of missions who held senior postings in the Foreign Office. It said:
336WH
"The decision by the US, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a 'road map for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict' raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the west and the Islamic and Arab worlds. The legal and political principles on which such a settlement would be based were well established: President Clinton had grappled with the problem during his presidency; the ingredients needed for a settlement were well understood and informal agreements on several of them had already been achieved. But the hopes were ill-founded. Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence. Britain and the other sponsors of the road map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.
Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood. Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced."
Sir Crispin Tickell, one of the contributors to that letter. who has been an adviser to several Prime Ministers and is now Chancellor of Kent university, said that he
"has never seen such a level of … despair amongst those who have been involved in the Diplomatic field".
He observed that
"we have seen the road map for Palestine being torn up. Mr Bush appears to have given Ariel Sharon permission to do whatever he likes. If this continues, all we can look forward to is war."
Hon. Members will have to judge whether engaging with Israel has resulted in the UK Government having any leverage.
The Select Committee is primarily concerned with development, getting people out of poverty and meeting the millennium development goals. It is used to poverty—individually and together, we visit some of the most desperate and dispiriting places in the world—but as we collectively conduded:
"What … makes the poverty in Palestine so unpalatable is the level of deprivation vis a vis Israel, and the awareness that it is not the result of a natural calamity but of deliberate actions on the part of the Government of Israel."
We are conscious that the UK and the European Union contribute significant amounts of financial assistance to the occupied territories in a number of different ways. Indeed, by my calculations, taking into account the money that DFID has given bilaterally, donated to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and support given through the European Community, during 2003, total assistance from the UK to the Palestinians amounted to some £73 million. To put that into context. DFID's programme in the occupied territories is our 15th fifteenth largest bilateral aid programme, but as we also observed in our report
"there has to be a sense of realism about what development assistance can achieve. The World Bank told us that removing the 'access control' imposed by the Israelis would have increased real GDP by 21 per cent., whereas even the doubling of developed assistance—without easing closure—would only reduce the number of people living in poverty by 7 per cent. by 2004. The situation in the OPT in other words is not one which donor assistance can resolve".
Jeremy Corbyn: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on the report. In the

337WH
Select Committee's studies, did it examine the amount of infrastructure funded by the EU, by Britain or by other organisations that was destroyed by Israeli bombardment? Is there any question of getting Israel to repay that money for wilfully destroying what, particularly in Gaza, were important and valuable projects?
Tony Baldry: Indeed, the report refers to that. In Jenin, among other places, we saw projects that had been destroyed. Work by the European Union included building new housing for refugees in Jenin—housing that was destroyed by the Israeli defence forces. It must be of real concern that it has not been possible for the UK, the EU and others to establish an accord with the Israeli defence forces on protecting development projects funded through international contributions. It must be of real concern to hon. Members that there is no guarantee that projects will be protected if further money is spent on development assistance.
What is happening in the middle east is an ongoing tragedy for all involved. A few weeks ago, I spoke to a meeting of the Conservative Friends of Israel about the report. A representative of the Israeli embassy in London—I do not think that I am misrepresenting his remarks—said that we had produced a comprehensive and balanced report, but that the choice was ultimately between Israeli security and Palestinian humanitarianism. I think that that is a false choice, and I am glad that the Government agree. Paragraph B25 on page 15 of their consultation paper states:
"Israel's stated top priority is security, and the prevention of terrorist acts against Israeli citizens. But poverty and injustice caused by occupation and disproportionate Israeli actions can fuel Palestinian rejectionism and undermine public support for peace and reform. These factors, combined with large numbers of young people out of school and unemployed, help perpetuate the violence."
Lastly, it may interest hon. Members to know that the Select Committee's report has received a favourable response elsewhere. The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency—Sweden's equivalent of DFID—wrote to me at the end of last week:
"SIDA is currently preparing a new Country Strategy Proposal to be submitted to the Swedish Government by the end of this year. In line with our policies not to produce new Reports when excellent material is already available SIDA has decided to base our analysis of the current situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories mainly on the Report prepared by your Committee. In our view, the Report highlights to the point the situation for the Palestinian people in the absence of a real peace process. This view is also shared by our colleagues in our Field Office in Jerusalem".
I fully recognise that, on an issue as contentious and as sensitive as development assistance to the occupied Palestinian territories, one is unlikely ever to achieve universal agreement. I hope, however, that the Chamber recognises that the report is an honest attempt by members of a Select Committee of this House to bear witness to the facts as we see them and unanimously to make recommendations that we hope the Government will adopt and pursue.
3.28 pm
Ann Clwyd: Thank you, Mr. Chidgey. I was just in the process of turning off my mobile phone, which takes a little time.
I am a member not only of the International Development Committee but of the Inter-Parliamentary Union human rights commission, which finished its conference in Mexico last week. I congratulate the Chairman on the forceful way in which he put the case as found by the Committee. On this occasion, I was unable to accompany other members of the Committee on their trip, but I was in Jenin two years ago and I saw some of the destruction to which he referred.
I want to speak about some of the report's conclusions. The report says that
"we agree with the UK Government that the Geneva Conventions apply to the Israeli occupation. The 4th Geneva Convention should remain the standard by which the GOI"—
the Government of Israel—"should perform" in the occupied Palestinian territories. It continues:
"The UK Government has its own obligations to uphold the Convention, and monitor breaches of the rules of the Convention as regards to the civilian population."
I cannot see much reference in "Country Assistance Plan for Palestinians" to the importance of international law, but I may have missed it. International law and Israel's adherence to it would greatly assist both the humanitarian situation and others in which the Palestinians find themselves. As one of the high contracting parties of the fourth Geneva convention, it is the British Government's responsibility to ensure that Israel meets its legal obligations as the occupying power to uphold the rights of the Palestinians.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government, with their European partners, should ensure that Israel is held to account under article 49 of the Geneva convention? That states:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
That would go some way to addressing the concerns that she mentions.
Ann Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend because that is precisely the point I was coming to. I want to raise the case of Mr. Marwan Barghouti, who is the most important Palestinian prisoner in Israeli custody.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union committee on the human rights of parliamentarians has been dealing with Mr. Barghouti's case for some time. As hon. Members will know, the IPU custom is that if it wishes to raise the case of a parliamentarian who is in jail or has problems in their country, it asks for a mission to be allowed to go to the country in question. The IPU asked that a delegation be allowed to meet Mr. Barghouti, taking up an invitation extended by the Speaker of the Israeli Parliament in a letter of 9 July 2003 to observe the trial proceedings. The IPU decided at its 173rd session to send an observer to see Mr. Barghouti's trial. That was not allowed, however, so the IPU committee on the human rights of parliamentarians decided instead to send a legal expert to Israel to gather on the spot as much detailed information as possible on Mr. Barghouti's trial.

339WH
Mr. Simon Foreman, a lawyer in a Paris firm, travelled to Israel at the beginning of December and was able to meet the case prosecutor, Mr. Barghouti's defence team and other parties. He provided the IPU committee with his report, which is annexed to the resolution that we passed last Friday at our convention in Mexico. It was decided to do that in advance of Israel's observations on the report being made, because the next opportunity to publish it would have been in September, which in our view would be too late.
Mr. Barghouti was arrested in April 2002. He is an elected member of the Palestinian Legislative Council. which is the Parliament of the Palestinian Authority, established following the two Oslo accords. Since January 1996, he had represented the constituency of Ramallah. He was elected for Fatah, the political movement of which he is the general secretary in the west bank and to which the President of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, also belongs. Analysts regard him as a moderate on account of his support for the Oslo accords, an opinion that was expressed by the former head of the Israeli intelligence services in Ha'aretz in September 2003.
Mr. Barghouti was forced to go underground in 2001. On 4 August of that year, he narrowly escaped an Israeli army missile strike on two vehicles leaving Fatah headquarters. He was in one of them, but the Israeli Government stated that another person was the target, even though Mr. Barghouti, according to the Deputy Internal Security Minister,
"amply deserves to die … for he is very much to blame for the attacks against Israel."
Our Chairman referred to the article by Mr. Barghouti published in the New York Times and in the International Herald Tribune, which attracted a lot of attention. It was entitled, "Want security, end occupation". After very violent suicide attacks during the Easter holidays in March 2002, the Israeli army called up the reserve and launched Operation Defensive Shield, under cover of which it penetrated deeply into the occupied territories of the west bank. In that context, the Israeli army resumed control of Ramallah, which it had evacuated six years earlier under the Oslo process. It succeeded in locating and capturing Marwan Barghouti.
When Mr. Barghouti was arrested on 15 April 2002, he was taken by military forces from Ramallah, in west bank territory, to Jerusalem, and jailed in the Russian compound prison. He remained in solitary confinement for a month, except for two visits by his lawyer—one on 18 April, when they were able to communicate freely, and the other on 7 May, under the supervision of the security services.
During that month of isolation, Mr. Barghouti was interrogated by the security services. On 21 and 22 May, he had long working sessions with his lawyers, and described to them his conditions of interrogation: physical pressures in the form of sleep deprivation and uninterrupted interrogations and recourse to what is known as the shabeh method, which consists of attaching the person interrogated to a chair and forcing him to sit for several hours in a painful position—in this case, protruding nails in the back of the chair
340WH
aggravated the discomfort by preventing him from leaning back. Mr. Barghouti also said that the interrogators made death threats against him and his son.
The defence has argued throughout that the Tel Aviv district court could not try Mr. Barghouti for a great many reasons, deriving essentially from international law. They included the facts that, first, the Oslo accords transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction the authority to try Palestinians, including with respect to attacks carried out against Israelis, and the accords have been embodied in Israeli law; secondly, Mr. Barghouti should enjoy prisoner of war status, pursuant to the third Geneva convention; thirdly, the arrest of Mr. Barghouti was unlawful, because he was abducted from his home in Ramallah, a Palestinian area, by the Israeli armed forces; and, fourthly, the transfer of Mr. Barghouti from Ramallah, a territory under Palestinian sovereignty and occupied by the Israeli army, to Israeli territory to be tried in Tel Aviv was in breach of the fourth Geneva convention. Lastly, the defence argued, the arrest and trial of Mr. Barghouti violated his parliamentary immunity deriving from his status as a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
I have mentioned the third and the fourth Geneva conventions, and the responsibility of the UK Government, as an upholder of those conventions, to ensure that they are upheld. There is still no news about the verdict of the Tel Aviv district court, which has reserved judgment since 29 December last year. According to the case papers, from Mr. Barghouti's arrest on 15 April 2002 to the trial, the Israeli authorities and the prosecution have tried to turn the situation into a media event and a symbol, putting on trial one of the men who epitomised the intifada and presenting him as a terrorist. Of all the Palestinian prisoners held by the Israelis, Mr. Barghouti is the most senior member of the Palestinian Authority and he is said to be close to Mr. Arafat.
The observer made one or two comments to the IPU concerning the statement by the Israeli Deputy Homeland Security Minister that Mr. Barghouti "thoroughly deserves death", the statement from the Attorney-General calling him a terrorist, the way in which Mr. Barghouti's lawyers have been prevented from meeting him, the long interrogations to which his French lawyer was subjected on her arrival at the airport in Tel Aviv and Israel's refusal to allow in an observer from the International Federation for Human Rights.
Such incidents have been facilitated by the climate that has made this trial increasingly a political rather than a judicial matter, but also by a breakdown of Israeli law, which has been placed in breach of international law by authorising prisoner transfers. As I spelled out earlier, that is clearly prohibited by the fourth Geneva convention. It also tolerates interrogation methods that should be prohibited, in addition to the laws that make it possible to keep a prisoner incommunicado for excessively long periods.
Nobody would dispute that the Israeli authorities are right to point out that their country is up against blind terrorism, which posts serious security problems that they have to address. However, our report, which the IPU governing council has distributed to 150 countries that are members of the IPU, illustrates the fact that the methods chosen to deal with terrorism have been

341WH
inconsistent with the rule of law and that sight has been lost of such equally essential principles as the absolute priority that should be given. under all circumstances, to respect for the physical integrity of prisoners.
The Barghouti case has clearly demonstrated that, far from bringing security, the breaches of international law have, above all, undermined the authority of Israeli justice by casting discredit on its conduct of investigations and the procedures used. The United Kingdom Government have a responsibility to ensure that the conventions are upheld.
3.43 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: Let me start with a disclaimer, because I was not on the Committee when it went to Palestine and to Israel. Since I did not take part in the evidence taking—I did not see or hear the evidence—although I joined the Committee a few days before the final session in which the draft was debated, I deliberately and explicitly excluded myself from making any substantive contribution to the report. It seems wrong, if one has not heard or seen the evidence, to be a party to reaching a verdict.
Never in my life have I been in the occupied territories and Palestine; I have only ever once been to Israel, and that was a very long time ago when I was in my early 20s. I think that Israel has changed quite a bit since the 1970s, when I was there. Unfortunately, the problems that then seemed intractable—refugees, the status of Jerusalem, the status of settlements and so on—remain with us. There has been absolutely no political progress at all. One could pick up a newspaper and imagine that one was back 30 years ago and that nothing had changed.
I want to start where the Committee ended—to start from the conclusion. The clear conclusion of the report and of anything else well informed that I have read on the issue is really quite simple: there will not be a cat in hell's chance of any development in Palestine until there is peace—until there is an end to the violence, to the restrictions that have been imposed on movement and other activity as a result of the violence, and to the total demoralisation of Palestinian society that has resulted from the tragic events of the past few years.
The two key questions that we should be considering in Parliament are, first, why has there been no progress—not since the Oslo 2 agreement, not since the road map, not since as far back as the 1970s, the 1960s or the 1950s, indeed no progress at all with this problem—and, secondly, what are we to do now?
The generally fashionable line to take on this debate, and the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) took, although I congratulate him on his lucid speech, is that the fault has been largely with the Israeli Government. I find that entirely unconvincing. I am not afraid to criticise the Israeli Government; I have never taken a partisan view in these matters. It is clearly the fault of the Israelis that the Palestinian refugee problem was created in the first place, and that Palestinian civilians were forced in 1948 to leave what has become Israel.
There is clear evidence that the appalling massacre of Deir Yassin was carried out deliberately with a view to intimidating the Palestinian population and driving them out. Those are serious charges and I am not afraid
342WH
to make them. There have been some legitimate complaints on the part of the Arabs left in Israel since then. A very black day in the history of Israel—a country that is on the whole a fine democracy, and proud of that tradition—is represented by the treatment of Palestinians trying to get their land back who won cases in the 1950s in the Israeli courts. Those judgments were overruled retrospectively by Israeli legislation. That is an appalling record.
I am not afraid to criticise Israel when it needs criticising, but I do not think it sensible or rational—I do not think that it conforms to the facts—to criticise Israel for the current situation. Why do I say that? Because if there has been no progress since Oslo that is because of acts taken by the Palestinian leadership, or through their lack of leadership. I wonder which phrase is more appropriate.
A very hopeful moment occurred at the end of 2000, with the Camp David meeting. You will recall, Mr. Chidgey, that the then Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Barak, arrived with an offer that was presented in many quarters as extremely generous. I shall not make any value judgment on it. It was certainly very significant. It amounted to handing over more than 90 per cent. of the territories and the Haram al-Sharif, and that was just for starters.
I do not say that I expected Arafat and the Palestinian delegation to say, "Yes, that's fine, Mr. Barak. Thank you very much. We shall sign on the dotted line," and that that would be the end of the story. However, one might have expected, if they had been remotely responsible or rational, that they would have started to talk about it, saying, "This is our response to the offer." Not at all. To the absolute consternation of President Clinton, who was presiding over the meeting, Arafat refused to negotiate at all.
An awful lot of criticism has already been made in the Chamber—no doubt more will be made before the end of the debate—about all the things that are going wrong in Palestine now, and the restrictions placed on Palestinians. Of course that is appalling. I am sure that the economic situation is as desperate as that described in the document before us, but none of that need have happened.
What is more, it seems extraordinary to say that that is the fault of the Israeli Government and Sharon, because it is clear that the person who created that Israeli Government is Mr. Arafat. When Arafat refused to deal with Barak—Barak having made that substantial offer at Camp David—there was only one conclusion to be drawn. It was the one that the Israeli electorate of course drew, when they had to go to the polls a few weeks later. They concluded that there was not a deal to be done on land for peace.
Richard Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: Not at the moment, because we are under time pressure.
There was no deal to be done because the Israelis might give away the land but would not get the peace. There was no negotiation to be conducted. The intention of the Palestinian Authority was not to

343WH
negotiate at all but simply to use violence. In retrospect, it is fairly clear that the second intifada was being planned at the very time of the Camp David meeting.
I do not see how the Israeli electorate could possibly have been expected to support Barak, or how any Israeli Government could have been expected to make more offers of that kind, given the response to their offer in December 2000. I say it again: any problems with the conduct of the current Israeli Government, such as the regrettable construction of the barrier and the restrictions, have been brought about by the recklessly irresponsible behaviour of Arafat at Camp David. We must recognise that.
Joan Ruddock: The points that the hon. Gentleman makes are debatable. Considering the response of the Israeli Government, does he justify the building of the barrier on Palestinian land?
Mr. Davies: The answer to that is yes. [Interruption.] I did say yes; there seemed to be a reaction to my use of that monosyllabic word. The hon. Lady asked a question and I said yes. If people came to Lincolnshire and started killing my constituents with suicide bombs, I would be the first to say that we should build a barrier between Lincolnshire and wherever the problem was coming from. That should be the inevitable response of any Government, because their first responsibility is to defend the lives of their citizens. The tragedy is that the second intifada was ever launched. That was a fundamental and despicable mistake, involving the deliberate shedding of innocent civilian blood for no coherent political purpose. Pragmatically, it was counter-productive; I condemn it morally above all, but also pragmatically.
There was a second element to the hon. Lady's question, which I am not running away from either: if a barrier is put up, should it be only in Israeli territory or beyond the 1967 international frontier? Again, I have sympathy with what the Israelis have done. There must be negotiation about which, if any, settlements remain in the occupied territories as part of a long-term settlement. However, the Israeli Government cannot possibly allow their citizens living in those settlements to be massacred in cold blood—of course they must be defended. It was necessary to respond in that way to defend those settlements because of the second intifada, because of Arafat's refusal to negotiate and because there was no prospect for continuing with a land-for-peace strategy as a result of the reckless and irresponsible decisions of Mr. Arafat.
I have answered the hon. Lady's question, possibly not as she wanted or expected, but coherently with the argument that I have been advancing.
Richard Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has been persistent, but this will be the last time that I give way.
Richard Burden: I hope that the debate will focus on the present and future rather than on the past. However, when the hon. Gentleman referred to Camp David he
344WH
made no mention of the Taba talks, which I think took place in February following Camp David. Those talks did not lead to the Palestinians or Israelis rejecting anything: they broke down when Sharon won the election. Why did he not mention the Taba negotiations?
Mr. Davies: If we had the whole afternoon and I was pressed to do so, I would refer back to the Balfour declaration and talk about an awful lot of things. The reason that I did not mention the Taba talks is that I think that Arafat, or some of his advisers, may have panicked and thought that they made an awful mistake at Camp David. They may have decided to try to regain some of the lost ground at Taba, but it was too late. That emphasises my point that they made a colossal mistake.
The hon. Gentleman started his intervention by saying, "I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets on soon to talking about the future and doesn't worry too much about the past." He has more or less conceded that he agrees that my analysis of the past is pretty near the mark and pretty near the truth. That must be the case since neither he nor the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) contested the good sense of what I have been saying.
It makes no sense, in the circumstances, to criticise the Israeli Government. What has happened has been a product of the behaviour of the Palestinians, tragic and regrettable though that is. There is no question but that there have been many sufferers in Israel; many innocent people have lost their lives or been maimed and mutilated for life, which is appalling. Of a secondary order, in those terms, is the economic damage that has also been done to Israel. The Palestinians have suffered much greater human and economic damage, however, but it has been delivered to them by the actions of their own purported leader. In those circumstances, it makes no sense to criticise the Israeli Government for building the barrier.
I criticise the British Government strongly, and the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in particular, for their criticism, which makes no sense, of the Israelis for taking action to deal with the leaders in this violence—those who have been planning and sending suicide bombers into Israel. I cannot think of a more horrific or perverted evil in this life than suicide bombing—we have seen recently that they have even sent children to deliver suicide bombs. The Israeli Government have Seen taking the action that any Government should take, including trying to take out the leadership of the movement that is organising that violence.
Tony Baldry: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davies: I explained earlier that I do not want to give way again, but as my hon. Friend is the Chairman of our Committee naturally I shall do so.
Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend was, for a while, the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This country endured terrible atrocities from the IRA and others—many in the House suffered. Is he really arguing that it would have been acceptable for the British

345WH
Government, at any time, to have ordered or organised targeted assassinations of those whom they thought to be responsible for those acts of terrorism?
Mr. Davies: At present, our forces are engaged in Afghanistan, with our American allies. Among other things, they are trying to find Mr. Bin Laden, Mr. Zawahiri and the other leaders of al-Qaeda. If we learned that, instead of those people being captured, they had been killed, most of us would rejoice and think that a desirable and thoroughly just died response to the problem. It is therefore hypocritical, if we are trying to take out the leaders of al-Qaeda to protest against another Government seeking to defend themselves by taking out the leaders of a terrorist organisation that is directing violence at them.
The Northern Irish problem, to which my hon. Friend refers, is in a different category, because there is a negotiation in place. There is the Belfast agreement and, although there have been some difficulties with it and some backsliding, which I have referred to in other contexts, on the whole Sinn Fein-IRA have followed through the process that began in Belfast.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership did not follow through the process started in Oslo 2 and did not respond at all at Camp David. Hamas and the other terrorist organisations have not ceased their violence and there has been no attempt, as far as one can see, by the Palestinian Authority to stop that violence. One of the conditions—a prerequisite—for the road map was that violence would stop and that the Palestinian Authority would take measures to arrest those responsible for violence and bring it to an end, but they have not done so. I hope that that deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury.
I am glad, by the way, to have shocked a few people in the Chamber by saying some of the things that I have said. It is extremely important that we are prepared to confront reality here and to apply the same standards to the middle east as we apply elsewhere in the world.
I want, however, to focus on what should happen from now on. We need to get back to the road map—to the negotiating process. If comments such as the ones that I have made today make those who have the cause of the Arab—and particularly the Palestinian—peoples close to their hearts think again about the quality of the leadership that the Palestinians have had and the decisions that have been taken on their behalf over the past few years, and if that provokes a change of course and of attitude, I shall be more than relieved, as should we all.
The first step, if a negotiation is to take place, must be a ceasefire. If I may remind my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury of the analogy that he raised, there was a ceasefire in Northern Ireland. Violence stopped before negotiations began. We rightly insisted on that prerequisite. There has been a ceasefire, more or less, in Northern Ireland for the past seven years or so. We need to end violence; there needs to be a negotiation.
I am making my points without fear or favour, because I hold no brief for either side. I regret President Bush's statement the other day, and the Prime Minister's endorsement of it, on the frontiers and settlements, because it seemed to prejudge the negotiation that should take place between the parties. I
346WH
do not want to say now whether I think that the frontier should be the same as or different from what it was in 1967 or whether some settlements should remain in the territories. There have been some Jewish settlements there, I think in Hebron, going back over the 2,000 years since the Jews were expelled from that area—we should not call it Palestine—by the Romans in AD 70. I recognise that there is a big issue as to whether there should be any settlements, and if so which ones and where, and which frontiers should be adopted. That must be a matter for the parties to negotiate. It is not helpful for outsiders, even outsiders as powerful as the United States, to make public comments that prejudice the negotiation that should take place.
Those negotiations clearly must cover refugees. That is a very important issue. It seems to me that the refugees who left in 1948 are entitled, in principle, to return, but they are not young and if there is a suitable alternative financial offer they will probably not do so. One can easily foresee a pragmatic solution to that issue, while recognising the right of return for those who left. I do not know that a right of return can be inherited by future generations. If it can, one has to ask for how long it can be inherited. Is it three generations or five? On that basis, perhaps the Jews can claim the right to return, because they were expelled by the Romans in AD 70. It might be more sensible to say that those who were physically expelled from, or previously lived in, a place have a rather more special status than others who may call themselves refugees or be called refugees by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency or other bodies.
There is the basis for a negotiation, albeit a complicated one that has eluded the parties for decades. Nevertheless, it is as urgent as ever that that negotiation should take place. We do no service to anyone in the middle east if we suggest in the House that there is any other solution, or if we spend our time here criticising one party while being apparently oblivious to the failings of another.
I have criticised both sides in the process. I sincerely hope that they can find a way to ensure that future generations of Palestinians and of Israelis do not have to grow up and live their lives against the background of the terror and violence of which we have had far too much, particularly over the past few months and years.
4.3 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: One did not need to hear the disclaimer at the beginning of the speech by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that he was not a party to the report and was not a member of the Select Committee when it compiled its report, because his stupefying ignorance of the situation, as emerged from his speech, demonstrates that entirely. His response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about the relationship with the IRA bombing campaign in this country showed that he did not even understand that. Perhaps his leader was right to remove him as Northern Ireland spokesman.
My city, Manchester, had the whole of its centre destroyed by an IRA bomb. What did we do? We held an Irish festival. We hold an Irish festival every year. It is about reconciliation, not revenge or vindictiveness. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford says that the

347WH
Israeli Government have the right or the duty to defend the lives of their citizens. If that is their right or duty, they are singularly, indeed spectacularly, unsuccessful, because more Israeli civilians have been murdered by terrorists in the period in which Ariel Sharon has been Prime Minister of the state of Israel than in any other period during the 56 years of the existence of that state.
Last year, an article by Avraham Burg, who, until last year, was the Speaker of the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, was published in the Israeli press. Last month, that article was republished in The Sunday Telegraph. What did he say?
"Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centres of Israeli escapism. They consign themselves to Allah in our places of recreation, because their own lives are torture. They spill their own blood in our restaurants, because they have children and parents at home who are hungry and humiliated. We could kill 1,000 ringleaders a day"—
that is a reference to targeted assassinations—
"and nothing will be solved, because the leaders come from below—from the wells of hatred and anger, from the 'infrastructures' of injustice and moral corruption."
The phrase "moral corruption" is as accurate a way of describing the Israeli Government as it is possible to find. Ehud Barak, a very fine man, whom I met when I was in Israel not long ago, made an offer. I agree that it was an error by the Palestinians to reject that offer in the way they did. However, Ariel Sharon's whole life has been based on killing people, first as a soldier and then as somebody who connived in the massacre of Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila and who was condemned by the Israeli Kahane commission for his role in that.
Ariel Sharon is the person who, when I was in Israel, went on to the Temple Mount when opposition leader as an act of deliberate provocation. It is perfectly true that the Camp David negotiations and the Taba negotiations did not end in agreement. However, it is an interesting fact that, in the period between Camp David and Taba, efforts at negotiations were continuing and that, up to the moment when Sharon went to the Temple Mount, the situation was relatively peaceful.
At the weekend on which Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount, I was visiting friends in northern Israel. We had a meal at an Arab restaurant just outside Haifa. We were received with cordiality and that wonderful welcome that Arabs offer their guests. That was on the Friday evening. By the end of the weekend, there were riots at that restaurant. Those riots were provoked by Ariel Sharon.
If there is one individual in the entire world who can be regarded as primarily responsible for the deaths of more than 600 Israelis at the hands of vicious, foul terrorists, it is Ariel Sharon. Every Israeli who dies may primarily be murdered by Palestinian terrorists, but they are victims of Ariel Sharon and his policies as well. It is as well that that should be placed on the record.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He had his turn.
348WH
I congratulate the Select Committee on its report, which is absolutely first rate, and the hon. Member for Banbury on the way he presented it. I was interested in the notion that it is the duty of the Chairman of a Select Committee to be impartial. I shall have to think about that concept in my own role.
It so happened that I was in the Palestinian territories at roughly the same time as the Select Committee—either the Committee followed my path or I followed its path, but our visits coincided. I was there as an individual on a visit that was arranged—but not, I must make clear, financed—through the Foreign Office. My visit was greatly facilitated by our marvellous consul general in Jerusalem. I went around the occupied territories.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford talks about the right to defend the settlements, but every settlement is illegal. They are against international law. All those settlements should not be there. They are not simply illegal; they are aggressive. I was in Hebron with the Temporary International Presence in Hebron. I could not have travelled as I did in the Palestinian territories unless I was driven by the consul general, the United Nations or TIPH. I would have been held like all the Palestinians for hours at the checkpoints described in the Select Committee report.
It is not simply that the whole regime of the Israeli army is to protect the settlers in Hebron. Those settlers have completely destroyed the ancient souk in Hebron. It no longer exists. I always went there on my visits. I had food there. I used to shop there. I used to buy the wonderful Hebron glass there. Now it is dead—gone. The settlers rampaged through Hebron. They deliberately attack Palestinians. There is a road on the perimeter of the new city of Hebron, which Palestinians are forbidden to use but settlers who travel on that road go to the Palestinians for their car repairs. The sheer irony, the through-the-looking-glass situation that we witness there, is one of my most appalling experiences.
I am attacked on this the whole time, so I might as well get attacked on it again. As a Jew, it disgusts me that a Government of a country that was established as a Jewish state should be managing the most oppressive regime in the entire developed world. When I say the developed world, I find it particularly repulsive that, when one is in Israel or in an illegal Jewish settlement on the west bank, one need travel only a matter of minutes to go from the first world to the third world. One travels from a country that, even with the terrible depredations of the incompetent.economic policy of Netanyahu and Sharon, is still rich in terms of the world as a whole, into areas where people are living in abject poverty.
The most appalling part of that poverty, as is demonstrated in the Select Committee report, is that it is man made. I do not say human made, because it is not women who have done it—it is the Israeli Government and Israeli soldiers They have created a situation in which huge numbers of human beings are living in misery, in what even President Bush when he spoke at Banqueting house, called "daily humiliation." That is done deliberately. The poverty is created. Palestine is an affluent place. It is a fruitful place. The horticulture and agriculture should be prosperous.
I went to Jericho with the consul general. Jericho is rich, fruitful and has several crops a year of fruit and food that it could export, yet there is misery and poverty

349WH
there because restrictions on movement prevent the farmers and horticulturalists from selling their produce. The appalling thing about what is going on in the occupied territories is that none of it needs to be happening.
Of course, there are two sides to any negotiations, the Israelis have the right to defend themselves and the families of people who have been killed and maimed are understandably vengeful—although not all of them by any means. However, it is for us to try to assist in the reaching of a settlement. To do that, we must first understand the situation as described so vividly and factually by the Select Committee. We must also understand who is responsible, and let us be clear that the worst development in Palestine is not the election of Sharon, appalling though he is, but the endorsement of whatever Sharon does by Bush.
The only way to achieve a settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians is with the impetus of the United States Administration. Jimmy Carter made great efforts and had considerable success. Bill Clinton also made great efforts and could have had greater success if he had had the co-operation from both sides that he deserved. I pay tribute to Ehud Barak and say that, in my view, Arafat made serious errors in how he reacted to what happened at Camp David.
We now have a President of the United States who not only does not understand the situation—one would think that the hon. Member tor Grantham and Stamford was one of his advisers— but has a time scale of only seven months, until election day on 2 November. As Jews are located in strategic states with big electoral college votes, he is grubbing for their votes. I have greater respect for the Jewish community in the United States than George W. Bush has, because there is no doubt that, if their votes had been counted in Florida, he would not be President today. Al Gore would be President, and we would not be in this situation.
We need negotiation and an alleviation of the deliberate man-made poverty, the terrible humiliation of human beings and the degradation in which people live. The Select Committee report included a map that showed the noose around Qalqilya. I visited Qalqilya with United Nations representatives. As the report points out, there is only one exit from it—a gate that is open only if Israeli troops are there to open it. On my visit, they were not there, so the gate was not open. I saw people going to the gate in the hope that it would be open, but it was not. People are prisoners in their own town.
The Select Committee report accurately describes the situation. Let us be clear that we are watching a deliberate exercise in ethnic cleansing. The Israelis are making life impossible for the Palestinians, building a wall that encloses large numbers of hem, separating the farmers from their land, the workers from their jobs, the sick from the hospitals and the students and pupils from their place of education. Like the Select Committee, I have seen that. What is being said is: "Do what was done to the souk in Hebron and get out " Eventually, if the Israelis were to spread, the Palestinians would have to get out beyond the other side of the Jordan.
We are talking about a Jewish state. I was brought up as a child with a yearning for a Jewish state. We had a collection box on our mantelpiece, and whenever my
350WH
father had any spare money, in the coins would go. The day the Jewish state was founded was a great day for Jews all over the world, including my family in Leeds, but if they go on as they are, there will not be a Jewish state any more. If they go on as they are, there will be a state in which, because of the fact that there are not two states beside each other, the Arabs will eventually become a majority. The Israelis are taking part in what Meron Benvenisti, the deputy mayor of Jerusalem, referred to a few days ago in an article in The Guardian as the creation of Bantustans.
Mr. John Bercow: It was one of the proudest experiences of my life, as a young boy just before my bar mitzvah, to be taken by my father for the first time to Israel, the Jewish homeland and a democratic state. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the saddest phenomena that I observed on my most recent visit to the occupied territories was the confiscation of land, the destruction of crops and the seizure of property without any compensation? That is a wholly undemocratic principle, in violation of the founding principles of that Israeli state.
Mr. Kaufman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I would go a tiny bit further, and say that if what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians were being done by some external power to Jews the entire international Jewish community would rightly be up in arms demanding an end to such an oppressive regime. The hon. Gentleman had his bar mitzvah, so he will know the Hebrew word ts'dakah. It is an obligation of ts'dakah to do right. That is what Jews are supposed to do. That is why Sharon is the worst representative of a Jewish state that there could be.
I do not want to take up much more time, because I know so many hon. Members want to speak, but I want to say this. Given my experience as a Chairman of a Select Committee, reading the Government's response to the report, with all those paragraphs beginning "We agree", made me green with envy. I wish that that could be taught to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
There are just one or two things, as the hon. Member for Banbury pointed out, about which the Government are over-cautious. Their stance on the issue is fine. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the reputation in the Palestinian territories of our Department for International Development stands very high. The reputation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development stands particularly high, as I found when I discussed the matter with Palestinians in Ramallah. However, the Government are overcautious in not wishing to use the authority and power of the European Union to exert pressure in this matter.
Page 65 of the report, at paragraph 151, quotes one of the most degrading statements that I have read from the European Union for a long time. Last night, I was with other right hon. and hon. Members in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, listening to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister make a wonderful speech about the new Europe that will emerge on 1 May. However, hon. Members should hear this passage from what the European Commission told the Select Committee when it asked the European Union to use its power on preferences to put pressure on the Israelis to behave in a reasonable manner:

351WH
"The trade balance with Israel is very, very heavily in our favour. So when you say, 'What is the benefit or impact on Israel of these arrangements', at the moment the European Union is doing quite well out of them both in terms of industrial trade and agricultural trade … So I am not sure what would be the result of disrupting these or interrupting these. It may actually harm the European Union more than it harms Israel".
I am one of the Members of Parliament for Manchester. During the American civil war, the cotton workers of Lancashire were willing to give up their livelihoods in the battle to end slavery in the United States. They were poor workers in a poor area of England. The European Union is enormously prosperous. It has economic power. It has been suggested to me that it ought at least to set up a monitoring team to consider the human rights aspect of the preferential agreement. I believe that that is essential.
One may be asked what can be done. George Bush senior imposed economic sanctions on Yitzhak Shamir, and that is why the Madrid procedure began. The US held $10 billion of loan sanctions in order to push the Israelis to negotiate at Madrid. My hon. Friends talk about what the Israeli Government could do, and speak of a constructive engagement with Israel, but one cannot have a constructive engagement with a lout. Hundreds of thousands, even millions, of decent, fine Israeli people want a free Palestine alongside a secure Israel. The Government of Israel should be pushed into negotiations. I believe that economic sanctions are the way to achieve that.
I thank the Select Committee for its report. It is not the end of the story. We are not going to rest until there is a free Palestine alongside a secure Israel.
4.27 pm
John Barrett: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on a thoughtful and considerate speech. It was obviously based on experience and a great deal of knowledge.
This Select Committee report is different from the other reports on the subject that have been produced in my time. Unlike most of them, this report makes it clear that the problems addressed are obviously man made. Unfortunately, I was unable to join the Committee on its recent visit. However, many right hon. and hon. Members have visited the middle east with all-party groups or other organisations; indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) have just returned. A significant number of Members have first—hand experience of the region—experience that brings real expertise and wisdom to our debates. We heard a good example of that earlier this afternoon.
One of the best aspects of being a member of the Select Committee is being able to meet different people, see different parts of the world and, sometimes, listen to quite moving evidence. For instance, the Committee heard evidence about the demolition of houses, but I shall not go into detail about it.
One of the disadvantages of membership of the Committee is that its inquiries can sometimes be overtaken by events, and in ways that some other Select
352WH
Committees' cannot. However, despite all that has happened since its publication at the beginning of the year, this report remains as valid as when it was published, although the scale of the problem has increased because of the recent actions of the Israeli Government.
Those members of the Committee who have spoken to me since their visit to the occupied territories told me of the shock of the humanitarian situation there. What makes a bad situation worse is the fact that, as I said, those humanitarian needs are virtually all man made. That makes the situation all the more frustrating. We have enough trouble helping those countries ravaged by natural disasters or events that are outwith our control without adding to them. Of course, I understand the need for Israel to protect its people and to minimise the potential for horrific suicide bombings like those that we have seen. However, the Israeli Government fail to realise that their actions serve only to give greater cause to organisations such as Hamas, which seek to recruit Palestinians in their campaign of terror. Rather than preventing suicide bombings, the Government of Israel are fuelling the fire that leads to such acts of terrorism.
Richard Younger-Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that there cannot be peace unless there is justice? I have just received a report from the village of Jayyous, which has been cut in two by the barrier. It has 15,000 olive trees, 120 greenhouses, 50,000 citrus trees and six out of seven of its groundwater wells on the wrong side of the fence. There is a gate, but it is never open when it should be, so the people are denied access to tend their crops. Can there be justice in that sort of situation?
John Barrett: I take my hon. Friend's point. There can be no excuse for the wall or fence—however people refer to it—having been built where it has been built, separating pupils from schools, farmers from fields, and villagers from their hospitals. It is an outrage. As long as that barrier exists it adds to the problem; it does not take away from it.
There is no excuse for suicide bombings, and at the same time there is no excuse for targeted assassinations. Both are illegal under international law and the Palestinian Authority have to take a greater hand in trying to prevent the suicide bombings. As the Committee found. the authority should, as a first step, condemn the bombings much more strongly. At the same time, investment in arid development of the Palestinian Authority security forces needs to be made a priority. Israel has to recognise that that will serve its interests, while donors such as the UK should see it as a key part of technical assistance. Israel has no excuse for building the wall or Palestinian land, breaking up and closing in Palestinian communities, and there is no excuse for the US Administration to be anything other than critical of that move.
It is important that the Department for International Development should respond not just to short-term humanitarian needs but help countries to develop in the long term by solving their long-term problems—that normally means helping countries to help themselves. In places such as Ethiopia, aid is about the provision of food in the short term, while making the country less vulnerable to freak climates in the long term. In Malawi,

353WH
it is about treating those suffering from HIV in the short term while preventing the spread of disease in the long term. In Palestine, we need to avert the humanitarian disaster that threatens while pursuing as a long-term solution an end to the violence that has plagued the region for so long.
As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, for Palestine it is not, as in some other countries, just about aid. The Committee found that merely increasing aid spending would decrease poverty by about 7 per cent., but tackling the cause of poverty—ending movement restrictions—would result in a reduction of 15 per cent. This is not a problem that needs to have money thrown at it. Although there is, of course, a need for continued spending. it needs much more. As others have said, the wall and the movement restrictions are causing immense problems. Palestine is not a country with food shortages, yet the Committee found rates of malnutrition as bad as those in sub-Saharan Africa. Between the movement restrictions and the confiscation of land, farmers are unable to provide the food that their people need. Surely the movement of food cannot be described as a security threat. The Committee found that, provided no weapons are being transported, there is no need for the additional restrictions on the movement of food.
There are still water access requirements and, if my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) catches your eye, Mr. Chidgey, she will go into the detail of that. The Committee found that DFID and non-governmental organisations were undertaking excellent work in helping to improve water access. However, the violence in the region often results in the demolition of infrastructure. One example cited in the report was the destruction by the Israeli army of US-built wells. There is no point in the UK, the EU and other donors investing in infrastructure improvements if they are to be undermined by authorised acts of violence.
The other issue that struck me during the inquiry was the importance of education. As has been said, half the population of the occupied Palestinian territories are under 18. That makes it even more important to provide good educational facilities, but in this case too the restrictions imposed by the Israelis are causing considerable, potentially permanent damage. The Palestinian Ministry of Education reports that almost 1,300 schools have been closed because of curfews, seizures and the fact that some of them have been converted into detention centres. A further 280 schools have been damaged by military action. Of those that remain, restrictions on movement and fear of retribution mean that teachers art unable to teach and that they and pupils are unable to reach their classrooms. Charities such as Save the Children report an increased use of violence in the playground as a means of settling disputes. If we are ever to find a long-term solution to the mistrust between the two sides, we must ensure that the next generation of leaders are not burdened by ignorance. Allowing children in Palestine to go through their entire childhood without proper education is contrary to that.
The only long-term solution to Palestine's development needs is peace. It is safe to say that despite the result of the Commons vote on 18 March 2003, the majority of Members were sceptical about military
354WH
action in Iraq. One reason that some went through the Aye Lobby was the commitment that the Israel—Palestine conflict would be given priority and that the road map would be implemented. President Bush's endorsement of Sharon's disengagement plan and his partisan comments since run contrary not only to that commitment, but to international law and UN resolutions.
The interjection of 52 former British diplomats on Monday was a timely reminder of the work that still has to be done. Even those who disagree with the content of the letter must accept that those who signed it were some of the most expert people in Britain on the middle east. Their comments should not be dismissed out of hand but should be considered carefully and thoughtfully, just like the Committee's report.
4.37 pm
Hugh Bayley: I am not a practising Jew. I am about as secular as they come but I say to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that I know only too clearly from my family history why Jews around the world would no longer entrust their human rights and security to other states after the holocaust, and wanted to create their own state. Nevertheless, I support the report's recommendations in their entirety, because I believe that the injustice done to Palestinian people by the occupation of their territories undermines the security of Israelis. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said so eloquently, Jewish people around the world should be deeply concerned about that.
Perhaps it is not surprising that people talk about the political process and foreign affairs when we debate the middle east, but it is worth making the point—particularly as the report has been criticised for being too pro-Palestinian and one-sided—that the report was prepared by the Select Committee on International Development, not the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. As the Department for International Development has a programme of development assistance in the Palestinian territories, not in the state of Israel, we necessarily focused on the economy and development possibilities in those territories and the needs of the Palestinian people.
However, I will say a few words about the political context. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made an important intervention on the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford in which he asked about British policy in Northern Ireland. If, during the troubles, we had decided to build a barrier between Northern Ireland and the Republic to stop the import into Northern Ireland of materials used by terrorists to make bombs and to pursue their campaign of terror, we certainly would not have built that fence on the territory of the Republic of Ireland.
I can understand why the Israeli Government wished to build a barrier to try to protect their people, but to build a barrier on other people's land makes the problem worse and puts the security of Israelis in the state of Israel at risk. When we were engaged in the troubles, we identified leaders of the IRA, but we did not set out to assassinate them. Heaven forbid that we should have tried, but had we done so, we would not

355WH
have dropped 1 tonne bombs from the sky to kill them, with the collateral damage that other people round about would be killed.
I have been to the occupied Palestinian territories only twice: once 18 months ago, which was paid for by the United Nations Association International Service, a non-governmental organisation based in my constituency; and, six months ago with the Select Committee. On my visit 18 months ago, I was taken to a site in Gaza city where a bomb was dropped by aeroplane and killed a Hamas leader, a terrorist, but with the collateral damage of killing 12 people in neighbouring homes, injuring 42 people and destroying the property of many more. That cannot be a way to work towards a peace process that will guarantee the security of the Israeli people.
Israel exists. It is recognised by the United Nations. We, as decent people and democrats should defend its right to exist and recognise that it has a right to defend itself and its people against terrorism, but the Palestinian people have the right to a state too, which must imply a two-state solution, which so nearly came about under the Barak plan. It was rejected by Arafat, but it was also rejected by the Israeli people in a general election when they voted Barak's Labour Government out of office.
Since the failure of the Barak plan, there are people on both sides of the argument who no longer talk about a two-state solution; they talk about a one-state solution. That simply cannot be an answer, because it means either the destruction of the state of Israel, or the ethnic cleansing by the state of Israel of all the Palestinians from the occupied territories, neither of which can possibly bring peace to the region.
A two-state solution must be the answer. To achieve that, there must be clear political leadership and unequivocal policy shifts by political leaders on both sides. There cannot possibly be a two-state solution if the Palestinians insist on the right to return to the state of Israel, because if that right of return were taken up, the demographics of the state of Israel would make it no longer a Jewish state and the Israeli Government would not accept that ever, under any circumstances. Similarly, there cannot be a two-state solution as long as there are Israeli settlements, roads and a military presence in the occupied territories.
My depressing conclusion from my two visits was that there is an absence of leadership on both sides, and a minority on both sides who use violence to drive people away from the negotiating table and the peace process. However, most depressing of all was a remarkable change in the mood in the 12 months between my two visits. Eighteen months ago, I felt that the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people rejected the men of violence and saw that it was necessary to compromise, because it was the only way in which they could gain security in a Palestine state. The mood 12 months later was very different.
When we talked to people who lived in communities near the fence or the barrier and who were directly affected by it, we found that there was anger. Intellectually, they understood that terrorism could never achieve their aims; no amount of suicide bombing,
356WH
however horrific, will defeat a military as powerful as the Israeli defence force. We put it to people at a community meeting that such a strategy was doomed to fail, but we were shouted down by the vast majority of people in the room, albeit in the politest possible way. They said, "We don't care whether it works. What else we can do?" Well, there are other things that they can do. Indeed, other things must be done, otherwise there cannot be a political solution. Both sides need to do things, and one of the things that the Israeli side needs to do is to remove the fence from Palestinian territory. I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford: let the Israelis build a fence by all means—it is part of their protection against the extremists and terrorists who go to Israel to kill and maim. However, they should build it on Israeli territory.
The report is primarily about the UK's development assistance programme to the Palestinian Authority and, through NGOs and others, to the Palestinian people. One conclusion that I drew from the Committee's visit is that development whey planners need to address the assumption, which has been made for the past 50 or 60 years, that the Palestinians' need for development assistance is a temporary phenomenon, that the peace process is ongoing and that a solution will shortly be reached. I hope that life will be breathed back into the peace process and that agreement on a two-state solution will be reached sooner rather than later, but, to be pragmatic, I do not see that happening in the short term. Those who provide development assistance therefore need to be cognisant of the fact that they are providing support for the Palestinian people not just for a few months, as a temporary stop-gap, but, quite possibly, for years to come.
The various UN agencies need to co-ordinate what they do. In Jenin, we saw the nonsense of the UN Relief and Works Agency delivering food aid to Palestinian refugees—people who were driven out of their homes in 1948, as well as children and grandchildren—while, on the other side of the road, an entirely separate World Food Programme operation was delivering food aid to Palestinians who had always lived in Jenin and who were not refugees. There were two sets of trucks, two sets of delivery rotas, two sets of warehouses and two sets of buying agents—it was nonsense. The Palestinian people need food aid because the occupation has destroyed the Palestinian economy, but the UN agencies could save money by running a single relief operation. Perhaps UNRWA could distribute food aid in Gaza, while the World Food Programme did so in Jenin.
I am not saying that the separate identities of the two organisations need to be destroyed. Indeed, the Palestinians feel strongly that the refugees' separate identity needs to be maintained until there is a final solution. Administratively, however, more aid could be provided if what the UN agencies did were rationalised.
We saw the same with the schools. UNRWA provided a school to which only refugee children were admitted, while, 200 or 300 yards away, the Palestinian Authority had provided a school for children who were not from refugee families, which was funded by other donors. Apart from anything else, that divides the community. It is not right and should change.
There is also a need for more policy coherence from the relief agencies. UNRWA does an essential job in distributing food aid. Its spending is probably the

357WH
biggest slab of public expenditure in the Palestinian territories—it is a huge part of the gross national income of those territories. One of the rations that it distributes is cooking oil, yet virtually none of that is bought from Palestinians; it is bought from outside Palestine because it is cheaper to buy from other sources. We were told by the World Food Programme that this year it has introduced a new scheme and bought 272 metric tonnes of olive oil from Palestinian farmers. That is 272 tonnes out of 25,000 tonnes which were unsold.
Mr. David Chidgey: Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that seven more hon. Members want to contribute to the debate before the winding-up speeches and 35 minutes remain.
Hugh Bayley: I shall seek to make progress. I am one of only two members of the Select Committee who visited the Palestinian territories and I wish to explain some of the things that we learned during that visit.
It is incoherent for UNRWA to spend money on micro-credit schemes, seeking to provide business opportunities for Palestinians, while spending hundreds of millions of dollars on buying food from non-Palestinians.
Finally, I shall pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Banbury about Jude. That is the one substantive part of the Select Committee's recommendations with which the Government did not agree. The European Union has similar trade agreements with Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The latter agreement has the potential to help to reconstruct the Palestinian economy, which, to all intents and purposes, has collapsed since the second intifada. Gross national income has fallen by between a third and a half, there has been a huge increase in unemployment, and investment his fallen by about 90 per cent. Without trade, the economic prospects of the Palestinians will not significantly change. The World Bank estimated that a doubling of aid would reduce the proportion of Palestinians living in poverty—on less than $2.1 a day—by only 7 per cent. The removal of access controls in the occupied territories by the Israeli Government would reduce the number by about twice as much.
The trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority does not work. The Palestinian port and airport in Gaza have been destroyed by the state of Israel and access to Israeli ports and airports is limited by the access restrictions. Our Government say that now is not the time to use the leverage of our trade agreement with the state of Israel to enable Palestinian businesses to trade. If the Government believe that constructive engagement with Israel is the best way to exert influence, they should set a timetable over which it will seek to negotiate with the state of Israel and exercise that constructive influence. If it does not work, they must take action because the fundamental basis of every trade agreement is reciprocity. One needs to treat all parties equally, and at the moment the trade agreement is delivering for the European Union and Israel but it is not delivering for the European Union and the Palestinians.
4.55 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the work of the Committee in drawing attention to the humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people. I may not
358WH
go down the same road as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) in all the conclusions that he has reached, but I respect the work that he has done and I recognise that a great deal of careful and hard work has produced this report.
Whatever one's views on the politics of the middle east—we clearly have different views here today—there is clearly a significant level of humanitarian need among the Palestinians, including high levels of unemployment, poverty and even malnutrition. There is clearly a need for better health care and, importantly, for better education. Whatever one's views on the middle east, we should all look for a way of alleviating the suffering as much as we possibly can. However long we have to wait for a political solution, we should seek to address those humanitarian needs in the interim. Whatever I say in the debate, I will not demur from that proposition and neither will I try to use aid to the Palestinians as a way of putting pressure on the Palestinian Authority.
I think that it is right that first and foremost we should seek to address humanitarian needs, provided—this is a very important provision—that the aid is properly applied for the intended purpose. That is a material consideration in the debate and an important reservation. I welcome the approach taken by the Committee in paragraph 68 of its report, where it states:
"It is in everyone's interest that every penny of international development aid to the Palestinian Authority, whether from DFID or charities, is fully and transparently accounted for."
I would adopt and echo that conclusion.
While the report sets out to establish what aid is possible in the present situation, it implies—as today's debate has implied—that the undoubted plight of the Palestinian people cannot be separated from the political context in which they find themselves. Wherever one's sympathies have been engaged during the long period of this dispute, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that a great deal of the suffering could and would have been alleviated if there had been a negotiated political settlement that addressed the aspirations of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples, and that the suffering and deterioration that has undoubtedly taken place since September 2000 could have been avoided if agreement had been reached at Camp David and if the peace process initiated at Oslo had been kept on track. I do not want to go over ground that we have already covered, but it will take a great deal to persuade me that it was not the leadership of the Palestinian Authority—it is still the same leadership today—that manifestly failed to take advantage of what was, I believe, a good offer in prospect for it at the Camp David negotiations in the summer of the year 2000. I have to say that. Of course the Palestinian leadership was not forced to take that offer: it was freely negotiating. However, it was a realistic offer given the domestic constraints on Israel. It sought to address all the old historic issues, including a sovereign state for the Palestinians on the west bank, and the status of Jerusalem. There was even a formula for the return of refugees, to enable some refugees at least, from the 1948 struggle, to return to Israel. All those matters were on the table and open for negotiation, and the plain fact is that it was the Palestinian leadership who walked away from that offer.
We will hear what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) has to say if he is called, but it will take a lot to persuade me that the then leader

359WH
of Israel, Ehud Barak, did not have every possible interest in bringing those negotiations to fruition, staking his political future on them, trying to bring peace to the people of Israel and facing an imminent election. It will also take a lot to convince me that President Clinton did not have a sincere and long-term interest in bringing about a peaceful solution in the middle east as the final achievement of his presidency, which was also running out. It will take a lot to persuade me that that decision did not belong to the Palestinian Authority. That decision was taken by the present leadership of the Palestinian Authority and it had the right to take it. However, it will take a lot to persuade me—in the face of what all the evidence suggests—that, having taken that decision, the then leadership of the Palestinian Authority did not decide to leave those peace negotiations and to embark on an intifada as an alternative to seeking a peaceful solution.
I heard the analysis of the situation by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). No doubt it did not help at all that Mr. Sharon decided to take his walk on the Temple Mount when he did. However, it will take a lot to persuade me that the decision on the whole intifada—the campaign that we have seen since and the intensification of the suicide bombings that were already taking place—was brought about by a single walk on a religious site. However grave the offence that that may have caused, it will take a lot to persuade me that that decision was not taken by the Palestinian leadership elsewhere, for whatever reasons, as an alternative to peaceful negotiation.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I share my hon. Friend's analysis. Does he agree that there is, sadly, all too great a suspicion and all too great a likelihood that the second intifada was actually under preparation at the time of Camp David and that that was one of the reasons why Arafat was not prepared to negotiate?
Mr. Clappison: It may well be that in due course historians will look with great interest at exactly when the intifada was prepared.
As far as the Palestinian leadership—Yasser Arafat—is concerned, I hear what the Committee has said and I agree with the tone of the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury made about Mr. Arafat's backward-lookingness and with the analogy that my hon. Friend drew with the situation in Northern Ireland. Of course we should be prepared to welcome people who have used terror in the past to the ways of peace, and it is possible for terrorists to become leaders and statesmen. However, if, once they have set out along that path, they forsake statesmanship and return to terrorism and violence, there is a danger that they will lose credibility altogether. We would not, as a nation, negotiate with a leader who had behaved in that way; I very much doubt that we would. We would not be prepared to negotiate.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clappison: In a minute, if the hon. Gentleman will hear me out. We would not negotiate with such a leader. Even now, one would hope that there could be
360WH
negotiations. However, the difficult problem that the Palestinians face, and which we as a country face in trying to help, is that Yasser Arafat has lost credibility with the Israeli people. Whatever one wants to say about the present leadership of Israel, I doubt very much that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, who gave us his point of view on the subject, would be able to find today many of the people of Israel, whom he rightly said are thirsting for peace and want to see an honourable solution, who would regard Yasser Arafat as a credible figure who could deliver peace.
I give way briefly to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) but this will be the last time that I give way.
Jeremy Corbyn: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to advance as far as the present, if not into the future? Will he explain to the House what possible benefit it is to any kind of peace process to have the wall constructed, the continuing illegal occupation and assassination policy, helicopter gunships over Palestinian towns, children being killed and no prospect whatever of anything other than the ritual humiliation of Palestinian people for a long time to come? Where does he think that brings anything?
Mr. Clappison: I may surprise the hon. Gentleman by saying that I share his reaction to much of what he describes. However, I think that he is falling into a trap, into which many others fall, of seeing the security response of the Israeli Government to the intifada and the violence that has been visited upon them as the cause of the problem, rather than a response to the real cause of the problem. The real cause was the decision of the Palestinian leadership to embark on an intifada. It may have got out of hand, but that decision is, as a matter of history, the initial cause.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: What about the occupation?
Mr. Clappison: I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that the occupation can be solved by peaceful negotiation, not by suicide bombs; I agree with the comments on that in the Select Committee report. That is the long-term future. I hear some of the criticisms that have been made, and I share some of them, but under international law Israel does have a right to self-defence; and when looking at self-defence, one has to judge the severity of the threat that Israel has faced.
Israel has faced an extremely severe threat in the form of suicide bombers coming from the occupied territories and elsewhere into Israel, causing substantial loss of life. Any Government would want to use their right to self-defence, and their people would expect them to do so, in the face of such a severe threat. That is the background against which we should judge this. I look forward to the day when there can be a return to peaceful negotiations, but there has to be a change in the Palestinian leadership.
I have two points to make in conclusion. First, it would be wrong to put the pressure on Israel alone. The pressure has to be put on both sides. Pressure must also be applied to the Palestinian side, through inducements and as much diplomatic pressure as possible, to come

361WH
back to the negotiating table and to give up the suicide bombings. I do not believe that the Palestinian Authority have done all they could to restrain and prevent suicide bombings. There seems to be a suggestion that the al-Aqsa brigades organisation, which has directed suicide bombings itself, is linked to the Fatah organisation which is part of Mr Arafat's own political organisation. There has to be a much more robust approach on this. I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us what the Palestinian Authority have done to improve the security situation over which they have responsibility.
Secondly, I have asked the Government questions in the past about the aid that this country has given to the Palestinians to enable them to negotiate. That was commenced in 1998 when it was reasonable to give such aid to the Palestinians because a negotiation was taking place and there was still a good prospect of a peaceful solution. But we have continued to give them that aid since the year 2000. There have not been negotiations on the part of the Palestinians or what I would regard as a sufficient willingness to take part in such negotiations. Yet they are still receiving a substantial amount of aid—£9.2 million up to 2006—to support negotiations.
I would draw a distinction between money that is going to support negotiations and the technical and legal side of negotiations and funding that is going to support propaganda as a result of a general political case. I ask the Minister to look carefully at that funding. I have no problem with humanitarian aid to the Palestinians provided that it is strictly monitored and controlled. Why not switch sonic of that funding towards alleviating the real problems that the Palestinians face? We need a long-term political solution to this. There needs to be an even-handed approach that brings about the peaceful negotiations that we all seek.
5.8 pm
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: I fail to understand the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that as there was no agreement between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon has the licence to kill innocent Palestinians, destroy their homes and build an apartheid wall that causes hardship, deprivation, poverty and economic ruin in the Palestinian territories. I cannot understand that argument.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose
Mr. Sarwar: But I can say to the hon. Gentleman that this debate will make very interesting reading for President Bush, and I will be surprised if the hon. Gentleman does not get the job of special adviser on foreign relations.
I welcome the hard work done by the International Development Committee to produce this comprehensive report. While all Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza strip are adversely affected by the Israeli occupation and its accompanying violence, I would like to focus the attention of the House on the particularly desperate plight of Palestinian women. As the United Nations Development Programme says:
"It has been established that development assistance does not necessarily reach the whole population. Development literature has amply illustrated that women are often treated as though they
362WH
are invisible vis-à-vis development assistance, largely because of the false assumption that the benefits accrued by men as the head of the family unit are shared by the family. This unisex vision of development neglects the fact that there are certain gender-specific factors that determine how men and women perceive and articulate their development needs, participate in contemporary development activities and determine the course of their lives."
Save the Children notes:
"Frequently absent from recent reports about violence in the Middle East are the everyday dangers facing women and children whose access to education and health care is limited or blocked, and whose nutritional and psychological needs are not being met."
Palestinian women have always been active participants in their society and the struggle to liberate their people from Israeli occupation. Since the 1920s, they have worked through social, humanitarian and political organisations. During the first intifada, women took a leading role in the boycott campaign against Israeli products in the west bank and Gaza strip. They led a campaign to reopen schools closed by the Israeli army. Palestinian mothers established underground schools that their children could attend. Women frequently confronted the occupation forces to protect children and young men. Between the creation of the Palestinian Authority in 1994 and the outbreak of the second intifada, women's organisations worked hard to enhance female participation in the anticipated Palestinian state.
Unfortunately, the situation since September 2000 has made life harder for women. Palestinian women are suffering on several levels. There is the terrorisation of everyday life. The Israeli army invades their towns, villages, camps and even homes at any time of the day or night. That produces constant feelings of fear and apprehension. There are more than 120 Israeli checkpoints on the west bank, which means that every town and village has become a sort of prison. It is difficult to move from place to place, and violence at checkpoints is common. People are killed, injured or subjected to demeaning treatment. Long delays, even for ambulances, are normal.
Since the beginning of the current intifada, 1,162 homes have been destroyed. A total of 40,415 Palestinians have been made homeless. Such events are traumatic for all families, but especially for women. Women are worried about their children's safety, which increasingly results in a decision not to send them to school. Children have been deeply traumatised by the daily Israeli aggression. The risks of bombardment or shooting are constant throughout the occupied territories, and the fear and insecurity felt by everyone contribute towards psychological problems.
Israeli forces have shelled and raided hospitals and clinics. That, together with Israeli attacks on Palestinian infrastructure and industry, has severely affected the health sector. In more than a dozen cases, women have been forced to give birth at checkpoints, resulting in at least five stillbirths. Unemployment in the occupied territories is more than 50 per cent., 60 per cent. of the population live below the poverty threshold, and 1.2 million Palestinians depend on food aid.
Since the beginning of the al-Aqsa intifada in September 2000, 134 women have been killed by Israeli forces. Clearly, the vast majority were accidental victims, killed on the streets of their towns or even in their homes. That has increased feelings of victimisation: women feel

363WH
that they can do nothing to protect themselves and their families. During the same period, 558 children have been killed by Israeli soldiers or settlers. Palestinian mothers suffer the anguish of losing their children or seeing them injured. They are also forced to endure the insult of international condemnation and of being called unnatural mothers for "allowing" their children to roam the streets and confront the occupation forces. In fact, Palestinian mothers are the first to point out that no mother wants to see her child killed or harmed. The atmosphere of fear and danger permeates every aspect of daily life in the west bank and Gaza strip. Women feel powerless to protect their children; even young children are aware that their parents are unable to protect them from the Israelis.
Palestinians see their schools and hospitals attacked, men, women and children treated with violence and contempt by the Israelis, and the utter indifference of the international community. I ask the British Government to consider increasing the development assistance specifically targeted at Palestinian women.
5.16 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I welcome the report and congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and the other members of the Committee on its publication. It is comprehensive and brave, and it says all the right things, although whether that will lead to our Government doing the right things is a different matter.
I expect that hon. Members all know how passionately I feel about this problem. Some share my view that strong action against Israel, as well as insistence that it complies with UN resolutions and the fourth Geneva convention, are essential to achieve peace between the two countries and in the wider middle east.
I appreciate that it is necessary to understand the history but, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, we are dealing not with the history but with the present and the future. Whatever the history, it cannot be denied that the current behaviour of Israel as an occupying force is outrageous.
As we are short of time, I want to concentrate on the issue of water. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), in a magnificent speech, mentioned ethnic cleansing. What better method of ethnic cleansing is there than depriving a population of clean, drinkable water? My geologist son keeps reminding me that water is the oil of the 21st century and that we politicians pay only lip service to the problem.
After Anwar Sadat signed the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979, he said:
"The only matter that could take Egypt to war again is water."
All the Arab states are anxious about future water supplies; all see this as a flashpoint for war. Israel is well aware of that, and with characteristic brilliance and foresight has made water supplies one of its main concerns in its plans for Israel and Palestine.
During my recent visit to Palestine, I met Jeff Halper, an admirable American Jew, who works for the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions—members of
364WH
the Select Committee may also have met him. He was clear about Israeli plans to create three Bantustans in the west bank, cut off from the River Jordan, along with the Gaza strip near the sea. Sadly, seawater is not what people need to live. Water supplies to Israel have been incorporated into that plan; that has been considered carefully. Israel squanders water: it has the highest per capita water consumption in the middle east. As the Chairman of the Committee said, Israelis use six times—I have heard it is 10 times—the amount of water used per capita by the Palestinians.
When I was in Bethlehem, in February this year, people were getting clean water through their pipes once a week. Up the road, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton said, people were squandering water—filling their swimming pools and putting sprinklers on their lawns—which could easily be seen by the Palestinians. Israelis consume far more water than they produce, and the report notes that it is estimated that 80 to 90 per cent of the water that Israel uses comes from the occupied territories.
All water in Israel and the occupied territories is controlled by the Israeli water authority. It appears that that started during the Oslo peace process, when Israel was given control of water supplies. Farmers in the occupied territories are monitored by meters on pumps, which allow them far less water than their Israeli counterparts. Wells have been dug along the borders of the Gaza strip on the Israeli side to collect the water that comes down from the hills. That is good advance planning for the planned withdrawal from Gaza by the Israelis. The people there are already desperate for water; they dig wells in their back yards, which become contaminated with sea water because they are so near the sea. The people then get blamed and fined by Israel for mismanagement of resources.
The Select Committee received submissions on deliberate pollution of water supplies. In the west bank I saw sewage from a Jewish settlement going into the stream that supplied a couple of Palestinian villages with water. Other wells have been filled with concrete or destroyed by bulldozers. That is unnecessary. Lack of water and contamination of what water there is severely affect the health of Palestinian children and cause kidney disease in adults.
Why do Palestinians pay $1,20 for 1 cu m of water when settlers in the same area pay only 40 cents? Why are permits to dig wells, which are issued by the Israeli defence forces, in such short supply for Palestinians? Has anyone listed the wells and underground aquifers in the occupied territories that just happen to lie on the Israeli side of the security wall? The course of that wall has been deliberately altered to enclose not only settlements and land, but crucial aquifers and water supplies.
Is anyone other than the Israelis recording the water level in the Sea of Galilee, which provides 25 per cent. of Israel's water? There is a red line below which the water level should not fall, but Israel keeps lowering the line to keep up with the falling water level—it has dropped 2.5 m over the past two decades. What international body is monitoring that? For that matter, why are there no international monitors in Israel and the occupied territories watching what is happening?

365WH
What plans does the Department for International Development have to encourage the Israelis to build the desalination plants that I heard about? Israel is suggesting that they be built in Gaza, presumably with international money. Why can they not be built on Israeli territory? It has a far bigger Mediterranean coast and Israeli money could be used to build them.
The report is good, but it devotes only one and a half pages to the subject of water, which the Committee rightly describes as
"a core human right and a Millennium Development Goal."
I wonder whether anyone is taking Israel's theft of water from the occupied territories seriously enough. Water must be a shared resource and must be shared fairly. What assessments are being made of Israeli misappropriation and misuse of water? Are negotiations going on to ensure the right to water for a future state for Palestinians or will they for ever depend on the few drops that the Israelis allow them" Plans must be made to ensure that if and when there are two secure, peaceful states in the region—please God, let there be—war will not break out again over water.
5.23 pm
Ms Meg Munn: I welcome the opportunity to speak in such an important debate and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
No one can doubt the suffering of the many Palestinians who find themselves forgotten or the pawns in a gigantic political chess game that always leaves them in misery. Some political players always seek to polarise the conflict and demonise one side or the other. However, when I was in Israel last year, I met relatives of victims of terror. Not all of them wanted to continue and deepen the divisions between the two peoples. One young woman, whose niece and mother had been killed in a suicide bombing, was able to see beyond her grief and recognise the importance of both sides reaching a solution. The majority of both the Israeli and Palestinian populations want the same thing: peace and safety, a chance to make something of themselves and provide for their families, and hope for future.
The report details the situation that faces the Palestinians, their economic conditions and the various pressures on them. As a supporter of the right for Israel to exist within safe and secure borders, and of the establishment of a viable and peaceful Palestinian state, I believe that substantial development assistance for Palestinians is crucial in laying the foundation for lasting peace. I am concerned about the relationship between increased aid, and incitement and misuse of funds. United Kingdom aid to the Palestinians must increase substantially, but that must be based on the condition of vital reforms being made in the Palestinian Authority.
The PA have still not made sufficient efforts to prevent the transfer to terrorist groups of funds intended to support the development of Palestinian society. Despite European Union declarations that the PA are not directing funds to terrorist organisations, Israel has continued to express concerns about that.
Last year I, too, met Salam Fayyad, the PA Minister of Finance, and found him impressive and determined in his role. Although I greatly support his work, there is
366WH
more to be done to make the finances of the PA transparent. An International Monetary Fund assessment last year found that Yasser Arafat remains in personal control of 8 per cent. of PA funds—some $135 million—and the Department for International Development must redouble its efforts to tackle the lack of financial transparency as a key conflict prevention activity.
The same is true for the issue of incitement in the Palestinian education system, where there is still anxiety about images that are put before young Palestinian people. Other things remain worrying, such as running summer camps named after Wafa Idris, the first Palestinian woman suicide bomber, and the film that is regularly shown portraying a suicide bomber.
If EU and UK aid were conditional on vital reforms in the PA, it could help to stem the corruption and tackle incitement, while also allowing for a long overdue unity of command in the security apparatus, the development of functional institutions and the emergence of a responsible leadership and responsive public services.
One problem in developing the Palestinian economy is the erection of the security barrier, sometimes called a wall, by the Israeli Government. Given the Israelis' experience of terrorism it is understandable that the security of their population is paramount. However, building parts of the barrier on occupied territory will not lead to lasting security. Many Palestinians view the building of the barrier as a land grab, and that makes them less able to consider suicide bombers the horror that they are.
My final point is about the role of DFID. The recently published "Country Assistance Plan for Palestinians: 2004–2006" states that the Department's purpose is
"to work with partners to help end conflict and create a viable Palestinian state that will reduce poverty."
Is there not a danger that that is to broaden its mandate beyond its stated aim of sustainably reducing poverty in the Palestinian areas? There is a difference between working in ways that support the Government's aims and recognising that certain roles are more appropriately handled by the Foreign Office.
I want to ask the Minister about DFID's support for the Palestinian negotiation support unit, an issue that was raised by Opposition Members. There is no active peace process at present, although we dearly hope that it will resume. Funding of support for the role of the negotiation support unit should be addressed. To present the conflict as something driven by and contingent on one side's actions alone, or even principally, is clearly unfair. Israel and the PA need to work to ensure that terrorism is defeated, or it will remain an obstacle to peace.
5.29 pm
Tom Brake: There have been many well informed speeches in the debate, and at least one very distinctive contribution. The speech made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was the most passionate contribution, but I suggest that he should not be put in charge of negotiations, as his diplomatic skills need honing.
The Select Committee report is excellent; the recommendations are sound and I wish there were more time to dwell on them. In opening the debate, the hon.

367WH
Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to three reports under consideration: the Select Committee report, the Government's response and the country assistance plan. Although he mentioned it subsequently, he could also have mentioned the letter from the 52 ex-diplomats, because it has informed this debate almost as much as the other three documents.
Although concerns have been expressed about whether all the 52 diplomats are as unbiased as one would hope them to be, hon. Members should consider the different posts that they held, which include high commissioner to Australia and ambassador to Hungary, Norway and Israel. No one could argue that all the letter's signatories served their full term in Arab states and have therefore been unduly influenced by their contacts.
I hope that the Minister responds to the question whether he believes that the road map is still alive. We received some assurances yesterday from the Israeli ambassador that the road map, although clearly not active, is not dead and could be resurrected. Regrettably, a report from Agence France-Presse on Wednesday quoted Ariel Sharon as saying:
"I would have preferred to negotiate an agreement"—
with the Palestinians—
"but several months ago I realised that it is not possible to move the roadmap forward because the Palestinians do not respect their commitments".
He went on to say that he would expect Israel's responses to violence to be much harsher after the withdrawal. Will the Minister say what prospects he sees for future developments if the road map is dead, as Ariel Sharon seems to be saying? What does he think a harsher military response from Israel would constitute, and what would be the British Government's response?
In the time available, it would be difficult to go through the individual Government responses to the Select Committee report. However, I want to draw attention to a couple. At several points, the Government agree with the Committee, such as in answer 8 on a maximum waiting time of 30 minutes for ambulances at checkpoints. In answer 10, the Government agree that, in theory, pharmaceuticals should be classified as humanitarian, but:
"In practice it is not uniformly implemented."
It would be useful to hear from the Minister what follow-up there has been on those Government answers. Has there been any monitoring of whether progress has been made in ambulances getting through checkpoints and in ensuring that drugs are available as they should be from a humanitarian point of view?
I had a meeting earlier today with someone representing the Palestinian delegation, and I thought that it would be worth passing on the concerns that they wanted to be represented, specifically the issue of EU trade sanctions. Although the report suggests that, in the balance of trade, not much leverage could be exerted on the Israelis, the impact beyond the specific measure—in particular, on confidence in the Israeli economy—would be much more profound. The Palestinian representative is concerned that the focus is not lost on the issue of international development, because they clearly anticipate that the peace process will not be
368WH
resolved for many decades. Therefore, to lose sight of the international development needs would be extremely regrettable.
It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about the Government's red lines on the Gaza withdrawal. The Palestinian representative's view, my view and, I think, the Select Committee's view is that it has the potential to be a positive development, but only if it is part of a package of measures, including Palestinian access to the sea and the airspace. Are the Government therefore arguing that there should be some red lines?
Regrettably, I do not have time to comment on the visit that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) and I made, although I should mention that it was paid for by Friends of Israel and has been registered.
Yesterday, I sent a letter to the Prime Minister noting that there is clearly lots of good will towards the UK on both sides. Given that the UK provides bilateral aid, as well as multilateral aid through the EU, it can use its leverage to encourage the Palestinians to tackle security issues and the Israelis to address the expansion of settlements and human rights issues. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government will use that leverage; if they do not. they will, in the words of the 52 ex-diplomats, be backing a policy that is "doomed to failure".
5.36 pm
Mr. John Bercow: I congratulate the Select Committee on International Development on its report and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on his admirable presentation of it.
At the outset, I want to make three statements as the background to my contribution First, I support Israel, but that in no way reduces or removes my responsibility to observe the facts as I see them. Secondly, I rather agree with those who say that Yasser Arafat made a grave error, as fat as the Palestinian cause was concerned, in so abruptly rejecting the Barak offer. However, we have to deal with the present and the future and not dwell on or inhabit the past.
Thirdly, I mentioned observing the facts, and I recently had the opportunity to do so. I went to the west bank and Gaza courtesy of Christian Aid, and the visit has been duly registered. I was accompanied by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and Baroness Williams of Crosby. It was an extremely valuable visit. I learned something from it and the focus of my thinking on the subject has moved on as a consequence.
The Palestinian economy has been all but destroyed. Unemployment rates have been highlighted, and they are acute. Huge numbers of people in the territories are now dependent on NGOs and international relief organisations for employment. As the Select Committee observed, farmers in the territories—my colleagues and I met many of them and took their testimonies—cannot readily fill the gaps in food production, because of the dislocation brought about by closure and, in particular, the impact that movement restrictions and land confiscations have had on agriculture.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) worthily and justifiably referred to water. Israeli control over water and restrictions on the development of

369WH
Palestinian infrastructure manifestly affect the development of the west bank and Gaza. That observation is not evidence of bias but simply a demonstration of the fact that one noticed that was before one's eyes.
The psychological impact on children of school closures and exposure to violence is manifestly damaging. It will hinder future generations of Palestinians and likely serve only to perpetuate the cycle of violence and hatred.
Reference has been made to this wall. My personal view is that a nation state has the right to defend itself and to erect a wall if it judges it necessary so to do, although whether that actually advances the cause of peace is another matter. However, doing so outwith one's own territory is obviously provocative. In this case, it is calculated, it has had a damaging effect and it is something that I greatly regret.
The report refers to the important issue of removing the access controls imposed by the Israelis. Doing so would increase the size of the Palestinian economy by more than a fifth and reduce poverty by approximately 15 per cent., whereas doubling development assistance would bring a reduction in the rate of poverty of only about 7 per cent. It logically follows, therefore, that the situation that we are obliged to address—that of humanitarian aid and the provision of development assistance—cannot be tackled adequately only by donor assistance. There is more to it than that. Restrictions on the movement of Palestinian goods, Israel's destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and its effective control of the occupied Palestinian territories' borders are denying Palestinian exporters access to EU markets. In practice, that means that the trade agreement does not work as its signatories intended it to. To state that is not to be guilty of bias, but to draw the logical conclusions from the facts as one observes them.
Reference was made in the report to a sense on the part of some representatives of the Israeli defence force that there should be a misery index whereby the morale of the Palestinian people would be diminished or destroyed. I very much hope that that is not an objective, but it is difficult to escape the conclusion that it forms at least part of the thinking. Baroness Williams of Crosby, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford and I were all rather shocked at the entry point to Gaza by the inordinate and inexplicable delay that we and others experienced going into the territory, and the comparable delay that was experienced by those seeking to come out of it. Those delays appeared to be driven not by considerations of security, which are legitimate considerations in determining operational practice, but by a desire to obstruct, cause irritation and sap morale. Such arbitrary and capricious use of state power is a sad and unacceptable state of affairs.
Notwithstanding the important trade issues involved, DFID could provide greater technical assistance and could conceivably support the Palestinian Authority in developing poverty alleviation policies. If it is to move towards budget support, it should investigate the possibility of a unified monitoring system with other donors, as the Select Committee recommends. Failure to do that would almost certainly result in the Palestinian Authority being faced with managing a range of different, and often incompatible, donor conditions and monitoring requirements. If
370WH
development assistance is to be maximally efficient and effective, aid should surely be delivered without putting an unnecessary strain on an institution that, as it stands, has relatively weak capacity.
I think that it will be evident from the Minister's reply that DFID can have an influential role in increasing donor harmonisation through its support for Palestinian-led development. DFID's work in building the Palestinian Authority's capacity has had some effect and met some of its objectives of supporting the process of developing the potential for a viable Palestinian state. DFID should also be considering its involvement with advocacy as part of long-term poverty reduction.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park made an interesting point about Israeli pollution of the water system. I have not heard that point before, and I do not sniff at it but respect it. I am prepared to look into it. However, I would like to put the counter-point, which we ourselves observed, and which I know she would not want to dismiss without consideration. The Palestinian Authority themselves are often guilty of poor management of the sewerage system. We cannot blame everything on the historical injustice. The Palestinian Authority have made worthwhile reform. I greatly admire the Minister of Finance, whom I met—he is either a Friedmanite or a Hayekian, although I do not want to make too partisan an observation. He is a first-class person working under difficult conditions and trying to achieve progress. However, a great deal more needs to be done.
In a debate that is principally about the humanitarian issues and the provision of development assistance, what should unite people of good will is a recognition that, from whichever side of this argument we come, historically or ideologically, we will not achieve a military solution. There will be peace in the middle east—peace for Israel and for the Palestinian people—only if both peoples have the right to their own independent, autonomous and secure states. Such recognition is a crucial prerequisite of achieving the peace that I believe everyone in the Chamber wishes to see.
5.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I am grateful to the Select Committee for its comprehensive report. I agree with much of its analysis and many of its recommendations but, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) knows, not all of them.
The Palestine-Israel conflict is often in the headlines because of the ongoing level of violence and debates on the political process but rarely as a result of the humanitarian consequences that face the Palestinians. Rarely do the media throw a spotlight on the work of international development organisations in the Palestinian territories. The debate is therefore welcome and timely. It is through that prism that I intend to answer. By way of apology, I suspect that it will be difficult in the time available for me to do justice to all that has been said, but I will try.
One or two hon. Members alluded to the fact that, in parallel with the International Development Committee inquiry, the Department for International Development has been developing a country assistance plan to

371WH
support the Palestinian territories. Our extensive consultation is drawing to a close, but I shall draw the many contributions made in this debate to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before he comes to his conclusions on the plan.
Richard Burden: I have two brief questions for my hon. Friend on the country assistance plan. First, will he continue to recognise the crucial importance of advocacy work, particularly that undertaken by the Palestinian negotiations support unit, which is partly funded by his Department? Will he reject the calls from the Chamber today that it will help the cause of peace to deny the Palestinians support for a negotiating voice? I can understand why the Israeli embassy is lobbying for that, but we should not be involved.
Secondly, although the country assistance plan, the Select Committee report and the Government's response rightly stress the importance of political action in order to achieve development goals, we should not lose sight of the importance of development action. Concern has been expressed by aid agencies about—
Mr. David Chidgey (in the Chair): Order. That intervention is long enough.
Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I get the gist of it. We think that the negotiations support unit is an entirely sensible investment in the peace process. Helping the Palestinians to prepare their position for the peace negotiations that we all want to see is an entirely good use of money. DFID's contribution will amount to about 3.5 per cent. of the overall assistance that we give the occupied Palestinian territories. I believe that it is a good use of our resources, and we intend to continue supporting that.
As the Select Committee drew attention to it, it is worth restating that, since the start of the second intifada, there have been more than 900 Israeli deaths and more than 3,000 Palestinian deaths. Quite apart from the appalling individual tragedies and their impact on families that are represented by those figures, the fear, the deeper insecurity, the lives that continue to be wasted and the knowledge that opportunities have been lost have undoubtedly been profound for both peoples. The conflict has had huge economic and humanitarian consequences, which have weighed particularly heavily on the Palestinians. Over the past three years, Palestinian poverty levels have tripled. About 60 per cent. of Palestinians are living in poverty, on less than $2 a day. Malnutrition is on the increase and far too many families depend on food aid. The despair among the Palestinians is increasing as the coping mechanisms for a society facing poverty are increasingly overstretched.
As the Select Committee's report made clear, the Israeli Government have imposed tight restrictions on the freedom of movement of Palestinian goods and of the Palestinian people. Closures and checkpoints together with the expansion of settlements and the construction of the barrier on Palestinian land have led to many Palestinians losing access to their livelihoods and to basic services such as health and education.
Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome what the Minister has said so far, considering the catalogue of disasters facing the
372WH
Palestinian people, with house demolitions, assassinations and all the rest of it, as well as the attacks on internationals, some of whom have lost their lives trying to protect innocent Palestinians. However, what pressure have the Government put on the Israeli Government to mend their ways and to change their policies? Are we ending arms sales? Are we ending financial credits? Are we putting equivalent pressure on the United States? My belief is that, until we do, nothing is going to change.
Mr. Thomas: I shall come to some of the specifics of what we have said to the Israeli Government in a few seconds. The Government have made representations on a series of the issues that have come up in the debate and we will undoubtedly have to continue to do so.
In the absence of progress towards the sort of peace that we all want to see, we need to recognise that there is a limit to what development assistance can achieve. What is most needed is a relaxation of Israeli closures and eventual withdrawal, so that the Palestinian economy can take off and drive the lifting of the Palestinian people out of poverty, which everybody wants and to which the Select Committee's report rightly alludes.
Of the recommendations in the report that are specifically for DFID, the vast majority are already part of our approach, a point to which the hon. Member for Banbury alluded. A number of our projects specifically seek to enhance the prospects for peace, such as our support to the negotiations support unit and our support to the Palestinian civil police. Without progress on Palestinian security, Israel is unlikely to meet its road map commitments and the road map will probably fail.
It is not just Israel that will benefit from improvements in the quality of Palestinian civil policing. Better civilian policing is very much in ordinary Palestinians' interests and could help to demonstrate that road map implementation can bring visible improvements to their daily lives.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) asked specifically what we are doing about security. Only recently, we posted a senior policeman from Northern Ireland to the west bank and Gaza to help the Palestinian Authority to plan civil policing and law and order better.
It is absolutely right to continue to provide support direct to the Palestinian Authority. Sustainable poverty reduction is not possible without a political solution. The Palestinian Authority are the key vehicle to help to deliver the negotiated settlement back to the Palestinian side.
As I said at the outset, the Department is developing its own country assistance plan. I have not had time to respond to every hon. Member's specific points, but I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State to this debate and to many of the concerns raised by hon. Members. I hope that those interested in the issue will recognise that their concerns have been taken on board when the country assistance plan is published in due course. I thank the Select Committee again for its comprehensive report and welcome the opportunity to have had this debate.
It being five minutes to Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Members' Salaries
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Leader of the House how much was paid in salaries and allowances to hon. Members(a) including and (b) excluding payments to Ministers in each year since 1996–97. [169457]

  Mr. Woolas
  The cost of salaries and allowances, excluding ministerial payments are as follows:

  £000

  MP salaries and related costs1

  Allowances2

  Cash basis

  1996–97

  28,883

  45,894

  1997–98

  39,060

  49,368

  1998–99

  32,436

  47,237

  1999–2000

  34,167

  47,647

  2000–01

  35,117

  49,066

  Resource basis

  2001–02

  40,856

  66,745

  2002–03

  39,801

  75,412

  1This includes: Members' salaries; salaries of the Chairman of Ways and Means and deputies; social security costs; and the London supplement.

  2 Allowances include: office costs allowance; incidental expenses provision; Members' staffing budget; additional costs allowance; travel (including to EU institutions); winding-up allowance.

  Information is not yet available for 2003–04. Following the introduction of resource accounting, figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are not directly comparable with those for 2000–01 and earlier years.

  Ministerial salaries are paid directly by their respective Government Department. Records of ministerial pay are not held centrally and do not distinguish between Lords and Commons Ministers. The information requested could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  A43
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will close the A43 between Brackley and Towcester on Friday 9 July. [169643]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are examining carefully the arguments that have been made both for and against closure of the A43 trunk road oil the pre-race day of Friday 9 July to facilitate access in and out of the Silverstone circuit.
  1170W
  The Inter Agency Working Group that is looking at all the issues involved is due to meet again on the 4 May and the Chairman of that group has been asked to give specific attention to the traffic management, travel and cost implications of a Friday closure.

  A decision will be announced once I have received the report of that meeting and am in a position to make a decision.

  Mobile Phone Use
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the level of compliance of motor vehicle drivers with the legislation forbidding the use of a mobile telephone when driving; and what further steps he will take to improve compliance. [168867]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has been undertaking regular surveys of the use of mobile phones while driving. The last survey carried out in October 2003 before the new offence was introduced showed that 1.9 per cent. of drivers were using a hand-held phone, and 0.5 per cent. a hands-free phone. The results from the most recent survey this month are not yet available.

  The Department will continue to publicise the dangers of using mobile phones when driving. Radio advertising is planned for May, July, August and November and cinema advertising in September and January 2005. The message will be reinforced through the Department's sports sponsorship programme. The police are responsible for enforcing the law.

  Road Deaths/Injuries (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the percentage change in(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries on the roads of Manchester, Gorton has been since 1997. [167306]

  Mr. Darling
  The available information relates to local authority areas. For the Manchester metropolitan district (which includes the constituency of Manchester, Gorton) the number of deaths in road accidents fell by 53 per cent. from 32 in 1997 to 15 in 2002, the latest year for which information is available. The number of serious injuries rose by 3 per cent., from 244 in 1997 to 252 in 2002. Estimates on the basis of parliamentary constituencies will become available in the summer and I shall write to my right hon. Friend with figures for Manchester, Gorton and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Road Schemes (South-West)
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been committed to date by the Government Office for the south west for the Bristol/Bath to South Coast Roads Study. [168829]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Up to 5 April 2004, the amount committed on the Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study was £247,682.77.

  Transport Infrastructure (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect of investment in railway improvements over the next 10 years upon residents of Manchester, Gorton. [167309]

  Mr. Darling
  Residents of Manchester will benefit from the new TransPennine Express franchise, which commenced in February. The franchise secures investment of around £260 million which will include the introduction of a new fleet of 100 mph diesel trains leading to increased capacity, improved service quality and performance across the region. A new northern franchise, which will include local and regional services through Manchester, is out for tender. Work continues on the west coast main line upgrade, which will see a reduction in journey times on services to/from Manchester and an increase in service frequency.

  US Air Travel
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold urgent talks with the US Administration on the exchange of private details, with particular reference to credit card numbers, for British passengers travelling to the USA by air. [168258]

  Mr. Darling
  The European Commission is leading the negotiations on the processing and transfer of airline Passenger Name Record data. We are in close discussions with our EU partners to consider how to proceed following referral of the proposed EU-US agreement to the European Court of Justice. I have also raised this with the US Secretary for Transportation at a meeting with him in March.

TREASURY

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in lowering administration costs as a proportion of total spending since the 2004 Budget Statement. [168600]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 April 2004 in answer to his question 165021 showing that administration costs are to fall to a planned 3.7 per cent. of total spending by 2008.

  Central Lobby Consultants
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the work he has commissioned from Central Lobby Consultants since 1 June 2001. [163973]

  Ruth Kelly
  There is no payment to Central Lobby Consultants in HM Treasury records for this period.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the(a) World Bank, (b) IMF and (c) Paris Club creditors on increasing the debt cancellation available to the world's poorest countries, with particular reference to Iraq, through the heavily indebted poor countries process. [168609]
  1172W
  John Healey
  The spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank were held on 24–25 April 2004. All Paris Club creditors were represented at the meetings.

  At the meetings, the UK stressed the importance of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative in helping to provide a robust exit from unsustainable debt for the world's poorest countries. As part of this, the UK called for full topping up to be provided when countries face exogenous shocks, in order to bring their debt ratios back to the agreed HIPC thresholds. The UK also supported consideration of extension of the Initiative so that countries yet to enter the Initiative are able to benefit from HIPC debt relief. A number of countries—many of which are in the process of trying to exit conflict—have yet to reach Decision Point and benefit from HIPC relief. This could deliver an extra $30 billion in debt relief. Iraq is not eligible for the HIPC Initiative, and so will have relief for its external debt considered under the auspices of the Paris Club's Evian Approach. However, the Government's view is that Iraq's debt position is unsustainable and that a substantial reduction will be needed to restore them to sustainability. That is likely to require writing off the vast majority of Iraq's debts.

  Public Expenditure/Taxation
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much(a) public expenditure there was and (b) tax revenue was raised per head of population in each of the last seven years. [168430]

  Mr. Boateng
  Data on tax revenue and public expenditure over the past seven years are available in the public finances databank on the HM Treasury website. (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/economic_data_and_tools/pubfinance_data_pubfinance_databank.cfm).

  Population estimates are contained in the ONS publication, Population Trends 115, available on the ONS website (www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/PT115.pdf).

  Treasury Building (Union Flag)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Union Flag was not flown above the Treasury on the Queen's Birthday on 21 April. [168801]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Union Flag was raised above the Treasury on the Queen's Birthday on 21 April.

  UK Covered Bonds
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans his Department has to draft legislation which would enable UK covered bonds to be put on an approved list that is compliant with the European Directive on Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities; and if he will make a statement. [168892]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Authority is considering the best way to enable covered bonds issued in the UK to be compliant with the UCITS Directive.

DEFENCE

  Droitwich Spa Army Medal Office
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the Droitwich Spa Army Medal Office in the issuing of the Jubilee medal. [168919]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Army Medal Office (AMO) at Droitwich issues the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal to those serving and discharged Army personnel who meet the qualifying criteria. The AMO assess eligibility and determine entitlement to the Jubilee Medal and, to date, it has issued 95,332 medals. The majority of those entitled to receive the medal have now received it.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the medals being issued by the Droitwich Spa Army Medal Office. [168921]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Army Medal Office at Droitwich is currently responsible for the issue or replacement of some 332 medals or awards. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Medals
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Iraq and (b) GSM Canal Zone medals have been issued; and how many are expected to be issued during 2004. [168923]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information is as follows.

  (a) Six.

  (b) 6,30 land 777 clasps.

  Note:

  All figures as at 23 April.

  It is difficult to estimate how many Iraq or Suez medals will be awarded in the coming months as it depends on applications. However, I can assure the hon. Member that medal offices will deal with applications as speedily and efficiently as possible.

  MOD Sites (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make available information regarding contamination of land(a) owned and (b) formerly owned by his Department in the City of Portsmouth to Portsmouth City Council; [169409]

  (2) what records his Department holds regarding contamination under the sites of former Ministry of Defence houses in Portsmouth. [169404]

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

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 31 March 2004,Official Report, column 1480W, on public perceptions, when he will write to the hon. Member for North Norfolk. [169731]
  1174W
  Mr. Caplin
  I will write to the hon. Member within the next week.

  Service Detainees (Far East)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-servicemen who were detained by the Japanese have received ex-gratia payments under the terms of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Agreement; how many have not received ex-gratia payments; and if he will make a statement. [168051]

  Mr. Caplin
  The payment scheme under the 1951 Peace Treaty remains open, and claims in respect of eligible individuals who have not yet applied may still be made. Some 51,000 British Service personnel were detained by the Japanese during WW2. The payment records are held individually, and it would incur disproportionate cost to analyse them to provide the information requested.

  As a result of the Ex Gratia Payment Scheme which this Government established in November 2000, 8,430 payments have been made to British Servicemen detained by the Japanese during the Second World War and 12,973 payments have been made to the widows or widowers of former servicemen or former civilian internees who qualify for the scheme.

  Wind Farms
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of interference with Ministry of Defence navigational instruments from wind farms placed in UK territorial waters. [168234]

  Mr. Caplin
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the risk to defence interests from the placement of wind farms around the UK coast. [168235]

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

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has been asked to fund navigational aids to prevent his Department's vessels colliding with windmills. [168238]

  Mr. Caplin
  There has been no formal requirement placed on the Ministry of Defence to fund navigational aids to prevent Royal Navy vessels and other MOD owned or operated vessels colliding with offshore wind farms. The cost of correctly marking these structures by navigational buoys and lights is the responsibility of the owner and, as such, must comply with standards defined by the Maritime Coastguard Agency in conjunction with the General Lighthouse Authorities (Trinity House, Northern Lighthouse Board and Irish Lights).

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  North West Food
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee whether the House plans to source
  1175W
  more food from North West food producers following the North West Food and Drink promotion in the House on 22 April. [168709]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  In conjunction with North West Fine Foods, the Refreshment Department launched the two week North West Regional Food and Drink Promotion on 20 April. This is the second in a series of planned regional promotions.

  I recognise the strong interest in the provenance of food and drink sold in the House. Regional promotions give small businesses a chance to raise awareness of their produce with wholesalers supplying the House, and other potential customers. I hope that some of the products that prove popular during the course of the promotion will, in future, be available for regular supply to the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what the total expenditure incurred by the Commission was in each year since 1996–97. [169458]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The total expenditure for each year as set out in the House's published annual accounts was:

  £000

  Net cash expenditure

  Resource outturn

  1996–97

  130,192

  n/a

  1997–98

  145,228

  n/a

  1998–99

  173,550

  n/a

  1999–2000

  165,905

  n/a

  2000–01

  162,538

  n/a

  2001–02

  132,508

  165,426

  2002–03

  138,328

  180,006

  Full information is not yet available for 2003–04. Prior to 2001–02 all reporting was on a cash basis only.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Recycling
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures he has put in place to ensure that his Department meets the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that all copying paper bought by the Department is 100 per cent. recycled with a minimum of 75 per cent. post-consumer waste content. [166662]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  All contracts issued in respect of DFID stipulate that the copying paper provided is to be 100 per cent. recycled with a minimum of 75 per cent. post-consumer waste content.
  1176W
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of copying paper used by the Department in 2002–03 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained. [166663]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  100 per cent. of the copying paper used in DFID came from recycled sources. It is not possible to say how much post-consumer waste this contained. Our current recycled paper is made up from at least 75 per cent. post-consumer waste.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures he has put in place to ensure that his 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. [166664]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department for International Development (DFID) routinely requires that the designers and printers under contract to produce DFID publications source paper that has a minimum of 75 per cent. recycled content.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of paper for printed publications used by the Department in 2002-03 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained. [166665]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department for International Development does not hold this information centrally, and due to disproportionate cost we cannot supply this information.

  However, DFID routinely requires that the designers and printers under contract to produce DFID publications source paper that has a minimum of 75 per cent. recycled content.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when his Department expects to implement in full the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that(a) all copying paper bought by the Department is 100 per cent. recycled with a minimum of 75 per cent. post-consumer waste content and (b) 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. [166666]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has already met the quick win targets set by DEFRA in that all of our copying paper is 100 per cent. recycled with at least 75 per cent. post-consumer waste content.

  DFID routinely requires that the designers and printers under Contract to produce DFID publications source paper that has a minimum of 75 per cent. recycled content. We are in the process of amending design and print contracts, and are investigating joining the Department for Transport framework agreement for purchasing recycled paper, ensuring that we meet the quick win target for paper in printed publications.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the Department's
  1177W
  main suppliers of (a) copier paper, (b) stationery, (c) envelopes and (d) paper for reports, in each case stating (i) the name of each paper used and (ii) the post-consumer recycled content of each paper. [166667]

  Type

  Supplier

  Commmment

  Copier Paper (DFID London)

  David John Papers Ltd. Unit A Middlegreen Trading Estate Middlegreen Road Langley Slough Berks SL3 7BL

  Diplomat Recycled Paper. A4 80gsm 100 per cent. recycled of 100 per cent. post-consumer waste.

  Copier Paper (DFID. Scotland)

  Glenmore Dunfermline Business Park Rosyth Fife KY 2RN

  Evolve Business Paper. 100 per cent. recycled. Minimum of 75 per cent. post-consumer waste.

  Stationery

  Banner Business Supplies PO Box 560St. Crispins Duke Street Norwich NR3 ISQ

  No paper products supplied, only stationery.

  Guilbert Guilbert House 68–72 St John's Road Corstorphine Edinburgh EH12 SAT

  No paper products supplied, only stationery

  Envelopes

  Banner Business Supplies Ltd. PO Box 560 St Crispins Duke Street Norwich NR3 ISQ

  Banner Envelopes. 60–85 per cent. post consumer waste.

  Paper for Reports (AH)

  Glenmore Dunfermline Business Park Rosyth FIFE KY11 2RN

  Evolve Business Paper. 100 per cent. recycled. Minimum of 75 per cent. post-consumer waste.

  Paper for Reports (PS)

  David John Papers Ltd. Unit 1A Middlegreen Trading Estate Middlegreen Road Langley Slough Berks SL3 7BL

  Diplomat Recycled Paper. A4 80gsm. 100 per cent. recycled of 100 per cent. post-consumer waste

  Paper for reports

  The Department for International Development does not procure paper for its reports directly from paper merchants. However we routinely require the designers and printers of DFID publications to source paper that has a minimum of 75 per cent. recycled content.

  St. Helena
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether a new constitution for St. Helena has been agreed. [165508]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  A new constitution for St. Helena has not yet been agreed. Discussions are ongoing between Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and St. Helena Councillors with a view to having a new constitution in place in time for the next dissolution of the Legislative Council in July 2005.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Libraries (Digitisation)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been spent on the digitisation of content in libraries in Manchester, Gorton since 1997. [167345]

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been spent on the digitisation of content in libraries in Burnley since 1997. [167902]
  1178W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The information in the following table shows the details of the main suppliers to my Department for paper (separate suppliers for the two headquarter locations), stationery and envelopes.

  Estelle Morris
  This information is not held centrally.

  The New Opportunities Fund £50 million Digitisation of Learning Materials Programme has delivered 150 projects across the UK to enable resources which support learning of all kinds held in libraries as well as museums, archives and other public-sector institutions, to be made available online through the People's Network and the National Grid for Learning. This initiative has created a body of material containing over 2 million images, tens of thousands of sound and video clips and documents and over 1,000 learning packages. All projects can be accessed via the EnrichUK portal at http://www.enrichuk.net.

  Information on grants awarded to individual local authorities and their expenditure can be obtained from the relevant authority.

  New Opportunities Fund (Wigan)
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the New Opportunities Fund was allocated to Wigan in each year since 1997. [169308]
  1179W
  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund began making grants in 1999. The awards to Wigan are shown in the table.

  Financial year

  Amount (£)

  1999–2000

  1,363,608

  2000–01

  602,721

  2001–02

  2,204,979

  2002–03

  1,510,710

  2003–04

  1,345,981

  The information is freely available from the Department's searchable Lottery award database at www.lottery.culture.gsi.gov.uk, which uses information supplied by the Lottery distributors.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether her Department plans to contribute financially to the establishment of the second phase of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [167625]

  Estelle Morris
  DCMS has no plans at present to contribute financially to the establishment of this DEFRA initiative, but DCMS and its NDPBs are active in sustainable development and the matter will be kept under review.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal Welfare
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to limit the maximum number of hours during which a live animal may be transported to eight hours; and what plans there are for EU regulations on this. [164580]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 31 March 2004]: The European Commission brought forward proposals in July 2003 for a regulation to replace the current EU rules on animal welfare during transport. In discussing those proposals the Government have sought reductions in overall journey times as part of a range of measures to improve the welfare of animals.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with other EU ministers about transportation times for animals being exported for slaughter or fattening; and if she will make a statement. [168059]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 23 April 2004]: The European Commission's proposals (published in July 2003) for a new regulation to replace the current directive were discussed at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in December 2003 and February 2004. I have also taken the opportunity to discuss this important issue with other EU ministers outside of Council meetings. The Commission's proposals were discussed again at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26 April 2004.
  1180W
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the new Animal Welfare Bill will be published. [166753]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I anticipate publication of the proposed Animal Welfare Bill within the next two to three months.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to strengthen animal welfare codes of conduct. [165896]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  DEFRA is currently reviewing and updating the Codes of Recommendation for the Welfare of Livestock, where necessary. Codes which have recently been updated include the pig code and the cattle code, issued on 11 March and 23 April 2003 respectively.

  Under the proposed Animal Welfare Bill there are also plans to introduce codes for non-farmed animals. The codes, which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, will be used to support a statutory duty on the owners and keepers of animals to promote good welfare standards. Production of the codes will involve the industry, welfare organisations, veterinarians and officials working in partnership.

  Badgers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the evidence to support the hypothesis that there has been an explosion of the badger population in the UK. [165450]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  English Nature advises that there are likely to be in the region of 300,000 to 400,000 badgers in Great Britain. This figure is derived from the most recent National Badger Survey which took place in the mid-1990s1. The survey also reported that there had been a 77 per cent. increase in badger numbers between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s.
  1"Changes in the British badger population, 1988 to 1997" by G. Wilson, S. Harris and G. McLaren (1997), published by the People's Trust for Endangered Species (ISBN1 855800187)

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the interim results of the proactive badger strategy. [166881]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) undertakes interim analyses of data collected from the proactive treatment areas of the RBCT at six-monthly intervals. The ISG advise that analyses of such data collected so far has not yielded a statistically significant result. Any significant interim findings will be reported to Ministers without delay.

  On 6 April, DEFRA announced the publication of a report from an independent scientific panel chaired by Professor Charles Godfray FRS reviewing the progress of the RBCT and associated DEFRA research, as part of a wider review of DEFRA's science. The report recommended that DEFRA policymakers should have access to the the interim results from the RBCT. The recommendation did not encompass full publication. Even so, it was challenged by the ISG and the matter is still under consideration.
  1181W
  We have been advised by the ISG that a full set of trial data from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) should have been gathered by the end of 2006. A full report will follow, with publication as soon as possible thereafter.

  Baronsdown Sanctuary
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Baronsdown Sanctuary area is a recognised reservoir of TB infection. [165489]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are aware that TB is present in wild deer in parts of Exmoor. This was a factor (together with the disease history of cattle and other wildlife) in the decision to test cattle herds for TB annually over most of Exmoor.

  Bass
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the volume of sea bass landings in the United Kingdom was in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) market and (b) port. [167131]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following table shows details of sea bass landings into the UK by UK and foreign vessels for the years 1999–2003, broken down by port of landing. Fisheries Departments in the U K do not record details of landings by market.

  Landings of Sea Bass into the UK 1999–2003

  Quantity (tonnes live weight)

  Country of landing/ Port of landing

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  England

  North Shields

  0.04

  0 00

  0.04

  0.02

  0.04

  Holy Island

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.01

  Seahouses

  —

  —

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  Amble

  0.01

  0.00

  0.01

  0.02

  0.01

  Newbiggin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.01

  Blyth

  0.00

  —

  0.00

  0.01

  0.03

  Sunderland

  —

  0.01

  0.00

  0.01

  0.01

  Hartlepool

  0.01

  0.01

  0.06

  0.04

  0.06

  Whitby

  0.16

  0.07

  0.43

  0.31

  0.52

  Scarborough

  0.12

  0.04

  0.60

  1.49

  2.80

  Filey

  —

  0.05

  0.05

  0.04

  0.03

  Flam borough

  —

  0.08

  —

  —

  —

  Bridlington

  0.55

  0.09

  0.09

  0.12

  0.18

  Grimsby

  0.12

  0.26

  0.31

  0.09

  0.59

  Boston

  0.02

  0.00

  —

  —

  —

  Lowestoft

  0.85

  1.72

  2.94

  4.50

  8.20

  Brancaster Staithe

  —

  0.02

  —

  0.11

  —

  Sheringham

  —

  —

  —

  0.05

  0.01

  Cromer

  —

  —

  —

  0.12

  0.05

  Great Yarmouth

  0.05

  1.32

  0.51

  0.37

  0.17

  Southwold

  0.86

  1.28

  0.52

  0.71

  1.02

  Dunwich

  —

  0.00

  0.03

  —

  0.01

  Sizewell Beach

  —

  —

  —

  0.94

  Aldeburgh

  0.35

  0.03

  0.11

  0.43

  0.88

  Orford

  1.77

  1.44

  1.12

  0.61

  1.26

  Ipswich

  1.11

  6.13

  2.31

  1.73

  —

  Felixstowe

  0.03

  0.01

  0.05

  8.63

  1.51

  Harwich

  0.25

  0.15

  0.19

  0.64

  0.10

  Walton-on-Naze

  1.54

  0.57

  0.95

  1.56

  2.38

  Clacton

  0.02

  —

  0.09

  0.15

  0.00

  Wivenhoe

  0.81

  0.31

  0.59

  0.79

  0.58

  Brightlingsea

  0.31

  0.03

  —

  0.01

  0.01

  West Mersea

  16.24

  0.25

  0.66

  1.33

  0.87

  Maldon

  0.02

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bradwell

  —

  —

  —

  0.25

  0.22

  Burnham-On-Crouch

  0.06

  0.08

  —

  0.02

  0.01

  1182W

  Great Wakering

  0.10

  0.00

  0.01

  0.23

  0.31

  Canvey Island

  0.02

  0.01

  0.01

  0.05

  0.12

  Southend-On-Sea

  —

  —

  —

  0.01

  —

  Leigh-On-Sea

  1.33

  2.06

  0.76

  0.83

  1.74

  Faversham

  0.51

  1.03

  1.54

  2.17

  1.92

  Gravesend

  0.00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rochester

  0.10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Queenborough

  0.33

  1.09

  0.50

  0.40

  1.99

  Whitstable

  8.47

  7.01

  6.23

  12.10

  18.59

  Hastings

  3.00

  3.77

  2.05

  3.34

  6.39

  Poole

  64.44

  9.33

  9.91

  0.60

  5.33

  Margate

  4.57

  3.69

  1.80

  2.60

  1.91

  Broadstairs

  0.29

  0.56

  0.01

  0.13

  0.07

  Ramsgate

  27.12

  17.29

  13.41

  26.21

  30.60

  Dover

  2.60

  0.95

  6.63

  2.79

  —

  Folkestone

  6.99

  6.66

  9.71

  7.87

  6.93

  Hythe

  0.93

  1.84

  0.96

  0.46

  2.11

  Dungeness

  2.25

  1.48

  0.50

  2.34

  0.51

  Rye

  4.01

  2.32

  2.97

  3.70

  3.40

  Eastbourne

  16.24

  17.75

  12.06

  17.98

  20.41

  Newhaven

  45.20

  27.31

  25.02

  23.36

  11.57

  Brighton

  2.81

  1.85

  1.23

  4.50

  1.87

  Shoreham

  33.85

  18.69

  29.23

  30.37

  42.73

  Worthing

  5.87

  1.35

  4.93

  2.05

  2.75

  Littlehampton

  2.69

  5.28

  2.89

  3.14

  5.94

  Bognor Regis

  0.05

  —

  0.02

  0.01

  —

  Selsey

  11.37

  11.17

  2.98

  20.77

  12.04

  Langstone Harbour

  4.54

  4.61

  3.85

  2.86

  3.36

  Itchenor/East Wittering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.07

  Emsworth

  0.02

  0.95

  —

  —

  0.00

  Hamble

  0.01

  1.73

  0.42

  0.12

  0.80

  Hayling Island

  —

  —

  0.00

  0.02

  —

  Portsmouth

  31.03

  36.61

  36.45

  44.07

  44.17

  Southampton

  16.25

  0.16

  0.97

  0.00

  0.56

  Christchurch

  7.68

  2.95

  1.47

  —

  1.94

  Cowes

  —

  —

  0.08

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  —

  6.66

  5.21

  1.49

  5.44

  Lymington

  2.93

  5.13

  6.04

  0.85

  2.18

  Keyhaven

  —

  0.00

  —

  —

  0.00

  Swanage

  1.00

  0.02

  0.01

  —

  —

  Kimmeridge

  0.05

  0.02

  0.00

  —

  0.05

  Lulworth Cove

  —

  0.17

  0.39

  0.70

  —

  Weymouth

  44.26

  14.28

  3.08

  1.08

  6.76

  Portland

  1.12

  0.27

  0.02

  0.12

  0.07

  Ferrybridge

  —

  0.00

  —

  —

  —

  West Bay

  0.14

  1.06

  0.05

  —

  —

  Lyme Regis

  2.92

  1.56

  1.28

  0.96

  4.00

  Plymouth

  161.78

  59.73

  108.54

  122.77

  140.69

  Newlyn

  4.46

  8.26

  21.34

  98.81

  12.90

  Beer

  0.69

  0.83

  1.04

  0.70

  0.42

  Exmouth

  3.09

  10.24

  10.57

  8.66

  9.16

  Teignmouth

  —

  0.19

  0.01

  0.08

  0.35

  Torquay

  0.61

  0.33

  0.20

  0.34

  0.51

  Brixham

  65.23

  33.26

  20.49

  27.27

  27.51

  Dartmouth

  0.50

  0.51

  0.39

  0.33

  0.37

  River Dart

  0.15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kingswear

  0.29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Salcombe

  0.05

  0.07

  0.06

  0.14

  0.04

  Hope Cove

  —

  —

  0.00

  —

  —

  Looe

  3.08

  8.67

  9.30

  32.34

  15.02

  Polperro

  2.08

  1.48

  2.11

  4.43

  12.35

  River Fowey

  0.55

  0.08

  0.17

  0.05

  0.37

  Mevagissey

  3.50

  1.39

  1.91

  3.51

  11.95

  River Fal—Falmouth

  0.56

  0.16

  0.47

  0.35

  0.51

  Helford River

  0.02

  0.14

  0.14

  0.31

  0.22

  Porthoustock

  —

  —

  —

  0.02

  —

  Coverack

  0.03

  0.10

  0.01

  0.01

  —

  Cadgwith

  0.04

  0.00

  0.01

  0.01

  —

  Penzance

  0.02

  0.10

  0.00

  0.08

  0.02

  Penberth

  —

  —

  1.95

  0.07

  —

  St. Ives

  —

  0.00

  0.00

  0.08

  —

  Hayle

  0.01

  0.24

  0.02

  0.51

  0.02

  Newquay

  0.29

  —

  0.21

  0.38

  0.03

  Padstow

  1.29

  0.62

  2.04

  3.22

  1.67

  Port Isaac

  0.05

  0.30

  0.07

  0.89

  0.30

  1183W

  Landings of Sea Bass into the UK 1999–2003

  Quantity (tonnes live weight)

  Country of landing/ Port of landing

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Bude

  —

  0.01

  —

  0.04

  —

  Clovelly

  0.10

  0.03

  —

  —

  —

  Appledore

  6.18

  6.72

  18.23

  20.29

  19.42

  Bideford

  2.22

  3.19

  0.11

  1.35

  0.15

  Ilfracombe

  0.79

  2.19

  0.10

  11.31

  17.56

  Fleetwood

  0.27

  0.24

  0.58

  0.12

  0.37

  Hoylake

  0.02

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mersey Estuary

  —

  —

  —

  0.02

  0.01

  Liverpool

  0.01

  0.04

  0.05

  0.01

  0.34

  Morecambe

  0.10

  0.10

  0.30

  —

  3.60

  Barrow

  0.25

  0.54

  1.72

  0.01

  0.12

  Whitehaven

  0.01

  0.00

  0.07

  0.08

  0.57

  Maryport

  —

  —

  0.00

  0.00

  0.04

  Wales

  Milford Haven

  31.55

  19.63

  23.01

  20.08

  9.45

  Conwy

  0.01

  0.03

  3.21

  0.26

  —

  Swansea

  1.18

  1.70

  4.30

  2.68

  1.80

  Porthcawl

  —

  0.17

  0.19

  0.16

  2.21

  Tenby

  0.21

  0.04

  6.12

  10.03

  2.91

  Saundersfoot

  1.79

  1.86

  2.02

  1.83

  2.80

  Llanelli

  2.14

  9.04

  6.25

  6.73

  3.76

  Three Rivers Area

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.11

  New Quay

  —

  —

  0.06

  —

  —

  Pwllheli

  —

  —

  —

  0.45

  —

  Aberdaran

  —

  —

  0.35

  —

  —

  Caernarvon

  —

  0.04

  4.11

  0.04

  0.00

  Holyhead

  0.11

  0.06

  0.03

  0.07

  0.34

  Cemaes Bay

  —

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  Bangor

  —

  0.19

  1.02

  —

  —

  Rhyl-Connah's Quay

  —

  3.27

  2.75

  3.13

  0.16

  Scotland

  Eyemouth

  0.02

  0.00

  0.01

  5.99

  2.59

  Dunbar

  —

  —

  —

  0.00

  0.00

  Pittenweem

  —

  —

  0.01

  —

  —

  Aberdeen

  0.01

  —

  0.05

  0.01

  0.00

  Peterhead

  0.13

  —

  —

  —

  0.02

  Fraserburgh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.00

  Mallaig

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.23

  Saltcoats

  —

  0.03

  —

  —

  —

  Girvan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.00

  Portpatrick

  0.06

  0.02

  —

  —

  0.11

  Isle of Whithorn

  0.07

  —

  —

  —

  0.00

  Northern Ireland

  Kilkeel

  —

  —

  1.34

  1.13

  8.52

  Portavogie

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.01

  Bangor (Co. Down)

  —

  —

  —

  0.01

  —

  Co. Antrim

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.03

  Total UK landings

  677.97

  408.45

  463.41

  635.62

  582.79

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the value of sea bass landings within the United Kingdom was for each of the last five years, broken down by market. [167132]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Fisheries departments in the UK do not record details of sales by market. The following table shows details of the value of sea bass landings into the UK by UK and foreign vessels for the years 1999 to 2003, broken down by port of landing.

  Landings of sea bass into the UK, 1999 to 2003

  Value (£000)

  Port of landing

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  England1

  North Shields

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Holy Island

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Seahouses

  3—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  3—

  1184W

  Amble

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Newbiggin

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Blyth

  2—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Sunderland

  3—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Hartlepool

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Whitby

  1

  2—

  2

  1

  2

  Scarborough

  1

  2—

  3

  6

  11

  Filey

  3—

  1

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Flamborough

  3—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Bridlington

  3

  2—

  3—

  1

  1

  Grimsby

  1

  1

  2

  2—

  2

  Boston

  2—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Lowestoft

  5

  11

  15

  22

  40

  Brancaster Staithe

  3—

  2—

  3—

  1

  3—

  Sheringham

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  Cromer

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1

  3—

  Great Yarmouth

  2—

  9

  4

  2

  1

  Southwold

  5

  9

  3

  4

  7

  Dunwich

  3—

  2—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  Sizewell Beach

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  4

  Aldeburgh

  2

  2—

  1

  3

  8

  Orford

  10

  9

  7

  3

  5

  Ipswich

  6

  35

  13

  10

  3—

  Felixstowe

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1

  7

  Harwich

  1

  1

  1

  4

  1

  Walton-on-the-Naze

  9

  3

  6

  9

  14

  Clacton

  2—

  3—

  1

  1

  2—

  Wivenhoe

  5

  2

  3

  5

  3

  Brightlingsea

  2

  2—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  West Mersea

  94

  1

  4

  8

  5

  Maldon

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Bradwell

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1

  1

  Burnham-on-Crouch

  2—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  Great Wakering

  1

  2—

  2—

  1

  2

  Canvey Island

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1

  Southend-on-Sea

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  Leigh-on-Sea

  8

  11

  4

  5

  10

  Faversham

  3

  5

  8

  12

  10

  Gravesend

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Rochester

  1

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Queenborough

  2

  6

  3

  2

  10

  Whitstable

  43

  42

  28

  58

  94

  Hastings

  21

  24

  13

  21

  41

  Poole

  325

  48

  54

  2

  23

  Margate

  23

  19

  9

  13

  10

  Broadstairs

  1

  3

  2—

  1

  2—

  Ramsgate

  138

  89

  68

  135

  153

  Dover

  13

  5

  34

  14

  3—

  Folkestone

  46

  40

  48

  50

  37

  Hythe

  6

  11

  6

  3

  11

  Dungeness

  15

  10

  3

  13

  3

  Rye

  27

  15

  18

  23

  22

  Eastbourne

  96

  110

  69

  109

  132

  Newhaven

  226

  134

  120

  112

  56

  Brighton

  14

  10

  7

  24

  10

  Shoreham

  169

  101

  156

  156

  191

  Worthing

  39

  9

  14

  10

  14

  Littlehampton

  18

  35

  15

  14

  30

  Bognor Regis

  2—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  3—

  Selsey

  63

  48

  11

  70

  44

  Langstone Harbour

  33

  24

  18

  13

  17

  Itchenor/East Wittering

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  Emsworth

  2—

  6

  3—

  3—

  2—

  Ramble

  2—

  7

  2

  1

  4

  Hayling Island

  3—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  3—

  Portsmouth

  206

  178

  176

  182

  213

  Southampton

  85

  1

  4

  2—

  3

  Christchurch

  39

  15

  8

  3—

  8

  Cowes

  3—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  Isle of Wight

  3—

  32

  23

  7

  25

  Lymington

  15

  25

  35

  4

  9

  Keyhaven

  3—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  Swanage

  5

  2—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  Kimmeridge

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  Lulworth Cove

  3—

  1

  2

  2

  3—

  Weymouth

  286

  73

  16

  6

  32

  1185W

  Landings of sea bass into the UK, 1999 to 2003

  Value (£000)

  Port of landing

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Portland

  6

  1

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Ferrybridge

  3—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  West Bay

  1

  9

  2—

  3—

  3—

  Lyme Regis

  22

  10

  7

  6

  18

  Plymouth

  1,208

  357

  662

  787

  808

  Newlyn

  31

  59

  123

  562

  73

  Beer

  5

  7

  9

  5

  3

  Exmouth

  23

  76

  72

  63

  67

  Teignmouth

  3—

  2

  2—

  1

  3

  Torquay

  5

  3

  2

  3

  4

  Brixham

  386

  277

  174

  223

  206

  Dartmouth

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  River Dart

  1

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Kingswear

  2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Salcombe

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1

  2—

  Hope Cove

  3—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  Looe

  23

  45

  58

  181

  87

  Polperro

  15

  8

  12

  23

  69

  River Fowey

  4

  1

  1

  2—

  2

  Mevagissey

  25

  9

  13

  23

  73

  River Fal—Falmouth

  4

  1

  3

  3

  2

  Helford River

  2—

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Porthoustock

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  Coverack

  2—

  1

  2—

  2—

  3—

  Cadgwith

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3—

  Penzance

  2—

  1

  2—

  1

  2—

  Penberth

  3—

  3—

  12

  1

  3—

  St. Ives

  3—

  2—

  2—

  1

  3—

  Hayle

  2—

  2

  2—

  4

  2—

  Newquay

  2

  3—

  1

  2

  2—

  Padstow

  8

  5

  13

  18

  9

  Port Isaac

  2—

  2

  2—

  7

  1

  Bude

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  Clovelly

  1

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Appledore

  41

  45

  123

  138

  115

  Bideford

  16

  21

  1

  9

  1

  Ilfracombe

  6

  15

  1

  79

  104

  Fleetwood

  2

  1

  3

  1

  2

  Hoylake

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Mersey Estuary

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  Liverpool

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1

  Morecambe

  2—

  2—

  1

  3—

  17

  Barrow

  1

  2

  8

  2—

  2—

  Whitehaven

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2

  Maryport

  3—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Wales1

  Milford Haven

  187

  96

  116

  105

  48

  Conwy

  2—

  2—

  10

  1

  3—

  Swansea

  8

  11

  26

  15

  9

  Porthcawl

  3—

  2—

  1

  1

  10

  Tenby

  1

  2—

  30

  55

  16

  Saundersfoot

  9

  8

  10

  9

  16

  Llanelli

  13

  41

  31

  34

  18

  Three Rivers Area

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1

  New Quay

  3—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  Pwllheli

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2

  3—

  Aberdaran

  3—

  3—

  2

  3—

  3—

  Caernarvon

  3—

  2—

  22

  2—

  2—

  Holyhead

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1

  Cemaes Bay

  3—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3—

  Bangor

  3—

  1

  5

  3—

  3—

  Rhyl-Connah's Quay

  3—

  9

  7

  15

  1

  Scotland1

  Eyemouth

  2—

  2—

  2—

  25

  13

  Dunbar

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  Pittenweem

  3—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  Aberdeen

  2—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Peterhead

  1

  3—

  3—

  2—

  2—

  Fraserburgh

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  Mallaig

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  Saltcoats

  3—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Girvan

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  Portpatrick

  2—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  Isle of Whithorn

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  1186W

  Northern Ireland1

  Kilkeel

  3—

  3—

  7

  6

  32

  Portavogie

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  Bangor (County Down)

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  County Antrim

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  Total

  4,173

  2,352

  2,608

  3,558

  3,165

  1Country of landing.

  2Less than half the last digit shown.

  3Nil.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment is made of the sea bass catch in relation to(a) size, (b) maturity and (c) reproductive state; and whether this information influences decisions by the Department on closure of fisheries. [167133]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  DEFRA funds a programme that collects data on the size (length and weight) and age (from scales) of representative samples of sea bass caught annually in England and Wales. Research carried out by the Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has established the age and size at which male and female bass become mature in UK waters, and reproductive state by area and season. This information is updated as necessary. It is used to provide scientific advice on the conservation status of bass stocks, and informs any decisions taken by this Department on the management of fisheries taking sea bass.

  Bio-refinery Technologies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the use of(a) household and municipal, (b) industrial and (c) agricultural waste streams as potential sources for bio-fuels through bio-refinery technologies; and if she will make a statement. [166906]

  Alun Michael
  A study by E4tech for the Department of Trade and Industry made the following estimates for the proportion of the UK's electricity demand that could be met by 2020 from various types of waste biomass: 2.2 per cent. from the combustion, gasification and anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste; 0.5 per cent. from the gasification and anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge; 1.9 per cent. from the combustion and gasification of straw; and less than 0.2 per cent. each from food waste, wood processing waste, farm waste and forestry residues.

  The Waste Implementation Programme was established last year to provide support to local authorities in assessing and establishing alternative new technologies with particular reference to achieving the landfill diversion targets for biodegradable municipal waste. The New Technologies sub-programme aims to establish up to five demonstrator plants by 2005 end with at least five additional plants initiated by 2006.

  Tallow derived from rendering animal by-products can be burnt to produce energy. 280,000 tonnes of tallow from animals slaughtered under the over-30-months (slaughter) scheme have already been sold to renderers to power their boilers. The Rural Payments

  1187W
  Agency recently signed a contract to sell 110,000 tonnes of stockpiled tallow to a commercial company for energy production.

  Around 120 million litres of waste vegetable oil are produced in the UK each year, which could produce about 115 million litres of biodiesel. 1 million litres of biodiesel from waste vegetable oil are currently sold each month in the UK and it is likely that this will increase once the ban on used cooking oil in animal feed comes into effect in November 2004. Recent advances in biotechnology are opening up opportunities to produce bioethanol from ligno-cellulosic feedstocks such as wood, straw and organic waste, using gasification and hydrolysis, although large-scale commercialisation is unlikely for some years.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to ensure sustainable funding for national survey and monitoring schemes in order to(a) mobilise and (b) support the voluntary effort to gather the data on the state of Britain's biodiversity. [165069]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 1 April 2004]: The work of volunteers is crucial to gathering data on the current state of our biodiversity. Volunteers have collected around 70 per cent. of all the data about species. This includes existing survey and monitoring schemes, including the Biological Records Centre:

  breeding and wintering birds;

  bats, otters and other mammals;

  butterflies and moths; and

  threatened plants.

  An organisation called the National Biodiversity Network Trust is currently co-ordinating actions by a range of interested parties to bring together the efforts of volunteers. The work of the NBN Trust is supported by the Government agencies responsible for biodiversity and the Government support this work through the grant-in-aid to these agencies.

  DEFRA has provided a direct contribution of £0.25 million per year to support technical elements of this work that were not being funded. Part of this work has been an exploration of how improved access to biodiversity data can improve the cost-effectiveness of delivering our agri-environmental schemes. This has demonstrated the huge importance of securing access to current information as a way of saving costs overall, and improving the outcomes. DEFRA is currently considering how to secure these benefits through increased support for the NBN process.

  The work of volunteers is often focused on their local area and the NBN encourages local storage and quality assurance of these data. However, there are many national societies with networks of volunteers throughout the United Kingdom.

  In some circumstances it is more effective to bring this information together in national data centres. The NBN provides a mechanism for both local and national data centres to provide access to their data. In May the latest version of this web-based mechanism, called the NBN Gateway, will be launched. Also, English Nature,
  1188W
  supported by Treasury Capital Modernisation Funds, has created a public website that links with the NBN gateway to provide information to the public.

  In addition to the work on the NBN, the Government will be considering this year how best to improve the coordination of the current monitoring and surveillance activities. This will ensure that the UK's state of nature is sufficiently monitored and that we make the best use of the voluntary sector and ensure that the sector receives the full support it needs to be fully effective.

  While DEFRA is supporting the NBN process, and considering where further assistance may be needed, a major block to progress is the patchy support for local centres by local authorities. Information is critical to better development planning decisions through both local and regional processes.

  DEFRA is seeking co-operation from other Departments over how to ensure that the information sources, underpinned by volunteer effort, are funded in a sustainable way.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of the Thornbury trial. [158598]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The answer can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the optimum area in which to conduct a badger culling operation is based on the basis of experience from the Krebs trials. [158669]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not possible to use the results from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial to describe an optimum area in which to conduct a badger culling operation, as this will depend on the local circumstances and the specific effect the operation is intended to achieve.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average duration of a TB2 restriction notice was in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [159062]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Data for TB2 duration for 1997 are available only at disproportionate cost.

  In 2003, the average duration of TB2 restriction notices was 901 days. This includes TB2 restriction notices served on herds where the routine herd test was overdue, as well as notices served on herds with a TB breakdown. Herds with overdue tests were not placed under restrictions in 1997.
  1Provisional data downloaded from the State Veterinary Service database on 17 March 2004. This is subject to change, as more data become available.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 11 December 2003,Official Report, column 539W on badgers, what assessment she has made of the change in size of the total badger population in the Krebs areas since the commencement of the culling of badgers. [159275]
  1189W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  DEFRA assessments are based, principally, on surveys of badger activity carried out before and sometime after culling. Analyses of data from the first three triplets to go live indicate that badger activity levels in trial areas have changed consistent with the treatments applied; levels appearing approximately unchanged in survey only areas, somewhat reduced in reactive cull areas and substantially reduced in proactive cull areas. Such data on field signs, however, give only an approximate index of badger numbers, and Defra is funding two projects looking at ways to enable the estimation of badger populations with greater accuracy.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 212W, on bovine tuberculosis, what the lowest estimate is of culling efficiency using traps, experienced in the Krebs trial areas. [159282]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Subjective estimates on the efficiency of culling, based on post-cull surveys, have indicated that in the poorest conditions, particularly relating to inclement weather and the season of the year, culling efficiency may be as low as 30 per cent.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answers of 20 November 2003,Official Report, column 1204W, on bovine tuberculosis and 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 212W. what the basis is of her estimate for the efficiency of trapping as a means of badger culling; whether that estimate has been scientifically validated; and what the current estimate is of the efficiency of the culling conducted in the Krebs trial areas. [159284]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no sure way to estimate badger populations accurately. Post cull surveys provide a subjective indication of the level of badger activity and abundance based on held signs and are carried out by ecologists from the Central Science Laboratory. Evidence from post cull surveys suggests that trapping efficiency can vary between 30 per cent. and 80 per cent., dependent on conditions, season and taking into account a proportion of trap shy animals. Comparisons of initial and two-year surveys show changes in badger activity consistent with the treatments applied. DEFRA is funding research into novel and innovative methods of estimating badger numbers.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the European Commission on the incidence of TB in cattle in the United Kingdom. [159053]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The European Commission has made no representations about the incidence of TB in cattle in Great Britain. The United Kingdom provide detailed information on bovine tuberculosis(Mycobacterium bovis) to the Commission as part of the annual report on trends and sources of Zoonoses and zoonotic agents in animals, feedingstuffs, food and man, under the requirements of EU Directive 92/117.

  The Northern Ireland tuberculosis eradication programme has qualified for a financial contribution from the EU. As part of a series of missions to member
  1190W
  states with co-financed bovine tuberculosis eradication programmes, a team of EU Field and Veterinary Office (FVO) inspectors visited Northern Ireland during November 2003. Publication of the FVO report of this inspection is awaited.

  Breckland Farmland SSSI
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the size of the stone curlew population within the Breckland Farmland Site of Special Scientific Interest(a) at present, (b) five years ago, (c) 10 years ago and (d) 15 years ago. [165145]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: From the counts of stone curlews within the Breckland Farmland SSSI undertaken by the work of the Breckland Stone Curlew Recovery Project I am able to provide the following information:

  (a) The number of pairs proved breeding in the 2003 breeding season was 110 (this does not include parts of the SSSI where access for survey and monitoring was denied);

  The Breckland Farmland SSSI was not notified until 2001, so the following figures are for the population nesting on arable and other land within the whole of the Breckland area. This excludes the heathland sites which are the main breeding areas outside the current Breckland Farmland SSSI. These records were used in the assessment of the Breckland Farmland SSSI boundary for breeding stone curlew. The number of pairs proved breeding on arable and other areas within Breckland in the years requested is as follows:

  Pairs

  (b) 1998

  86

  (c) 1993

  49

  (d)1988

  55

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Breckland Farmland Site of Special Scientific Interest takes to encourage appropriate habitat management practice. [165146]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: The conservation of stone curlew in Breckland is encouraged by the work of the Breckland Stone Curlew Recovery Project, jointly funded mainly by English Nature and the RSPB. Project staff locate and monitor breeding sites and advise farmers on appropriate management actions to ensure breeding success. English Nature's funding for the project is from its SSSI management budget. The success of the stone curlew recovery project is due largely to the combined efforts of the project officers and farmers, working together to achieve nest protection, improved habitat management and habitat creation (provision of nest-plots on set-aside land).

  English Nature also runs a Wildlife Enhancement Scheme for Breckland Farmland SSSI to assist land managers with their work. Through this scheme English Nature can offer a Management Agreement to provide payment for additional positive management to benefit nesting stone curlews. The scheme provides options for

  1191W
  management designed to improve breeding success and to encourage birds out of crops and on to specially created nest plots.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) process and (b) timescale are for the implementation of the Breckland Special Protection Area. [165147]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: English Nature has undertaken scientific consultations on the case made for the site. Objections were received and one has resulted in a legal challenge. English Nature expects to submit its recommendations once that has been concluded. Once those recommendations are received Ministers will consider any outstanding issues before taking a decision whether the site merits classification as a Special Protection Area.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the(a) boundaries of the Breckland Farmland Site of Special Scientific Interest and (b) proposed boundaries of the Breckland Special Protection Area have been decided. [165129]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information is as follows.

  (a) The boundary of the Breckland Farmland Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) was drawn up by English Nature on the basis of the nest records collected under the Stone Curlew Recovery Project, financed jointly by the RSPB and English Nature, for the years 1995 to 1999 inclusive. Areas regularly containing two or more nest sites over this period were included, conservatively using a foraging range of up to 2 km from each nest site. Other features were also taken into account, in particular the need to have boundaries corresponding to physical features such as roads, drains, ditches, field edges or the boundaries of land holdings.

  (b) All or parts of 28 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) have been recommended as Breckland potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) because together they support breeding bird populations of three species of European importance.

  Breckland SPA qualifies under the EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC) as it is used regularly by 1 per cent. or more of the Great Britain population of three species of birds listed in Annex 1 of the Directive. They are stone curlew, nightjar and woodlark.

  The pSPA boundary was delineated on the basis of records covering stone curlew nests, male woodlarks in forest blocks and in non-forest locations and breeding nightjars. The data spans the period 1992–98, with account taken of 1999 data where available.

  Brucellosis
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the(a) cause and (b) source of the recent brucellosis outbreak in South East Cornwall. [166444]

  Mr Bradshaw
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: A specialist epidemiological team has been set up to look into the source of the outbreak. The team, led by
  1192W
  veterinary epidemiologist Professor John Wilesmith, includes specialists in surveillance and epidemiology from both the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and DEFRA.

  The group is liaising closely with the State Veterinary Service and looking at the brucellosis testing history of the infected herd, the relationship between cows, bulls and youngstock, cattle movements on and off over the past two years, any known unrecorded cattle movements, the herd's breeding programme, any unusual mixing of livestock and imports into Devon and Cornwall over the past three years.

  Field investigations and epidemiological analyses of available data are concentrated on two main hypotheses:
  (i) the introduction of infection via an imported animal from a known infected country, or an as yet unknown infected country; or
  (ii) the recrudescence of infection either from animals in the infected herd or from other GB herds.

  Epidemiological investigations are progressing well; however the cause and source of the infection remain unknown at this stage.

  BSE
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the US Department of Agriculture decision to use antibody-based tests for the prion protein that causes BSE; and if she will make a statement. [165253]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The testing approvals in the USA are currently consistent with those in the EU where all currently approved and potential new surveillance tests are antibody based. It is understandable that the USDA might want to use similar testing to the EU in order to assess BSE prevalence in their cattle population. No specific evaluation of the US approval process is considered necessary.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the BSE tests she has been conducting at High Mowbray in Yorkshire. [166441]

  Mr Bradshaw
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: I assume that the h on. Member is referring to BSE research that was conducted between 1989 and 2001 at High Mowthorpe Centre in North Yorkshire as no BSE tests or research have been conducted at High Mowbray. Embryos were derived elsewhere from BSE-infected cattle and transported to High Mowthorpe, where they were transferred to recipient BSE-free dams from New Zealand. A total of 266 live born calves were produced from 347 recipient females and all 613 animals were monitored for seven years. None developed BSE and no sign of BSE, was observed when brains were subjected to post-mortem examination. These findings led to the lifting of the import/export ban on cattle embryos in 2002.

  Butterflies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will add butterflies to the list of quality of life indicators. [165068]
  1193W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 1 April 2004]: The UK Government in partnership with tilt Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Administration have begun developing new strategy to produce a step change in the delivery of sustainable development in the UK. The public consultation document and process for developing new strategy will be launched later this month. As part of the consultation we will consider the use and scope of indicators for monitoring our progress.

  We cannot at this stage pre-empt the outcome of the consultation and the associated review of indicators to comment which indicators may or may not be included in a new set.

  Annual information on butterfly populations at monitored sites is available and an indicator covering 1976 to 2002 could be compiled. However, the majority of the sites covered by the monitoring schemes are nature reserves and the index is therefore unlikely to be representative of the country as a whole. This weakness is being addressed in a research project, which the Department is currently putting out to tender.

  Carbon Dioxide Reduction Target
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further steps the Government intend to take to reach the target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, relative to 1990 levels, by 2010; and if she will make a statement. [167757]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government remain committed to the domestic goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. The Department of Trade and Industry intends to publish shortly its updated energy and emissions projections, which will inform the planned review of the UK Climate Change Programme later this year. The review provides an opportunity to introduce new policies and measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, or to strengthen existing ones., if the conclusion is that more needs to be done to achieve the domestic goal.

  Cervine TB
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will specify the locations at which the deer in the vicinity of the Baronsdown deer sanctuary tested positive for TB; how many of the carcases were sent to the Veterinary Investigation Laboratories, and when; and how many laboratory tests are pending. [165176]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since the beginning of January 1998, there have been nine bacteriologically confirmed cases of bovine tuberculosis(Mycobacterium bovis) in the Parish of Dulverton in West Somerset (eight red deer, one roe deer). Other deer submissions were bacteriologically negative.

  In 2003, six (from seven) deer submissions from Exmoor proved positive for M. bovis.

  In February 2004, eight red deer culled near Dulverton, Somerset as part of a routine annual random cull were submitted to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) at Langford. After examination by a
  1194W
  Veterinary Investigation Officer, tissues from four animals with suspect lesions have been submitted for Mycobacterium culture. The results are awaited.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she takes against(a) farms and (b) others who fail to notify her Department of TB in deer. [165177]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Tuberculosis (Deer) Order 1989 provides for the compulsory notification of tuberculosis in deer and deer carcasses. Contravention or failure to comply with the provisions of the Order constitute an offence against the Animal Health Act 1981. Prosecution would be carried out by the local authority.

  Cockling
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to compensate cockle fishermen affected by the closure of cockle beds. [164286]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has no plans to provide financial compensation to cockle fishermen affected by the closure of cockle beds.

  Dolphins/Porpoises
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to press for the early implementation of the EU proposals to reduce accidental deaths of dolphins and porpoises from UK fishing activity. [164851]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK has been seeking Community action for some time to address the accidental deaths of dolphins and porpoises from fishing activity. I am pleased therefore that agreement was reached on a new Council regulation to address this problem at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of Ministers Meeting on 22/23 March. The regulation will make the use of acoustic deterrent devices mandatory in certain fixed gear fisheries in the North Sea from 1 June 2005, in the Celtic Sea from 1 January 2006, and in the eastern Channel from 1 January 2007. The regulation also requires member states to implement schemes to monitor bycatch across a range of fisheries from 1 January 2005. This regulation is an important first step in the protection of dolphins and porpoises from the impact of fishing.

  Environmental Support
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and (b) Regional Development Agencies on successor organisations and programme to Vital Villages. [167972]

  Alun Michael
  The Vital Villages programme was a three year pilot programme which was intended to explore what would best enable village communities to determine their own future. Some commentators have wrongly referred to the scheme as being "cut" when a further £14 million is being invested this year in maintaining the scheme, despite the fact that it is closed to new applicants. With a variety of partners including
  1195W
  the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister we are considering how best to promote the lessons of the programme in seeking to target support for rural communities that need help through mainstream Government programmes such as local authority community planning, Neighbourhood Renewal and other regeneration programmes. We will also consider whether an independent successor arrangement to the Vital Villages scheme is necessary.

  Erosion
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what land area in total was affected by problems of soil erosion in each of the last 10 years, broken down by county; and what area of agricultural land in total has become unusable in each case. [165752]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  All soils that are not sealed, e.g. built on, are potentially at risk of erosion. Whether erosion occurs depends on various factors, especially land management, soil type and weather conditions.

  Over the last 10 years very little agricultural land has become unusable due to soil erosion, although a number of watercourses have suffered damage from siltation and/or eutrophication due to soil-borne nutrients.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the volume of soil erosion, as measured in tonnes per hectare per annum was, broken down by country in(a) 1975, (b) 1985, (c) 1995 and (d) 2002. [165814]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Latest estimates taken between 1996 and 1998 suggest that total erosion from arable land in England and Wales is estimated at 2.9 million tonnes per annum. These losses are concentrated in small and limited areas within catchments where particular land management practices, soil types and weather conditions present the highest risk to erosion. In such risky areas losses range between 0.01 to 12 tonnes per hectare per annum, with a median value of 0.1 tonnes per hectare per annum. We do not have comparable figures broken down by year and country.

  EU Environmental Liability Directive
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the status of(a) the EU and (b) the UK regarding the European Environmental Liability Directive. [168085]

  Alun Michael
  Following the Council common position in September and the European Parliament's second reading in December, the Council and the Parliament reached agreement on an amended draft. The Council and the Parliament have since adopted the Directive, as amended, at their respective third readings. The Government supported the common position and the agreement reached with the Parliament, both of which delivered our key objectives. When it comes into force, member states will have three years to implement the Directive which will be published in the Official Journal shortly, when it will come in to force.

  The Government have begun consideration of the implementation of the Directive.

  Fauna Distribution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average number of species in(a) grassland and (b) woodland was (i) on the latest date for which figures are available and (ii) 10 years ago, broken down by region. [165739]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Grassland:

  Semi-natural grasslands are divided into six main Biodiversity Action Plan priority types. The figures in the table give an indication of the average number of plant species expected in a 4m2 quadrat, assuming ideal management. But large variation in species number can occur depending on the different sub-types of grassland within the broad categories.

  BAP priority grassland type

  Average number species per 4m2 quadrat

  Lowland calcareous grassland

  23

  Upland calcareous grassland

  29

  Lowland meadows

  26

  Upland meadows

  26

  Purple moor grass and rush pastures

  25

  Lowland acid grassland

  18

  The Countryside Surveys were established to monitor changes in land cover, landscape and biodiversity in Great Britain. Data has to date been collected for 1984, 1990 and 1998. This shows a change in mean number of species between 1990 and 1998. In the case of neutral grassland; calcareous and acid grassland in the west lowlands, a small decline in mean number of plant species/plot was recorded. But these changes were not statistically significant. A statistically significant increase in mean number species/plot was recorded for acid grassland in the uplands.

  The random sampling approach means that for some rarer habitats, such as calcareous grasslands, the sample sizes were small decreasing the precision of the results.

  (b) Woodland:

  Woodlands are structurally diverse, and habitat for a vast number of species, including vascular plants, birds, mammals, invertebrates, lichens, fungi and soil microbes. No comprehensive study has been undertaken.

  Woodlands can be categorised by broad Biodiversity Action Plan type; whether they are recognised as ancient or recent; semi-natural or plantation. Generally there is higher vascular plant species on ancient, semi-natural woodland. The survey data available over this time span includes all broadleaved woodland.

  Average species richness for different woodland types, using 4x4m or 10x10m quadrants. Adapted from Rodwell 1991

  Priority BAP Habitat type

  Average number of species per plot

  Wet woodland

  25

  Upland ash

  36

  Upland oak

  29

  Beech

  15

  Yew

  5

  The Countryside Survey also covers woodland habitat, and can be used to show relative change over

  1197W
  the same time period. The methodology used did not distinguish between different woodland types shown above, nor did it specify ancient woodland, so figures may be lower than expected.

  The following table below shows the mean species richness for a random sample of woods in England and Wales, between 1990 and 1998, using 200m2 quadrants. From Haines-Young et al (2003).

  Zone

  Number of samples

  Mean species richness 1990

  Mean species richness 1998

  1

  57

  13.79

  11.26

  2

  43

  16.93

  15.93

  3

  18

  18.89

  16.89

  Zones:

  1= Easterly and southerly lowlands

  2= West lowlands

  3= Uplands

  Fertilisers
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment has been made of the possible link between the use of chemical fertilisers in agriculture and the health of the wild freshwater fish population in the UK. [165570]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No specific study has been undertaken recently of possible links between the use of chemical fertilisers in agriculture and the status of the wild freshwater fish populations in the UK. However, various studies have been undertaken on the effects of increased nutrient loads in rivers and lakes. In addition, water quality, including the effects of contaminants such as chemical fertilisers, is one the factors routinely considered when assessing the state of fish stocks. Water quality is assessed when developing Salmon Action Plans aimed at the conservation and enhancement of salmon in rivers in England and Wales.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish the outcome of the review of fisheries and environmental enforcement; and if she will make a statement. [165197]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I am considering the report of the Review and expect to publish it shortly.

  Food Promotion
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to encourage the local sourcing of food and other products. [167865]

  Alun Michael
  The Government recognises the benefits of local food and is keen to encourage a flourishing local food sector. Money is available under the England Rural Development Programme for supporting activities such as the establishment of Farmers' Markets, the development of regional and local branding of foodstuffs and the formation of collaborative groups to market quality products. For example, within the last year we awarded £100, 256 to 1198W
  the National Association of Farmers' Markets to raise the profile of farmers' markets across England and to increase public awareness of them.

  DEFRA has also helped finance a number of local sourcing workshops organised by the Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) designed to bring together supermarkets and small local producers to explore how barriers to local sourcing can be overcome. Following on from this, we helped fund the Business in The Community (BiTC) and IGD guide for small businesses looking to work with large food retailers and food service companies —"Local Sourcing—Opening the Door for Small Business". In addition to this, our Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative is designed to encourage public sector bodies to procure their food in a manner that promotes sustainable development and to encourage more small and local businesses to compete to supply them with food.

  This work will be complemented at a regional level through the regional plans that each Regional Development Agency (RDA) is drawing up to help deliver the Government Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food. Although the nature of this support will be determined according to regional priorities, issues to be addressed will include the production and supply of locally sourced food by encouraging food hubs and shared facilities and the linking of local producers with local retailers and tourist businesses.

  Greyhounds
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the minimum standards for kennels at greyhound tracks are. [165486]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government do not currently set minimum standards for kennelling at greyhound tracks but under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to a domestic or captive animal. This offence covers welfare at racetracks. It is proposed to consolidate and modernise the legislation relating to domestic and captive animals and a draft Bill is currently being prepared.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what minimum standards breeders of greyhounds must meet. [166752]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Commercial greyhound breeding is covered by the Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991, and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Welfare Act 1999. There is also protection under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, under which it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to a domestic or captive animal. It is proposed to consolidate and modernise this legislation and a draft Bill is currently being prepared.

  Harmful Chemicals
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects on UK citizens of exposure to harmful chemicals, with particular reference to those found in everyday products. [168564]
  1199W
  Alun Michael
  The Department carries out and/or evaluates research on a wide range of industrial chemicals through three main routes. In each case, the work focuses on particular chemicals or groups of chemicals of interest irrespective of exposure route (environmental, consumer, etc.). These chemicals have many uses and are present in many everyday products.

  Through our commitments to the European Union's risk assessment programme under the Existing Substances Regulation (EEC) 793/93. Details of the programme can be found on the European Chemicals Bureau website at: http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-chemicals/. The programme aims to identify potentially harmful chemicals based on four priority lists of substances drawn up by the European Commission in consultation with member states. The UK has been the sole rapporteur for 21 and joint with other member states on a further five of the 141 substances this programme has identified.

  At a national level, through bodies like the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances (ACHS) (see http://www. defra.gov.uk/environment/chemicals/achs/ index.htm) and the Chemicals Stakeholder Forum (CSF) (see http://www. defra.gov.uk/environment/chemicals/csf/index.htm). These bodies investigate the effects of chemicals on the environment and society as well as providing advice and guidance on dealing with hazardous chemicals. Defra also commissions and evaluates research, often in close co-operation with the Environment Agency, on the hazards and risks of specific chemicals or groups of chemicals of concern such as perfluorooctanyl sulphonate (PFOS), endocrine disrupters, chlorinated and brominated flame retardants and dioxins and dioxin-like substances.

  Through the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Chemicals Programme. Defra provides funding to this organisation where risk to human health and the environment posed by chemicals is determined by chemical-specific hazard properties and the amount of exposure to chemicals. The organisation assists member countries in developing and harmonising methods for assessing such risk.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to recommend that the proposed European Chemicals Regulation (REACH) incorporate a legal framework for the substitution of harmful man—made chemicals where safer alternatives exist; and if she will make a statement. [168565]

  Alun Michael
  The authorisation process under REACH is designed to ensure proper control of substances of high concern and their eventual replacement by suitable substances or technologies. There are practical difficulties in making substitution an absolute legal requirement under REACH. The Government is currently considering the provisions relating to substitution to see whether they are likely to achieve the desired effect of acting as a sufficiently strong incentive—along with other incentives such as market pressure for industry to develop new and safer substitutes.
  1200W
  In order to make an informed decision, the Government is consulting on proposals for addressing substitution as part of its consultation paper on the New EU Chemicals strategy issued on 30 March 2004 and all contributions are welcome. The closing date for responses is 25 June 2004.

  Information is available on DEFRA website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/reach/index.htm.

  Hunting Ban
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans are in place to prevent the destruction of hunting dogs in the event of a hunting ban being introduced. [167758]

  Alun Michael
  The owners are responsible for the welfare of their animals. The Government would expect organisations such as the Kennel Club and the RSPCA to give advice and help on the best course of action to owners of dogs affected by any legislation such as the proposals on hunting, with dogs.

  Evidence to the Burns Inquiry suggests that hunts keep some 20,000 dogs for hunting. Several thousand dogs are put down every year after some six or seven years' hunting, when they are considered to have reached the end of their working lives. Some dogs presently involved in hunting are capable of being domesticated or are domestic animals and capable of rehoming. It may be the case that some dogs are pack animals which would not settle and could not be rehomed.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risks to biosecurity as a result of illegal imports of meat; and what representations she has received about the threat to biosecurity as a result of such imports. [165200]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In March 2003, DEFRA published the Veterinary Laboratories Agency "Risk Assessment for the Import of Meat and Meat Products Contaminated with foot and Mouth Disease Virus into Great Britain and the Subsequent Exposure of GB Livestock".

  This estimated that FMD infection of GB livestock due to contaminated illegally imported meat would occur with a mean of one infection in 130 years, with a 90 per cent. certainty interval ranging from one infection in 41 years to one infection in 1,100 years.

  A further report updating this risk assessment, incorporating additional data, will be published in the next few months. This report will also include similar risk assessments on three pig diseases—Classical Swine Fever, African Swine Fever and Swine Vesicular Disease.

  All seizures of illegal imports are disposed as if they were category 1 material under the Animal By-Products Regulations (2003) and are sent for incineration without undue delay.
  1201W
  We have received many representations from stakeholders on these issues both in meetings and via correspondence and we take account of their views in developing our strategy.

  We continue to work with interested groups on projects, such as with countryside user groups to raise awareness of all inland biosecurity issues, and with the Bushmeat Campaign and others in taking forward the message through publicity campaigns aimed at ethnic minority communities.

  Insects
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the likely effects of climate change on the UK's biodiversity in respect of insects, including butterflies; and what measures she proposes to take to counter such effects. [165308]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department, along with the Devolved Administrations, statutory nature conservation agencies and non-governmental organisations, is contributing to an on-going research programme on the impacts of climate change on biodiversity in the UK. Results suggest that as climate changes, the distribution of species and the composition of habitats will change. With warmer temperatures, some northern species are likely to retreat, while southern species may he able to expand their ranges. At the same time, coastal habitats will be affected by rising sea levels. On land, movement of some species may be impeded by our fragmented landscapes, possibly leading to local extinctions. However, there is already evidence that some butterfly species have expanded their ranges northward in recent years.

  The Government's existing policies for nature conservation provide the basis to mitigate the effects of climate change on biodiversity, by protecting and restoring wildlife habitats and concerted action to reverse the decline of threatened species. New evidence from research and monitoring is taken into account in developing these policies and management strategies. However, there remains considerable scientific uncertainty about the implications for individual species.

  The Government are fully committed to the Kyoto Protocol and to reducing the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. Through the Climate Change Programme we have put in place a strong programme of policies and measures to ensure that the UK meets its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and moves towards its domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010. Longer term, the UK aims to strengthen its action further by putting itself on a path to a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to(a) survey and (b) monitor the UK's future biodiversity in respect of insects. [165309]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  An organisation called the National Biodiversity Network Trust is currently co-ordinating actions by a range of interested parties to bring together the biological recording efforts of volunteers and agencies. The work of the NBN Trust is supported by 1202W
  the Government agencies responsible for biodiversity and the Government support this work through the grant-in-aid to these agencies.

  In addition, DEFRA has provided financial support for specific surveys such as the Millennium Butterfly Atlas and monitoring work on butterflies on land subject to agri-environment schemes. Species of particular concern are subject to individual specific action under the Biodiversity Action Plan and Government support this process through their conservation agencies in England, Wales and Scotland and the Environment and Heritage Service in Northern Ireland. Volunteers, through their relevant national schemes or societies, carry out much of the survey and monitoring work on priority species.

  The vast majority of information on the distribution, status and trends of species comes from the activities of volunteers. These are individuals with a special interest in insects who give freely of their spare time. A key part of the work of the NBN Trust is about supporting these people and encouraging the next generation of biological recorders. Replacing the effort of volunteers with contracted survey would be extremely costly and need continued funding. The Government support the work of the NBN Trust as the primary mechanism to secure the continued supply of information from volunteers through capacity building of support networks at national and local scale.

  We believe that the short life spans and diverse needs of insects make some of them good indicators of environmental change. Information on the status and trends in insects, and other plants and animals, would be extremely helpful in both detecting adverse change and identifying sustainable practices. We recognise that some groups of insects do not have the resources necessary to provide a comprehensive baseline of information and more resources are needed. DEFRA is currently exploring options for improving surveillance and monitoring of species, including insects, and will consider future funding in the light of discussions with the conservation agencies and representatives of voluntary conservation organisations.

  Land Distribution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many hectares were classified as(a) grassland, (b) land for crop growing, (c) woodland, (d) urban, (e) suburban and (f) semi-natural vegetation in each year since 1974 in the UK, broken down by (i) region and (ii) county. [165805]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Estimates of the area of farmland in England which is classified as grassland, crops and bare fallow, and other agricultural land is available from the Agricultural Census for the years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2001 and 2002. Estimates of the area of woodland in England in 1995–99 is available from the Forestry Commission, while information on the extent of urban areas (including suburban land) in England in 1981, 1991 and 2001 is available from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. No separate information is available on the extent of semi-natural land in England. A copy of the available information will be made available in the
  1203W
  Library of the House. Information about the area of land in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland falls under the jurisdiction of the devolved authorities.

  Market and Coastal Towns Initiative
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress by each Regional Development Agency on the Market and Coastal Towns Initiative; and what the budget for each RDA was for each year of the initiative. [167859]

  Alun Michael
  When the announcement of the funding was made, it was envisaged that 100 towns would benefit but I am pleased to report that, through the innovative methods used in each of the regions, 227 towns are currently receiving support.

  The Rural White Paper offered funding of £37 million to enable the Regional Development Agencies and the Countryside Agency to support market town regeneration in the regions over a period of three years (2000–01 to 2003–04).

  £32 million was allocated to the Regional Development Agencies and £5 million to the Countryside Agency. The funding for the Regional Development Agencies was incorporated in the DEFRA contribution to their Single Programme, to enable regional partnerships to target towns in their region according to selection criteria agreed regionally. The initiative was not established as a national funding programme with an annual budget for each agency.

  The start of the initiative was delayed in many of the regions due to the foot and mouth crisis, with some regions not launching their own initiatives or incurring spend until last year. For this reason data from the Regional Development Agencies on their expenditure is unlikely to be available until the initiative is evaluated, which DEFRA is currently discussing with the Regional Development Agencies.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she intends to take to ensure that questions tabled for a named day response are answered on the specified day. [167789]

  Alun Michael
  I have explained to officials at DEFRA the importance attached by parliamentarians to receiving a full and prompt reply to formal questions. I have asked for further steps to be taken to make sure that this is fully understood in every part of the Department. It must be understood that there is a cost to providing answers, both in financial terms and in the time of officials that has to be diverted to providing answers or to meeting a deadline in the case of "named day" questions and that some information is simply not available in the form requested. I and my Ministerial colleagues are always willing to discuss the needs of Members.

  Salmon
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what systems are in place to regulate the operational activities of commercial salmon farmers in the UK. [165565]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  All fish farms are subject to EU and national legislative controls to prevent the introduction and spread of serious fish disease. Under these arrangements all farms must be registered or licensed as required by the appropriate Fisheries Department and keep a record of the movement of fish for disease control purposes. Controls also apply to the import and export of farmed fish.

  All salmon farms require a Crown Estate lease and development consent, and are subject to conservation and environmental measures. The use of medicines on fish farms and welfare of farmed fish are also subject to control.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment has been made of the health of the wild salmon population in the UK. [165569]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Assessments of the current state of wild salmon stocks in UK have been compiled in the last month in Scotland (by Fisheries Research Services), in England and Wales (by CEFAS and the Environment Agency) and in Northern Ireland (by DARDNI). These reports have been submitted to the North Atlantic Salmon Working Group of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), which is meeting currently, and will be used to provide an overall assessment of the status of salmon stocks throughout the North Atlantic for submission to the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO). The report for England and Wales has been published and may be obtained from the Environment Agency. The annual statistical bulletin, Scottish Salmon and Sea Trout Catches, 2003, is scheduled for publication in late summer.

  Severely Disadvantaged Areas
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms are currently classed as containing both severely disadvantaged area and non-severely disadvantaged area land. [168032]

  Alun Michael
  We currently do not classify farm businesses in the way requested. However, in 2003, 8,261 farmers claimed Hill Farm Allowance on both severely disadvantaged and disadvantaged (i.e. non-severely-disadvantaged) land. Holdings of less than 10 hectares are excluded from HFA, and so are not included in this figure. Neither would it include farm businesses with severely disadvantaged land and land ineligible for HFA, but no disadvantaged land.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what resources her Department makes available to local authorities for Sites of Special Scientific Interest; and how much was made available in 2003–04. [164971]
  1205W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The overall funding requirements of local authorities is a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Department does not provide direct funding to local authorities specifically for the management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). SSSI landowners and managers, such as local authorities, are able to access, subject to conditions, a variety of funding streams which can benefit SSSIs, including from English Nature, agri-environment schemes and from lottery or EU sources. English Nature estimate that overall local authorities own or manage about 4.7 per cent. of England's SSSI land.

  St. George's Day
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Country Land and Business Association about St. George's Day breakfasts. [167863]

  Alun Michael
  The Government recognises the benefits of local food and welcomes initiatives like the Country Land and Business Association's (CLA) initiative that aim to encourage people to buy more locally sourced foods. Money is available under the England Rural Development Programme to support activities such as the establishment of Farmers' Markets, the development of regional and local branding of food and the formation of co-operative groups to market quality products. DEFRA has also worked with the Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) to produce best practice guides designed to show how supermarkets and food service companies can work with small local producers and explore how barriers to local sourcing can be overcome. In addition to this, our Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative is designed to encourage public sector bodies to procure their food in a manner that promotes sustainable development and to encourage more small and local businesses to compete to supply them with food.

  The CLA initiative also complements the Government's three-year programme of support for the quality regional food sector which is being delivered by Food From Britain. This £3 million programme aims to promote the quality regional food sector and consists of a range of activities focussing on trade development, increasing competitiveness and raising consumer awareness.

  Stone Curlews
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the boundaries of the Breckland Farmland Site of Special Scientific Interest to reflect changes in the stone curlew population. [165128]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State has no role in the determination of the boundaries of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), this is a matter for English Nature.

  I understand however, that English Nature has no plans at this time to recommend changes to the boundary of the Breckland Farmland SSSI. Survey and monitoring of the number and distribution of stone curlews is carried out annually throughout Breckland. This data is regularly reviewed to assess any significant changes in the population and its distribution.
  1206W
  If, in the future, there is evidence that parts of the SSSI no longer support the special interest (breeding stone curlew) or that areas beyond the existing SSSI boundary become important, the legislation provides that English Nature has the discretion to de-notify parts of the site or extend the SSSI boundary to incorporate any new areas that may qualify.

  Trees
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the percentage tree cover in each EU member state was(a) on the latest date for which figures are available, (b) 10 years ago and (c) 20 years ago. [165798]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Based on information collected by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation forest as a percentage of land area is given in the table as follows.

  Country

  20001

  19901

  19802

  Austria

  47

  46

  45

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  22

  23

  23

  Denmark

  11

  10

  11

  Finland

  72

  72

  76

  France

  28

  27

  28

  Germany

  31

  31

  29

  Greece

  28

  26

  45

  Ireland

  10

  7

  6

  Italy

  34

  33

  27

  Netherlands

  11

  11

  10

  Portugal

  40

  34

  35

  Spain

  29

  27

  25

  Sweden

  66

  66

  68

  United Kingdom

  12

  11

  9

  Notes:

  1FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Definitions of forest can vary between countries and over time.

  2 FAO The Forest Resources of the ECE Region, published 1985. The years covered vary between countries, although most are around 1980. Definitions of forest can vary between countries.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps(a) have been taken and (b) are planned to improve tree health. [165800]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The need to maintain, and improve where necessary, the health and vitality of trees is integral to the government's approach to sustainable forest management. We have set this out in the UK Forestry Standard and its supporting literature, which contain many specific measures for protecting woodland and improving tree health. All woodland management by the Forestry Commission is consistent with this standard and we expect private woodland owners that receive grant aid from the Forestry Commission to also meet the standard. The government has encouraged the development of the voluntary UK Woodland Assurance Standard that provides an independent verification of compliance with good practice and measures to ensure the continuing good health of woodland. We shall continue to ensure compliance with the UK Forest Standard in those woods managed by the Forestry Commission and encourage it in the private sector. We will improve, through research, our knowledge of factors affecting
  1207W
  tree health and we shall maintain a vigilant guard against the establishment of non-native pests and diseases.

  Upland Farms (Environmental Management)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she intends to take to ensure that farms in uplands are rewarded for improved environmental management of their land. [168948]

  Alun Michael
  A significant proportion of farmers in the uplands are already participating in our Environmentally Sensitive Area or Countryside Stewardship Schemes.

  Next year we plan to roll out our new agri-environment scheme called Environmental Stewardship. The Entry Level of that scheme will be available to all upland farmers and we hope that many more of them will decide to join it.

  Woodlands
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total(a) area and (b) production in cubic metres of (i) broadleaf and (ii) coniferous woodland was in each year since 1980 (A) in England and (B) broken down by region. [165799]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A national woodland survey is carried out by the Forestry Commission at intervals of between 15 and 20 years. Comparative areas of woodland1 in 1980 and 1998 were published in the latest National Inventory of Woodland and Trees, Regional Inventory reports. The figures are given in the following table.

  Thousand hectares

  19802

  19983

  Region

  Broadleaves

  Conifers

  Broadleaves

  Conifers

  North-East

  16.2

  73.3

  24.5

  69.2

  North-West

  33.0

  39.4

  46.7

  39.8

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  39.0

  37.4

  46.1

  35.4

  East Midlands

  37.8

  21.6

  52.9

  17.9

  West Midlands

  44.1

  28.3

  63.1

  25.7

  East of England

  59.4

  40.7

  90.2

  37.5

  London

  5.4

  0.3

  5.5

  0.2

  South East

  138.2

  59.1

  173.6

  52.4

  South West

  95.7

  63.8

  137.4

  60.8

  Total England

  468.8

  363.9

  640.0

  338.9

  1Excluding open space, coppice and felled areas awaiting replanting.

  21980 Census of Woodland.

  3National Inventory of Woodland and Trees—Regional Inventory Reports. Reference dates varied by region 1995 to 1999.

  4Differences in sampling methodology between 1980 and 1998 may account for some of the differences.

  5In the 1980 Census the area assigned to broadleaves and conifers included any associated open space such as roads and rides. In the 1998 Inventory open spaces are separately identified and to obtain meaningful comparison between the two datasets the 1980 Census data has been reduced by the percentage of open space identified in the 1998 Inventory (nationally 6.5 per cent.).

  Timber production is not recorded by region and the estimate for total England production is given in the following table.
  1208W

  1Removals in million cubic metres overbark standing

  Hardwoods (from broadleafed trees)

  Softwood (from conifer trees)

  1980

  1.2

  1.3

  1981

  1.2

  1.3

  1982

  1.0

  1.4

  1983

  0.8

  1.4

  1984

  0.8

  1.5

  1985

  0.9

  1.5

  1986

  0.9

  1.7

  1987

  0.8

  1.9

  1988

  1.1

  2.3

  1989

  1.2

  2.5

  1990

  1.1

  2.5

  1991

  1.1

  2.5

  1992

  0.8

  2.6

  1993

  0.7

  2.3

  1994

  0.8

  2.6

  1995

  0.9

  2.5

  1996

  0.8

  2.4

  1997

  0.8

  2.2

  1998

  0.7

  2.1

  1999

  0.7

  2.2

  2000

  0.6

  2.1

  2001

  0.6

  2.0

  2002

  0.6

  1.8

  1Based on figures put fished in Forestry Facts and Figures for 1980–94, adjusted to consistent definition. Later figures for private sector removals estimated from a GB survey for 2000–02 and interpolated.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Prisoners (Thailand)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to obtain pardons for British prisoners incarcerated in Thai prisons; and if he will make a statement. [168719]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 1 April 2004, the Government agreed to make representations to the Thai authorities in support of a clemency petition submitted by a British prisoner in Thailand.

  China
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government concerning(a) the repatriation of the North Korean refugee Mr. Park Yong-chol (alias Jo Yong-su) from China to North Korea and (b) the mistreatment of the Chinese house church leader Pastor Gong Shengliang while in prison in Hongshan Prison, Wuhan City, Hubei Province. [168799]

  Mr. Rammell
  We regularly raise the issue of North Korean border crossers at the biannual UK-China Human Rights Dialogue and on other high level occasions. We are aware of the case of Mr. Park. The European Commission has recently suggested that the EU should raise the matter urgently with the Chinese authorities; this is now under consideration by the EU presidency.

  We have raised Pastor Gong Shengliang's case with the Chinese authorities on several occasions. We supported an EU demarche in Beijing in July last year on this case.

  Climate Change
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made by his Department of the implications for national security of climate change. [168840]

  Mr. Caplin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Ministry of Defence is reviewing the implications of climate change for national security as part of its wider assessment of strategic trends that might impact on the United Kingdom's interests.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 26 January 2004 with regard to Mosamuat Meherun Nessa Begum. [168926]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my right hon. Friend to my answer of 8 March 2004,Official Report, column 1316W.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 1 March 2004 with regard to Mr. Hachemi Nessai. [168927]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied on 25 March 2004. However, he will write again shortly.

  Departmental Employment Policy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's employment termination policy for locally-engaged members of staff. [166919]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts overseas the rights of all locally engaged employees are protected by local law.

  Every post is required to set out the termination procedure in the Terms and Conditions of Service given to each employee on appointment.

  Procedures for terminating employment therefore vary across posts.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many employment termination cases of locally-engaged members of staff have been(a) disputed and (b) taken to arbitration; and in how many instances the findings have been in favour of the member of staff. [166921]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Locally engaged employees have the right to take their case to a local court if they have a dispute over the termination of their employment. To obtain details from each overseas post would incur disproportionate costs.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much severance pay has been awarded to his Department's locally-engaged members of staff in each year since 1997, broken down by country. [166922]
  1210W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Severance pay for locally engaged employees of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is governed according to local law and practice in the country the employee is working. To obtain figures from each overseas post would incur disproportionate costs.

  Departmental Expenditure (Entertainment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of the amount spent by his Department on official entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [169007]

  Mr. Rammell
  Comparable information is available only for the years 2000–01 to 2004–05. The following figures show the actual spend on entertainment within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the first three years, with a forecast for 2003–04 and 2004–05 based upon expenditure to date.

  £

  2000–01

  8,337,306

  2001–02

  8,708,262

  2002–03

  8,612,247

  2003–04

  18.135,315

  2001—

  17,687,873

  1Estimated.

  All expenditure on entertainment within the Department is carefully monitored to ensure that it is made in accordance with departmental guidance that is based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  Fingerprinting (USA Entry)
  Mr. Henry Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations she has received from the travel industry regarding the fingerprinting of British citizens wishing to travel to the United States; and if she will make a statement. [168918]

  Mr. Mullin
  There have been no formal representations by the travel industry, although the finger-scanning of British citizens on arrival in the United States has been discussed in our regular meetings with the industry.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution his Department is making to the reconciliation process in Sulawesi. [168575]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK's Global Conflict Prevention Pool is used in Indonesia to facilitate inter-faith dialogue. DFID has also committed over £4 million to help establish the United Nations Development Programme Conflict Prevention and Recovery Unit in Jakarta. The unit will help build up capacity in conflict reduction and recovery in provinces torn apart by religious conflict, such as Sulawesi and Maluku.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the
  1211W
  Government are giving to the tribunal and its staff investigating crimes by Saddam Hussein; and if he will make a statement. [168934]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our secondees in the Coalition Provisional Authority Office of Human Rights and Transitional Justice have provided assistance with the drafting of the Statute, Rules of Procedure and Elements of Crime for the Iraq Special Tribunal (IST). They have also developed the investigations strategy and mass grave action plan for the IST. We have agreed to Iraqi requests to provide further assistance, possibilities for which include: forensic expertise; judicial training; judicial advisers; and public education and outreach. And we have agreed to provide the IST Administration Department with a list of international investigators and analysts to support Iraqi capacity. We are also encouraging other EU partners to consider favourably requests for assistance from the Iraqis.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what period of production is represented by the $7,855,209,215.35 received from oil proceeds by the Development Fund for Iraq up to 16 April 2004; and if he will make a statement. [169157]

  Mr. Straw
  The $7,855,209,215.35 received from oil proceeds by the Development Fund for Iraq up to 16 April represents the period of production from 28 May 2003 to mid-March 2004.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future role of the International Advisory Monitoring Board in monitoring and auditing the Development Fund for Iraq after 30 June 2004. [169158]

  Mr. Straw
  The International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB), as specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 and the IAMB Terms of Reference, wall cease to be responsible for the auditing of the Development Fund for Iraq once a fully sovereign Iraqi Government has been established. The UK Government would like to see arrangements put in place acceptable to the Iraqi interim administration for the independent and credible audit of Iraqi's oil revenues following the transfer of sovereignty. We are currently in discussion with the Iraqi authorities, the UN international financial institutions, and other countries on how this objective might be best achieved.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed appointment of voting Iraqi members to the Board of the International Advisory Monitoring Board. [169159]

  Mr. Straw
  We are not aware of voting Iraqi members being appointed to the Board of the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB). The IAMB comprises voting members from the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development and the World Bank.

  The IAMB, after consulting with the Coalition Provisional Authority administrator, may appoint up to five observers to IAMB meetings, including Iraqi nationals nominated by the Governing Council of Iraq.
  1212W
  The IAMB in its press statement of 24 April 2004 welcomed Iraqi Governing Council observer Professor Mandi Hadi Al-Kafari, and Mr Ihsan Ghanim representing the Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit, to the IAMB. Other Iraqi observers have been invited to IAMB meetings in the past. IAMB observers are not members of the IAMB and have no voting rights.

  Small Grants Scheme
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much is available this year for distribution under the small grants scheme by the UK Ambassador or High Commissioner in each country in which the scheme operates; and how nitwit was distributed in each country in each of the last three years. [168813]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has not operated a Small Grants Scheme (SGS) in the past three years. However, an SGS is run and managed by the Department for International Development (DFID). A proportion of DFID's SGS is disbursed through FCO Posts but is not charged to the FCO budget.

  South Africa
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) South Africa's Defence Minister, Mosiuoa Lekota, and (b) other members of the Government of South Africa concerning the proposed creation of a South African standby force by 2005; and if he will make a statement. [168557]

  Mr. Mullin
  The African Union aims to establish an African Standby Force (ASF) for peace support operations on the continent. The ASF will be set up in two phases. Phase one is due to be completed by 2005 and phase two by 2010. It will be based on five regional brigades, including one from southern Africa.

  We regularly discuss this initiative with the South African authorities, who are playing a key role. The UK is providing practical assistance, including through training by the British Peace Support Team in Pretoria.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met South African Defence Minister, Lekota, on 8 March. They discussed a range of subjects, including the African Union.

  United Arab Emirates
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what joint activity the UK undertakes with the United Arab Emirates on counter-terrorism. [168572]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have a close and high-level counter-terrorism dialogue with the UAE authorities. The Government currently supplies training and advice on money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as extensive customs training. We are also developing a range of capacity building initiatives in the counter terrorism area.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  "Oil Crises and Climate Challenges"
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish her response to the International Energy Agency's publication, "Oil Crises and Climate Challenges". [168636]

  Mr. Timms
  The IEA carries out detailed analytical work on a wide range of energy policy issues and produces a considerable number of publications each year. As other IEA members, the UK is able to contribute to the nature and content of individual IEA publications when they are still in the draft stage. The Department, therefore, does not generally view it as necessary to make official responses to IEA publications. It has not made an official response to this publication and does not intend to do so.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) nature and (b) value was of all contracts, consultancies or other services placed with the accountancy firms (i) Deloitte & Touche, (ii) Ernst & Young, (iii) KPMG and (iv) PricewaterhouseCoopers since 2000–01 by the Department and its agencies. [166086]

  Jacqui Smith
  Central records indicate the following values for the three financial years since 2000–01:

  Supplier/financial year

  Spend (£)

  Deloitte & Touche

  2001–02

  6,504,084

  2002–03

  10,784,757

  2003–04

  12,105,274

  Ernst & Young

  2001–02

  1,289,628

  2002–03

  1,625,512

  2003–04

  2,615,137

  KPMG

  2001–02

  94,347

  2002–03

  236,976

  2003–04

  2,121,207

  PricewaterhouseCooper

  2001–02

  3,507,357

  2002–03

  9,297,179

  2003–04

  5,776,612

  The nature of these contracts included research, IT services and consultancy, market research, financial consultancy, legal services and consultancy, training and project management. Details of individual contracts can be obtained only at disproportion are cost.

  I have asked the Department's Executive Agencies to reply direct to the hon. Member. Small Business Service's figures are included in the. table.

  Letter from Ron Marchant to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 29 April 2004:

  I am replying to this parliamentary question, tabled on 1 April 2004, concerning the nature and value of all contracts, consultancies or other services placed wit h the accountancy firms (i) Deloitte & Touche, (ii) Ernst & Young, (iii) KPMG and (iv) PricewaterhouseCoopers since 2000–01.

  The Patent Office has not let contracts, consultancies or other services with the aforementioned accountancy firms during the above period.
  1214W
  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 29 April 2004:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to you directly on behalf of The Insolvency Service in respect of your question (2003/2390) asking what the (a) nature and (b) value was all contracts, consultancies and other services placed with the accountancy firms (i) Deloitte & Touche, (ii) Ernst & Young, (iii) KPMG and (IV) PricewaterhouseCoopers since 2000–01 by the Department and agencies.

  I can confirm that The Insolvency Service has had no contracts, consultancies or other services with any of the above-named firms since 2000–01.

  Letter from Dr. J. W. Llewellyn to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 29 April 2004:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question about the nature and value of all contracts, consultancies and other services placed with Deloitte and Touche, Ernst and Young, KPMG and PriceWaterhouseCoopers since 2000–2001.

  Since 2000–01 NWML has not placed any work with the accountancy firms listed.

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 29 April 2004:

  I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of Companies House, which is an Executive Agency of the DTL.

  Since 2000/01 we have had one contract with Ernst and Young for an HR review in 2003 with a total value of £27,095.94.

  We have not had any contracts with Deloitte and Touche, KPMG or PricewaterhouseCoopers.

  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 29 April 2004:

  You asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the (a) nature and (b) value was of all contracts, consultancies or other services placed with the accountancy firms (i) Deloitte & Touche, (ii) Ernst & Young, (iii) KPMG and (iv) PricewaterhouseCoopers since 2000–01 by the Department and its agencies. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Employment Tribunals Service.

  The Employment Tribunals Service used Deloitte and Touche in 2001 to undertake a Pay and Grading Review. The cost of the review was £50,000. The project was completed in May 2001.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of electricity has been generated from renewable sources in each of the last seven years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [168056]

  Mr. Timms
  The percentages of electricity derived from renewable sources in the each of the seven years from 1997 to 2003 are as follows:

  Percentage

  Overall

  Sources eligible for Renewable Obligation

  1997

  2.12

  0.78

  1998

  2.55

  0.95

  1999

  2.76

  1.18

  2000

  2.75

  1.32

  2001

  2.62

  1.52

  2002

  2.96

  1.74

  2003 (Provisional)

  2.9

  2.0

  Source:

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2003 and Digests for earlier years.

  1215W
  This overall renewables percentage includes both biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes and large scale hydro. The amount of electricity produced using hydro sources varies from year to year depending on the rainfall. Low precipitation during the winters of 2000–01 and 2002–03 resulted in low hydro output during 2001 and 2003 hence the fall in generation from renewables in those years.

  Source eligible for the Renewables Obligation are biofuels (including the co-firing of biomass with fossil fuel), onshore and offshore wind, all new hydro, refurbished hydro up to 20 MW (commissioned before 1990), solar photovoltaics and wave and tidal technologies. As more and more onshore and offshore wind projects are commissioned, we can expect to see substantial growth in the amount of renewables electricity output over the coming years.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates she has made of the expected generation costs per MWh for(a) wind and (b) nuclear technologies in (i) 2010 and (ii) 2020. [169776]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has published estimates of the cost of electricity generation from a variety of technologies. These are contained in a report published in February 2002 available at: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/greenhousegas/index.shtml.

  The Performance and Innovation Unit at the Cabinet Office also published similar estimates in its 2001 Energy Review. These are available at: www.number-10.gov.uk/su/energy/1.html.

  Work undertaken for the Renewables Innovation Review covering wind generation costs is also available at: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewables/policy/oxeraresults.pdf.

  EU Emissions Trading Scheme
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what range of prices for carbon is being included in her Department's forward energy projections from 2005 onwards, with reference to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. [167765]

  Mr. Timms
  We have considered a range for the price of a carbon emission allowance from €5 per tonne to €25 per tonne of carbon dioxide (tCO2) for our forward energy projections and other work related to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). We expect the carbon price to be towards the lower end of the range. EU ETS carbon allowances are currently trading at about €7 per tonne of CO2, albeit on low sales volumes.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the average age is of an employee in the manufacturing industry in(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK; and what it has been in each year since 1997; [166768]

  (2) how many people employed in the (a) manufacturing industry and (b) service sector have been over 50 years old in (i) the Jarrow constituency, (ii) South Tyneside, (iii) the North East and (iv) the UK in each year since 1997; [166769]
  1216W
  (3) how many (a) men and (b) women have been employed in the service sector in (i) the Jarrow constituency, (ii) South Tyneside, (iii) the North East and (iv) the UK in each year since 1997; [166770]

  (4) how many (a) women and (b) people have been employed in the manufacturing industry in (i) the Jarrow constituency, (ii) South Tyneside, (iii) the North East and (iv) the UK in each year since 1997; [166771]

  (5) what the average age has been of an employee in the service sector in (a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [166772]

  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. Stephen Hepburn, dated 29 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about employment in Jarrow constituency and at regional and national level. (166768, 166769, 166770, 166771, 166772)

  The attached tables give the information requested for

  Jarrow Parliamentary Constituency.

  South Tyneside Local Authority,

  the North East, and

  the UK

  for the twelve month periods ending February each year from 2000 to 2002.

  Information is not currently available for earlier or later periods, although the data for the twelve month period ending in February 2003 is to be published by ONS on 28 April 2004. Estimates are taken from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). As with any statistical sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

  Table 1: Number of employees in the manufacturing and service sectors in selected areas (not seasonally adjusted) by gender, 12 month periods ending February 2000, 2001 and 2002

  Thousand

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Manufacturing sector1

  All employees

  Jarrow Constituency

  10

  7

  8

  South Tyneside

  12

  11

  12

  North East

  194

  187

  188

  United Kingdom

  4,420

  4,271

  4,188

  Male

  Jarrow Constituency

  7

  6

  6

  South Tyneside

  10

  9

  10

  North East

  147

  146

  141

  United Kingdom

  3,226

  3,141

  3,069

  Female

  Jarrow Constituency

  2—

  2—

  2—

  South Tyneside

  2—

  2

  3

  North East

  47

  41

  46

  United Kingdom

  1,193

  1,130

  1,119

  Service sector1

  All employees

  Jarrow Constituency

  22

  23

  22

  South Tyneside

  35

  38

  38

  North East

  654

  689

  697

  United Kingdom

  17,280

  17,626

  17,941

  1217W

  Table 1: Number of employees in the manufacturing and service sectors in selected areas (not seasonally adjusted) by gender, 12 month periods ending February 2000, 2001 and 2002

  Thousand

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Male

  Jarrow Constituency

  9

  9

  9

  South Tyneside

  12

  15

  15

  North East

  256

  278

  279

  United Kingdom

  7,437

  7,583

  7,732

  Female

  Jarrow Constituency

  14

  13

  14

  South Tyneside

  23

  23

  23

  North East

  398

  411

  418

  United Kingdom

  9,843

  10,043

  10,209

  1Manufacturing and service sectors ate based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 1992.

  2Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey.

  Table 2: Number of employees in manufacturing and service sectors aged over 501 (not seasonally adjusted) 12 month periods ending February 2000, 2001 and 2002

  Thousand

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Manufacturing sector2 All employees

  Jarrow Constituency

  3—

  3—

  3—

  South Tyneside

  3—

  2

  2

  North East

  31

  36

  36

  United Kingdom

  947

  920

  922

  Service sector2

  Jarrow Constituency

  3—

  4

  4

  South Tyneside

  6

  7

  7

  North East

  126

  129

  136

  United Kingdom

  3,378

  3,520

  3,676

  1Includes employees aged 50 to 99.

  2Manufacturing and service sectors are based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 1992.

  3 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  1Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey.

  Table 3: Average age of employees in manufacturing and service sectors (not seasonally adjusted) 12 month periods ending February 2000, 2001 and 2002

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Manufacturing sector1

  Jarrow Constituency

  37

  37

  38

  South Tyneside

  37

  38

  39

  North East

  37

  39

  39

  United Kingdom

  39

  39

  40

  Service sector1

  Jarrow Constituency

  38

  39

  39

  South Tyneside

  38

  38

  38

  North East

  38

  38

  38

  United Kingdom

  38

  38

  38

  1Manufacturing and service sectors are based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 1992.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey.

  Miners' Compensation
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average payment made to 1218W
  solicitors was in (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful cases for (i) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and (ii) vibration white finger claims. [168475]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 26 April 2004]: The solicitors' costs are paid on a tariff basis, under the terms of the Claims Handling Agreements (CHA). Costs are only payable for successful claims, there are no costs payable for unsuccessful claims.

  Under the CHA the basic costs are:

  Costs (£)1

  COPD

  Settled expedited offers

  955

  Settled full and final offers

  1,856

  Settled chronic bronchitis only

  531

  VWF2

  General damages claims in Group 1 occupations3

  652

  General damages claims in Group 2 occupations4

  760

  1Plus VAT plus disbursements.

  2 Costs for handling services claims are not yet agreed.

  3 Group 1 occupations incorporates the occupations where generally in the coal mining industry the use of hand held vibratory or percussive tools was recognised as a substantial part of the occupation.

  4Group 2 occupations incorporates the occupations where in the coal mining industry the use of hand held vibratory or percussive tools was not necessarily a substantial part of the job, however use by individuals within the group, may well have been significant.

  Note:

  In addition solicitors receive additional payments for handling Grant of Probates, disputes procedures and posthumous claims.

  National Allocation Plan
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what energy assumptions have influenced her Department's policy on the appropriate carbon dioxide reduction target relative to 1990 levels within the National Allocation Plan to implement the EU Emissions Trading Directive. [167755]

  Mr. Timms
  The draft National Allocation Plan (NAP) indicated that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) would be responsible for delivering the remaining savings of 1.5 million tonnes of Carbon (MtC) (equivalent to 5.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide) from 1990 levels by 2010 envisaged under the UK Climate Change Programme from emissions trading for which there are no policies currently in place. With the exception of the power generation sector, allowances to installations have been allocated on the basis of their projected emissions for the first phase of the scheme, which runs from 2005–07. These projections take account of updated estimates of the impacts and policy measures set out in the Climate Change Programme which have already been implemented or for which there are firm plans. Allowances to the power generation sector have been allocated on the basis that this sector will be responsible for the emissions trading savings of 1.5 MtC to be delivered by the EU ETS. This reflects the fact that the power generation sector faces limited international competition and has relatively good low-cost abatement opportunities.
  1219W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets in(a) the draft National Allocation Plan and (b) the climate change programme. [167762]

  Mr. Timms
  The UK Climate Change Programme envisaged that emissions trading would deliver carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions of 2 million tonnes of Carbon (MtC) (equivalent to 7.3 million tonnes of CO2) by 2010. As the UK Emissions Trading Scheme is expected to lead to CO2 reductions of about 0.5 MtC (1.8 MtCO2), the draft National Allocation Plan (NAP) indicated that the Government had decided that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) would be used to achieve the remaining savings of 1.5 MtC (5.5 MtCO2) by 2010.

  The draft NAP confirmed that the UK is firmly committed to its domestic goal set out in the 2000 Climate Change Programme of moving towards a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2010. Subject to a review of the effectiveness of the EU ETS as a vehicle for delivering cost effective emissions reductions, it is intended that the total quantity of allowances to be issued for the second phase of the Scheme running from 2008 to 2012 will be set to ensure that installations covered by the Scheme make an appropriate contribution to that goal. This will be taken into account in the review of the Climate Change Programme which will take place later this year.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent the requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive with regard to energy efficiency have been taken into account in future energy projections for the UK. [167763]

  Mr. Timms
  In practice, the impact of this Directive is likely to vary according to the installation considered and there is a good deal of uncertainty about how the Directive will impact in overall terms. In general, the DTI energy model does not make projections for installations to this level of detail. In modelling the power station sector, a modest improvement in energy efficiency has been assumed to take place at existing coal fired power stations.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will reconcile her revised growth projections for the UK iron and steel industry with the increases set out in the draft National Allocation Plan. [167764]

  Mr. Timms
  Following publication for consultation of the draft National Allocation Plan for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) in January, work to refine our energy and emissions projections has continued. We will be publishing a working paper on overall emissions projections in May and a final set of emissions projections for the iron and steel and other sectors covered by the EU ETS in June or soon after. These projections will be used in determining the revised sectoral allocations to be included in the National Allocation Plan.

  Post Office Closures
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices have been closed in Scotland as part of the urban reinvention programme. [170051]

  Mr. Timms
  Post Office Ltd. produces statistics on post office closures on a quarterly basis. The latest data on net closures by region currently available is to the end of December 2003. Data for the quarter to end March 2004 is expected shortly.

  There have been 35 post office closures in Scotland under the urban reinvention programme to end of December 2003.

  Renewable Energy
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effects of recent trends in investment in renewable energy and upon the residents of Heywood and Middleton. [168434]

  Mr. Timms
  Recent trends in renewable energy investment have been highly 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 Heywood and Middleton itself, Renewables Northwest, a join: venture between the Regional Development Agency. and United Utilities, has been working with local businesses on identifying opportunities in the renewable energy area.

  Solar Heating
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to promote greater use of solar heating panels in the UK. [169368]

  Mr. Timms
  The Clear Skies initiative was launched in January 2003 in order to promote the uptake of a number of renewable technologies including solar heating panels. Grants are available to both individual householders and community groups in order to install solar heating panels. The initiative also has a list of registered installers and has developed a mentoring scheme in order to train future installers and increase the amount of companies able to install these technologies.

  Further details of the initiative, including grant levels, can be found on the website at www.clear-skies.org.

  The Scottish Executive has its own parallel scheme, The Scottish Community and Household Renewables Initiative, which also offers grants for the installation of solar heating panels. Further details can be found on the website www.est.co.uk/schri.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many households in the UK she estimates use solar heating panels; and what her estimate is of use in five years' time. [169369]
  1221W
  Mr. Timms
  The DTI does not keep a record of solar heating installations but according to figures from the Building Research Establishment it is estimated that there are approximately 60,000 solar heating systems installed in the UK.

  At current installation rates of approximately 5,000 per year, there could potentially be a further 25,000 installations in five years time, assuming none of the current installations are removed.

  Telephone Billing
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many disputes regarding telephone billing costs between customer and service providers were referred to Ofcom and its predecessors in each of the last five years; and how many of these were upheld in favour of(a) the customer and (b) the service provider. [169375]

  Mr. Timms
  The matter raised is the responsibility of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) as independent regulator. Accordingly, my officials have asked the Chief Executive of Ofcom to respond directly to the hon. Member. Copies of the Chief Executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

HEALTH

  Asperger's Syndrome
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will set up an inquiry into the number of(a) adolescents and (b) adults with an Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis; and if he will make a statement. [168602]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department has no plans to set up an inquiry of this type. The Medical Research Council (MRC) published a comprehensive review of autism research in December 2001, which provides an authoritative overview of the current state of knowledge on the prevalence, incidence and causes of autism and Asperger's syndrome. The report was commissioned by the Department. It is available on the MRC website at http://www.mrc.ac.uk/pdf-autism-report.pdf

  The MRC report notes that according to recent reviews, there appears fairly consistent agreement that autism spectrum disorders affect approximately 60, and more narrowly defined autism 10–30, per 10,000 children under eight years old. The prevalence of autism and Asperger's syndrome among adult and adolescent populations is not known.

  The Department allocated a further £2.5 million in February 2002 to the MRC to help take forward the recommendations of their report.

  The MRC held a series of four seminars to encourage the development of good quality applications for autism research funding between December 2002 and July 2003. On 11 July 2003, the MRC held the first of its annual forums for autism research, "Breaking barriers, building bridges", in conjunction with the National Autistic Society, to bring together ideas stimulated by the four seminars, one of which had addressed "Autism in Populations".
  1222W
  The MRC will be taking decisions on the allocation of research project funding for further autism studies in May 2004.

  Competent Authorities (EU Accession States)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the European Commission has provided a list of competent authorities operating in the accession states in respect of the health and social care profession to his Department. [165902]

  Mr. Hutton
  No. The European Commission hopes to provide this information shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne of 4 February, PO 1043915, regarding continuing care criteria. [165065]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 1 April 2004]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 27 April 2004.

  European Health Training Standards
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) whether his Department has asked the European Commission to introduce transitional arrangements for health professionals from the new member states who do not meet the minimum training standards specified in the European Community directives on medicine, nursing, midwifery and dentistry by 1 May; [165222]

  (2) when the European Commission will make a statement on the readiness of the 10 new member states to meet the minimum training standards specified in the European Community directives on medicine, nursing, midwifery and dentistry by 1 May; [165223]

  (3) what powers the UK health regulators will have in relation to the assessment of individuals whose training may not meet minimum EU training requirements as specified in the European Community directives on medicine, nursing, midwifery and dentistry; [165224]

  (4) what action the European Commission will take against those accession states that do not meet the minimum training standards specified in the European Community directives on medicine, nursing, midwifery and dentistry by 1 May; [165225]

  (5) what efforts his Department has made to secure information from the European Commission as to which of the 10 new member states will have met the minimum training standards specified in the European Community directives on medicine, nursing, midwifery and dentistry by 1 May; and what work his Department has done in co-operation with other member states to secure that information. [165226]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 April 2004]: We are in regular contact with the European Commission and the other member states on this issue. The Commission's assessment is that training in all the acceding countries will meet minimum requirements after 1 May. It is for the Commission to determine what action to take in relation to any acceding countries that do not meet these requirements. Where the qualifications awarded by the acceding countries do not meet minimum requirements,

  1223W
  the regulatory bodies are entitled to require proof of recent and substantial practice experience as a condition of recognition. Where such proof is not available, they are entitles to assess applicants on a case-by-case basis.

  Green Ministers
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings his Department's Green Minister has attended in the last 12 months in that role. [165443]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department's Green Minister is a member of the ENV(G) Cabinet sub-committee and of the sustainable development taskforce. 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.

  The Green Minister met representatives of the Sustainable Development Commission in October 2003.

  Professional Registration (EU Nationals)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether health care staff from other EU countries are able to work in the United Kingdom prior to the completion of registration with UK professional bodies; and if he will make a statement. [164915]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is for employers to ensure that all staff are suitably qualified and experienced for the work to be done, regardless of their country of origin. Staff may not be employed in any capacity requiring registration without being registered. The status of individuals undertaking training or experience with a view to registration must be clearly distinguished from that of registered practitioners.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Treason
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Solicitor-General what her policy is on the prosecution of United Kingdom nationals for treason. [169200]

  The Solicitor-General
  Any offence of treason would be dealt with in the same way as other prosecutions. Namely that the police investigate and the Crown Prosecution Service consider whether there is enough evidence and whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

  Nottingham Criminal Justice Board
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the work of the Crown Prosecution Service with the Nottingham Criminal Justice Board. [169201]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Nottingham Criminal Justice Board is one of the 42 local Criminal Justice Boards where the police, courts, prosecutors and prison service work together to ensure a fair and affective criminal justice system. Kate Carty, the local Chief Crown Prosecutor, is a member of the board which is chaired by the Chief Constable.

  Cannings Case Judgment
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the progress she is making in identifying prosecutions that may be affected by the Appeal Court's judgment in the appeal against the conviction of Angela Cannings. [169202]

  The Solicitor-General
  The process of identifying prosecutions which may be affected by the Appeal Court's judgment in the appeal against conviction of Angela Cannings has been completed. Since the Appeal Court's judgment on 19 January the 300 relevant cases have been identified, of which 86 involve defendants in custody. There are three stages to the review process. To date, 167 cases haw been reviewed and I will be in a position to tell the House the outcome of those reviews very shortly.

  Of the 16 ongoing prosecutions which may have been affected by the Cannings judgment, all have been reviewed and two have been discontinued. A Hampshire case was discontinued before trial and a Coventry case was discontinued before a retrial.

  Fraud
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Solicitor-General what recent representations she has received regarding Government measures to eradicate fraudulent schemes targeted at small businesses. [169203]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have not received any representations regarding these measures.

  Wildlife Crime
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General what guidance she gives to Crown Prosecution Service offices to ensure the consistent prosecution of wildlife crime. [169196]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is aware of the need to make sure that effective measures are taken to ensure consistency in the prosecution of wildlife crime. It is a member of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Enlargement
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what events he will be attending in order to show his support for the enlargement of the EU. [169885]

  The Prime Minister
  I hosted a reception at the Foreign and Common wealth Office on 28 April for 400 guests connected with the EU enlargement process and with the accession countries, including former Ministers and others from across the political spectrum. I will also attend the Irish EU Presidency's event to mark accession on 1 May in Dublin.

  Immigration Status
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those who have attended his immigration summits. [169884]
  1225W
  The Prime Minister
  A number of Ministers together with officials attended the immigration summits.

  Internal discussion and advice is exempt from disclosure in line with exemption 2b of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  India
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit India. [169886]

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

  Iraq
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations to the United Nations Secretary General calling for an immediate and independent high level UN inquiry into the Iraq Oil for Food Programme arising from the evidence given to the United States Congress. [169242]

  The Prime Minister
  On 21 April 2004, the United Nations Secretary-General appointed an independent high-level inquiry to investigate allegations of corruption in the management and administration of the UN's Iraq Oil For Food Programme. Her Majesty's Government fully support the UN inquiry, which was endorsed by the Security Council t h rough its unanimous adoption of resolution 1538 (21 April 2004).

  Ministerial Gifts
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he intends to publish the list of gifts received by Ministers in 2003–04. [169851]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are committed to publishing an annual list of gifts received by Ministers in an official capacity valued at more than £140. Details of gifts received during 2001–04 valued at more than £140 are currently being assembled and will be published before the summer recess.

  President Mubarak
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to receive a state visit from President Mubarak. [169928]

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

  Tibet
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will urge Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to undertake to commute the death sentence against Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche pending a fair and free retrial in the presence of international observers; and if he will make a statement. [169581]

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to discuss a wide range of issues with Premier Wen Jiabao

  We and our EU partners have raised concerns about the transparency and conduct of Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche's trial with the Chinese authorities on several occasions and have asked them to confirm that Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche's death sentence will be commuted to life imprisonment.
  1226W
  We will continue to monitor this case and make representations to the Chinese authorities where appropriate.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will seek from Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao an undertaking to drop all pre-conditions to negotiating a settlement on Tibet with representatives of the Dalai Lama; and if he will make a statement; [169584]

  (2) if he will make a statement in public on the situation in Tibet during the visit of Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. [169585]

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to discuss a wide range of issues with Premier Wen Jiabao during his visit to the UK. The Government have an ongoing dialogue with China over human rights issues and Tibet at both ministerial level and the biannual UK/China Human Rights Dialogue. We welcome the continuing contact between the Chinese authorities and representatives of the Dalai Lama.

  Tom Kelly
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors underlay his decision to appoint Mr. Tom Kelly as his chief spokesman; and what qualities Mr. Kelly will bring to his post. [167784]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) at Prime Minister's questions on 28 April 2004,Official Report, column 884–85.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  All-postal Elections
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he received(a) the summary report and (b) the full report on the voting and the integrity of the all-postal elections in Merrow, Guildford in May 2003 produced by the Electoral Commission. [169647]

  Phil Hope
  The Government received on 31 July 2003 the Electoral Commission's statutory evaluation report on the all-postal pilot election scheme at the elections held in Guildford on 1 May 2003.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the full report on the voting and the integrity of the all postal election in Merrow, Guildford in May 2003 by the Electoral Commission will be published; and in what form it will be published. [169653]

  Phil Hope
  The Electoral Commission published on 31 July 2003 its evaluation report on the all-postal pilot election scheme held in Guildford on 1 May 2003. This was also sent to the local authority on the same date and was placed on the Commission's website.

  Coverage Care
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answers of 15 March 2004,Official Report, columns 59–60W, on Coverage Care, what the current arrangements with Coverage Care (Gloucestershire) Ltd. are to which the answer refers; what the various circumstances referred to in the answer

  1227W
  were in this case, regarding the provision of financial assistance from local authorities; what discussions have taken place between his Department and Gloucestershire county council over this matter; what rent arrears Gloucestershire county council has accrued in relation to Coverage Care (Gloucestershire) Ltd.; and whether the Government has asked the District Auditor to investigate the matter. [163886]

  Yvette Cooper
  The circumstances are set out in detail in the general consents. Of particular relevance are "The General Consent under Section 25 of the Local Government Act 1988 for Small Amounts of Assistance 1999" and "The General Consent under Section 25 of the Local Government Act 1988 for Disposal of Residential Care Homes 1999".

  In preparing for the possibility of a specific consent being sought from the First Secretary of State, the county council has explained the nature of possible proposals to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, information about the current arrangements with Coverage Care (Gloucestershire) Ltd.; details of proposals; and rent arrears accrued by Gloucestershire county council has resolved that information relating to the business affairs of the company should remain confidential. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not asked the District Auditor to investigate the matter.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will upgrade the existing decent homes standard for all social sector housing to address fuel poverty. [167770]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not intend to change the standard. To meet the decent homes standard, a home must have efficient heating as well as effective insulation. We are confident that the decent homes target will deliver significant improvements to the energy efficiency of the social housing stock taking many households out of fuel poverty.

  Delivery of the decent homes target will improve the heating and/or insulation of 1.3 million homes owned by local authorities and housing associations.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list, for each housing authority, for the years(a) 1997, (b) 2000 and (c) 2003 the number of (i) adult homeless people, (ii) child homeless and (iii) residents in bed and breakfast accommodation. [166896]

  Yvette Cooper
  Available information, as reported by local authorities in England, has been made available in the Library of the House. Data collected on homelessness is in respect of households, rather than persons, although broad estimates of the number of dependent children within households accepted as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in "priority need" can be derived from the information supplied by local authorities. Snapshot information about numbers of households in various forms of temporary accommodation, including bed and breakfast style accommodation, represents the position on the last day of each quarter.
  1228W
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless families there were, broken down by region, for(a) the last quarter of 2003 and (b) the first quarter of 2004. [169732]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on homelessness collected by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is in respect of households, rather than families. The number of households accepted as eligible, unintentionally homeless where the main category of priority need was the presence of dependent children, or an expectant mother, is however available. The following table shows the number of homeless household acceptances by local authorities, by region, along with information on those with dependent children or an expectant mother, for the fourth quarter of 2003. Estimates for the first quarter of 2004 will be published on 16 June.

  Homeless house holds accepted by local authorities Fourth quarter October—December 2003

  of which main priority need category reported as:

  Total households accepted1

  Dependent Children

  Expectant Mother

  North East

  2,050

  970

  190

  North West

  4,240

  2,220

  320

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  3,800

  1,670

  300

  East Midlands

  2,330

  1,220

  250

  West Midlands

  3,540

  1,960

  370

  East of England

  2,660

  1,230

  330

  London

  7,250

  3,700

  880

  South East

  3,610

  1,720

  470

  South West

  2,630

  1,190

  320

  England

  32,100

  15,880

  3,410

  Notes:

  1Applicants accepted as eligible, unintentionally homeless and in priority need.

  2 Household containing an expectant mother, but with no dependent children

  Source:

  ODPM quarterly PIE homelessness returns.

  Housing
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on how the Starter Homes Initiative has affected the residents of Preston. [169660]

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the Starter Homes Initiative has benefited the residents of Wigan. [169268]

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on how the Starter Homes Initiative has affected the residents of Bootle. [170077]

  Keith Hill
  Between September 2001 and 31 March 2004, the Starter Home Initiative helped key workers into home ownership in London, the south east, eastern and south west regions. A small scheme also operated in Warwickshire. The programme did not operate outside these areas.

  Isle of Wight Projects
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list, for each of the financial years ending in March(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002, each project on the Isle of Wight funded by the (i) South East England Development Agency and (ii) the single

  1229W
  Regeneration Budget showing the (A) funding for each project, (B) intended outcomes of each project and (C) actual outcomes of each project. [169729]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter sent by my right. hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, on 27 April 2004. A copy of this letter has been made available in the library of the House.

  I will write to the hon. Member with regards to the information requested on the intended outcomes for each project as soon as the information is collated. A copy of the letter will also be made available in the library of the House.

  New Deal for Communities
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the administration budget was for each New Deal for Communities partnership for each financial year since 1999–2000; and what the estimated administration budget for each such partnership is for financial years (i) 2004–2005 and (ii) 2005–06. [160342]

  Yvette Cooper
  [pursuant to my reply, 11 March 2004, Official Report, c. 638–39W]: My earlier answer gave a figure of £9.655 million management and administration expenditure for Rochdale NDC. This figure includes all

  Management and Administration Budget

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–051

  2005–061

  Partnership

  Newham

  332,786

  490,000

  515,000

  480,000

  635,200

  600,000

  650,000

  Shoreditch

  400,000

  340,000

  340,000

  340,000

  590,000

  540,000

  540,000

  Aylesbury

  400,000

  168,750

  304,800

  383,212

  688,370

  679,800

  497,100

  Ocean

  400,000

  599,000

  680,000

  680,000

  670,000

  620,000

  620,000

  South Kilburn

  0

  240,000

  335,000

  496,000

  496,000

  696,000

  696,000

  North Fulham

  0

  299,500

  380,000

  520,000

  500,000

  528,472

  520,000

  EC1 Islington

  0

  400,000

  450,000

  670,000

  500,000

  500,000

  518,000

  Clapham Park

  0

  400,000

  450,000

  584,000

  563,800

  563,154

  639,000

  New Cross

  0

  427,670

  227,670

  482,119

  632,000

  500,000

  501,497

  Seven Sisters

  0

  208,000

  612,000

  635,000

  553,000

  550,000

  550,000

  Brighton

  330,350

  628,075

  770,925

  652,059

  437,451

  543,991

  572,532

  Southampton

  10,000

  387,000

  362,000

  385,850

  450,000

  600,000

  480,000

  Plymouth

  10,000

  40,000

  225,610

  461,957

  424,000

  380,000

  Not yet agreed

  Bristol

  320,000

  450,000

  500,000

  518,000

  533,000

  590,000

  540,000

  Luton

  0

  0

  375,000

  600,000

  500,900

  440,000

  Not yet agreed

  Norwich

  0

  395,900

  425,900

  425,900

  450,000

  475,000

  450,000

  Leicester

  198,000

  542,000

  985,000

  800,000

  692,000

  620,000

  600,000

  Nottingham

  200,000

  299,000

  360,000

  482,000

  520,000

  500,000

  500,000

  Derby

  10,000

  302,000

  299,310

  428,200

  500,000

  531,050

  880,540

  Sandwell

  400,000

  546,968

  599,437

  500,000

  500,000

  500,000

  500,000

  Walsall

  0

  223,000

  250,000

  465,000

  450,000

  455,000

  260,000

  Coventry

  0

  260,000

  385,002

  519,021

  555,000

  555,000

  550,000

  Wolverhampton

  0

  255,000

  173,844

  435,526

  577,076

  594,000

  612,000

  Kings Norton

  300,000

  262,452

  301,692

  237,189

  526,941

  735,428

  507,582

  Aston

  0

  235,000

  116,500

  520,000

  520,000

  535,000

  550,000

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  344,478

  453,344

  426,352

  440,000

  450,000

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  680,000

  680,000

  506,587

  506,587

  506,587

  Bradford

  0

  314,000

  460,600

  514,700

  502,200

  500,000

  500,000

  Hull

  0

  731,000

  791,360

  577,190

  500,000

  500,000

  450,000

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  306,969

  524,627

  504,820

  780,611

  1,168,580

  Kensington1

  0

  479,619

  574,097

  619,000

  650,000

  670,306

  800,000

  Manchester

  204,153

  605,878

  622,366

  642,568

  650,000

  600,000

  500,000

  Oldham

  0

  0

  151,324

  254,196

  360,700

  405,000

  409,000

  Salford

  0

  0

  204,571

  289,997

  740,000

  740,000

  740,000

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  280,000

  393,000

  540,000

  600,000

  600,000

  Hartlepool

  0

  339,965

  258,000

  461,355

  690,000

  690,040

  691,880

  Newcastle

  350,000

  200,000

  388,000

  650,000

  670,000

  600,000

  575,000

  Middlesbrough

  350,000

  251,400

  420,830

  300,000

  477,000

  588,000

  543,000

  Sunderland

  0

  300,000

  305,000

  397,000

  839,000

  400,000

  500,000

  Total

  4,215,289

  11,621,177

  16,211,655

  19,458,010

  21,521,397

  21,792,439

  21,168,298

  1Please note that figures given for 2004–05 and 2005–06 are estimates and some are not yet agreed

  1230W
  revenue expenditure. The correct figure is £2.413 million. The attached table includes the corrected figure and much smaller corrections for Newham, New Cross, Brighton and Derby NDCs. Figures for other NDCs remain the same. The New Deal for Communities Programme has 39 NDC Partnerships and £2 billion has been committed to them over the 10 years of the NDC Programme. The 17 Round 1 Partnerships entered their delivery phase in 2000–01 and the 22 Round 2 Partnerships entered their delivery phase in 2000–02.

  The NDC Partnerships went through two phases before they entered their delivery phase. Phase 1 involved building up a partnership, phase 2 involved developing a delivery plan for the 10 years of the programme and, where possible, developing "quick win" projects. During Phase 1 and Phase 2 we would expect Management and Administration to be high as the partnerships were in the initial stages of setting up and building a partnerships.

  Overall, partnerships may only spend up to 10 per cent. of their 10-year budget total on Management and Administration during the year life of their programme. Profiles vary, and some partnerships have spent more that 10 per cent. per annum on Management and Administration so far. However, we do not expect management and administration to exceed 10 per cent. of total spend by the time each partnership reaches its final year.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the Standards Board for England has spent on investigations with regard to parish councils; and how much money was involved in the complaints and issues that led to such investigations. [168664]

  Phil Hope
  The Standards Board for England does not record this information.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Department directs the Standards Board for England to consider the benefit to the public interest when(a) determining whether to pursue investigations against parish councillors and (b) pursuing those investigations. [168720]

  Phil Hope
  When considering allegations of misconduct, the Standards Board for England operates within the statutory framework of the Local Government Act 2000 and related Regulations. In considering whether to refer an allegation for investigation, the Board considers whether the allegation is serious enough to justify a referral for investigation, and if a national or local investigation would be justified. The purpose of an investigation, carried out by an ethical standards officer, appointed by the Standards Board, is to make a finding as to whether or not the code of conduct for members has been breached and what further action if any needs to be taken. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not have powers to intervene in particular cases and does not do so.

  Recycling
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of copying paper used by the Department in 2002–03 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained. [165643]

  Phil Hope
  The UK Sustainable Development in Government Second Annual report shows that in the year ended 31 March 2003 recycled paper accounted for 87 per cent. of desk top paper purchased by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The post-consumer waste element of that recycled paper was 80 per cent. or more.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of paper for printed publications used by the Department in 2002–03 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained. [165644]

  Phil Hope
  The UK Sustainable Development in Government Second Annual report shows that in the year ended 31 March 2003 recycled paper accounted for 99 per cent. of paper for printed publications purchased by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The post-consumer waste element of that recycled paper was 75 per cent. or more.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he has put in place to ensure that his Department meets the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that all copying paper bought by the Department is 100 per cent. recycled with a minimum of 75 per cent. post-consumer waste content. [165645]
  1232W
  Phil Hope
  Procurement units in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been made aware of the quick win target for the purchase of copying paper. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister monitors its performance for the purpose of reporting progress in the annual Sustainable Development in Government report.

  In addition the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently introduced an electronic ordering tool and this is to be configured to prevent the ordering of non-recycled paper by withdrawing non-compliant paper from the contracted suppliers' catalogues available to local purchasing officers.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he has put in place to ensure that his 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. [165646]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Greening Operation Policy statement requires the use of compliant recycled paper and procurement units in the Office have been made aware of the quick win target for the purchase of paper for printed publications. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister monitors its performance for the purpose of reporting progress in the annual Sustainable Development in Government report.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by what date his Department expects to reach the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that(a) all copying paper bought by the Department is 100 per cent. recycled with a minimum of 75 per cent. post consumer waste content and (b) 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. [165647]

  Phil Hope
  The Sustainable Development in Government Report shows that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister met the quick win target for(a) copying paper and (b) for printed publications purchased in 2002–03. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects that all of its copying paper and virtually 100 per cent. its printed pap(r procurement will be "Quick Win" compliant by end of 2005–06.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will strive to attain 100 per cent., but at present some printing processes presently preclude the use of Quick Win specification paper. Should this situation change, "Quick Win" compliant paper will be used.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the Department's main suppliers of(a) copier paper, (b) stationery, (c) envelopes and (d) paper for reports; what the name is of the paper used in each case; and what the (i) recycled and (ii) post-consumer recycle content of the paper is in each case. [165648]
  1233W
  Phil Hope
  The details requested are as follows:

  (a) Copier Paper—Evolve Business, supplied by Banner, contains 100 per cent. post-consumer waste.

  (b) Stationery—Repeat Offset, supplied by the James McNaughton Paper Group, contains 100 per cent. post-consumer waste.

  (c) Envelopes—Conservation and Croxley Heritage, supplied through the Government's Stationery Contract (Taurus Print & Design), contains 100 per cent. post-consumer waste.

  (d) Paper for Reports—Revive, Revert and Evolution ranges, containing 75 per cent. post-consumer waste and 25 per cent. Elemental Chlorine Free pulp, Greencoat range, containing 80 per cent. post-consumer waste and 20 per cent. Totally Chlorine Free pulp, and Evolve Business, containing 100 per cent. post-consumer waste, all supplied by Robert Home Paper Company, Premier Paper Ltd., Howard Smith Paper and James McNaughton Paper Group through the Government's Paper Framework Contract.

  Vacant/Derelict Land
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much previously developed land was(a) vacant and (b) derelict in England in each year since 1997. [169493]

  Keith Hill
  The available estimates are from the National Land Use Database of Previously Developed Land surveys of 1998, 2001 and 2002:

  Previously developed land in England

  Vacant

  Derelict hectares

  1998

  19,170

  19,340

  2001

  19,720

  21,410

  2002

  20,750

  19,960

  Results for 2003 will be published in the summer.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Autism
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on provision for those with autism in Northern Ireland. [168826]

  Angela Smith
  Provision for people with autism is the responsibility of a number of Government Departments and statutory bodies and a wide range of provision is available to help and support sufferers and their families.

  The Department of Education has taken a proactive stance in supporting positive interventions for children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and has allocated funding for ASD training for people in the range of pre-school settings and for the establishment of an Interboard ASD Training Group, which will develop training needs and support measures in this area. It is also planning the establishment of a Centre of Excellence in the education of children with ASD on an all Ireland basis. Complementary parent and teacher videos and CD-ROMs, along with guidance material on autism have been produced and an "ASD Guide to Classroom Practice" has been issued to all schools as an aid to teachers and classroom assistants.
  1234W
  Health and Social Services Boards provide a range of mainstream and specialist healthcare services for children and adults with autism, including diagnostic and assessment services, family support services, respite services, day care services, befriending schemes, mental health services, learning disability services, training for parents and staff and collaboration with specialist voluntary organisations such as PAPA (Parents and Professionals and Autism) and PEAT (Parents' Education as Autism Therapists). The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's Priorities for Action 2004–05 includes action to enhance diagnostic, assessment and early intervention services for children with autism. An additional £0.5 million has been allocated for this purpose.

  Other assistance is available through the Disablement Advisory Service and Jobskills programme of the Department of Employment and Learning and through Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance provided by the Social Security Agency.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were diagnosed as autistic in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [168827]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Core Gateway Costs
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much Core Gateway costs are for a two-week course at the East Antrim Institute in Northern Ireland. [168623]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Core Gateway cost for a two-week course at East Antrim Institute in Northern Ireland is £400 per participant. This is in line with payments made to all Providers of Core Gateway based on a rate of £40 per day for full attendance.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs were created(a) by inward investment projects and (b) through business associated with agreed inward investment projects, for each year from 1998 and expressed as a percentage of the figure for the UK as a whole. [168213]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Table 1 details the number of jobs created by inward investment projects assisted during the five year period commencing 1995–96. While the question asks for each year from 1998, it should be recognised that since assisted projects take some time to reach maturity, it has not been practice to produce job creation figures until four years subsequent to the offers of assistance being made. Therefore, this answer covers only two of the years requested but has been expanded to include the previous three years.

  Table 1: Job Creation by Inward Investors

  Financial Year

  Job creation up to March 2003

  1999–2000

  5,284

  1998–99

  2,856

  1997–98

  4,187

  1235W

  Table 1: Job Creation by Inward Investors

  Financial Year

  Job creation up to March 2003

  1996–97

  4,426

  1998–99

  2,856

  1995–96

  2,979

  Total

  19,732

  To provide a more up to date picture of inward investment activity Table 2 presents the number of jobs promoted by inward investment projects during the five year period from 1998–99.

  Table 2: Job Creation by Inward Investors

  Financial Year

  Table 2: Jobs Promoted By Inward Investors

  2002–03

  1,033

  2001–02

  2,526

  2000–01

  5,506

  1999–2000

  6,584

  1998–99

  4,162

  Grand Total

  19,811

  Previous evidence provided by the Industrial Development Board (IDE) to the Northern Ireland Audit Office showed that approximately 70 per cent. of jobs promoted were created and a similar proportion of grant offered was actually paid.

  Legal advice and assistance (LAA) Claims

  Advice by way of representation (ABWOR) Applications

  Children Order Applications

  Civil Applications

  Criminal Applications

  1998–99

  Received

  57,969

  5,633

  5,506

  15,813

  19,729

  Granted

  5,121

  4,600

  6,713

  19,190

  Refused

  79

  71

  2,358

  539

  1999–2000

  Received

  45,292

  5,798

  5,198

  14,109

  20,063

  Granted

  5,285

  4,950

  12,586

  19,394

  Refused

  408

  244

  4,439

  669

  2000–01

  Received

  46,656

  5,622

  5,133

  14,097

  19,344

  Granted

  5,157

  4,824

  11,480

  18,681

  Refused

  177

  123

  2,847

  663

  2001–02

  Received

  41,949

  5,797

  5,708

  14,997

  17,820

  Granted

  5,440

  5,403

  9,011

  17,303

  Refused

  235

  181

  2038

  517

  2002–03

  Received

  55,292

  5,745

  5,999

  13,569

  21,732

  Granted

  5,351

  5,656

  11,102

  20,941

  Refused

  316

  252

  3,167

  791

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost of legal aid was in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [168196]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following table sets out the total cost of legal aid in Northern Ireland from 1998–99 to 2002–03:
  1236W
  (b) No estimates are available concerning the secondary impacts associated with inward investment projects.

  At present Invest NI has no statistically robust method of producing comparative figures regarding job promotion/creation figures achieved by the UK as a whole. Invest NI intends over the coming year to engage with UK Trade and Investment to develop an approach which will enable such comparisons to be made on a consistent basis. Nevertheless, Invest NI, and previously the IDB has indicative evidence to suggest that Northern Ireland's share of new contestable UK Foreign Direct Investment from the manufacturing and international tradeable service industry sectors is in the region of 10 per cent.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people(a) applied for and (b) received legal aid in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and how many people had an application rejected. [168195]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Legal Services Commission records the number of applications for assistance rather than the number of clients assisted. The following table sets out details of legal aid application for the period 1998–99 to 2002–03.

  £ million

  Criminal

  Civil

  Sub total

  Administration

  Total

  1998–99

  15.93

  14.16

  30.09

  2.58

  32.67

  1999–2000

  23.25

  11.40

  34.65

  2.69

  37.34

  2000–01

  21.88

  15.82

  37.70

  2.87

  40.57

  2001–02

  24.57

  16.96

  41.53

  3.26

  44.79

  2002–03

  26.77

  18.21

  44.98

  3.58

  48.56

  Sexually Transmitted Infections
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the change in the incidence of sexually transmitted infections was in each year since 2000 in each of the health and social services board areas in Northern Ireland, broken down by(a) age and (b) sex. [168622]

  Angela Smith
  Information is not available on incidence of sexually transmitted infections in Northern Ireland, as not all persons with such infections are in contact with the health service. Information is, however, available on the number of initial contacts with Genito-Urinary Medicine clinics each year, in respect of persons with various sexually transmitted infections. This information which is shown for the financial years ending March 2000, March 2001, March 2002 and March 2003, together with the percentage change between each year, has been placed in the Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  BT Business Rates
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library correspondence between his Department and the European Commission regarding the European Commission's preliminary investigations into the alleged undeserved subsidisation of BT's business rates by the Valuation Office Agency, including his Department's response. [167269]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  This correspondence contains commercially confidential material which it would be inappropriate for the Government to make public. This is covered by exemption 13 Third Party Commercial Confidences of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects a resolution to Child Support Agency computer problems deriving from running two concurrent systems. [167134]

  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. John Taylor, dated 29 April 2004:

  In replying to your recent Parliamentary question 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, when he expects a resolution to Child Support Agency computer problems deriving from running two concurrent systems.

  I have been working closely with EDS to resolve the issues on the new computer system. We are currently working on a remediation plan, which has yet to be validated and agreed. The old scheme cases will be converted to the new scheme when Ministers are confident that it is working well. I will continue to monitor this carefully and make regular reports to the Secretary of State on
  1238W
  progress. As you are aware, reports have been made available in the House of Commons library on 16 July, 18 November 2003, 12 February and 21 April 2004.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate, based on his Department's policy simulation model for 2004–05, for(a) all households, (b) all pensioner households, (c) all households headed by a pensioner over 70 and (d) all households headed by a pensioner aged 70 or above, the average level of (i) gross council tax and (ii) council tax net of rebates expressed as a percentage of household income. [169644]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table. Estimates are modelled using the DWP Policy Simulation Model for 2004–05. This model is based on 2001–02 Family Resources Survey data, uprated to 2004–05 prices, benefit rates and earnings levels. It is then grossed up to forecast population totals for that year. The following table shows the information requested.

  Percentage

  Average gross council tax as a percentage of household income

  Average council tax net of rebates as a percentage of household income

  All households

  4

  3

  All pensioner households

  5

  3

  All households headed by a pensioner aged over 70

  6

  3

  All households headed by a pensioner aged 70 or over

  6

  3

  Notes:

  1. Gross council tax figures are net of any discounts.

  2. Household income is net of income tax and national insurance contributions, and is unequivalised.

  3. Estimates assume 100 per cent. take up of council tax benefit.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the measures introduced to improve the working conditions of disabled workers in Wigan over the last seven years. [169311]

  Maria Eagle
  We have a number of measures in place nationally to help improve conditions for disabled people at work, as well as measures to improve their access to services generally. None of these are specific to Wigan, but all are available to disabled people who live and work there.

  From 1996, the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act required most employers of 20 or more staff not to discriminate against, and to make reasonable adjustments for, disabled job applicants or employees; in December 1998, we reduced this threshold to 15 employees. From October this year, the small employer exemption will be removed and most currently excluded occupations, such as police officers, firefighters, and partners in business partnerships will be brought within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act employment provisions.
  1239W
  Jobcentre Plus runs a number of specialist programmes providing help for disabled people, including New Deal for Disabled People, Workstep, Access to Work, the Job Introduction Scheme, and Work Preparation. All these programmes provide practical advice and support to disabled people and their employers to help overcome work related obstacles resulting from disability. Since 1997–98 there have been year on year increases in both numbers helped and programme spend.

  To help people access appropriate help, Jobcentre Plus has established a network of Disability Service Teams. The teams are made up of Disability Employment Advisors, Access to Work Advisers and Occupational Psychologists; their services are accessed through local Jobcentres.

  Since April 2003, disabled people in work have been receiving financial support through the working tax credit. This is available if a person is working an average of at least 16 hours per week (self-employed or for an employer); and have a disability which puts them at a disadvantage in getting a job. 70,000 families (including over 32,000 adults without children) are benefiting from the disability element within the working tax credit, compared to 38,000 who benefited from the old disabled person's tax credit.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the measures introduced to improve the working conditions of disabled workers in Preston over the last seven years. [169662]

  Maria Eagle
  We have a number of measures in place nationally to help improve conditions for disabled people at work, as well as measures to improve their access to services generally. None of these are specific to Preston, but all are available to disabled people who live and work there.

  From 1996, the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act required most employers of 20 or more staff not to discriminate against, and to make reasonable adjustments for, disabled job applicants or employees; in December 1998, we reduced this threshold to 15 employees. From October this year, the small employer exemption will be removed and most currently excluded occupations, such as police officers, firefighters, and partners in business partnerships will be brought within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act employment provisions.Jobcentre Plus runs a number of specialist programmes providing help for disabled people, including New Deal for Disabled People, Workstep, Access to Work, the Job Introduction Scheme, and Work Preparation. All these programmes provide practical advice and support to disabled people and their employers to help overcome work related obstacles resulting from disability. Since 1997–98 there have been year on year increases in both numbers helped and programme spend.

  To help people access appropriate help, Jobcentre Plus has established a network of Disability Service Teams. The teams are made up of Disability Employment Advisors, Access to Work Advisers and Occupational Psychologists; their services are accessed through local Jobcentres.
  1240W
  Since April 2003. disabled people in work have been receiving financial support through the working tax credit. This is available if a person is working an average of at least 16 hours per week (self-employed or for an employer); and have a disability which puts them at a disadvantage in getting a job. 70,000 families (including over 32,000 adults without children) are benefiting from the disability element within the working tax credit, compared to 38,000 who benefited from the old disabled person's tax credit.

  Failed Pension Schemes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 21 April 2004,Official Report, column 293, how many people whose pension schemes have been wound up have found that the money that they invested yielded nothing. [169646]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available on the number of people whose pension schemes have wound up with no, or insufficient, funds to meet their expected pensions. We are currently exploring with pension scheme trustees and other industry representatives the basis on which we can establish firm estimates of the extent of the problem of defined benefit schemes winding-up under funded, the numbers affected and the potential scale of losses

  New Deal
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many women in Burnley have benefited from the(a) New Deal for Lone Parents and (b) New Deal for Partners since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [167886]

  Jane Kennedy
  Through the New Deal we have introduced a wide range of initiatives to help individuals improve their employment prospects by giving them the skills, support and confidence they need to move into work. From 12 April we enhanced the New Deal for Partners in order to offer partners taking part in that programme the same level of help and support as our successful New Deal for Lone Parents programme. Also from this April we have started to roll out Work Focused Interviews for Partners, offering greater support to partners of benefit recipients.

  870 women have started New Deal for Lone Parents in Burnley since the beginning of the programme in October 1998, of whom, 550 have gained a job. Information on the number of women who have benefited from the New Deal for Partners is not available at constituency level.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Vale of Clwyd constituency have benefited from(a) New Deal for Young People, (b) New Deal for 25-plus and (c) New Deal for Lone Parents in each ward in the Vale of Clwyd. [166683]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is not available at ward level. The available information for the Vale of Clwyd constituency is in the table.
  1241W

  Number of individuals who have benefited from New Deal for Young People, New Deal 25-plus and New Deal for Lone Parents to the end of December 2003

  Programme

  Individuals starts

  Individuals into work

  New Deal for Young People

  1,110

  690

  New Deal 25-plus

  270

  80

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  1,130

  560

  Note:

  Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary or State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents in Burnley have gained work through the New Deal programme. [168321]

  Jane Kennedy
  590 lone parents in Burnley have gained work through the New Deal for Lone Parents since the start of the programme in October 1998.

  Information on the number of women who have gained work through the other New Deal programmes is not available at constituency level.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents in Heywood and Middleton have gained work through the New Deal programme. [168540]

  Jane Kennedy
  730 lone parents in Heywood and Middleton have gained work through the New Deal for Lone Parents since the start of the programme in October 1998.

  Information on the number of women who have gained work through the other New Deal programmes are not available at constituency level.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many women in Heywood and Middleton have benefited from(a) the New Deal for Lone Parents and (b) the New Deal for Partners since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [168544]

  Jane Kennedy
  Through the New Deal we have introduced a wide range of initiatives to help individuals improve their employment prospects by giving them the skills, support and confidence they need to move into work. From 12 April we enhanced the New Deal for Partners in order to offer partners taking part in that programme the same level of help and support as our successful New Deal for Lone Parents programme. Also from this April we have started to roll out Work Focused Interviews for Partners, offering greater support to partners of benefit recipients.

  1,080 women have started New Deal for Lone Parents in Heywood and Middleton since the beginning of the programme in October 1998, of whom, 690 have gained a job. Information on the number of women who have benefited from the New Deal for Partners is not available at constituency level.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents have gained work through the New Deal programme [168741]
  1242W
  Jane Kennedy
  247,310 lone parents have gained work though the New Deal for Lone Parents since the introduction of the programme in October 1998. Lone parents may have gained work through other New Deal programmes but cannot be identified separately.

  Information on the number of women who have gained work through the other New Deal programmes are not available at constituency level.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents in Wigan have gained work through the New Deal programme. [169310]

  Jane Kennedy
  460 lone parents in Wigan have gained work through the New Deal for Lone Parents since the start of the programme in October 1998.

  Information on the number of women who have gained work through the other New Deal programmes is not available at constituency level.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many women in Wigan have benefited from(a) the New Deal for Lone Parents and (b) the New Deal for Partners since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [169312]

  Jane Kennedy
  Through the New Deal we have introduced a wide range of initiatives to help individuals improve their employment prospects by giving them the skills, support and confidence they need to move into work. From 12 April we enhanced the New Deal for Partners in order to offer partners taking part in that programme the same level of help and support as our successful New Deal for Lone Parents programme. Also from this April we have started to roll out Work Focused Interviews for Partners, offering greater support to partners of benefit recipients.

  710 women have started New Deal for Lone Parents in Wigan since the beginning of the programme in October 1998, of whom, 430 have gained a job. Information on the number of women who have benefited from the New Deal for Partners is not available at constituency level.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many women in Preston have benefited from(a) the New Deal for Lone Parents and (b) the New Deal for Partners since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [169661]

  Jane Kennedy
  Through the New Deal we have introduced a wide range of initiatives to help individuals improve their employment prospects by giving them the skills, support and confidence they need to move into work. From 12 April we enhanced the New Deal for Partners in order to offer partners taking part in that programme the same level of help and support as our successful New Deal for Lone Parents programme. Also from this April we have started to roll out Work Focused Interviews for Partners, offering greater support to partners of benefit recipients.

  890 women have started New Deal for Lone Parents in Preston since the beginning of the programme in October 1998, of whom, 500 have gained a job.

  1243W
  Information on the number of women who have benefited from the New Deal for Partners is not available at constituency level.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents have gained work through the New Deal programme [169663]

  Jane Kennedy
  530 lone parents in Preston have gained work though the New Deal for Lone Parents since the start of the programme in October 1998.

  Information on the number of women who have gained work through the other New Deal programmes is not available at constituency level.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many women in Manchester, Gorton have benefited from the(a) New Deal for Lone Parents and (b) the New Deal for Partners since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [167342]

  Jane Kennedy
  Through the New Deal we have introduced a wide range of initiatives to help individuals improve their employment prospects by giving them the skills, support and confidence they need to move into work. From 12 April we enhanced the New Deal for Partners in order to offer partners taking part in that programme the same level of help and support as our successful New Deal for Lone Parents programme. Also from this April we have started to roll out Work Focused Interviews for Partners, offering greater support to partners of benefit recipients.

  930 women have started New Deal for Lone Parents in Manchester, Gorton since the beginning of the programme in October 1998, of whom, 450 have gained a job. Information on the number of women who have benefited from the New Deal for Partners is not available at constituency level.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents in Manchester, Gorton have gained work through the New Deal programme. [167348]

  Jane Kennedy
  480 lone parents in Manchester, Gorton have gained work through the New Deal for Lone Parents since the start of the programme in October 1998.

  Information on the number of women who have gained work through the other New Deal programmes is not available at constituency level.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many recipients of pension credit are receiving(a) less than 10p per week, (b) 10p to 19p per week, (c) 20p to 29p per week, (d) 30p to 39p per week, (e) 40p to 49p per week, (f) 50p to 59p per week, (g) 60p to 69p per week, (h) 70p to 79p per week, (i) 80p to 89p per week and (j) 90p to 99p per week. [169396]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is given in the table. An award of pension credit of less than 10p per week is not payable unless the person is receiving another benefit payable with pension credit.
  1244W

  Pension credit awards of less than £1 as at 31 March 2004

  Amount

  Number of awards

  Less than 10p

  1,360

  10p to 19p

  1,107

  20p to 29p

  1,156

  20p to 39p

  1,152

  40p to 49p

  1,241

  50p to 59p

  1,271

  60p to 69p

  1,355

  70p to 79p

  1,302

  80p to 89p

  1,419

  90p to 99p

  1,428

  Total

  12,791

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate(a) the gross cost, (b) the saving in expenditure on the state second pension, (c) the saving in expenditure on pension credit, (d) the saving in expenditure on other means-tested benefits, (e) the additional revenue from income tax and (f) the net cost to the Exchequer, of paying a full basic state pension to all individuals aged 65 or over from April 2006 onwards at the rate of the guarantee credit, regardless of contribution record, and subsequently indexed to average earnings, combined with the abolition from that date of all new accruals to the state second pension and the abolition of all payments of savings credit, including those to existing recipients for each of the 10 financial years from 2006–07. [167320]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 22 April 2004]: The information is not available in the format requested. However, such information as is available is in the following table:

  £ billion

  (a) Gross Cost

  (b) S2P Saving

  (c) PC Saving

  (d) IRB Saving

  (f) Net Cost

  2006–07

  19.4

  0

  3.1

  1.6

  14.8

  2007–08

  20.7

  0

  3.3

  1.7

  15.8

  2008–09

  22.1

  0.1

  3.5

  1.8

  16.7

  2009–10

  23.5

  0.1

  3.7

  1.9

  17.8

  2010–11

  25.0

  0.2

  3.9

  2.0

  18.8

  2011–12

  26.6

  0.3

  4.1

  2.1

  20.1

  2012–13

  28.6

  0.4

  4.3

  2.3

  21.6

  2013–14

  30.5

  0.6

  4.6

  2.4

  23.0

  2014–15

  32.4

  0.7

  4.8

  2.6

  24.3

  2015–16

  34.2

  0.9

  5.0

  2.7

  25.6

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for Great Britain in 2004–05 price terms using the GDP deflator index rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with Budget 2004 assumptions and use 2002 based population projections. Gross costs refer to the additional costs after allowing for National Insurance Fund benefits and non-means tested vote benefits.

  3. The net cost includes all savings except for additional income tax revenue, see note 4.

  4. Additional income tax revenue is estimated by the Inland Revenue using 2006 tax rates. We are unable to publish any income tax forecast estimates for years beyond that which is published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report (currently 2006–07). The income tax estimate for 2006–07 is based on the 2001–02 Survey of Personal Incomes and is projected in line

  1245W

  with March 2004 Budget assumptions. The income tax revenue in 2006–07 is £5.4 billion, resulting in a total net cost of £9.4 billion. For illustrative purposes, Inland Revenue assumed income tax revenue to be a fixed percentage of the gross cost for this option in 2007–08 and 2008–09. Therefore, the total net cost in 2007–08 is £10 billion and in 2008–09 is £10.5 billion. Estimates for later years would be subject to a greater degree of uncertainty.

  5. The savings from abolishing future accruals to the state second pension are also calculated by the Government Actuary's Department, they include state pension, additional pension and widows benefit additional pension and are consistent with the long term Public Expenditure Survey forecasts. As earnings in the year of reaching state pension age do not count towards an individual's S2P, the first savings occur in 2007–08. No allowance has been made for changes to contracting out rules.

  6. The savings credit is assumed to be abolished from April 2006 with no payments to existing pensioners and no new recipients after 2006. Figures are based on the illustrative long-term projections of benefit expenditure underlying Annex A of the Budget report.

  7. The savings from other income related benefits (housing benefit and council tax benefit) are calculated using the Department's policy simulation model and April 2004 benefit rates. Consistent with previous answers the offset for the first year is held constant for subsequent years. In addition the increase in housing benefit and council tax benefit personal allowance for people aged 65 and over by the maximum savings credit amount, introduced alongside savings credit and included in forecast expenditure, has been accounted for, with the costing including the effect of removing this increase.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Legal Aid
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many solicitors provided legal aid in each legal aid area(a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest time for which figures are available. [168619]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Legal Services Commission can provide figures for 1997–98 on the number of solicitors' offices paid for legal aid work in Family, Non-family and Crime but cannot provide any further breakdown by category. Some offices practiced more than one area of legal aid, therefore the total offices paid does not equal the sum of the breakdown. These figures are in the following table A.

  In January 2000 the Legal Services Commission introduced a system of contracting. A breakdown of the number of solicitors' offices with contracts as at April 2004 is provided in the following table B. Some offices hold a contract in more than one category of law, therefore, the total offices with civil contracts does not equal the sum of the breakdown.

  Table A

  Category of law

  Solicitors' offices paid in 1997–98

  Family

  9,082

  Non-family

  9,497

  Crime

  7,304

  Total solicitors' offices paid

  10,601

  1246W

  Table B

  Category of law

  Solicitors' offices with contracts as at April 2004

  Actions against the police

  75

  Clinical negligence

  288

  Community care

  57

  Consumer

  45

  Debt

  158

  Education

  47

  Employment

  163

  Family

  3,072

  Housing

  450

  Immigration: asylum

  380

  Immigration: non-asylum

  376

  Mental health

  297

  Personal injury

  1,079

  Public law

  40

  Tolerance

  2,098

  Welfare benefits

  186

  Solicitors' offices with Controlled Work Contracts

  3,701

  Additional Licence Only Contracts

  213

  Total solicitors' offices with General Civil Contracts

  3,914

  The number of solicitors' offices with criminal contracts as at 31 March 2004

  2,750

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what proportion of the legal aid budget was spent on asylum and immigration cases in each of the last five years. [167074]

  Mr. Lammy
  The proportion of the legal aid budget spent on immigration and asylum in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Percentage

  Proportion

  1998–99

  3.2

  1999–2000

  3.9

  2000–01

  4.8

  2001––02

  7.4

  2002–03

  9.2

  Figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.

  Social Security Commissioners
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what the average waiting time from application to hearing for cases before the Social Security Commissioners was in the last three years in(a) Wales and (b) England; [167983]

  (2) what the average waiting time from application to hearing for cases before the Social Security Commissioners was in each of the last three years for cases heard (a) wholly or partly in Welsh and (b) in English. [167986]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Social Security Commissioners receive applications from the claimant, which are then considered by the Commissioners, and a ruling issued. The Commissioners will either grant or refuse leave to appeal. If leave to appeal is granted the appeal then proceeds to hearing. No cases before the Social Security Commissioners have been heard either wholly or partly in Welsh during the last three years. The Office of the Social Security Commissioners does not hold separate
  1247W
  statistical information relating to waiting times for cases in either Wales or England. The average waiting times for an application for leave to appeal, and for appeals granted leave to proceed to hearing, over the last three years, are as follows:

  Weeks

  Period

  Average waiting time for application decision

  Average waiting time from decision to hearing1

  2001–02

  16

  34

  2002–03

  10

  21

  2003–04

  8

  20

  1Please note that waiting time figures have been rounded up or down where appropriate.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what written and other information material is provided(a) in Welsh and (b) bilingually to people taking cases to the Social Security Commissioners. [167984]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Office for the Social Security Commissioners has an internet site which is accessible in Welsh or English which provides a range of information in relation to the procedures of the Commissioners. Work is currently ongoing in translating the Social Security Commissioners appeal form, and an information leaflet, into the Welsh language.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many cases from Wales were heard in each of the last three years by the Social Security Commissioners; and how many of these were heard partly or wholly through the medium of Welsh. [167985]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Office of the Social Security Commissioners does not hold statistical information relating to the volume of cases received principally from Wales. However, over the last three years there have been 73 cases heard orally in Cardiff for which proceedings were conducted in English.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what provision is available for cases before the Social Security Commissioners to be heard either wholly or partly in Welsh in respect of(a) cases heard in Wales and (b) cases from Wales heard in England. [167987]

  Mr. Lammy
  A standard direction applies to cases received from Wales. This states that "A notice that it is intended to use Welsh must(a) identify those parts of the case or hearing in which Welsh will be used and (b) be given to the commissioner as soon as possible and in any event at least 21 days before any oral hearing. If notice is given that Welsh will be used the Commissioner will make any further directions that are necessary or expedient". This direction covers all cases received from Wales irrespective of whether they are heard in Wales or England.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many cases from Wales were heard by the Social Security Commissioners in England in each of the last three years. [168018]
  1248W
  Mr. Lammy
  The Office of the Social Security Commissioners does not hold statistical information relating to the number of cases received from Wales and subsequently heard in England.

  British Irish Council
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what work is being under taken by the British Irish Council in the field of languages; what the objectives of this work are; which Government Departments are involved; what contribution non-governmental organisations in the minority languages sector are making to this work; and how the work will contribute to the delivery of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [168010]

  Mr. Lammy
  The work of the British-Irish Council (BIC) in the area of Indigenous, Minority and Lesser-Used Languages is subject to agreement between all member administrations and is led by the Welsh Assembly Government.

  The BIC at its meeting in Cardiff in November 2003, which was attended by the Prime Minister, agreed that Members should:
  Jointly consider outcomes of research into intergenerational language transmission;
  Carry out an assessment of structures supporting indigenous language learning in adult education in each of the BIC administrations;
  Work together to identify priorities for their respective indigenous languages in relation to Information and Communication Technology development;
  Consider together the potential benefits of co-operating on the development of language use surveys;
  Share information on their experiences of the relationship between planning policy and linguistic considerations.

  The language covered by the BIC in its work in this field to date include:

  Cymraeg/the Welsh language

  Gaelic in Scotland

  Gaelg/the Manx language

  An Ghaeilge/the Irish language

  Guernesiais/Guernsey-French

  Jerriais/the Jersey language

  Ulster Scots

  The members of i he Council are the British and Irish Governments; the devolved administrations of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales; the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man. (Since the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Northern Ireland interest within the British-Irish Council have been represented by Northern Ireland Office Ministers as part of the UK delegation).

  Each of the BIC member administrations is responsible for determining the nature of the involvement of its own administration.

  The Welsh Assembly Government lead the work in the languages sector and it is open to any member administration to suggest a contribution from a non-governmental organisation. Work in this field will

  1249W
  include input from various language boards, adult education providers and community-based language groups such as the Welsh Mentrau Iaith.

  Delivery of the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages is a matter for each of the Charter's ratified signatories including the UK Government. The work of the BIC in this area will complement current UK initiatives in respect of the Charter.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall North will receive a reply to his letter of 11 March ref.147849. [168885]

  Mr. Lammy
  I wrote on 29 April to my hon. Friend, the Member for Walsall North in response to his letter of 11 March. I apologies for the delay.

  Immigration
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the costs to the Legal Aid Fund on immigration matters were in each financial year since 1996–97. [167180]

  Mr. Lammy
  In the time available, it is not possible to identify separately the cost of immigration from asylum cases. The costs to the Legal Aid Fund on immigration and asylum matters in England and Wales for each financial year since 1996–97 are as follows:

  £ million (net)1

  1996–97

  26.1

  1997–98

  35.2

  1998–99

  53.3

  1999–2000

  61.4

  2000–01

  81.1

  2001–02

  129.4

  2002–03

  176.2

  2003–04

  2204

  1Approximately 10 per cent. of the total cast of immigration and asylum matters relates to immigration and nationality cases.

  2 Provisional figure, subject to end-of-year adjustments.

  Small Claims
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to the answer of 31 March 2004,Official Report, column 1417W, on small claims, what research projects the Department has conducted. [168621]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department's Research Unit has commissioned and published two reports by Professor John Baldwin on small claims. They are:No. 1/97 Monitoring the rise of the small claims limit: litigants' experiences of different forms of adjudication
  No 8/02 Lav and judicial perspectives on the expansion of the small claims regime

  A report by Professor Joanna Shapland, Angela Sorsby and Jeremy Hibbert: A Civil Justice Audit was published by the Department in 2000. This looked at the value, nature and progress of cases through the County Court in Sheffield and included data on small claims.
  1250W
  The DCA Research Unit has recently begun a study of a scheme to mediate small claims in Exeter County Court. The DCA's Consumer Strategy Review has also looked at small claims as part of its project on debt.

  Welsh Medium Service
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the Welsh medium service provided by the Social Security Commissioners. [167683]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Chief Commissioner has asked for the Social Security Commissioners' electronic database to be amended to have the functionality to identify cases received from Wales. There is a Welsh page available on the website available at http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/pages/cymru.htm giving information on the procedures of the Social Security Commissioners. The website is currently undergoing substantial revision. The relevant appeal form, and an information leaflet are being redeveloped for the Welsh medium.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Sure Start (Chatham)
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect of the Sure Start programme in Chatham. [169214]

  Margaret Hodge
  Sure Start Chatham is starting to make a difference to the children and families in the area. The programme has launched a highly successful programme where mothers encourage other mothers to breast-feed; breast-feeding rates are now up by about 20 per cent. And the uptake rate for hearing tests which was about 33 per cent. before the programme began, now stands at 97 per cent.

  Nationally we are undertaking a major and comprehensive evaluation of the Sure Start Programme. Results will become available over the next 12 months. But to give just one example of the impact, we know that in Sure Start local programme areas, there has been a 6 per cent. reduction in percentage of mothers who smoke during pregnancy; and we know that that will make a real difference to the health and well being of a child.

  Educational Attainment (East Midlands)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will rank the local education authorities for the East Midlands by their level of educational attainment. [169215]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Performance tables for each local education authority are published each year showing the level of educational attainment at Key Stage 2, Key Stage 3, GCSE/GNVQ and A/AS level. I am today placing details of the nine East Midlands authorities in Library.

  Civic Awareness
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to promote civic awareness through educational activities for students aged 14 to 19 years. [169216]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The National Curriculum provides citizenship learning for students up to age 16. We have also been investigating the scope for introducing an entitlement to active citizenship in the post-compulsory phase; development work continues. Mike Tomlinson's Working Group sees young people's active contribution to the community within the core of 14–19 learning; The Group's final report is due out in the autumn.

  Mathematics Teaching
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will respond to the proposals made in the report by Professor Smith on post-14 mathematics teaching. [169218]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As I have said before, I very much welcome Professor Smith's report. It provides a sound framework for determining the way ahead.

  I have already accepted the broad thrust of his recommendations. I am able to report that work is in hand to advertise the appointment of a chief adviser of mathematics and Anita Straker, of the Centre of British Teachers, has been appointed on an interim basis. I affirm that I am still committed to the idea of a National Centre for Excellence in Mathematics Teaching that is separate from the science centre.

  I am discussing implementation of the report in detail with Professor Smith and others and will announce my decisions on individual elements in due course.

  Children of Military Personnel (Schools Funding)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will announce additional funding for schools with a large proportion of children of military personnel under the terms of the turbulence factor. [169219]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Local education authorities have discretion to make extra funding available to schools with high pupil turnover as a result of armed forces redeployments, and some do so, including Essex. We are aware that schools with a high proportion of service family children among their pupils have a range of concerns about funding and other issues; and a series of regional meetings is taking place in May with a new national body including representative head teachers of such schools, as well as Government officials. We shall be considering the results in due course, with a view to meeting the needs of these schools.

  School Selection (Hertfordshire)
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received regarding the independent adjudicator's decision on school selection in Hertfordshire. [169220]
  1252W
  Mr. Miliband
  We have received representations from a small number of parents, either complaining that they disagree with the decision, or that it has taken too long for this issue to be resolved. However, adjudicators are independent of the Secretary of State and their decisions can only be challenged through the courts.

  Disruptive Pupils
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support he will give to schools to enable them to deal with disruptive pupils. [169221]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are the first Government to adopt a comprehensive strategy to improve behaviour in schools. We are providing all secondary schools with high-quality training materials and expert consultancy, developing similar materials for primary schools and focusing intensive support such as multi-agency teams on schools facing the greatest challenges. This is in addition to the learning support units and learning mentors already provided through our Excellence in Cities programme.

  Schools (Drinks Dispensers)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and S kills what proportion of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools have (i) soft drinks machines and (ii) free water dispensers for pupils. [169222]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is not collected centrally but the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 require schools to have a wholesome supply of drinking water.

  Centres of Vocational Excellence
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact of Centres of Vocational Excellence upon standards in further education colleges. [169223]

  Alan Johnson
  Centres of Vocational Excellence are already making a significant contribution to our drive to raise standards in further education colleges, particularly in engaging employers and responding to their needs. 82 per cent. of employers rate CoVE training as excellent or good.

  We expect the contribution of CoVEs to improving standards to increase significantly when we reach our target of 400 and each centre is fully developed. And we are already two-thirds of the way to achieving this target.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent in Liverpool on(a) adult literacy and (b) adult numeracy in each year between 1997 and 2003. [166956]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated total spend on "Skills For Life" (the Government's strategy for literacy, language and numeracy needs of all post-16 learners from pre-entry level up to and including level 2) and on Key Skills (essential skills of communication, application of number and information technology),
  1253W
  from April 2001 to July 2003, in the Greater Manchester Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area is set out in the table.

  £

  Basic skills

  Key skills s

  April 2001 to July 20011

  8,925

  2,598

  August 2001 to July 2002

  15,369

  3,586

  August 2002 to July 2003

  27,258

  4,210

  1The figures for April to July 2001 include costs incurred from August 2000 on learning aims continuing into April 2001.

  From the information available to the LSC it has not been feasible to obtain estimates at constituency level or separate figures by subject without incurring disproportionate cost. Likewise it has not been feasible to obtain comparable figures for periods before April 2001 when the Skills for Life strategy was launched and the LSC was formed, but information shows it was considerably less than at present.

  Broadband
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of schools have access to broadband-enabled internet, broken down by those in(a) urban, (b) rural and (c) deprived areas. [168668]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  By the end of March 2004, 60 per cent. of schools had access to broadband connectivity and we are on track to connect all schools by 2006. My Department does not hold information on the percentage of schools in deprived areas with access to broadband, or regularly collect such information for rural schools. The most recent position for which data on rural schools is available is August 2003, at which point 42 per cent. of all schools and 33 per cent. of rural schools were connected to broadband.

  Capital Modernisation Fund (Wigan)
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money was allocated to Wigan from the Capital Modernisation Fund. [169292]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department for Education and Skills does not hold this information centrally. Capital Modernisation Fund is allocated by projects and not by area.

  Careers Advisers
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many careers advisers there were in each year since 1997. [167990]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Departmemt does not collect data on the number of careers advisers or the specialist qualifications held by Connexions Personal Advisers. Although Connexions Partnerships report the numbers of Personal Advisers in post, they are not yet required to provide data on those with a careers guidance specialism. This information will be available in the annual survey of all Connexions staff due to take place at the beginning of May.

  Child Care (Preston)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many child care places have been created in Preston since 1997; [168114]

  (2) how many children in Preston have gained from the National Childcare Strategy. [168131]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department is unable to provide details of child care places for Preston. However, from April 1999 to December 2003 Lancashire local authority created 20,860 new child care places helping some 36,821 children. This shows an increase in the stock of child care places, taking into account turnover, of 9,046 helping some 16,274 children.

  Child Guardians
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects the President of the Family Law Division to issue her latest practice note regarding the appointment of child guardians in private law proceedings. [167633]

  Margaret Hodge
  The President of the Family Division issued a Practice Direction on 5 April 2004. Copies of this Practice Direction and the CAFCASS Practice Note, which explains it, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the closing date was for applications for new board members for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; [169022]

  (2) what criteria his Department used in determining appointments to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service board; [169023]

  (3) how many people applied for positions on the board of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; [169024]

  (4) whether applications for the board of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service were considered which had been received after the official closing date. [169025]

  Margaret Hodge
  The published closing date for applications to the new board of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) was 28 January 2004. After 28 January the exercise was extended, to widen the range of skills and experience offered by candidates, and four further applications were considered. A total of 336 applications for the positions were received. The published criteria for new board members were as follows:"Successful candidates will have demonstrated skills and experience in one or more of the following:
  Experience of working at a senior level in, or close to, the family justice system or social services for children.
  National level experience of children's charities or responsible organisations representing families and parents or mediation services.
  A background in research relevant to CAFCASS customers and the operation of family law.

  1255W
  Experience of a top level executive position in a large organisation, public or private sector, delivering high quality services to the public.
  Experience of being a non-executive board member or director in an NDPB, company or charity.
  Senior experience in financial management, not necessarily as a professionally qualified person, with expertise in budgeting, resource management and audit.
  Board expertise in information technology.
  In addition, candidates will demonstrate commitment to customer care and valuing diversity. They will have integrity and be able to work well as a member of a team."

  Children's Centres
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children's centres have been set up; and if he will make a statement. [167875]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are 67 children's centres in England all of which are based in disadvantaged areas. We have now begun to receive children's centres implementation plans from local authorities and are considering these on an individual basis. We will be in a position to announce more centres by the middle of June 2004. Further announcements will be made at regular intervals as we work towards our goal of 1,700 children's centres by March 2008 and our aspiration for one in every community in the longer term.

  Computers Within Reach (Wigan)
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers and (b) families in Wigan have benefited from the Computers within Reach programme. [169291]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Computers Within Reach (CWR) scheme closed on 31 October 2001 having delivered over 24,000 recycled computers to people in 22 pilot areas, at a cost of £7.1 million over two years. Those eligible were in receipt of certain working age benefits or a State Pension with minimum income guarantee.

  At the same time as funding was made available for the Computers within Reach scheme, funding was also provided for the Computers for Teachers programme. For teachers who met certain criteria, this programme subsidised the cost of a computer. It was subsequently replaced by the current Laptops for Teachers scheme which dispensed with subsidies, and through which sufficient funding will be provided to enable two thirds of teachers to receive a laptop by March 2006.

  Wigan was not one of the pilot areas for the CWR scheme.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Simmonds
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of students who have visited a Connexions branch since the launch of the service. [167991]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the number of students who have visited Connexions branches since the launch of the service has not been collected centrally.
  1256W
  A departmental survey in 2003 found that, on average, young people made 40,000 visits to Connexions one-stop-shops and community based access points each week. This equates to over two million visits per year.

  East of England Centre for Playwork Education and Training
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the(a) total set up and (b) latest annual operating costs were for the East of England Centre for Playwork Education and Training; and what the sources of those funds are; [168779]

  (2) what the aims and objectives are for the East of England Centre for Playwork Education and Training; and how many staff are involved in this organisation. [168795]

  Margaret Hodge
  The East of England Centre is one of nine regional centres for Playwork Education and Training operated by the Playwork Unit of Skillsactive, the Sector Skills Council for Active Leisure and Learning. The Government, through the SureStart Unit and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, contributes to the funding of the Playwork Unit. In 2003–04, £50,000 of this contribution went to the East of England Centre and a similar amount will again go to the Centre in 2004–05.

  The aims and objectives of the Playwork Unit and its regional centres are to: raise the level of understanding about the importance of children's play; improve the access to good quality play provision throughout England; and improve children's lives by setting standards of excellence in education, training and qualifications and developing opportunities for playworkers to access education, training and qualifications.

  The total set up costs, annual operating costs and staff numbers of the East of England Centre are the responsibility of the Playwork Unit of Skillsactive, which is a charitable organisation.

  Education (Bootle)
  Mr. Benton
  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 Bootle in each of the last seven years. [169080]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Figures on the number of free nursery education places taken up by 3 and 4-year-olds in Sefton 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.gov.uk/rsgateway/.

  Since the beginning of April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all three-year-olds in England whose parents warn one, are eligible for a free, part-time early education place.
  1257W

  Number of free nursery education places1,2 taken up by 3 and 4-year-old children in maintained nursery and primary schools and private, voluntary and independent providers—Sefton local education authority area: 1997–2003

  Position in January each year

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  1997

  2,100

  3,200

  1998

  2,000

  3,300

  1999

  2,100

  3,200

  2000

  2,400

  3,100

  2001

  2,900

  3,200

  2002

  2,700

  3.200

  2003

  2,700

  3,000

  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 33 weeks of the year, usually three terms of 11 weeks.

  Education (East Worthing and Shoreham)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new nurseries have been set up in East Worthing and Shoreham since 1997. [169033]

  Margaret Hodge
  West Sussex local authority is responsible for determining the local need for nurseries in West Sussex and holding information on current provision. West Sussex local authority reported that between April 1999 and December 2003, 37 new nurseries have been established in the constituency of East Worthing and Shoreham. Thirteen of these are offering full daycare and 24 are offering sessional daycare, creating 1,301 additional places. West Sussex Local authority plan to create a Children's Centre in Worthing providing Children's Centre services for around 250 children and their families. The nursery attached to the Worthing Children's Centre (which has benefited from resources from the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative) is set to open iii October 2004 and will deliver 30 new full daycare places.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Sectretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) free nursery and (b) pre-school places were available for (i) three-year-olds and (ii) four-year-olds in East Worthing and Shoreham in each of the last seven years. [169035]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Figures on the number of free nursery education places taken up by 3 and 4-year-olds in West Sussex local education authority area are shown in the table.

  The latest figures on provision for 3 and 4-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/.

  Since the beginning of April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all three-year-olds in England whose parents want one, will be eligible for a free, part-time early education place.
  1258W

  Number of free nursery education places1,2 taken up by 3 and 4-year-old children in maintained nursery and primary schools and private, voluntary and independent providers—West Sussex local education authority area: 1997–2003

  Position in January each year

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  1997

  600

  7,600

  1998

  800

  7,900

  1999

  900

  8,400

  2000

  800

  8,700

  2001

  1,300

  8,200

  2002

  2,600

  8,100

  2003

  4,900

  8,400

  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 33 weeks of the year, usually three terms of 11 weeks.

  Education (Heywood and Middleton)
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many children have benefited from the National Childcare Strategy; and if he will make a statement; [168496]

  (2) how many child care places have been created in Heywood and Middleton since 1997. [168513]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department is unable to provide details of childcare places for Heywood and Middleton. However, from April 1999 to December 2003 Manchester local authority created 6,086 new child care places helping some 11,101 children. This shows an increase in the stock of child care places, taking into account turnover, of 3,629 helping some 6,772 children.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent on computers for schools in Heywood and Middleton in each of the last seven years. [168506]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My department does not collect information on school spend on computers at constituency level. However Heywood and Middleton is in Rochdale LEA and since 1998–99 schools in Rochdale have benefited from the following funding through the Standards Fund Grant for ICT (including match funding from the LEA):

  Allocation to Rochdale LEA (£)

  1998–99

  442,813

  1999–2000

  354,000

  2000–01

  728,370

  2001–02

  1,076,549

  2002–03

  1,304,709

  2003–04

  1,613,999

  2004–05

  1,826,570

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the effects on schools of changes since 1997 in the level of investment in school sports in Heywood and Middleton. [168576]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information is not held in the format requested.
  1259W
  Within the context of the statutory National Curriculum, where Physical Education (PE) is compulsory for pupils aged 5–16, it is for individual schools to use their budgets as they judge appropriate.

  The Government are investing more than £1 billion in England to transform PE, school sport and club links. The funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to increase the percentage of 5–16 year olds who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  The Department is providing just over £330,128–00 to support the Siddal Moor School Sport Partnership in the Rochdale LEA area. The partnership includes five secondary schools (including the sports college hub) and 20 primary/special schools and provides enhanced sports opportunities for all young people to ensure that their pupils spend a minimum of two hours a week on high quality PE and School Sport.

  The New Opportunities Fund has provided schools in the Rochdale LEA area with over £2.873 million specifically to enhance PE and school sport facilities.

  Latest research, published by the Departments on 4 March shows that 68 per cent. of pupils in schools that have been in a Partnership for three years, are taking up the two hour entitlement, rising to 90 per cent. at Key Stage 3. Data has been collected from remaining Partnerships and will be published in April.

  Jim Dobbin
  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 Heywood and Middleton in each of the last seven years. [168581]

  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 Rochdale 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.gov.uk/rsgateway/.

  Since the beginning of April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all three year olds in England whose parents want one, are eligible for a free, part-time early education place.

  Number of free nursery education places1,2 taken up by 3 and 4-year-old children in maintained nursery and primary schools and private, voluntary and independent providers—Rochdale local education authority area—1997–2003

  Position in January each year

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  1997

  1,400

  2,800

  1998

  1,500

  2,800

  1999

  1,400

  2,800

  2000

  2,300

  2,700

  2001

  2,300

  2,700

  2002

  2,500

  2,700

  2003

  2,300

  2,700

  1260W

  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.

  Education (Match Funding)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what studies he has made of the difficulties further education colleges have faced in deriving sources of funding to match funds from the learning and skills council. [168362]

  Alan Johnson
  We have not commissioned studies into the factors affecting further education college abilities to match funds from the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Colleges are generally required to provide match funding for capital projects.

  Colleges are tic t required to match funding for learning provision.

  Education (Stalybridge and Hyde)
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many childcare places have been created in Stalybridge and Hyde since 1997; [168750]

  (2) how many children in Stalybridge and Hyde have gained from the National Childcare Strategy. [168757]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department is unable to provide details of childcare places for Stalybridge and Hyde. However, from April 1999 to December 2003 Manchester Local Authority created 6,086 new child care places helping some 11,101 children. This shows an increase in the stock of child care places, taking into account turnover, of 3,629 helping some 6,772 children.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent on computers for schools in Stalybridge and Hyde in each of the last seven years. [168751]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department does not collect information on school spend on computers at constituency level. However Stalybridge and Hyde is in Tameside LEA and since 1998–99 schools in Tameside have benefited from the following funding through the Standards Fund grant for ICT (including match funding from the LEA):

  Allocation to Tameside LEA

  £

  1998–99

  400,000

  1999–2000

  300,000

  2000–01

  982,825

  2001–02

  1,105,494

  2002–03

  1,562,674

  2003–04

  1,584,573

  2004–05

  2,015,558

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) free nursery places and (b) pre-school places were available for (i) 3 and (ii) 4-year-olds in Stalybridge and Hyde in each of the last seven years. [168758]
  1261W
  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. Figures on the number of free nursery education places taken up by 3 and 4-year-olds in Tameside local education authority area are shown in the table.

  The latest figures on provision for 3 and 4-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/.

  Since the beginning of April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all 3-year-olds in England whose parents want one, will be eligible for a free, part-time early education place.

  Number of free nursery education places1,2 taken up by 3 and 4-year-old children in maintained nursery and primary schools and private, voluntary and independent providers—Tameside local education authority area: 1997–2003

  Position in January each year

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  1997

  1,700

  2,900

  1998

  1,600

  2,900

  1999

  1,600

  2,800

  2000

  2,100

  2,700

  2001

  2,200

  2,800

  2002

  2,200

  2,600

  2003

  2,200

  2,600

  1Part-time equivalent number of free nursery education places taken up by 3 and 4-year-old children.

  2A 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.

  Education (Warrington, South)
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) free nursery and (b) pre-school places were available for (i) 3 and (ii) 4-year-olds in Warrington South in each of the last seven years. [168702]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Figures on the number of free nursery education places taken up by 3 and 4-year-olds in Warrington local education authority area are shown in the table.

  The latest figures on provision for 3 and 4-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/rsgatewav/.

  Since the beginning of April 2004 six months ahead of our original target, all 3-year-olds in England whose parents want one, are eligible for a free, part-time early education place.

  Number of free nursery education places 1,2 taken up by 3 and 4-year-old children in maintained nursery and primary schools and private, voluntary and independent providers—Warrington local education authority area

  Position in January each year

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  1997

  800

  2,300

  1998

  800

  2,500

  1999

  900

  2,300

  2000

  1000

  2,400

  1262W

  2001

  2,000

  2,400

  2002

  2,100

  2,300

  2003

  2,100

  2,300

  1Part-time equivalent number of free nursery education places taken up by 3 and 4-year-old children.

  2A free nursery education place comprises five ½ hour sessions of early years education per week, for 33 weeks of the year, usually three terms of 11 weeks.

  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent on(a) computer equipment and (b) computer facilities for schools in Warrington South in each year since 1997. [168703]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department does not collect information on school spend on computers at constituency level. However Warrington South is in Warrington LEA and since 1998–99 schools in Warrington have benefited from the following funding through the Standards Fund grant for ICT (including match funding from the LEA):

  Allocation to Warrington LEA

  £

  1998–99

  401,364

  1999–2000

  465,000

  2000–01

  854,534

  2001–02

  947,807

  2002–03

  1,369,561

  2003–04

  1,402,145

  2004–05

  1,732,009

  Education Funding (Birkenhead)
  Mr. Frank Field
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been allocated to schools in Birkenhead for information and communications technologies since 2001. [166333]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to his question on 19 April 2004 for the funding spent on computers for schools in Birkenhead in each of the last seven years.

  Football Clubs (Study Centres)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many study centres have been built in conjunction with leading football clubs since 1997. [167582]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since 1997, 58 study support centres have been built, or existing premises refurbished, in conjunction with football clubs as part of the Department's Playing for Success initiative. The clubs involved are from the FA Premier, Nationwide and Conference Leagues. The Department's contribution to the costs has been matched by the LEAs and clubs involved.

  Headquarters Staff
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in reducing the number of headquarters staff since the 2004 Budget Statement. [168599]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 41W.

  Healthy Eating
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much his Department spent to promote healthy eating among children aged under 16 years in each of the last seven years in each local education authority in Greater London. [168883]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: The Department does not hold information on the total amount spent on the promotion of healthy eating among pupils aged 16 or the expenditure by each local education authority.

  Over the last five years a total of over £5 million a year has been allocated to local education authorities to promote healthy eating. This includes funding of £2 million per year since 1999 to the National Healthy Schools Standard (NHSS). LEAs are free to supplement these allocations from other budgets supported by un-hypothecated revenue support grant.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of(a) maintained and (b) grammar schools in (i) Greater London and (ii) each London borough have introduced healthy eating options into school canteens in the past 12 months. [168884]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: The Department for Education and Skills does not collect this information.

  Higher Education (Specialist Courses)
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist textile and clothing education courses are available in universities and colleges; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of provision of such courses. [167590]

  Alan Johnson
  This Department does not collect data on the number and type of courses available at universities and colleges. However, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) lists available courses by subject. There are around 450 higher education courses associated with textiles including 340 in fashion and 27 in clothing. I have made no assessment of adequacy of provision. As independent organisations, higher education institutions themselves determine what programmes and courses they offer.

  Information and Communications Technology
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been allocated to schools in Burnley for information and communications technologies since 2001. [167937]
  1264W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. friend to my answer to his question on 22 April, for the funding spent on computers for schools in Burnley in each of the last seven years.

  Interactive Computer Displays
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate his Department has made of the cost to(a) Government and (b) individual schools of installing interactive computer display whiteboards. [168669]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A total of £50 million has been announced for the provision of interactive whiteboards to primary and secondary schools. This funding has been split equally between the financial years 2003–04 and 2004–05 and has been allocated to LEAs. All LEAs in England will receive funding and we would expect over 18,000 classrooms to benefit.

  The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta) have created an interactive whiteboards framework contract which delivers significant savings in price and considerably reduces the time and effort that would be needed to procure them. Details are available at www.whiteboards.becta.org.uk. LEAs and schools are also able make purchases via this contract with funds not associated with the central initiative.

  Jobs (Burnley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the(a) change and (b) percentage change was in full-time permanent jobs in Burnley from 1997 to 31 December 2003; [167909]

  (2) how many new jobs have been created in Burnley since 1997. [167910]

  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 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about full-time jobs and jobs created in Burnley. (167909,167910)

  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 attached table shows the information requested, relating to all jobs and full-time jobs, in Burnley, 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 employees] in Burnley parliamentary constituency: 1997 and 2002

  Number, per cent.

  Full-time

  Total

  Number of employees

  1997

  25,700

  35,000

  2002

  24,200

  35,800

  Change from 1997 to 2002

  Absolute

  1,500

  900

  Percentage

  5.9

  2.5

  1Employee jobs only, not self-employed jobs

  Source:

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

  Millennium Volunteers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Government's policy is on the recruitment of 16 to 24-year-old millennium volunteers; and how many have been recruited(a) in total and (b) in St. Helens South. [165332]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department's Spending Review settlement provided funding for the MV programme at national level of £15 million a year for the period to March 2006. The Millennium Volunteers (MV) programme, which forms part of the Connexions Service portfolio of services for young people, provides volunteering opportunities for young people aged between 16 and 24 to engage with their local communities. To date over 136,000 young people have participated in the programme in England, with nearly 67,000 completing 100 hours or more of volunteering. We do not hold the information on the number of volunteers in St. Helens South.

  National Childcare Strategy
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many children in Burnley have been affected by the National Childcare Strategy; [167921]

  (2) how many child care places have been created in Burnley since 1997. [167938]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department is unable to provide details of child care places for Burnley. However, from April 1999 to December 2003 Lancashire local authority created 20,860 new child care places helping some 36,821 children. This shows an increase in the stock of child care places, taking into account turnover, of 9,046 helping some 16,274 children.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Bootle have benefited from the National Childcare Strategy. [169084]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department is unable to provide details of child care places for Bootle. However, from April 1999 to December 2003 Sefton local authority created 3,417 new child care places helping

  Year/School

  Project

  Package

  Funding (£)

  NSI 1997/98

  Burnley Rosehill Junior School

  Schemes submitted by District Liaison Committees

  LEA wide grant

  2,006,000

  Burnley Healey Wood Infant School

  Rewires

  Project including 18 schools

  1,007,100

  NDS3 1999/2000

  Burnley Lowerhouse Junior School

  Rewires

  Project including 18 schools

  1,007,100

  Burnley Barden Junior School

  Rewires

  Project including 18 schools

  1,007,100

  Burnley Barden Junior School

  Window Repairs/Replacement

  Project including 14 schools

  516,000

  Burnley Wood Top Church of England Infant School

  Window Repairs/Replacement

  Project including 14 schools

  516,000

  Burnley St. Stephen's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School

  Playground Repairs

  Project including 25 schools

  300,000

  Burnley Barden High School

  Boilers/Heating

  Project including 17 schools

  601,900

  St. Theodore's Roman Catholic High School, Burnley

  Rewires

  Project including 18 schools

  1,007,100

  NDS4 2000/2001

  Burnley Ivy Bank High School

  Planned maintenance work, internal alterations and partial refurbishment of science accommodation

  —

  197,880

  Burnley Habergham High School

  Replacement of temporary classrooms

  —

  102,265

  Padiham Primary School

  Consolidation on infant site to enable amalgamation of KS1 accommodation

  —

  527,976

  Burnley Ightenhill Primary School

  Replacement of HORSA Kitchen and dining fascilities

  —

  330,623

  1266W
  some 6,128 children. This shows an increase in the stock of child care places, taking into account turnover, of 1,859 helping some 3,400 children.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many children in East Worthing and Shoreham have benefited from the National Childcare Strategy; [169034]

  (2) how many child care places have been created in East Worthing and Shoreham since 1997. [169036]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department is unable to provide details of child care places for East Worthing and Shoreham. However, from April 1999 to December 2003 West Sussex local authority created 12,005 new child care places helping some 21,702 children. This shows an increase in the stock of child care places, taking into account turnover, of 7,334 helping some 13,837 children.

  New Deal for Schools
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much funding each school in Burnley has received from the New Deal for Schools; [167924]

  (2) how much public funding money has been spent on repairing schools in Burnley in each year since 1997. [167922]

  Mr. Miliband
  Table A shows the schools in the Burnley 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; this should be held at local authority level. Table B sets out the capital support made by the Department to Lancashire local education authority and its schools since 1997–98, in total and by programme (including all allocations through NDS mentioned in table A)
  1267W

  Year/School

  Project

  Package

  Funding (£)

  Padiham Gawthorpe High School

  Provision of second indoor sports facility (to supplement existing gym) and re-roofing of main teaching block

  —

  257,965

  Ightenhill Nursery School

  Replacement of Boilers/Heating Systems

  Project including 36 schools

  1,143,110

  Burnley Rosehill Junior School

  Playground Repairs

  Project including 29 schools

  270,090

  Burnley Rosehill Junior School

  Roof Repairs/Replacement

  Project including 11 schools

  548,460

  Burnley Rosehill Community Infant school

  Replacement of Boilers/Heating Systems

  Project including 36 schools

  1,143,110

  Burnley Rosehill Community Infant school

  Roof Repairs/Replacement

  Project including 11 schools

  548,460

  Burnley Barden Community Infant school

  Rewires of electrical systems

  Project including 17 schools

  951,650

  Burnley Barden Junior School

  Replacement of Boilers/Heating Systems

  l'roject including 36 schools

  1,143,110

  Burnley Ightenhill Primary School

  Replacement Windows

  Project including 13 schools

  566,350

  Burnley Ightenhill Primary School

  Playground Repairs

  Project including 29 schools

  270,090

  Todmorden Road Primary School

  Playground Repairs

  Project including 29 schools

  270,090

  Burnley Holy Trinity Church of England Primary Scholl

  Playground Repairs

  Project including 29 schools

  270,090

  Christ The King Roman Catholic Primary School, Burnley

  Playground Repairs

  Project including 29 schools

  270,090

  Padiham Gawthorpe High School

  Refurbishment of CDT

  Project including 6 schools

  1,502,992

  St. Theodore's Roman Catholic High School, Burnley

  Rewires of electrical systems

  Project including 17 schools

  951,650

  St. Theodore's Roman Catholic High Scholl, Burnley

  Replacement of Boilers/Heating Systems

  Project including 36 schools

  1,143,110

  Burnley Calder View Community Special School

  Playground Repairs

  Project including 29 schools

  270,090

  Notes:

  1. For NDS 1 grant was allocated for Lancashire 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 Burnley constituency. The LEA will be able to say how much was allocated to each school.

  2. Where the project includes a package for a number of schools, each school received a share of the funding.

  Table B: Capital allocations: Lancashire local education auhority

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Additional NDS Grant (615)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,510

  —

  —

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  189

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Voluntary Aided formulaic allocations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  378

  2,167

  2,813

  Basic Need

  5,388

  5,519

  4,766

  6,543

  2,931

  4,597

  9,312

  Class Size initiative

  —

  1,238

  3,711

  2,190

  347

  89

  —

  Condition

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,923

  12,228

  16,043

  Devolved Formula

  —

  —

  —

  9,115

  7,517

  11,489

  17,518

  Energy

  —

  353

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modernisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,551

  8,750

  NDS 1

  2,006

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 2

  —

  3,468

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 3

  —

  —

  7,538

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 4

  —

  —

  —

  13,376

  —

  —

  —

  Outside Toilets

  —

  275

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Private Finance Initiative

  —

  —

  13,400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  School Labs

  —

  —

  —

  591

  591

  —

  —

  School Security

  373

  408

  429

  429

  301

  258

  —

  Schools Access Initiative

  75

  211

  400

  620

  980

  1,634

  2,138

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Secondary Learning Support Units

  —

  —

  —

  290

  314

  389

  —

  Seed Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  604

  703

  1,288

  1,282

  Specialist Schools

  —

  —

  —

  100

  100

  500

  —

  Staff Workspace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  220

  526

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  2,021

  454

  1,149

  365

  454

  —

  —

  Supplementary NDS for VA Schools

  —

  —

  —

  63

  3

  —

  —

  Targeted Capital Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,093

  2,689

  —

  Targeted Capital Funding—VA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,225

  Voluntary Aided School Grant

  3,425

  5,031

  3,597

  3,735

  3,633

  4,371

  —

  Total

  13,288

  16,957

  35,179

  38,021

  29,778

  46,470

  62,607

  To date we have allocated £53.8 million capital funding for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much funding each 1268W
  school in Preston has received from the New Deal for Schools; [168128]

  (2) how much public funding money has been spent on repairing schools in Preston in each year since 1997. [168130]
  1269W
  Mr. Miliband
  Table A shows the schools in the Preston 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

  Table 4—NDS allocations to schools in the Preston constituency

  School

  Project

  Package

  Funding (£)

  NDSI—1997–1998

  Woodlands School

  Improve science block

  LEA wide grant

  1,170,000

  Preston Tutorial Centre

  Schemes submitted by District Liaison Committees

  LEA wide grant

  2,006,000

  NDS3–1999–2000

  Brookfield Community Primary School

  Playground Repairs

  Project including 25 schools

  300,000

  Frenchwood Community Primary School

  Roof Works

  Project including 13 schools

  549,700

  Preston Grange Primary School

  Playground Repairs

  Project including 25 schools

  300,000

  Preston Greenlands Community Primary School

  Window Repairs/Replacement

  Project including 14 schools

  516,000

  Ribbleton Avenue Infant School

  Boilers/Heating

  Project including 17 schools

  601,900

  Preston Fishwick Primary School

  Window Repairs/Replacement

  Project including 14 schools

  516,000

  Bamber Bridge St Saviour's Church of England Primary School

  Playground Repairs

  Project including 25 schools

  300,000

  Christ The King Catholic High School, Preston

  Boilers/Heating

  Project including 17 schools

  601,900

  NDS4–2000–2001

  Moorfield School

  Raising Standards

  532,119

  Walton-le-Dale High School

  Extension of Design Technology/ Science Building and boiler replacement

  697,323

  Brookfield Community Primary School

  Replacement Windows

  Project including 13 schools

  566,350

  Brookfield Community Primary School

  Rewires of electrical systems

  Project including 17 schools

  951,650

  Deepdale Junior School

  Playground Repairs

  Project including 29 schools

  270,090

  align="right"

  Deepdale Junior School

  Replacement of Boilers/Heating Systems

  Project including 36 schools

  1,143,110

  Frenchwood Community Primary School

  Replacement Windows

  Project including 13 schools

  566,350

  Frenchwood Community Primary School

  Replacement of Boilers/Heating Systems

  Project including 36 schools

  1,143,110

  Frenchwood Community Primary School

  Playground Repairs

  Project including 29 schools

  270,090

  Frenchwood Community Primary School

  Roof Repairs/Replacement

  Project including 11 schools

  548,460

  Holme Slack Community Primary School

  Replacement Windows

  Project including 13 schools

  566,350

  Holme Slack Community Primary School

  Roof Repairs/Replacement

  Project including 11 schools

  548,460

  English Martyrs Catholic Primary

  Replacement of Boilers/Heating Systems

  Project including 36

  1,143,110

  St Mary and St Benedict's Roman Catholic Primary School, Bamber Bridge

  Replacement of Boilers/Heating Systems

  Project including 36 schools

  1,143,110

  Sherburn School

  Replacement of Boilers/Heating Systems

  Project including 36 schools

  1,143,110

  Notes:

  1. For NDS 1 grant was allocated for Lancashire local education authority (LEA) wide projects, part of which was used for building maintainance work and improved security at each of two schools in the Preston constituency. The LEA will be able to say how much was allocated to each school.

  2. Where the project includes a package for a number of schools, each school received a share of the funding.

  Table B—Capital allocations: Lancashire local education authority

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Additional NDS Grant (615)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1510

  —

  —

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  189

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Voluntary Aided formulaic allocations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  378

  2167

  2813

  Basic Need

  5388

  5519

  4766

  6543

  2931

  4597

  9312

  Class Size initiative

  —

  1238

  3711

  2190

  347

  89

  —

  Condition

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7923

  12228

  16043

  Devolved Formula

  —

  —

  —

  9115

  7517

  11489

  17518

  Energy

  —

  353

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modernisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4551

  8750

  NDS1

  2006

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1270W
  not, therefore, have complete information about capital investment at constituency level, this should be held at local authority level.

  Table B sets out the capital support made by the Department to Lancashire local education authority and its schools since 1997–98, in total and by programme (including all allocations through NDS mentioned in table A).
  1271W

  Table B—Capital allocations: Lancashire local education authority

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  NDS2

  —

  3468

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS3

  —

  —

  7538

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 4

  —

  —

  —

  13376

  —

  —

  —

  Outside Toilets

  —

  275

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Private Finance Initiative

  —

  —

  13400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  School Labs

  —

  —

  —

  591

  591

  —

  —

  SchoolSecurity

  373

  408

  429

  429

  301

  258

  —

  Schools Access Initiative

  75

  211

  400

  620

  980

  1634

  2138

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Secondary Learning Support Units

  —

  —

  —

  290

  314

  389

  —

  Seed Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  604

  703

  1288

  1282

  Specialist Schools

  —

  —

  —

  100

  100

  500

  —

  staff Workspace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  220

  526

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  2021

  454

  1149

  365

  454

  —

  —

  Supplementary NDS for VA Schools

  —

  —

  —

  63

  3

  —

  —

  Targeted Capital Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —-

  2093

  2689

  —

  Targeted Capital Funding—VA

  —

  —

  —

  —-

  —

  —

  4225

  Voluntary Aided School Grant

  3425

  5031

  3597

  3735

  3633

  3633

  4371

  Total

  13288

  16957

  35179

  38021

  29778

  46470

  62607

  Note:

  To date we have allocated £53.8 million capital funding for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Performance Tables
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the merits of adjusting performance tables to take account of schools' performance in a wider range of vocational qualifications; and if he will make a statement. [169452]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have piloted, with 244 schools, the reporting of achievements in a wider range of qualifications. That pilot study was published on 1 April, along with a statement of our intentions to include this wider change in this year's secondary school performance tables. Of the 244 schools that participated in the pilot study, 199 achieved a higher capped point score as a result of the inclusion of this wider range of qualifications.

  Primary Schools (Administrative Staff)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many administrative staff were employed in primary schools in(a) England and (b) Wales in each year since 1997. [167978]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the full-time equivalent number of administrative staff employed in maintained primary schools in England who are helping to free teachers to teach and supporting the efficient running of their schools in each year from 1997 to 2003, the latest information available.

  Number

  1997

  19,210

  1998

  19,560

  1999

  19,980

  2000

  21,180

  2001

  22,260

  2002

  23,060

  2003

  23,330

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census.

  1272W
  Information regarding the number of administrative staff employed in Welsh schools is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Register of Interests
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the requirements are on officials in his Department to declare current interests; and what register of interests is kept for his departmental officials. [164701]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Civil Service Management Code sets out the requirement for civil servants to declare a conflict of interest.

  In my Department, individuals are required to declare to management it writing, any personal financial activities or official dealings with individuals or groups who share private or business interests.

  Where a conflict (or potential conflict), of interest arises, management will decide whether to transfer the work which gives rise to the conflict, to another person to avoid any potential embarrassment to the Department.

  School Closures
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many primary school closures there were in(a) England and (b) Wales in each year since 1997. [167977]

  Mr. Miliband
  The numbers of primary schools in England that closed during the calendar years 1997 to 2003 are as follows:

  Number of primary schools closed

  1997

  171

  1998

  174

  1999

  197

  2000

  188

  1273W

  Number of primary schools closed

  2001

  227

  2002

  223

  2003

  207

  Source:

  DfES.

  The figures include schools that closed as a result of the amalgamation or merger of two or more schools; schools that have closed but re-opened as voluntary schools with a religious character; and schools that have closed in local education authorities that have moved from a three-tier to a two-tier system.

  The National Assembly for Wales is responsible for schools in Wales and can supply this information on request.

  Schools Funding (Norfolk)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations he has received regarding funding of schools in Norfolk. [169217]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have received few recent representations on the funding of schools in Norfolk.

  School Standards (Liverpool and Berkshire)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Liverpool, Walton have(a) been deemed to be failing since 1997 and (b) subsequently achieved satisfactory standards. [166960]

  Mr. Miliband
  Three schools in Liverpool, Walton, have been deemed to be failing sine 1997, one primary school, one special school and one secondary school. Two of these schools have subsequently closed. The secondary school was judged by Ofsted in 2003 to have made satisfactory progress since the inspection which removed it from special measures in 2001.

  Solvent Abuse
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what research his Department has commissioned into the extent of solvent abuse by children; [169059]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of children in care who engage in solvent abuse. [169061]

  Margaret Hodge
  Although there is no centrally collected data on the extent of solvent abuse by looked after children, information on the use of volatile substances among young people aged 11–15 years is collected in an annual national survey of secondary school children commissioned by the Department of Health. Latest information is given in the statistical release "Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England in 2003: headline figures" which was published on 31 March 2004. Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England in 2003 http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/public/sddsurvey2003.pdf.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils with special 1274W
  educational needs live more than three miles away from the (a) primary school, (b) secondary school and (c) special school that they attend; and if he will make a statement. [166866]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Numbers of pupils living more than three miles1 from the maintained primary, secondary and special schools2 that they attend, as at January 2003

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Number of pupils travelling more than three miles

  155,187

  583,446

  48,447

  Percentage of pupils travelling more than three miles3

  3.7

  17.8

  52.1

  Number of pupils with SEN travelling more than three miles

  28,720

  72,548

  47,966

  Percentage of pupils with SEN travelling more than three miles4

  3.8

  14.3

  52.3

  1Distances calculated are straight line.

  2Includes middle schools as deemed.

  Source:

  Pupil Level Annual Schools' Census.

  Sports Facilities
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of secondary schools offer their sports facilities for wider community use outside school hours. [169074]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: The Department does not collect information on the number of schools that offer their sports facilities to the wider community. But, many LEA's and schools have arrangements with the local community that provide for this and the development of extended schools will encourage and promote this trend.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to increase sports facilities within existing schools. [169127]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Government are investing significant funding to enhance school sports facilities across England. The New Opportunities for PE and Sport Programme is providing £581.25 million in England (£25 million of which has gone towards the Space for Sport and the Arts programme) and schools from all local education authority areas are benefiting. The Space for Sport and the Arts Programme is providing £130 million to support projects at primary schools in 65 target areas. The schools benefiting from these schemes are required to open up and share their new facilities with other schools and their local community. In addition, the Sporting Playgrounds Programme is providing £10 million to enhance primary school playgrounds to increase physical activity and sport in 27 target areas.

  This funding is on top of the Department for Education and Skills capital investment in school buildings and facilities, which has grown from under £700 million in 1996–97 to £3.8 billion in 2003–04, and will rise to £5.1 billion in 2005–06. The bulk of this investment is allocated to schools and local authorities on a formulaic basis, and is available for improving school sports facilities where these are prioritised in local asset management plans.
  1275W
  From 2005–06, the Government are also introducing Building Schools for the Future, which aims to rebuild and renew all secondary schools, (including their sports facilities) within 10 to 15 years, subject to future spending decisions.

  Sure Start
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he plans to extend the Sure Start scheme to Watford constituency. [162907]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are a range of Sure Start services in Watford, including a children's centre, attached to Westfield School. Holywell is providing Sure Start services for around 590 children and their families. Since 1998, we have guaranteed free early education for all 4-year-olds and this guarantee has been extended to all 3-year-olds from April 2004. In Hertfordshire this represents an additional funding of over £60 million for 2004–05.

  Since 1999, Hertfordshire have also been given over £6.1 million of funding to provide additional child care places and figures received from the authority shows that by March 2003 additional 11,067 childcare places were created.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in Bootle on the latest date for which figures are available; and what steps he is taking to reduce them. [169179]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on teacher vacancies is not available by constituency as it is collected at local education authority level. In January 2003, the latest information available, there were 10 full-time teacher vacancies in Sefton local education authority.

  Like other areas, since 1997 Sefton has benefited from the initiatives that the Government have put in place to recruit and retain teachers and to increase the number of staff supporting them in schools. Since 1997, the number of full-time equivalent regular teachers in maintained schools in Sefton LEA has risen by 120, from 2,540 to 2,660 in 2003. Over the same period, the number of full-time equivalent school support staff in the area has grown by 540 from 780 to 1,320 in 2003.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in each subject in(a) primary, (b) secondary, (c) special and (d) all schools in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority; and if he will express these figures as percentages of all teachers. [167569]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Teaching Assistants
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching assistants there were in schools in Bootle in(a) each of the last seven years and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [169180]
  1276W
  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives the numbers of full-time equivalent teaching assistants in maintained schools in Bootle constituency for each year between 1997 and 2003, the latest year for which data are available.

  Number

  1997

  130

  1998

  130

  1999

  150

  2000

  160

  2001

  200

  2002

  160

  2003

  220

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching assistants there were in schools in Wigan(a) in each of the last seven years and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [169278]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives the numbers of full-time equivalent teaching assistants in maintained schools in Wigan constituency for each year between 1997 and 2003, the latest year for which data are available.

  Number

  1997

  100

  1998

  110

  1999

  110

  2000

  110

  2001

  160

  2002

  130

  2003

  190

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  University Students (London)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students studying at a London university in the last academic year for which figures are available originated from(a) the UK and (b) overseas. [167979]

  Alan Johnson
  Th latest available figures are given in the following table.

  Enrolments1 to UK HE institutions in London 2002–03

  Domicile

  Number

  UK

  259,630

  EU

  21,105

  Other Overseas

  40,648

  Total

  321,383

  Note:

  1Snapshot as at 1 December.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  Vulnerable Children
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local authorities are participating in piloting data sharing schemes for vulnerable children; and when each is due to report. [169037]
  1277W
  Margaret Hodge
  The Government have provided up to £1 million each to 10 Trailblazers, involving 15 local authorities, to test new ways of information sharing and multi-agency working. They ate: Bolton; Camden; Kensington and Chelsea; Knowsley; Lewisham; Sheffield; Gateshead and Newcastle; Leicestershire, Leicester City and Rutland; Telford and Wrekin and Shropshire and west Sussex and east Sussex.

  An evaluation underway by Royal Holloway, University of London is due to report in autumn 2004.

  An interim report, Developing Identification and referral tracking systems: An evaluation of the processes undertaken by trailblazer authorities, was published in March 2004. I will arrange for a copy to be sent to the hon. Member and one has already been placed in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) anti-social behaviour orders, (b) parenting orders and (c) curfew orders have been issued by Leeds City Council since 12 February 2003. [168605]

  Ms Blears
  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)—The number of ASBOs issued within the Leeds local government authority area, as notified to the Home Office, from 12 February 2003 up to 31 December 2003 (latest available) is 50. The local authority was the main complainant for 47 of these orders. Three orders were issued, following conviction, at the court's discretion.

  Parenting Orders—Youth Justice Board figures indicate that two parenting orders were made by courts in the Leeds Youth Offending Team (YOT) area following conviction of juveniles between January 2003 and December 2003 (latest available figures).

  Curfew Orders—Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the Autumn.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders were issued in(a) the first quarter of 2003, (b) the second quarter of 2003, (c) the third quarter of 2003, (d) the fourth quarter of 2003 and (e) the first quarter of 2004. [169733]

  Ms Blears
  The number of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), as notified to the Home Office, issued within England and Wales in 2003 is given, by quarter, in the table. Latest available data are up to December 2003.

  The number of anti-social behaviour orders, as notified to the Home Office, issued within England and Wales, by court and by quarter

  January to December 2003 (latest available)

  First

  Second

  Quarter Third

  Fourth

  Total

  County court on application

  —

  —

  2

  3

  5

  Magistrates court on application

  112

  143

  150

  158

  563

  On conviction

  53

  76

  112

  146

  387

  Crown court on conviction

  4

  4

  15

  42

  65

  Total

  169

  223

  279

  349

  1,020

  Asylum Seekers/Immigration
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum in the UK have been made from claimants not residing in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [165613]

  Mr. Browne
  There is no provision in the Immigration Rules to seek asylum in the UK from abroad. A person usually has to travel to the UK in order to claim asylum here, although an asylum seeker is not usually "resident" in the UK. Exceptionally, some cases are referred to the Home Office from overseas diplomatic posts. If entry clearance is granted exceptionally, and the applicant subsequently travels to the UK and applies for asylum, the application would be included in the figures in the same way as other applications. Limited information is available on applications that are processed abroad. No overseas applications are recorded as having been lodged since 1992.

  Information on asylum applications made in the UK is published quarterly. The next publication covering the second quarter of 2004 will be available on 25 May 2004 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government has to provide alternative accommodation for asylum seekers currently detained at Maghaberry Prison. [164609]

  Mr. Browne
  We have no plans to provide alternative accommodation in Northern Ireland for those immigration detainees who are currently held at HMP Maghaberry.

  However, an individual detainee who initially elected to remain at HMP Maghaberry rather than be transferred to an Immigration Service removal centre in Great Britain may at any time request to be transferred to such a removal centre.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which countries his Department judges that asylum seekers cannot be returned for(a) human rights and (b) other reasons. [163331]

  Mr. Browne
  All asylum and human rights claims are considered on their individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Should a claim be refused and any appeal before the independent Immigration Appellate Authority be unsuccessful, it means that for that individual it is safe to return.

  The only country to which, as a matter of policy, we do not at present generally enforce the return of failed asylum seekers is Zimbabwe. This policy is based not on asylum or human rights reasons but on our view that in the wider context of the Government's position on Zimbabwe, it would be inappropriate forcibly to return failed asylum seekers applicable at this time.

  However, it is open to Zimbabwean failed asylum seekers to return voluntarily. Zimbabweans may apply for the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration

  1279W
  Programme (VAARP) operated by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) on behalf of the Home Office.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) children have been granted humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom in each month since April 2003. [166473]

  Mr. Browne
  The table shows initial decisions resulting in grants of humanitarian protection (HP) to asylum seeker principal applicants and dependants by month from April to December 2003, the latest published figures that are available.

  Principal applicants1,2 not recognised as refugees but granted humanitarian protection, excluding dependants, by sex, April to December 2003

  Male

  Female

  Total grants of HP

  Total initial decisions

  April 2003

  5

  10

  15

  4,290

  May-03

  5

  10

  15

  5,130

  June 2003

  10

  5

  15

  5,230

  July 2003

  5

  5

  15

  4,940

  August 2003

  5

  5

  15

  4,200

  September 2003

  5

  5

  15

  5,070

  October 2003

  5

  10

  20

  5,605

  November 2003

  5

  5

  15

  5,060

  December 2003

  10

  10

  15

  4,310

  Total

  65

  70

  135

  43,840

  1Provisional figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  Dependants of principal applicants1,2 not recognised as refugees but granted humanitarian protection, by sex, April to December 2003

  Male

  Female

  Total

  April 2003

  —

  *

  *

  May 2003

  *

  —

  *

  June 2003

  5

  5

  10

  July 2003

  *

  5

  5

  August 2003

  —

  *

  *

  September 2003

  —

  *

  *

  October 2003

  5

  5

  10

  November 2003

  *

  5

  5

  December 2003

  *

  5

  5

  Total

  15

  25

  40

  1Provisional figures rounded to the nearest five with * = 1 or 2.

  2Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  16 per cent. of these 135 principal applicants and 88 per cent. of the 40 dependants were aged under 18 at time of decision, based on the date of birth information supplied by applicants. 10 of the principal applicants were identified as unaccompanied asylum seeking children, 83 per cent. of these were under 18 at the time of initial decision.

  Cases granted HP are actively reviewed at the end of the HP period, which may subsequently result in refusal and removal.

  Data on non-asylum grants of HP are not available.
  1280W
  Information on asylum decisions, by sex, is published annually. The next publication covering 2003 will be available at the end of August 2004 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many National Asylum Support Service-supported asylum seekers in the City of Newcastle have had support and accommodation withdrawn on the grounds of the failure of their case, broken down by(a) gender and (b) the number of dependants involved. [168692]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on numbers of cases who have had support terminated broken down by reason for cessation, by area of the UK, or by gender is unavailable and could be produced only at a disproportionate cost. A total of 45,185 cases had support terminated in 2002 (the latest year for which data is available) compared with 14,195 in 2001. Support may be terminated for a variety of reasons, including failure of in asylum application or changes in the circumstances of the applicant affecting their eligibility for support.

  As at the end of December 2003 the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in Newcastle in the National Asylum Support Service, (NASS) accommodation was 1,510, and 55 were in receipt of subsistence only support. Figures are rounded to the nearest five and cases which have had their support terminated are excluded from this figure.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by MASS is published quarterly, and information on the number of cases with support ceased is published annually in the annual Home Office Statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom, available on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases involving asylum seekers and dependants from EU accession countries remain to be determined. [168694]

  Mr. Browne
  The requested information is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Information on the number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html. The next publication will be available from 25 May 2004 and will cover the first quarter of 2004 (January to March).

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether asylum seekers from EU accession countries will be required to have an approved work permit under the Special Work Registration scheme before starting work on 1 May; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance issued to(a) employers and (b) jobcentres. [168696]

  Mr. Browne
  From 1 May asylum seekers from the eight EU Accession countries (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) will be able to take up employment in the UK
  1281W
  providing they apply to register under the new Worker Registration Scheme. They will not need a work permit. These arrangements apply equally to accession nationals who are already in the UK (including as asylum seekers) and to those who arrive in the UK on or after 1 May.

  Workers who are required to register should apply as soon as they start a new job—not before—and within one month of taking up employment at the latest. Further information about the Worker Registration Scheme is available on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) website: www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Guidance issued to employers is also available on the IND website at http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp?pageid=17 and available in hard copy from the Employer's Helpline on 08450106677.

  An Awareness Pack and guidance material has been prepared by Jobcentre Plus for use by its staff. This will be placed in the Library once the Regulations are laid before the House on 30 April.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to the Oakington Reception Centre, for the second quarter of 2002, how many(a) appeals were received following refusals, (b) appellants remain in custody, (c) appellants are at addresses known to his Department, (d) appeals have been determined and (e) failed appellants have been removed. [140573]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]: There were 2,160 appeals received for claims decided at the Oakington Reception Centre out of 2,270 refused asylum applications in the second quarter of 2002. Appellants are not routinely detained at Oakington pending their appeal, although some may be in detention at Immigration Service Removal Centres, at Immigration Short Term Holding Facilities, and at prison establishments. Information on the number of appellants in detention and information on the current address of an appellant is not readily available and could only be verified at disproportionate cost. The number of appeals determined on the 2,160 received in the second quarter of 2002 was 1,995. The number of failed applicants who have been removed could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files.

  Information on Oakington and other asylum statistics is published quarterly. The most recent publication covering the third quarter of 2003 is now available on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of applications for asylum in England and Wales were accepted in each year since 1997. [168015]

  Mr. Browne
  The requested infon nation is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Asylum applications, initial decisions, and appeals data relate to applications for asylum in the UK are not available at regional level.
  1282W
  It is estimated that around four in 10 (42 per cent.) of applications for asylum in the UK in 2002 resulted in the granting at initial decision of asylum (10 per cent.) or of exceptional leave to remain (23 per cent.), or in appeals which were allowed by the IAA adjudicators (a further 10 per cent.). This compares with 42 per cent. for applications made in 2001, and 31 per cent. for applications made in 2000. Comparable information for previous years is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files.

  The proportion granted asylum or other status either at initial decision or appeal varies over time reflecting the mix of nationalities, the situations in countries of origin, and the merits of each individual case.

  Further detail including information on the basis of the estimation is provided in the annual statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2002 (pages 11–12), copies of which are available from the Library of the House and at the RDS website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  It is planned that corresponding information for applications made in 2003 will be published in Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2003 at the end of August 2004.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum cases which went to appeal during each of the last seven years were(a) granted and (b) refused leave to remain in the country; and what the total number of cases which went to appeal was in each year. [165619]

  Mr. Browne
  Data on the number asylum cases that went onto appeal are given in the following tables. The tables show the outcomes of appeals determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA), further appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT) and applications for Judicial Review for the latest seven years for which data are available. IAA Appeal determinations may relate to initial decisions made in previous years; IAT appeal determinations may relate to IAA determinations in earlier years. Outcomes of appeals relate to whether an asylum appeal is allowed, dismissed or withdrawn. Allowed appeals do not necessarily result in grants of leave to remain. Some appeals to the IAT are brought by the Secretary of State.

  A record 81,725 appeals were determined by IAA adjudicators in 2003, a quarter (27 per cent.) higher than in 2002 (64,405). The proportion of appeals dismissed rose to 78 per cent. in 2003 (76 per cent. in 2002), while the proportion of appeals allowed fell to 20 per cent. (22 per cent. in 2002).

  As at 31 December 2003, there were an estimated 12,000 appeals lodged with the Home Office which had not been sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority, compared with 30,000 at the end of December 2002; a proportion of appeals lodged do not result in appeal bundles being sent to the IAA.
  1283W

  Appeals1 determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, excluding dependants, 1997 to 2003

  Number of principal appellants

  Appeals received by the Home Office2

  Appeals received by the IAA

  Total determined3

  1997

  20,950

  22,385

  21,090

  1998

  14,320

  15,440

  25,320

  1999

  6,615

  7,775

  19,460

  2000

  46,190

  28,935

  19,395

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  As % of total determined4

  Total

  As % of total determined4

  Total

  As % of total determined4

  1997

  1,180

  (6)

  18,145

  (86)

  1,720

  (8)

  1998

  2,355

  (9)

  21,195

  (84)

  1,770

  (7)

  1999

  5,280

  (27)

  11,135

  (57)

  3,050

  (16)

  2000

  3,340

  (17)

  15,580

  (80)

  475

  (2)

  2001

  8,155

  (19)

  34,440

  (79)

  825

  (2)

  20025

  13,875

  (22)

  48,845

  (76)

  1,685

  (3)

  20035

  16,070

  (20)

  63,810

  (78)

  1,845

  (2)

  1Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest 5. Numbers might not add up due to rounding.

  2Figures for 1997 to 2000 are based on manual counts of data received in Appeals Support Section of the Home Office. Some cases are received elsewhere in the Home Office before being forwarded to ASS and so may be counted in a later month than when they arrived in the Home Office. Figures for 2001+ are based on electronic sources.

  3Based on information supplied by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Determinations do not necessarily relate to appeals received in the same period.

  4Percentages based on total determined excluding without foundation appeals referred to Secretary of State for further consideration. Based on data supplied by the Presenting Officers Unit within the Home Office (October 1999 December 2002).

  55 Provisional figures,

  6Estimate. Figures rounded to the nearest hundred, and subject to later revision.

  Further appeals to the Tribunal, decisions, and the outcome of Tribunal Hearings, excluding dependants. 1996 to 20021

  Number of principal appellants

  Applications for leave to appeal to the Tribunal2

  Appeals to the Tribunal

  Outcome of Tribunal Hearings3

  Applications

  Decisions

  Received

  Determined

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Remitted to adjudicators for further consideration

  1996

  5,620

  5,345

  1,010

  900

  55

  285

  10

  550

  1997

  58,915

  58,130

  2,185

  51,375

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1998

  510,910

  510,315

  1,775

  51,090

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1999

  8,635

  9,575

  2,135

  1,790

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  2000

  6,020

  5,490

  1,615

  2,635

  815

  1,385

  220

  215

  2001

  15,540

  13,540

  3,860

  3,190

  475

  1,140

  150

  1,430

  20024

  25,600

  22,825

  6,920

  5,565

  620

  2,015

  225

  2,700

  Outcome of Tribunal Hearings3

  Allowed

  Appellant Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Allowed

  Secretary of State Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  1996

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1997

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1998

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1999

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  2000

  650

  1,225

  185

  170

  165

  35

  2001

  315

  1,020

  125

  160

  120

  25

  20024

  410

  1,880

  210

  215

  130

  15

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 5. Numbers might not add up due to rounding.

  2Figures based on data supplied by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Decisions and determinations do not necessarily correspond to applications and appeals received in any given year.

  3Figures supplied by the Presenting Officers Unit. Figures for October-December 1999 are based on data for November-December.

  4Provisional figures.

  5Revised figures.

  1284W

  Appeals1 determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, excluding dependants, 1997 to 2003

  Number of principal appellants

  Appeals received by the Home office2

  Appeals received by the the IAA

  Total determined3

  2001

  74,365

  47,905

  43,415

  20025

  51,695

  64,125

  64,405

  20035

  645,600

  70,575

  81,725

  1285W

  Applications for Judicial Review, and outcomes, excluding dependants, 1996 to 2)02

  Applications for leave to move for Judicial Review1

  Applications

  Decisions.2

  of which: granted leave to move

  Percentage of applicants granted leave to move3

  1996

  1,225

  915

  190

  (21)

  1997

  1,350

  1,250

  320

  (26)

  1998

  1,890

  1,220

  300

  (25)

  1999 Q1, Q2, and Q46

  1,790

  1,125

  395

  (35)

  20007

  1,920

  2,095

  555

  (26)

  20017

  2,210

  2,300

  290

  (13)

  20028

  3,075

  2,980

  260

  (9)

  The outcome of judicial review hearings1

  Allowed4

  Dismissed5

  Withdrawn

  Total

  As%of total determinied

  Total

  As%of total determinied

  Total

  As%of total determinied

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999 Q1, Q2, & Q46

  135

  (57)

  25

  (11)

  75

  (32)

  20007

  365

  (48)

  300

  (40)

  95

  (12)

  20017

  260

  (68)

  60

  (16)

  60

  (16)

  20028

  25

  (30)

  60

  (67)

  5

  (3)

  1 Figures based on Administrative Court data. Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

  2Decisions do not relate to applications in any given period.

  3The number of which granted leave to move as a percentage of decisions.

  4The decision of the respondent (in this case, the Home Office or the Department for Constitutional Affairs) was quashed. These figures include consent orders where the JR was conceded by the respondent.

  5The decision of the respondent was upheld.

  6Estimated figures.

  7Figures exclude judicial reviews brought in cases relating to asylum support (NASS).

  8Provisional figures.

  Statistics on the number of asylum appeals heard by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority are published quarterly; data covering the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Judicial Review are published annually. Copies of the most recent publications are available from the Library of the House or on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been placed in(a) Huddersfield, (b) Kirklees and (c) Yorkshire and Humber in each year since 1990. [164902]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is not available in the precise format requested. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) assumed responsibility for the support of asylum seekers on 3 April 2000.

  NASS disperses asylum seekers to Government Office Regions and local authority areas. Statistics by parliamentary constituencies became available at the end of December 2003. The table shows the available data for the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported by NASS in Yorkshire and Humberside region, which includes Kirklees local
  1286W
  authority area and Huddersfield constituency, as at the end of each year since December 2000. Earlier figures are not available.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS is published quarterly. The next publication covering; the first quarter of 2004 (January to March) will be available on 25 May on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.h1ml.

  Asylum seekers (including dependants)supported by NASS

  Government Office Region/local authority area/parliamentary constituency and type of support

  December

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Yorkshire and Humber

  Accommodation

  3,550

  8,470

  10,215

  9,920

  Subsistence only

  90

  285

  800

  855

  Kirklees

  Accommodation

  n/a

  n/a

  935

  1,095

  Subsistence only

  n/a

  n/a

  45

  45

  Huddersfield

  Accommodation

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  750

  Subsistence only

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  25

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest five. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2. n/a not available

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries to which the Home Office does not currently return failed asylum seekers. [165828]

  Mr. Browne
  We seek to remove all failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants wherever possible. All asylum and human rights claims are considered on their individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Should a claim be refused and any appeal before the independent Immigration Appellate Authority be unsuccessful, it means that for that individual it is safe to return.

  The only country to which, as a matter of policy, we do not at present generally enforce the return of failed asylum seekers is Zimbabwe. This policy is based not on asylum or human rights reasons but on our view that in the wider context of the Government's position on Zimbabwe, it would be inappropriate forcibly to return failed asylum seekers applicable at this time.

  However, it is open to Zimbabwean failed asylum seekers to return voluntarily. Zimbabweans may apply for the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VAARP) operated by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) on behalf of the Home Office.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Department is required to record mistaken removals of asylum seekers; and what steps have been taken to develop an appropriate database for this function. [165933]

  Mr. Browne
  There is no statutory requirement for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) to keep records of any mistaken removals of asylum seekers
  1287W
  from the UK. By mistaken removals, we are referring to the removal of any individuals while there are any unresolved issues pending on a case, outstanding appeals or judicial challenges.

  Following a recommendation made by the Home Affairs Select Committee in April 2003 that measures be put in place to record and publicise such cases, IND is currently looking into the feasibility of setting up a central database to record all mistaken removals. We do not have any present plans to publicise such information but no final decision will be made on this without prior consultation with the Immigration Research and Statistical Service (IRSS).

  Dr. Ian Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what medical assessments are conducted on asylum seekers prior to dispersal within the UK, and if he will make a statement; [166427]

  (2) what provision is made for continuing HIV treatment for existing HIV patients in the immigrant population following dispersal; [166609]

  (3) what plans he has to assess the system of dispersal for asylum seekers suffering from HIV. [166426]

  Mr. Browne
  In assessing suitability for dispersal the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) takes account of all known facts. Some health needs are identified when the application for NASS support is being completed. In addition, those asylum seekers who go through Induction Centres are given the opportunity to have a health assessment. This does not automatically include screening for HIV/AIDS but an asylum seeker who believes he may be at risk may opt to have tests conducted.

  Asylum seekers known to be HIV positive are dispersed to areas where relevant treatment is available. In line with standard practice for all MASS dispersals, MASS informs the relevant Primary Care Trust of the asylum seeker's arrival in their area. MASS outreach staff visit asylum seekers shortly after their arrival to ensure that they have access to all services, including health services. Accommodation providers and voluntary sector "one-stop" services can also assist newly dispersed asylum seekers to access services including registering with a GP. Asylum seekers who have undergone a health assessment prior to dispersal are in possession of hand held medical records which they can pass to their GP.

  These policies and practices are being considered as part of a short external review which is expected to report to Ministers in the Summer.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were dispersed in the UK for the latest year for which figures are available. [166610]

  Mr. Browne
  Numbers of asylum seekers placed in the National Asylum Support Service, (NASS) accommodation under the dispersal policy, and numbers who are in receipt of subsistence only support from NASS, are available on a quarterly and annual basis. The total for the United Kingdom as at end December 2003 was 49,760.
  1288W
  The next publication covering the first quarter of 2004 (January to March) will be available on 25 May on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are housed in Liverpool, Walton under the dispersal programme. [166981]

  Mr. Browne
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) disperses asylum seekers to Government office regions and local authority areas. The number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in NA SS accommodation in the constituency of Liverpool, Walton as at the end of December 2003 was 230.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS is published quarterly. The next publication covering the first quarter of 2004 (January to March) will be available o n 25 May on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken to deal with an asylum application is. [166982]

  Mr. Browne
  The latest published statistics show that the speed of processing asylum applications continues to improve. 80 per cent. of applications (excluding withdrawals and third country cases1) received in the period April to September 2003 had initial decisions reached and served within two months. 74 per cent. of applications received in 2002–03, and 61 per cent. of applications received in 2001–02, had initial decisions reached and served within two months. This exceeded the Government's targets of 65 per cent. for 2002–03 and 60 per cent. for 2001–02, and we are on track to meet the target of 75 per cent. for 2003–04.

  The average time between application and initial decision was 10 months for initial decisions made in 2003, compared with 20 months for April 1997. This has been calculated using all cases for which data are available, including older cases decided as part of the reduction of the number of outstanding cases, as well as new cases decided as part of normal work in progress. The number of cases awaiting initial decision fell to 24,500 at the end of December 2003, the lowest level for more than a decade (and 41 per cent. lower than a year earlier), and continues to fall.

  Information on the timeliness of initial decisions is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html
  1Cases which may be the responsibility of other EU member states under the Dublin Convention.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were registered in each year between 1997 and 2003. [166984]

  Mr. Browne
  The tables show asylum applications received in each year between 1997 and 2003 for the UK and for the EU as a whole. The figures show the rise in the UK and across E trope in the late 1990s followed by the fall in 2003 as a result of a series of measures
  1289W
  including those in the National Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. In 2003 applications to the UK fell by 41 per cent. compared with a fall of 10 per cent. for the rest of the EU (excluding Italy).

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants. 1997–2003

  Total applications

  1997

  32,500

  1998

  46,015

  19992

  71,160

  20002

  80,315

  20013

  71,025

  20024

  84,130

  20034

  49,370

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  2May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000

  3Provisional figures

  4Revised figure

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom and European Union, including dependants, 1997–2003

  Total Applications in UK

  Total applications in EU

  1997

  41,500

  255,800

  1998

  58,500

  312,300

  19992

  91,200

  396,700

  20002

  98,900

  401,900

  20014

  91,600

  397,600

  20025

  103,100

  386,100

  20035

  61,100

  3308,400

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 100

  2May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000

  3Excludes Italy data

  4Provisional figures

  5Revised figure

  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The publication covering the first quarter of 2004 (January to March) will be available on 25 May 2004 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been registered with the London Borough of Hillingdon in each of the last five years. [168071]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is not available in the form requested. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) assumed responsibility for the support of asylum seekers on 3 April 2000.

  NASS disperses asylum seekers to Government Office regions and local authority areas. The following table shows the available data for the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported by NASS in the Hillingdon Local Authority area, as at the end of each quarter since December 2002. Information in respect of the number of persons dispersed to an area during a given year is not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS is published quarterly. The next publication covering the first quarter of 2004 (January to March) will be available on 25 May on the
  1290W
  Home Office Research development and Statistics Directorate website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov/uk/rds/immigration1.html

  As at end:

  In receipt of subsistence only support

  Supported in NASS accommodation

  December 2002

  625

  20

  March 2003

  585

  10

  June 2003

  595

  15

  September 2003

  530

  15

  December 2003

  490

  15

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum seekers are estimated to have entered the country illegally in each of the last five years. [168915]

  Mr. Browne
  The number of asylum applications received in each of the last five years for which data are available are given in the table. There is no official estimate of the proportion of these who entered the country illegally.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants: 1999 to 2003—Number of principal applicants

  2Applications received

  1999

  71,160

  2000

  80,315

  20014

  71,025

  20023

  84,130

  20033

  49,370

  1Figures rounded to nearest five

  2May exclude some cases lodged at local enforcement offices between January 1999 and December 2000

  3Provisional figures

  4Revised figures

  Official estimates of the size of the illegally resident population in the United Kingdom do not exist. The Government has commissioned research into the methods used in other countries to estimate the size of the illegal population in order to define methods appropriate for the UK.

  The work required is challenging because, by definition, illegal migrants fall outside of official statistics and are therefore difficult to measure. People illegally present in the UK are also motivated to ensure they remain hidden, which is a challenge to conducting research.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last year immigration detainees were held overnight in police cells. [160556]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of immigration detainees who were held overnight in police cells is not held centrally. However, I can give an assurance that detention in police cells for immigration purposes is kept to the minimum.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from the EU accession states have(a) been granted and (b) been

  1291W
  refused leave to remain in the UK under the European Communities Association Agreement (i) in 2001–02, (ii) in 2002–03 and (iii) to date in 2003–04. [160937]

  Mr. Browne
  Detailed figures are not available for 2001–02. However, on the basis of internal management information, we estimate that around 8,000 applications were made during this period.

  In 2002–03, we estimate that just under 15,000 ECAA applications were granted, and some 1,400 were refused or fell for other reasons. In 2003–04 (to end February 2004), these figures were around 35,000 and 1,200 respectively.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has passed to the Immigration Appellate Authority the relevant papers in the case of Mr. S. M., husband of Mrs. S. K. of Aylesbury (decision maker's reference 643686; Gerrys/Fedex case reference 9003389; appeal reference 900863159; UK Visas reference GV 100/86120); and if he will make a statement. [167247]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 22 April 2004]: This appeal was forwarded to the Immigration Appellate Authority on 13 April 2004.

  Bogus Colleges
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to close down bogus colleges for migration purposes; and how many colleges have been closed down in each year since 1997. [166555]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 22 April.

  Charities Bill
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the Charities Bill. [167048]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The draft Charities Bill, announced in the Queen's Speech, is expected to be published in mid-May. It will be considered by a joint Committee of both Houses which will be asked to report by 30 September.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Counter Terrorism expects to reply to the hon. Member for Southend, West's letters of(a) 10 December 2003 and (b) 12 January. [165196]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is as follows.

  (a) I apologise for the delay in replying to the hon. Member. On 5 April the letter was accepted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who will reply shortly.

  (b) My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State (Fiona Mactaggart) wrote to the hon. Member on 23 February.
  1292W
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 8 March with regard to Mohammed Riaz. [168924]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I responded to my right hon. Friend on 26 April 2004.

  Crime
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in(a) overall recorded crime, (b) recorded violent crime, (c) burglaries and (d) vehicle thefts in Burnley has been since 1997. [168315]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Burnley is a Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area. Data at CDRP level have been published only from 1999–2000 onwards. Detailed statistics at CDRP level are available for 2002–03 on the new Home Office website: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in(a) overall recorded crime, (b) recorded crime, (c) burglaries and (d) vehicle thefts in Heywood and Middleton has been since 1997. [168535]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Heywood and Middleton comes within the Rochdale Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area. Data at CDRP level has only been published from 1999–2000 onwards. Detailed statistics at CDRP level are available for 2002–03 on the new Home Office website: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in(a) overall recorded crime, (b) recorded violent crime, (c) burglaries and (d) vehicle thefts in Manchester Gorton has been since 1997. [167467]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Gorton comes within the Manchester Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area. Data at CDRP level has only been published from 1999–2000 onwards. Detailed statistics at CDRP level are available for 2002–03 on the new Home Office website http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many homophobic incidents were recorded in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 by each of the (i) police divisions in west Yorkshire and (ii) police forces in England and Wales. [167049]

  Ms Blears
  Recorded crime figures submitted to the Home Office by police forces do not separately identify crimes motivated by homophobia. This is because homophobic crime is not a distinct offence in law, and is instead included within the figures for other offences according to the nature of the action.
  1293W
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary 01 State for the Home Department how many racially aggravated incidents were recorded in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 by each of the (i) police divisions in West Yorkshire and (ii) police forces in England and Wales. [167050]

  Ms Blears
  The available information relates to racially or religiously aggravated offences by police force area. The latest figures relate to 2002–03 and are given in the table. This information is not published at police force division level.

  Information for 2003–04 is not yet available.

  Racially or religiously aggravated offences recorded by the police in 2002–031

  Police force area

  Number

  Avon and Somerset

  900

  Bedfordshire

  169

  Cambridgeshire

  410

  Cheshire

  376

  Cleveland

  145

  Cumbria

  69

  Derbyshire

  560

  Devon and Cornwall

  496

  Dorset

  177

  Durham

  371

  Essex

  558

  Gloucestershire

  210

  Greater Manchester

  2,353

  Hampshire

  317

  Hertfordshire

  343

  Humberside

  302

  Kent

  547

  Lancashire

  860

  Leicestershire

  809

  Lincolnshire

  136

  London, City of

  71

  Merseyside

  734

  Metropolitan Police

  9,853

  Norfolk

  203

  Northamptonshire

  303

  Northumbria

  934

  North Yorkshire

  3,457

  Nottinghamshire

  635

  South Yorkshire

  242

  Staffordshire

  466

  Suffolk

  246

  Surrey

  407

  Sussex

  443

  Thames Valley

  948

  Warwickshire

  159

  West Mercia

  527

  West Midlands

  2,422

  West Yorkshire

  707

  Wiltshire

  232

  Dyfed-Powys

  96

  Gwent

  193

  North Wales

  288

  South Wales

  737

  Total

  34,411

  1Offences of racially or religiously aggravated other wounding, harassment, common assault and criminal damage

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been to the levels of recorded crime, broken down by offence, within Weston-super-Mare in each year since 1997. [167531]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  1294W
  Weston-super-Mare comes within the North Somerset Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area. Data at CDRP level has only been published from 1999–2000 onwards. Detailed statistics at CDRP level are available for 2002–03 on the new Home Office website http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk.

  Criminal Justice
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time from arrest to court was for(a) persistent young offenders and (b) all offenders in the Wrekin in each year from 1997. [166721]

  Paul Goggins
  The information is as follows.

  Days

  West Mercia— Persistent Young Offenders arrest to sentence

  West Mercia Time Interval Survey—charge to first listing

  National figures— Persistent Young Offenders arrest to sentence

  1997

  155

  n/a

  141

  1998

  123

  n/a

  125

  1999

  109

  30

  108

  2000

  96

  32

  93

  2001

  79

  28

  76

  2002

  63

  25

  68

  2003

  57

  24

  66

  Notes:

  1. We cannot provide "arrest to court" data for Persistent Young Offenders—only arrest to sentence.

  2. We cannot provide "arrest to court" for all offenders.

  3. The figures for "charge to first listing" come from the Time Interval Surveys. Comparable data for 1997 and 1998 are not available.

  4. We cannot provide data for the Wrekin, but we can provide data for West Mercia in which this constituency is situated.

  Criminal Justice Database
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 17 February, how many matches are contained wholly within the criminal justice section of the database. [165827]

  Ms Blears
  The National DNA Database is a criminal intelligence database and its use is restricted by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended, to purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution. All of the matches referred to in the 17 February answer, either suspect-to-scene or scene-to-scene were made in the course of police investigations.

  Detained Families
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate official appointed to oversee all detained family cases. [164330]

  Mr. Browne
  Oversight of family cases involving children as part of the family is maintained by the Management of Detained Cases Unit within Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Their role includes reviewing the appropriateness of detention and ensuring that where detention is maintained that the cases are progressed expeditiously.
  1295W
  Any cases involving concern are referred at an early stage to the Immigration Service Director designated to oversee these cases. This Director also receives any information about welfare issues from those responsible for managing the Removal Centre Estate.

  In particular, the Director reviews weekly, all cases involving the detention of families with children where detention might reach 28 days, before the period of detention reaches 28 days, together with reports on all cases already subject to ministerial authorisation. The Director decides whether it is appropriate to seek ministerial authority to maintain such detention.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last 12 months asylum seeker families with children have been detained for over 28 days. [164331]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of occasions that families with children were detained under Immigration Act powers is not available.

  Management information indicates that on 26 January 2004, 35 children were in detention who were detained solely under Immigration Act powers. Three-quarters of those had been in detention for 14 days or less and the remainder had been detained for less than four months. These individuals were all detained as part of families whose detention as a group was considered necessary.

  Detention of all children beyond 28 days is now subject to ministerial authorisation.

  Information on the number of people detained solely under Immigration Act powers as at 27 March 2004 will be published on the Home Office website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html) on 25 May.

  Detention and Removal Centres
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is responsible for dealing with complaints made by immigration and asylum detainees about incidents occurring while they are under escort or transit outside detention or removal centres. [157446]

  Mr. Browne
  All allegations of assault are taken very seriously and all complaints are investigated. If a complaint is made about an alleged assault or inappropriate use of force by either the in-country or overseas escorting contractor the Immigration Service contract monitor will refer this allegation to the police. If such a complaint is made in respect of a local escort, for example to hospital, the detainee, or his/her representative, is always advised in the first instance to go to the police.

  In both cases it is a matter for the police whether a criminal investigation follows. If it is decided not to undertake a criminal investigation, and the escort was a local journey the Immigration Service contract monitor at the removal centre will carry out an investigation of the alleged incident. If the complaint was against the in-country or overseas escorting contractor, the internal investigation will be undertaken by the appropriate contract monitor.

  DNA/Fingerprint Data
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many DNA samples taken by the police have been destroyed in each of the last five years; and under whose authority in each case. [167728]

  Ms Blears
  DNA samples are destroyed and the record of the profile derived from them is removed from the National DNA Database under the authorisation of the police force which submitted the DNA sample for analysis.

  Prior to May 2001, DNA samples obtained from persons who were charged or prosecuted and who were subsequently acquitted or against whom charges were dropped had to be destroyed. An amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 removed this requirement in respect of England and Wales but not Scotland. Samples may therefore have been destroyed and the profiles removed from the Database for one or more of the following reasons:

  they are duplicate records from the same individual,

  the individual has been acquitted or charges not proceeded with,

  the samples were taken error, or

  the death of the individual.

  The police also instruct the laboratory which carried out the DNA analysis to destroy all of the residual retained sample. Records of samples destroyed are not held centrally.

  The number of subject profile records removed from the National DNA Database over the past five years was as follows:

  Number of records removed

  2003–04

  22,976

  2002–03

  21,229

  2001–02

  25,830

  2000–01

  77,336

  1999–2000

  59,957

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that the collecting of DNA and fingerprint data from individuals arrested but not charged with an offence does not lead to(a) a disproportionately high number of samples of black and ethnic minority citizens and (b) a disproportionately low sample of other races being kept. [167256]

  Ms Blears
  With effect from 5 April 2004 the police have the power under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended, to take and retain the fingerprints and a non-intimate sample from all persons arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station.

  The police are given guidance in Codes of Practice as to how to exercise their powers and if they act unlawfully there are existing remedies available to anyone who feels he or she has not been treated fairly or in accordance with the law. Revised Codes of Practice giving guidance on these new powers come into force on 1 May and in the meantime the police have been given advice on these powers in the Home Office Circular 20/2004.
  1297W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics and categories of information will be kept in respect of DNA and fingerprint data on individuals who are not charged with an offence at the time the record is taken or subsequently in connection with the reason the police decided to take the sample; whether the information will be kept in a form which enables statistics on the race or ethnic origin of individuals' samples kept to be accounted for; and if he will make a statement. [166942]

  Ms Blears
  Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended, the police have the power to take fingerprints and non-intimate DNA samples, with or without consent, from all persons arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station.

  Limited demographic information relating to the person arrested will be kept on the National Automated Fingerprint Identification Service and National DNA Databases and fuller information, analogous to the information relating to charged persons, will be kept on the Police National Computer. This will include the name, date of birth, sex, colour (white/non-white/unknown), and ethnic appearance (white European, dark European, Afro-Caribbean, Asian, Oriental, Arab and unknown). The type of offence (or offences) for which the person was arrested will also be recorded and the circumstances which led to the arrest will be kept locally.

  Eaves Housing for Women
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the evaluation of the Eaves Housing for Women project will be(a) begun and (b) completed; what funding was committed to the Eaves Housing project for the years 2002–03 and 2003–04; what funds are committed for 2004–05; what plans he has to extend the project nationality; and if he will make a statement. [166474]

  Mr. Browne
  The evaluation of the POPPY Scheme, run by Eaves Housing for Women, began when the project started in March 2003 and will conclude in August. We expect to receive the findings in the late summer of 2004, with publication of the report following shortly thereafter. Funding allocated for the project in 2002–03 and 2003–04 was £33,000 and £620,000 respectively, including the costs of publicity and evaluation. Funding for 2004–05 has yet to be finalised but is expected to be at a similar level to 2003–04. Decisions about future provision and funding for victims of trafficking—including extension to other areas—will be based on evidence of need and will be taken in light of the evaluation findings.

  Entry Visas
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the Scottish Executive in determining Government policy on issuing entry visas. [165978]

  Mr. Browne
  The Scottish Executive has no role in determining Government policy on issuing entry visas as immigration is a reserved matter and dealt with nationally, but we do work closely with the Scottish Executive on visa policy.

  EU Enlargement
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take to ensure control of Britain's frontiers following enlargement of the EU in May. [163550]

  Mr. Browne
  The Immigration Service is implementing a series of measures at air and seaports to maintain robust border controls post 1 May and to discharge our obligations to ensure that bona fide EU travellers are processed without delay. Measures include: raising awareness of the risks of document abuse by non EU nationals; re-deploying front-line staff when necessary and trialling these arrangements in advance of 1 May.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the likely number of people coming into the UK from countries acceding to the EU in each of the next seven years. [150803]

  Mr. Browne
  Research conducted by University College London for the Home Office, published in June last year ("The impact of EU enlargement on migration flows", Home Office On-Line Report 25/03), estimates that the numbers of people expected to migrate to the UK from the new member states in the years following enlargement will not be significant. The research corroborates a number of other independent studies, which have been summarised in reports by the European Commission in 2000 and the former Department for Education and Employment in 1999. The estimates for those expected to migrate cover those coming to the UK for at least a year. As my right hon. friend the Home Secretary said, these are independent estimates and not Home Office figures.

  We will monitor the situation and the UK has the right to reintroduce restrictions on workers in the event of an unexpected impact on the standard of living or level of employment in a particular region or occupation.

  Gurkhas
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the outcome of the review of immigration rules and procedures applicable to dependent members of serving Gurkha soldiers. [166515]

  Mr. Browne
  There is no review into immigration rules and procedures applicable to dependent members of serving Gurkha soldiers. Officials are currently reviewing immigration policy in respect of Gurkhas serving in the British Army and will be reporting to Ministers shortly.

  Harold Shipman
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether authority has been given for Dr. Harold Shipman's body to be disposed of. [167254]

  Paul Goggins
  Yes. This authorisation has been given.

  Identity Card
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public services for which the Draft Identity Cards Bill requires the production of an ID card as a condition of receiving the service. [169447]

  Mr. Browne
  There is no automatic requirement to produce an ID card for particular services in the draft Bill published by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 26 April. Parliament or the relevant devolved administration would have to approve regulations for each service on a case by case basis. In addition Clause 15(2) prohibits the ID card or a check of the National Identity Register being the mandatory way to access social security benefits or free public services prior to there being a compulsory requirement to register for an ID card.

  Clause 15(5) of the draft Identity Cards Bill defines provision of a public service as:
  (a) the provision of any service to an individual by a public authority;
  (b) the exercise or performance in relation to an individual of any power or duty of a Minister of the Crown, the Treasury or a Northern Ireland department;
  (c) the doing by any other person of anything in relation to an individual which that person is authorised or required to do for purposes connected with the carrying out of any function conferred on him by or under an enactment; or
  (d) treating an individual as having complied with a requirement imposed on him by or under any enactment.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what purpose the Draft Identity Cards Bill enables an individual's national insurance number to be recorded in the National Identity Register. [169449]

  Mr. Browne
  Schedule 1 of the draft Identity Cards Bill published by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 26 April (CM 6178) sets out the information which may be recorded in the National Identity Register. Final decisions on what will be recorded in the Register will depend on further feasibility studies and what legislation Parliament finally agrees.

  Recording the National Insurance number on the Register would link the more secure identity established when the ID card is issued with the National Insurance number which is a less securely issued number. This could help prevent abuse by people using other people's National Insurance numbers and be more convenient for employers using an ID card to confirm eligibility to work.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he plans to make available to the police in the event that an individual refuses to verify his or her identity following introduction of identity cards. [169702]

  Mr. Browne
  The draft Identity Cards Bill that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published on 26 April makes clear that it will not be a requirement for individuals to carry an identity card or to produce a card to a police officer on demand.
  1300W
  As set out in "Legislation on Identity Cards: a consultation (CM 6178)" there will be no new power for the police to stop someone and demand to see their card. Existing police powers to require drivers to produce their driving licence (which could be designated as an ID card) on demand or within seven days at a police station will remain. Added to this, if someone has been arrested for a recordable offence, existing powers will allow the police to take reasonable steps to identify them. This currently includes powers to check biometric information. There are also classes of criminal offences which are non-arrestable and are enforced by sending a summons. In these situations, the police have to be certain of a person's name and address. If a person refuses to identify themselves in these circumstances or the police are not satisfied with the information given, they have a power of arrest after which biometric checks can be made. If it were not possible to identify an arrested person otherwise, for example checking police records, a check could then be made on the person's biometric against the National Identity Register.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants from China could not be deported in each year since 1997 because the Chinese authorities refused to take them; and if he will make a statement. [163198]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of Chinese nationals who could not be returned to China due to the Chinese authorities refusing to accept them is not available.

  Deportations are a specific subset of removals alongside persons subject to administrative removal, removal due to illegal entry action or those refused entry at port and subsequently removed. Information on the nationality of those people removed as a result of deportation action is not available.

  Our ability to effect removals to the country of origin is crucial in tackling illegal immigration, and we expect the co-operation of source countries in this regard. The Chinese Government have very strict conditions for re-documenting their citizens and will only accept their return once they have verified their exact identity. This causes problems for many countries that wish to repatriate Chinese illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers, as those who do not wish to return are careful to conceal their true identity. Chinese officials seconded to the Immigration Service have recently provided assistance in identifying Chinese nationals to enable their return. We are now working on an arrangement to make this assistance permanent.

  We have made it clear to the Chinese Government that we urgently need to find a solution to the problem of re-documenting those who continue to conceal their identity in order to frustrate return, and are working together to find a way forward to enable us to significantly increase returns to China.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures are in place to stop businesses employing illegal immigrants; [155283]

  (2) what measures are in place to deter employers from employing illegal migrants. [159605]
  1301W
  Mr. Browne
  The current principal control on employers to prevent the use of illegal labour is section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Section 8 makes it an offence to employ someone over the age of 16 who is subject to immigration control unless that person has current and valid permission to be in the United Kingdom and that permission does not prevent him or her from taking the job in question; or that person comes into a category where such employment is otherwise allowed. At present, an employer can be fined up to £5,000 per illegal employee on summary conviction for an offence under section 8.

  On 16 March we announced changes, via secondary legislation, to strengthen the security of the document checks employers must carry out on prospective employees under section 8 to establish a statutory defence from prosecution.

  The changes will make it easier for compliant employers to ensure that their work force can work in the UK, and for the Immigration Service to identify and prosecute the small minority of non-compliant employers who knowingly or negligently employ illegal workers.

  The Government recognises the widespread concern, especially in the wake of the recent Morecambe Bay tragedy, about the use of illegal labour and is also supporting the Private Members Bill introduced by my hon. friend, the member for Renfrewshire West (Jim Sheridan) on the licensing of gangmasters. More generally, we are increasing illegal working enforcement activity.

  Between April and June 2003 the Immigration Service reported carrying out 79 illegal working operations of which 27 were aimed at detecting five or more illegal workers. Between October and November last year the number of reported operations increased by over 75 per cent. on the second quarter to 141, while the operations aimed at detecting five or more illegal workers rose by over 175 per cent. to 75.

  In the four month period fro in the beginning of November 2003 to the end of February 2004 UKIS reported carrying out 18 enforcement operations at farms and packhouses where labour providers were involved. These operations led to the removal of over a hundred immigration offenders. A further 11 operations involving labour providers are also scheduled or being planned.

  Earlier this month, two major investigations involving the police supported by UKIS resulted in the conviction of gangmasters for very serious criminal offences. In March, six labour providers with the company Ultimate Source were convicted at Kings Lynn Crown Court of various offences in connection with the supply of illegal workers. On 16 March, the labour provider and his son were found guilty of charges including conspiracy to defraud and facilitating the entry of illegal immigrants into the UK. Both have been sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

  Where the Immigration Service encounters illegal workers, it seeks to remove them from the United Kingdom.

  Merseyside Police
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions individuals have been excluded from a specific area for up to 24 hours by Merseyside Police and Community Support since the inception of this power. [165920]

  Ms Blears
  Merseyside police tell me that they have dispersed more than 100 individuals and given them directions excluding them from three specific areas for up to 24 hours since these powers came into force.

  NASS
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been allocated to the National Asylum Support Service in each financial year since its inception. [163628]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 29 March 2004]: The National Asylum Support Service was established as a separate directorate within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in 2000–01.

  Total Resource Expenditure incurred by the National Asylum Support Service is listed in the table.

  £ million

  Administration cost

  Asylum support cost

  Total cost

  2000–01

  36

  747

  783

  2001–02

  36

  1,046

  1,082

  2002–03

  54

  1,070

  1,124

  National Offender Management Service
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish an organogram for the structures of the National Probation Directorate, HM Prison Service and the National Offender Management Service; and what its likely effects will be on personnel and staffing. [168184]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government will make available details of the structure and organisation of the National Offender Management Service when this is finalised. It is hoped that the proposed structure will be completed soon and can be discussed with trade unions and other key stakeholders.

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commission an independent review of the implementation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. [162633]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government do not consider that an independent review of the working of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is necessary or desirable.

  The operation and impact of section 55 has been closely monitored since implementation on 8 January 2003, and initial problems are being resolved. From 17 December 2003, asylum applicants who can give a credible account that their asylum claim was made within three days of arrival would normally be accepted

  1303W
  as having applied as soon as reasonably practicable. This has resulted in a greater proportion of applications being granted under section 55.

  These section 55 arrangements provide a balanced but firm policy that discourages economic migration, while continuing to offer refuge to those seeking asylum, and providing support to those who qualify or are vulnerable. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) will continue to maintain an open dialogue on section 55 with the voluntary sector agencies, local government and other stakeholders.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement the report of the Advisory Group on Living in the UK about education for naturalisation applicants. [166122]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Ministerial Statement made by my right hon. and noble friend Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 2 February 2004,Official Report, column WS13, and to the related papers deposited in the Library, which set out the steps we are taking with regard to the recommendations of the report.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Treasury about financing the proposals of the Advisory Group on Living in the UK for education of naturalisation applicants. [166126]

  (a) Government grant funding1 per head of population2

  £

  Force

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Avon and Somerset

  94.52

  96.85

  97.60

  101.29

  112.31

  110.15

  117.18

  Bedfordshire

  95.82

  96.93

  95.42

  99.91

  108.29

  115.56

  118.92

  Cambridgeshire

  84.24

  87.30

  89.35

  92.80

  103.72

  100.53

  111.62

  Cheshire

  88.91

  91.34

  95.57

  100.23

  106.51

  108.84

  120.16

  Cleveland

  122.58

  132.06

  134.19

  140.03

  149.03

  157.88

  166.99

  Cumbria

  105.43

  106.94

  108.60

  113.77

  123.88

  125.25

  130.76

  Derbyshire

  88.59

  91.52

  94.26

  95.21

  106.24

  105.08

  112.59

  Devon and Cornwall

  88.03

  94.04

  96.17

  100.10

  109.74

  109.35

  113.03

  Dorset

  81.70

  85.94

  88.70

  87.33

  94.50

  93.57

  98.29

  Durham

  108.52

  117.57

  123.08

  129.27

  137.27

  138.75

  149.73

  Dyfed-Powys

  89.53

  91.34

  91.32

  96.95

  110.74

  111.64

  115.44

  Essex

  90.59

  88.26

  90.52

  92.21

  98.79

  102.63

  107.04

  Gloucestershire

  93.57

  94.74

  94.35

  97.93

  107.57

  107.25

  113.44

  Greater Manchester

  125.21

  129.03

  132.87

  137.74

  153.33

  151.72

  168.58

  Gwent

  102.95

  106.10

  111.61

  115.73

  126.18

  129.40

  137.76

  Hampshire

  87.91

  92.20

  94.15

  97.52

  104.68

  107.94

  118.02

  Hertfordshire

  90.49

  91.73

  97.52

  94.07

  102.02

  102.00

  107.18

  Humberside

  108.87

  114.29

  114.32

  120.40

  129.41

  128.70

  139.33

  Kent

  96.07

  99.44

  100.23

  105.36

  115.33

  116.75

  128.40

  Lancashire

  104.63

  109.53

  110.95

  118.32

  130.73

  127.55

  135.86

  Leicestershire

  92.34

  93.20

  97.15

  100.26

  110.95

  108.92

  116.95

  Lincolnshire

  88.35

  84.49

  88.14

  94.19

  97.01

  103.72

  102.31

  Merseyside

  150.14

  152.59

  154.54

  160.78

  170.52

  180.40

  194.66

  Metropolitan

  211.79

  212.42

  213.96

  229.34

  246.12

  262.69

  286.02

  Norfolk

  91.37

  91.84

  90.65

  95.41

  103.19

  106.25

  115.26

  Northamptonshire

  87.97

  90.37

  91.62

  96.41

  102.33

  102.67

  112.99

  Northumbria

  126.11

  134.98

  138.05

  140.95

  155.45

  153.22

  166.88

  North Wales

  95.01

  96.33

  98.35

  102.77

  112.54

  119.44

  124.00

  North Yorkshire

  85.44

  90.25

  89.77

  90.97

  101.44

  98.66

  103.84

  Nottinghamshire

  106.07

  108.74

  114.03

  116.53

  120.55

  127.25

  133.70

  South Wales

  115.87

  117.36

  119.86

  123.00

  132.89

  135.82

  145.63

  South Yorkshire

  111.96

  115.56

  120.09

  124.8.4

  131.32

  136.86

  151.49

  1304W
  Mr. Browne
  Negotiations on the Home Office's Spending Review settlement must remain confidential.

  Offender Management
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the National Offender Management Service will contribute towards a reduction in the use of custody. [168391]

  Paul Goggins
  This will be achieved through more effective management of offenders under the National Offender Management Service as well as better targeting and co-ordination of custodial and community sentences.

  Omar Bakri Mohammed
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the immigration status of Omar Bakri Mohammed, with a view to removing his indefinite leave to remain. [166042]

  Mr. Browne
  [holaing answer 19 April 2004]: It is not our policy to make public details of a person's immigration status.

  Police
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding per head of population has been received in each year since 1997 from(a) Government grant and (b) the police precept by each police force in England and Wales. [162359]
  1305W

  (a) Government grant funding1 per head of population2

  £

  Force

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Staffordshire

  95.05

  94.50

  94.51

  96.45

  102.10

  104.48

  114.45

  Suffolk

  81.66

  84.42

  89.14

  91.93

  102.94

  100.07

  107.25

  Surrey

  101.66

  89.09

  98.45

  89.29

  87.53

  86.54

  93.50

  Sussex

  90.44

  93.48

  95.87

  96.93

  103.40

  107.94

  114.11

  Thames Valley

  85.97

  89.94

  90.48

  93.06

  104.08

  104.96

  110.48

  Warwickshire

  86.87

  86.31

  87.33

  96.42

  115.96

  100.96

  110.31

  West Mercia

  82.23

  82.82

  86.62

  91.42

  108.57

  97.85

  101.55

  West Midlands

  122.96

  129.04

  132.80

  138.23

  146.43

  151.75

  171.37

  West Yorkshire

  115.77

  119.90

  122.66

  129.50

  136.76

  142.66

  152.24

  Wiltshire

  90.79

  91.08

  91.08

  95.26

  103.05

  102.78

  106.37

  1Government funding includes general grant (Home Office police grant, ODPM/Welsh Assembly Government Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domestic Rates). It also includes specific grants: Crime Fighting Fund. Rural Policing Fund, Airwave, DNA Expansion Programme, Community Support Officer funding, London and South East Allowances, Free Travel (City of London and MPS only), Basic Command Unit funding, Street Crime Initiative, Special Priority Payments, Counter Terrorism funding (MPS only) and capital grants.

  2Source for resident population figures: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as used in the calculation of the police funding settlements.

  (b) Precept1 per head of population2

  £

  Force

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Avon and Somerset

  20.68

  23.12

  24.93

  28.73

  39.52

  17.41

  18.64

  20.54

  22.46

  23.64

  26.58

  31.84

  Cambridgeshire

  16.87

  15.96

  17.27

  20.72

  22.73

  31.63

  39.48

  Cheshire

  17.51

  18.68

  19.71

  21.55

  23.04

  26.32

  31.84

  Cleveland

  15.37

  13.66

  17.73

  18.68

  20.09

  27.90

  36.11

  Cumbria

  18.82

  23.61

  25.61

  27.79

  30.29

  33.87

  44.77

  Derbyshire

  15.76

  17.68

  20.46

  22.24

  23.81

  29.12

  36.46

  Devon and Cornwall

  17.06

  16.73

  18.61

  20.64

  21.76

  25.97

  36.89

  Dorset

  24.47

  27.35

  30.07

  32.87

  35.98

  40.25

  48.75

  Durham

  14.62

  13.68

  14.26

  15.02

  16.24

  18.75

  23.90

  Dyfed-Powys

  17.33

  21.43

  26.45

  31.18

  33.41

  36.22

  45.88

  Essex

  19.44

  22.55

  23.72

  25.03

  26.26

  28.53

  34.96

  Gloucestershire

  18.18

  20.54

  24.72

  28.27

  29.89

  34.38

  51.92

  Greater Manchester

  15.58

  16.32

  17.50

  18.26

  18.97

  20.21

  28.10

  Gwent

  15.58

  17.41

  19.30

  24.52

  27.75

  31.71

  40.58

  Hampshire

  18.23

  17.72

  19.09

  19.60

  21.05

  26.97

  35.31

  Hertfordshire

  20.48

  23.44

  25.26

  27.16

  28.92

  32.29

  39.96

  Humberside

  15.11

  15.34

  16.14

  17.95

  25.79

  28.90

  35.28

  Kent

  18.50

  17.47

  19.03

  20.27

  21.92

  26.80

  35.35

  Lancashire

  16.03

  16.23

  17.67

  19.31

  21.17

  23.18

  27.95

  Leicestershire

  15.71

  18.47

  19.44

  20.91

  23.38

  29.71

  33.55

  Lincolnshire

  21.90

  25.18

  26.33

  28.08

  29.70

  31.43

  34.46

  Merseyside

  18.94

  20.47

  22.22

  23.53

  25.17

  28.02

  31.03

  Metropolitan

  24.26

  29.38

  31.69

  34.56

  44.59

  49.04

  61.80

  Norfolk

  17.10

  18.04

  21.73

  24.42

  28.38

  34.14

  42.23

  Northamptonshire

  22.40

  22.20

  24.69

  25.99

  27.42

  35.22

  43.99

  Northumbria

  14.77

  13.49

  14.21

  14.88

  16.12

  17.02

  19.20

  North Wales

  17.11

  20.75

  23.96

  28.59

  30.47

  35.78

  47.19

  North Yorkshire

  17.78

  17.47

  18.99

  20.80

  22.97

  32.58

  57.99

  Nottinghamshire

  14.46

  16.32

  18.13

  19.36

  20.97

  25.71

  33.83

  South Wales

  15.88

  18.17

  21.17

  26.24

  28.02

  29.49

  35.66

  South Yorkshire

  14.47

  14.79

  15.96

  16.23

  17.37

  20.65

  27.15

  Staffordshire

  16.77

  22.34

  24.36

  25.92

  29.83

  32.08

  41.11

  Suffolk

  17.20

  17.63

  18.94

  20.71

  23.18

  28.05

  38.35

  Surrey

  19.40

  28.94

  32.78

  34.81

  36.09

  42.05

  60.17

  Sussex

  19.87

  19.69

  20.58

  21.51

  22.83

  27.00

  38.71

  Thames Valley

  19.84

  19.13

  21.31

  22.81

  24.41

  27.81

  41.15

  Warwickshire

  18.39

  22.00

  25.38

  27.71

  30.88

  37.22

  43.60

  West Mercia

  17.64

  18.83

  20.79

  26.21

  28.09

  37.48

  42.85

  West Midlands

  15.00

  13.87

  14.62

  15.71

  16.49

  18.01

  21.35

  West Yorkshire

  15.12

  15.09

  15.86

  17.13

  17.90

  22.53

  26.96

  Wiltshire

  19.94

  22.85

  25.11

  27.80

  30.65

  33.79

  41.04

  1Source for precept information: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly Government.

  2Source for resident population figures: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as used in the calculation of the police funding settlements.

  1306W 1307W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police cyclists there are per head of population for each police force. [168004]

  Ms Blears
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in full-time police officers in Burnley has been since 1997. [168314]

  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 available only from 2002.

  Burnley is part of the Pennine Basic Command Unit (BCU). Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the Pennine BCU increased by 0.7 per cent. (from 526 to 530). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable (Paul Stephenson) and within the Pennine BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  (a) Government grant Funding1 per head of population2

  £

  Force

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Avon and Somerset

  94.52

  96.85

  97.60

  101.29

  112.31

  110.15

  117.18

  Bedfordshire

  95.82

  96.93

  95.42

  99.91

  108.29

  115.56

  118.92

  Cambridgeshire

  84.24

  87.30

  89.35

  92.80

  103.72

  100.53

  111.62

  Cheshire

  88.91

  91.34

  95.57

  100.23

  106.51

  108.84

  120.16

  Cleveland

  122.58

  132.06

  134.19

  140.03

  149.03

  157.88

  166.99

  Cumbria

  105.43

  106.94

  108.60

  113.77

  123.88

  125.25

  130.76

  Derbyshire

  88.59

  91.52

  94.26

  95.21

  106.24

  105.08

  112.59

  Devon and Cornwall

  88.03

  94.04

  96.17

  100.10

  109.74

  109.35

  113.03

  Dorset

  81.70

  85.94

  88.70

  87.33

  94.50

  93.57

  98.29

  Durham

  108.52

  117.57

  123.08

  129.27

  137.27

  138.75

  149.73

  Dyfed-Powys

  89.53

  91.34

  91.32

  96.95

  110.74

  111.64

  115.44

  Essex

  90.59

  88.26

  90.52

  92.21

  98.79

  102.63

  107.04

  Gloucestershire

  93.57

  94.74

  94.35

  97.93

  107.57

  107.25

  113.44

  Greater Manchester

  125.21

  129.03

  132.87

  137.74

  153.33

  151.72

  168.58

  Gwent

  102.95

  106.10

  111.61

  115.73

  126.18

  129.40

  137.76

  Hampshire

  87.91

  92.20

  94.15

  97.52

  104.68

  107.94

  118.02

  Hertfordshire

  90.49

  91.73

  97.52

  94.07

  102.02

  102.00

  107.18

  Humberside

  108.87

  114.29

  114.32

  120.40

  129.41

  128.70

  139.33

  Kent

  96.07

  99.44

  100.23

  105.36

  115.33

  116.75

  128.40

  Lancashire

  104.63

  109.53

  110.95

  118.32

  130.73

  127.55

  135.86

  Leicestershire

  92.34

  93.20

  97.15

  100.26

  110.95

  108.92

  116.95

  Lincolnshire

  88.35

  84.49

  88.14

  94.19

  97.01

  103.72

  102.31

  Merseyside

  150.14

  152.59

  154.54

  160.78

  170.52

  180.40

  194.66

  Metropolitan

  211.79

  212.42

  213.96

  229.34

  246.12

  262.69

  286.02

  Norfolk

  91.37

  91.84

  90.65

  95.41

  103.19

  106.25

  115.26

  Northamptonshire

  87.97

  90.37

  91.62

  96.41

  102.33

  102.67

  112.99

  Northumbria

  126.11

  134.98

  138.05

  140.95

  155.45

  153.22

  166.88

  North Wales

  95.01

  96.33

  98.35

  102.77

  112.54

  119.44

  124.00

  North Yorkshire

  85.44

  90.25

  89.77

  90.97

  101.44

  98.66

  103.84

  Nottinghamshire

  106.07

  108.74

  114.03

  116.53

  120.55

  127.25

  133.70

  South Wales

  115.87

  117.36

  119.86

  123.00

  132.89

  135.82

  145.63

  South Yorkshire

  111.96

  115.56

  120.09

  124.84

  131.32

  136.86

  151.49

  Staffordshire

  95.05

  94.50

  94.51

  96.45

  102.10

  104.48

  114.45

  Suffolk

  81.66

  84.42

  89.14

  91.93

  102.94

  100.07

  107.25

  Surrey

  101.66

  89.09

  98.45

  89.29

  87.53

  86.54

  93.50

  Sussex

  90.44

  93.48

  95.87

  96.93

  103.40

  107.94

  114.11

  Thames Valley

  85.97

  89.94

  90.48

  93.06

  104.08

  104.96

  110.48

  Warwickshire

  86.87

  86.31

  87.33

  96.42

  115.96

  100.96

  110.31

  West Mercia

  82.23

  82.82

  86.62

  91.42

  108.57

  97.85

  101.55

  West Midlands

  122.96

  129.04

  132.80

  138.23

  146.43

  151.75

  171.37

  West Yorkshire

  115.77

  119.90

  122.66

  129.50

  136.76

  142.66

  152.24

  Wiltshire

  90.79

  91.08

  91.08

  95.26

  103.05

  102.78

  106.37

  1308W
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average police-to-population ratio was in(a) England and (b) the Avon and Somerset Police Authority in each year since 1997. [167505]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Police strength per 100,000 population

  31 March

  Avon and Somerset

  England

  1997

  204.2

  242.2

  1998

  202.8

  240.7

  1999

  202.9

  237.8

  2000

  197.1

  233.0

  2001

  199.4

  234.3

  2002

  204.8

  240.2

  2003

  213.0

  254.5

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding per head of population has been received from(a) Government grant and (b) the police precept by each police force in England and Wales in each year since 1997. [154678]

  Ms Blears
  The in formation is set out in the tables.
  1309W
  1Government funding includes general grant (Home Office police grant, ODPM/Welsh Assembly Government Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domestic Rates). It also includes specific grants: Crime Fighting Fund, Rural Policing Fund, Airwave, DNA Expansion Programme, Community Support Officer funding, London and South East Allowances, Free Travel (City of London and MPS only), Basic Command Unit funding, Street Crime Initiative, Special Priority Payments, Counter Terrorism funding (MPS only) and capital grants.

  2Source for resident population figures: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as used in the calculation of the police funding settlements.

  (b) Precept1 per head of population2

  £

  Force

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Avon and Somerset

  17.47

  18.56

  20.68

  23.12

  24.93

  28.73

  39.52

  Bedfordshire

  17.41

  18.64

  20.54

  22.46

  23.64

  26.58

  31.84

  Cambridgeshire

  16.87

  15.96

  17.27

  20.72

  22.73

  31.63

  39.48

  Cheshire

  17.51

  18.68

  19.71

  21.55

  23.04

  26.32

  31.84

  Cleveland

  15.37

  13.66

  17.73

  18.68

  20.09

  27.90

  36.11

  Cumbria

  18.82

  23.61

  25.61

  27.79

  30.29

  33.87

  44.77

  Derbyshire

  15.76

  17.68

  20.46

  22.24

  23.81

  29.12

  36.46

  Devon and Cornwall

  17.06

  16.73

  18.61

  20.64

  21.76

  25.97

  36.89

  Dorset

  24.47

  27.35

  30.07

  32.87

  35.98

  40.25

  48.75

  Durham

  14.62

  13.68

  14.26

  15.02

  16.24

  18.75

  23.90

  Dyfed-Powys

  17.33

  21.43

  26.45

  31.18

  33.41

  36.22

  45.88

  Essex

  19.44

  22.55

  23.72

  25.03

  26.26

  28.53

  34.96

  Gloucestershire

  18.18

  20.54

  24.72

  28.27

  29.89

  34.38

  51.92

  Greater Manchester

  15.58

  16.32

  17.50

  18.26

  18.97

  20.21

  28.10

  Gwent

  15.58

  17.41

  19.30

  24.52

  27.75

  31.71

  40.58

  Hampshire

  18.23

  17.72

  19.09

  19.60

  21.05

  26.97

  35.31

  Hertfordshire

  20.48

  23.44

  25.26

  27.16

  28.92

  32.29

  39.96

  Humberside

  15.11

  15.34

  16.14

  17.95

  25.79

  28.90

  35.28

  Kent

  18.50

  17.47

  19.03

  20.27

  21.92

  26.80

  35.35

  Lancashire

  16.03

  16.23

  17.67

  19.31

  21.17

  23.18

  27.95

  Leicestershire

  13.71

  18.47

  19.44

  20.91

  23.38

  29.71

  33.55

  Lincolnshire

  21.90

  25.18

  26.33

  28.08

  29.70

  31.43

  34.46

  Merseyside

  18.94

  20.47

  22.22

  23.53

  25.17

  28.02

  31.03

  Metropolitan

  24.26

  29.38

  31.69

  34.56

  44.59

  49.04

  61.80

  Norfolk

  17.10

  18.04

  21.73

  24.42

  28.38

  34.14

  42.23

  Northamptonshire

  22.40

  22.20

  24.69

  25.99

  27.42

  35.22

  43.99

  Northumbria

  14.77

  13.49

  14.21

  14.88

  16.12

  17.02

  19.20

  North Wales

  17.11

  20.75

  23.96

  28.59

  30.47

  35.78

  47.19

  North Yorkshire

  17.78

  17.47

  18.99

  20.80

  22.97

  32.58

  57.99

  Nottinghamshire

  14.46

  16.32

  18.13

  19.36

  20.97

  25.71

  33.83

  South Wales

  15.88

  18.17

  21.17

  26.24

  28.02

  29.49

  35.66

  South Yorkshire

  14.47

  14.79

  15.96

  16.23

  17.37

  20.65

  27.15

  Staffordshire

  16.77

  22.34

  24.36

  25.92

  29.83

  32.08

  41.11

  Suffolk

  17.20

  17.63

  18.94

  20.71

  23.18

  28.05

  38.35

  Surrey

  19.40

  28.94

  32.78

  34.81

  36.09

  42.05

  60.17

  Sussex

  19.87

  19.69

  20.58

  21.51

  22.83

  27.00

  38.71

  Thames Valley

  19.84

  19.13

  21.31

  22.81

  24.41

  27.81

  41.15

  Warwickshire

  18.39

  22.00

  25.38

  27.71

  30.88

  37.22

  43.60

  West Mercia

  17.64

  18.83

  20.79

  26.21

  28.09

  37.48

  42.85

  West Midlands

  I f.00

  13.87

  14.62

  15.71

  16.49

  18.01

  21.35

  West Yorkshire

  lf,.12

  15.09

  15.86

  17.13

  17.90

  22.53

  26.96

  Wiltshire

  19.94

  22.85

  25.11

  27.80

  30.65

  33.79

  41.04

  1Source for precept information: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly Government.

  2Source for resident population figures: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as used in the calculation of the police funding settlements.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in full-time police officers in Stalybridge and Hyde has been since 1997. [168737]

  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 front 2002.

  Stalybridge and Hyde is part of the Tameside Metropolitan Borough Basic Command Unit (BCU). Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the Tameside BCU increased by 6.7 per cent. (from 389 to 415). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a
  1310W
  matter for the Chief Constable (Michael Todd) and within the Tameside BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in the number of full-time police officers in Heywood and Middleton has been since 1997. [168534]

  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.

  Heywood & Middleton is part of the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Basic Command Unit (BCU). Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength

  1311W
  for the Rochdale BCU increased by 4.2 per cent. (from 409 to 426). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable (Michael Todd) and within the Rochdale BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent from central Government funds per capita on policing in(a) the East Riding of Yorkshire, (b) Humberside and (c) the UK for each of the last five years. [155330]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office is responsible for the funding of the Police Service in England and Wales. The available information for all forces in England and Wales, including Humberside, is set out in the table. The distribution of resources within a force area is a matter for the Chief Constable and the Police Authority.

  Funding for the Police Service in Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and Northern Ireland Office respectively.

  Grant funding1 per head of population2

  £

  Force

  1990–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Avon and Somerset

  97.60

  101.29

  112.31

  110.15

  117.18

  Bedfordshire

  95.42

  99.91

  108.29

  115.56

  118.92

  Cambridgeshire

  89.35

  92.80

  103.72

  100.53

  111.62

  Cheshire

  95.57

  100.23

  106.51

  108.84

  120.16

  Cleveland

  134.19

  140.03

  149.03

  157.88

  166.99

  Cumbria

  108.60

  113.77

  123.88

  125.25

  130.76

  Derbyshire

  94.26

  95.21

  106.24

  105.08

  112.59

  Devon and Cornwall

  96.17

  100.10

  109.74

  109.35

  113.03

  Dorset

  88.70

  87.33

  94.50

  93.57

  98.29

  Durham

  123.08

  129.27

  137.27

  138.75

  149.73

  Dyfed-Powys

  91.32

  96.95

  110.74

  111.64

  115.44

  Essex

  90.52

  92.21

  98.79

  102.63

  107.04

  Gloucestershire

  94.35

  97.93

  107.57

  107.25

  113.44

  Greater Manchester

  132.87

  137.74

  153.33

  151.72

  168.58

  Gwent

  111.61

  115.73

  126.18

  129.40

  137.76

  Hampshire

  94.15

  97.52

  104.68

  107.94

  118.02

  Hertfordshire

  97.52

  94.07

  102.02

  102.00

  107.18

  Humberside

  114.32

  120.40

  129.41

  128.70

  139.33

  Kent

  100.23

  105.36

  115.33

  116.75

  128.40

  Lancashire

  110.95

  118.32

  130.73

  127.55

  135.86

  Leicestershire

  97.15

  100.26

  110.95

  108.92

  116.95

  Lincolnshire

  88.14

  94.19

  97.01

  103.72

  102.31

  Merseyside

  154.54

  160.78

  170.52

  180.40

  194.66

  Metropolitan

  213.96

  229.34

  246.12

  262.69

  286.02

  Norfolk

  90.65

  95.41

  103.19

  106.25

  115.26

  Northamptonshire

  91.62

  96.41

  102.33

  102.67

  112.99

  Northumbria

  138.05

  140.95

  155.45

  153.22

  166.88

  North Wales

  98.35

  102.77

  112.54

  119.44

  124.00

  North Yorkshire

  89.77

  90.97

  101.44

  98.66

  103.84

  Nottinghamshire

  114.03

  116.53

  120.55

  127.25

  133.70

  South Wales

  119.86

  123.00

  132.89

  135.82

  145.63

  South Yorkshire

  120.09

  124.84

  131.32

  136.86

  151.49

  Staffordshire

  94.51

  96.45

  102.10

  104.48

  114.45

  Suffolk

  89.14

  91.93

  102.94

  100.07

  107.25

  Surrey

  98.45

  89.29

  87.53

  86.54

  93.50

  Sussex

  95.87

  96.93

  103.40

  107.94

  114.11

  Thames Valley

  90.48

  93.06

  104.08

  104.96

  110.48

  Warwickshire

  87.33

  96.42

  115.96

  100.96

  110.31

  West Mercia

  86.62

  91.42

  108.57

  97.85

  101.55

  West Midlands

  132.80

  138.23

  146.43

  151.75

  171.37

  West Yorkshire

  122.66

  129.50

  136.76

  142.66

  152.24

  Wiltshire

  91.08

  95.26

  103.05

  102.78

  106.37

  1Government funding includes general grant (Home Office police grant, ODPM/Welsh Assembly Government Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domesticate Rates). It also includes specific grants: Crime Fighting Fund, Rural Policing Fund, Airwave, DMA Expansion Programme, Community Support Officer funding, London and South East Allowances, Free Travel (City of London and MPS only), Basic Command Unit funding, Street Crime Initiative, Special Priority Payments, Counter Terrorism funding (MPS only) and capital grants.

  2Source for resident population figures: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as used for police funding settlements.

  Prison Drug Treatments
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons are using(a) naltraxone, (b) methadone and (c) subutex as part of their drug treatment. [168208]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service does not routinely collect the information requested. However, it is estimated that naltrexone, an abstinence-based treatment, is currently available in around 50 establishments for men and one for women. Methadone maintenance is available in the majority of establishments for women but is not yet widely used in men's prisons.

  Subutex (buprenorphine) is included in the treatment protocols developed in conjunction with NHS services at eight establishments for men. Every establishment for women has the capacity to prescribe subutex but few do so at present because methadone is considered to meet most prisoners' needs. Subutex would, however, be made available to any woman already being prescribed it when received into custody.

  Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many students were admitted to the UK under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme from(a) Romania and (b) Bulgaria in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003. [168377]

  Mr. Browne
  The latest available information is for 2001 to 2003, and is given in the table. Participants under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme must be students in full-time education and aged 18 or over.

  Passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom as seasonal agricultural workers, by nationality, 2001 to 2003

  Number of journeys

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Romania

  125

  330

  545

  Bulgaria

  1,110

  1,730

  1,965

  1Provisional and subject to change.

  Note:

  The figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  Sentence Costs
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost of administering a(a) community rehabilitation order, (b) community punishment order, (c) community punishment and rehabilitation order, (d) curfew order, (e) drug treatment and testing order and (f) attendance centre order for (i) an adult and (ii) a juvenile was in the latest year for which figures are available. [167366]

  Paul Goggins
  The average costs of administering adult community punishment orders in the National Probation Service and the average estimated unit costs of the juvenile orders administered by the Youth Justice Board are as follows:
  1313W

  £

  Adult1

  Juvenile

  Community Rehabilitation Order

  3,080

  2,218

  Community Punishment Order

  2,055

  2,218

  Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order

  3,000

  2,218

  Curfew Order

  1,730

  1,739

  Drug Treatment and Testing Order

  24,080

  1,916

  Attendance Centre Order

  196

  167

  1Forecast costs for 2003–04; include local and central overheads and training of Probation Officers

  2Corrections' costs only; Health costs approx £3,300.

  The Youth Justice Board have commissioned PA Consulting to conduct activity sampling work on Youth Offending Teams which should provide further research data on the unit costs of juvenile orders and interventions. The activity analysis report is due to be completed later this year.

  Spanish Identity Cards
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Spanish Government on proposals to introduce electronic identity cards in Spain. [166843]

  Mr. Browne
  Identity card schemes have existed in all EU countries for many years, with the exception of Denmark and Ireland.

  Home Office officials have had detailed discussions with colleagues involved in the operation of identity card schemes in Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany and lessons learned have informed the development of policy where appropriate. Before the outrages in Madrid, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary discussed with the then Spanish Minister of the Interior his plans to upgrade identity cards in Spain. Comprehensive information has been supplied by each of the EU member states on the operation of their card schemes. The results of this work comprise Annex 3 of "Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud: A Consultation" (CM 5557) published in July 2002.

  Home Office officials will continue to work closely with colleagues in ED member stales to share experience on the design and implementation of identity card schemes.

  Stowaways
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was levied by the UK authorities in fines on(a) drivers and (b) freight companies found carrying stowaways in goods vehicles in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [160375]

  Mr. Browne
  When the civil penalty regime was introduced by the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act, fixed penalties of £2,000 per clandestine entrant were imposed on hauliers for which both companies and their drivers were jointly and severally liable. There were no separate penalties for freight companies and drivers.

  The total amount of the penalties imposed under the old regime during 2001 was £8,888,000. The total amount of penalties imposed during 2002 up until the end of old regime on 7 December 2002 was £3,792,000.
  1314W
  The regime was amended by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. This came into effect on 8 December 2002 and introduced flexible penalties that were separately imposed on companies and drivers.

  The total penalties imposed from the start of the new regime on 8 December 2002 up to 31 December 2003 was £1,365,878; of this £809,913 was imposed on freight companies and £555,965 on drivers.

  The reduction in the monetary value of penalties imposed under the new regime is because:
  The effectiveness of the civil penalty regime and improved control via the increasing use of new detection technology for freight searching has provided an incentive to hauliers to improve their security and lead to a marked a reduction in the number of incidents where clandestine entrants are discovered; and
  The flexible penalty which takes mitigating factors into account has lead to lower average penalties per clandestine entrant.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicles were checked for stowaways at UK border checkpoints in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [160380]

  Mr. Browne
  Detailed records are not kept nationally on the number of vehicles checked for clandestines at UK border checkpoints.

  However, locally collated provisional information for 2003 indicates that at Dover and Coquelles the numbers checked by the Immigration Service were:

  January 2003 to December 2003

  Number

  Dover

  138,030

  Coquelles

  158,130

  Additionally, since 31 December 2003 there has been 100 per cent. checking capability through a range of technologies at Calais.

  Student Visas
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the scheme of student visas in Scotland will apply to other parts of the United Kingdom. [166039]

  Mr. Browne
  The Scottish Graduate Scheme, whereby non European Economic Area nationals who have graduated from Scottish Universities can apply to stay in Scotland for two years and look for work, is a pilot for a more regional approach to managed migration. The scheme, which is planned for introduction from Summer 2005, could be extended to other parts of the UK in due course, if it proves successful.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that those issued with student visas through the scheme announced by the Scottish Executive remain in Scotland. [166040]

  Mr. Browne
  Only overseas graduates from Scottish Universities will be able to apply for extended leave to remain under the proposed scheme. Such graduates will already have a four year history of residence in Scotland
  1315W
  and strong ties to the local community. In addition, the Scottish Executive will be in regular contact with those participating in this scheme through its new Relocation Advisory Service.

  Study Visas
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people(a) in total, (b) from Africa and (c) from each country in Africa are in possession of a visa to study in the UK. [164153]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available.

  The tables show the available statistics for students given leave to enter the United Kingdom or granted an extension of leave to remain, 1998 to 2002. These will include students who have subsequently left the country.

  Data on passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom and persons granted an extension of leave to remain in previous years are published in the Command Papers "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom" obtainable from the House Library, the Stationery Office and via the Home Office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hobpubs1.html.

  Table 1: Passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom as students1, excluding EEA nationals, 1998 to 2002—United Kingdom

  Number of journeys

  Geographical region and nationality

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Africa2

  Algeria

  530

  410

  520

  930

  670

  Angola

  250

  250

  190

  270

  355

  Congo (Dem. Rep.)3

  50

  50

  40

  30

  20

  Egypt

  1,190

  1,050

  1,100

  1,210

  920

  Ethiopia

  190

  190

  180

  240

  155

  Ghana

  970

  1,320

  1,800

  2,460

  2,890

  Kenya

  1,580

  1,590

  1,670

  1,920

  1,980

  Libya

  1,080

  1,140

  1,730

  2,670

  3,130

  Mauritius

  690

  820

  950

  1,180

  1,210

  Morocco

  650

  700

  660

  530

  535

  Nigeria

  1,660

  2,070

  2,430

  3,220

  4,320

  Sierra Leone

  100

  130

  190

  280

  355

  Somalia

  20

  40

  30

  95

  40

  South Africa

  860

  1,050

  1,180

  1,300

  1,380

  Sudan

  330

  320

  390

  310

  455

  Tanzania

  1,070

  940

  950

  910

  905

  Tunisia

  610

  970

  840

  980

  910

  Uganda

  580

  670

  800

  990

  1,290

  Zambia

  500

  560

  580

  700

  680

  Zimbabwe

  690

  770

  1,070

  1,700

  1,780

  Other Africa

  2,790

  2,880

  3,000

  3,250

  3,640

  Africa

  16,400

  17,900

  20,300

  25,200

  27,600

  All nationalities2 (excluding EEA)

  266.000

  272,000

  313,000

  339,000

  369,000

  1The data are of the number of journeys made; a person who makes more than one journey is counted on each occasion if given fresh leave

  2Includes visa and non-visa nationals.

  3The Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly known as Zaire.

  Note:

  Data rounded to three significant digits.

  1316W

  Table 2: Grants of extensions of leave to remain in the United Kingdom as students1,2 excluding EEA nationals, 1998 to 2002 United Kingdom

  Number of decisions

  Geographical region and nationality

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Africa3

  Algeria

  130

  120

  140

  250

  245

  Angola

  70

  90

  100

  80

  155

  Congo (Dem. Rep.)4

  20

  20

  20

  30

  30

  Egypt

  120

  150

  270

  265

  295

  Ethiopia

  50

  60

  60

  50

  80

  Ghana

  680

  950

  1,420

  1,965

  3,130

  Kenya

  950

  1,030

  1,080

  1,010

  1,315

  Libya

  720

  340

  690

  855

  1,260

  Mauritius

  740

  780

  860

  890

  1,280

  Morocco

  100

  90

  120

  150

  150

  Nigeria

  1,680

  1,780

  2,080

  2,170

  2,840

  Sierra Leone

  270

  240

  260

  210

  275

  Somalia

  5—

  5—

  10

  10

  5

  South Africa

  340

  590

  1,250

  1,715

  2,250

  Sudan

  150

  170

  170

  165

  200

  Tanzania

  570

  780

  920

  815

  1,170

  Tunisia

  20

  30

  30

  30

  40

  Uganda

  280

  380

  570

  680

  930

  Zambia

  520

  670

  830

  695

  640

  Zimbabwe

  1,350

  3,320

  5,070

  5,810

  9,075

  Other Africa

  1,270

  1,570

  2,010

  2,200

  3,135

  Africa

  10,050

  13,150

  17,970

  20,045

  28,495

  All nationalities3 (excluding EEA)

  45,100

  51,190

  70,620

  83,180

  121.655

  1The data are of the number of decisions; includes extensions granted to persons admitted or previously granted an extension of leave to remain

  2Excludes dependants of principal applicants and the outcome of appeals.

  3Includes visa and non-visa nationals.

  4The Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly known as Zaire.

  5One or two.

  Note:

  Data rounded to the nearest five.

  Sutton Inquiry
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the terms of reference of the inquiry by Ken Sutton into the operation of the European Communities Association Agreements scheme. [166556]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's statement of 30 March.

  US Visitor Deportations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many US visitors have been deported from the UK for incorrect information on their visa applications in the last 12 months. [168252]

  Mr. Browne
  US nationals who are coming to the UK as visitors/tourists do not require a visa.

  In 2002 (the latest period for which data are available) 1,030 US nationals who had been refused leave to enter the UK were removed from the country.

  Deportations are a specific subset of removals alongside persons subject to administrative removal, removal due to illegal entry action or those refused entry

  1317W
  at port and subsequently removed. Information on the nationality of those people removed as a result of deportation action is not available.

  Work Permits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks are undertaken by Work Permits (UK) to ensure that people whose work permits have expired leave the country. [166552]

  Mr. Browne
  Work Permits (UK) conducts post-issue checks, including visits to employers' premises in order to ensure that work permit holders are employed for the purpose for which the permit was issues on an intelligence led basis. Where it comes to light that a work permit holder has worked or stayed beyond the expiry of their work permit it is able to take enforcement action, including removal. Work Permits (UK) also operates an Intelligence Team who are responsible for investigating alleged work permit offences alongside enforcement officers in the Immigration Service and the National Crime Squad.

  Wheel Clamping
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to regulate the(a) status, (b) prevalence and (c) activities of private security firms which wheel clamp licensed road vehicles on (i) public and (ii) private land; [167296]

  (2) what timetable he has set to bring forward regulations in respect of private companies which wheel clamp licensed vehicles for enforcement purposes under the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. [167297]

  Ms Blears
  On current plans the Security Industry Authority (SIA) propose to commence the licensing of wheel dampers at the end of 2004. Details of the licensing criteria are currently being finalised and are likely to include an identity check, a criminal records check for relevant previous convictions, and a check on the applicant's professional competence to do the job.
  1318W
  The Private Security Industry Act 2001 also provides for the establishment of an approved contractor scheme by the SIA. The timetable for the introduction of the scheme is under consideration by the Authority.

  The 2001 Act does not regulate wheel-clamping on public roads. Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991, local authorities may clamp vehicles that infringe parking regulations on public roads or in local authority off-street car parks. Only a parking attendant, as defined in section 63A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, may authorise such vehicle clamping, although a private contractor may be used to place the clamp on the vehicle. Under sections 71 and 72 of the 1991 Act the owner of a vehicle may make representations to the relevant local authority and subsequently appeal to an independent parking adjudicator about the clamping of the vehicle.

  Yarl's Wood Detention Centre
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the report by Stephen Shaw into the allegations made by the Daily Mirror in relation to the Yarl's Wood Detention Centre; and if he will make a statement. [169227]

  Mr. Browne
  The report will be published on 30 April.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received from Mr. Stephen Shaw his report into the fire at Yarl;s Wood Detention Centre in February 2002; when he intends to publish this report; and if he will make a statement. [169228]

  Mr. Browne
  The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, Mr. Stephen Shaw, is continuing his inquiry into the fire that occurred at Yarl's Wood Removal Centre in February 2002. It is expected that Mr. Shaw will submit his report this summer.

  Yvonne Shitto
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what stage the work visa application number S1145670 in the name of Yvonne Shitto is at; and if he will make a statement. [165913]

  Mr. Browne
  The work visa application for Yvonne Shitto, reference number: S1145670, was refused on the 8 April 2004.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Annual Report
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  The Defra 2004 Departmental Report, which contains information on progress against the Department's objectives, the challenges ahead and summary expenditure plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the House Libraries.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Scottish Devolution Guidance Note
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following written ministerial statement in the other place today."I am today publishing a protocol on Scottish legislative proposals giving devolved power, and functions to UK bodies. This has been agreed by the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. It will be published as one of our series of Devolution Guidance Notes and copies will be deposited in the libraries of both Houses and on the following website http://www.dca.gov.uk/."

HEALTH

  Departmental Annual Report
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  The Department's annual report for 2004, (Cm 6204), was laid before Parliament today.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Food Standards Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  The Food Standards Agency's departmental report Spring 2004, Cm 6205 was laid before Parliament today.

  Copies will be placed in the Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Annual Report
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I am today able to announce the publication of the Department for Work and Pensions Departmental report. The report provides details of the Department's performance in 2003–04 against its public 52WS
  service agreement targets and sets out the Department's expenditure plans for 2004–05 and 2005–06. Copies have been placed in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  International Development Association
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  In 2002, the UK agreed to contribute £900 million to the thirteenth replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA), the World Bank's concessional lending arm which is designed to meet the needs of the world's poorest countries. In addition to this contribution, the UK set aside another £100 million to be provided on condition that a satisfactory framework was agreed to compensate IDA for the costs of introducing grants under its thirteenth replenishment (IDA 13). Both the initial £900 million contribution and the additional provisional contribution of £100 million were approved by Parliament on 3 December 2002.

  I am pleased to announce that a satisfactory framework for compensating IDA 13 for the introduction of grants has now been agreed. Under this framework, donors will compensate IDA upfront for the administrative costs associated with providing grants, through making additional contributions to the next replenishment (IDA 14). (These are costs which arise early in the project cycle and, in the case of loans, would be covered by recipient countries.) Meanwhile, donors will compensate for the lost re-flows from recipient countries as and when these would have fallen due. Given the 10-year grace period provided under IDA on repayment of loans, this would not have happened until 2013 at the earliest. Compensation payments will not therefore be required until this time, and the exact means of compensation will be discussed as part of future IDA replenishments.

  An essential and fundamental principle of the agreed grants compensation framework is that donors should contribute to the cost of compensation in line with their share of IDA 13 (their 'burden share'). If the UK were to contribute the full £100 million set aside to cover the costs of upfront compensation, we would effectively displace the contributions of other donors. We have therefore decided to cover both our burden share under IDA 13, and the structural financing gap inherent in this replenishment (equivalent to 9.37 per cent. of total resource needs from donors), making a total UK contribution for upfront IDA 13 grants compensation of £64.8 million.

  Departmental Annual Report
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  I am today laying before Parliament copies of the Department for International Development's departmental report 2004.

SOLICITOR GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has made the following Ministerial Statement:The Director of Public Prosecutions has, in accordance with section 7A Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 as amended by section 53 Crime and Disorder Act 1998, extended the remit of work that may be undertaken by Crown Prosecution Service designated caseworkers.

  Designated caseworkers are now permitted to undertake all work in the magistrates' court other than:

  Trials

  Proofs in absence in either-way cases

  Committals and sendings

  Pre-trial reviews

  Newton hearings

  Contested bail hearings

  The extended remit of designated caseworkers will enhance the role of the designated caseworker and enable more effective court listing. It will also support the effective delivery by the Crown Prosecution Service of pre-charge advice.

  A designated caseworker will not be permitted to undertake the extended remit until successfully completing a training programme and receiving a personal letter of appointment from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  The following documents will be lodged in the Libraries of Parliament:
  The extended remit of Crown Prosecution Service designated caseworkers.
  The Governance scheme for Crown Prosecution Service designated caseworkers, which sets out the supervision arrangements.
  The statement of ethical principles for Crown Prosecution Service designated caseworkers.

DEFENCE

  Individual Training and Education (Armed Forces)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  Our armed forces have an enviable reputation throughout the world for their professional delivery of operational military capability in a vast spectrum of roles. These range from war fighting to the complex and often subtle requirements of peace support operations and counter-terrorism; besides turning their hand, as they have done in recent years, to providing support to the civil community assisting with fire-fighting, flood-relief and the foot and mouth outbreak. Most who come across Service personnel acknowledge that they have sound essential military skills and operate within an ethos that differs from that generally found within the sphere of civilian employment. Yet those who join the services are not fundamentally different from the rest of society. What turns a young man or woman into a service person, capable of taking on successfully the variety of challenging roles which our country demands of them, is the training and education undertaken by servicemen and women throughout their careers.
  54WS
  The Ministry of Defence is one of the largest providers of training and education to the 16 plus age group in the UK. The initial training delivered to new recruits is geared to provide them with the essential skills and knowledge to be capable of operating effectively in often unpredictable, violent, dangerous and stressful environments from the outset of their careers. MOD seeks to develop each individual to his or her maximum potential. Service personnel are given training and education to improve upon their latent ability; some who join may lack basic skills whilst others have graduate qualifications. The scope and scale of the training and education provision is considerable, and spans the whole length of a career in the forces. Not only does this help to recruit and retain people, but, equally importantly, when service personnel return to civilian employment, they take with them skills of value to society.

  I am therefore pleased to announce that today I have placed in the Library of the House a Policy Paper, entitled "Individual Training and Education in the Armed Forces". The paper provides information on MOD's wide spectrum of training and education and explains the skills agenda to which this operates. At its core lies the funds mental requirement to prepare servicemen and women to deliver operational capability. It includes insights into the key stages of initial training and the training environment, and highlights the MOD's determination to remain at the forefront of developing skills for the 21st Century.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Annual Report
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  I am today arranging for my Department's annual report (Cm 6220) to be laid before Parliament in advance of publication on 30 April.

  Copies will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and the text made available on the Department's website at http://www.culture.gov.uk.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Rules
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  I have today laid before the House a statement of changes to the immigration rules. From 1 May 2004, as a result of the accession of 10 new states to the European Union, nationals of those EU accession states will not require immigration leave to enter or stay in the UK. Consequently it is necessary to remove all references to the individual EU accession states in the immigration rules with effect from the date of accession.

  We have also decided to amend the European economic area (EEA) national settlement requirements to enable those currently in immigration categories leading to settlement to aggregate time spent here under the immigration rules with that as an EEA national in the UK when making an application to settle. This ensures that new EU nationals will not have to spend a

  55WS
  longer time in the UK to qualify for settlement than they would if accession had not occurred. This mirrors the practice followed in previous accessions.

  Zahid Mubarek
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am today announcing that, in line with the House of Lords judgment on 16 October 2003, I have established a public inquiry into the murder of Zahid Mubarek at Feltham Young Offender Institution in March 2000. The hon. Mr. Justice Keith will chair the inquiry; he will be assisted by three expert advisers who will provide advice and support to the inquiry on matters relating to race, prison operations and issues affecting prisoners. The inquiry will start immediately with the following terms of reference:"In the light of the House of Lords judgment in the case of Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department exparte Amin, to investigate and report to the Home Secretary on the death of Zahid Mubarek, and the events leading up to the attack on him, and make recommendations about the prevention of such attacks in the future, taking into account the investigations that have already taken place—in particular, those by the Prison Service and the Commission for Racial Equality."

  A report of the inquiry, subject to matters of confidentiality, will be published.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  The Government have issued an open licence for the export to Iran of goods that will be listed in the United Kingdom strategic export controls annual report as "Components for Military Aero Engines". The goods will be used by the oil and gas industry overhaul turbines that power pumps for oil and gas pipelines. The goods are military listed because they were originally designed and used for military aircraft engines. In this instance, the Government are satisfied that there is a minimal risk of diversion to a military end use, and are prepared to make an exception to the UK national arms embargo. Other aspects of the application were considered against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

TRANSPORT

  Driver, Vehicle and Operator Group
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  I am pleased to announce the Secretary of State's targets for 2004–05 in respect of the Driver, Vehicle And Operator Group.

  The Secretary of State for Transport has set a range of high-level targets for the 2004–05 year on behalf of the Agencies within the Driver, Vehicle and Operator Group; the Driving Standards Agency, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Vehicle Certification Agency and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. They are included in the Agencies' Business Plans. The plans also include a range of management targets, performance indicators and key tasks which are
  56WS
  appropriate to the Agencies' businesses and which reflect the wider DVO change agenda. Copies of the Business Plans will be placed in the Library shortly.

  The key targets for the Driving Standards Agency are:

  DVO Corporate Objective

  Secretary of State Target

  Deliver core services effectively

  Deliver 6 week national average car practical test waiting time from January 2005.

  Maintain or improve levels of candidate satisfaction against the baseline of 90 per cent.

  E-enable core customer-facing services

  Introduce Advanced Speech Recognition for customers booking by telephone in August 2004.

  Deliver a One Stop Service

  Use Automatic Driving Licence Issue system to send pass results to DVLA to enable drivers to receive automatically updated licences from June 2004.

  Help improve road safety

  Deliver a national programme of 6,000 Arrive Alive presentations to 16-19 year olds.

  Deliver an interactive DVD to support learners to learn to drive safely by the end of March 2005.

  Improve the quality of trainers by effectively implementing the Approved Driving Instructors assessment programme.

  Deliver more efficient services

  Deliver Return on Capital Employed target of 3.5 per cent. over a five year period after offsetting the surplus in respect of 2003–04 and earlier years.

  The key targets for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are:

  DVO Corporate Objective

  Secretary of State Target

  Deliver core services effectively

  Maintain or improve levels of customer satisfaction to 94 per cent. (2003 baseline 92 per cent.)

  Issue 98 per cent. of first driving licences within 8 working days

  Make 95 per cent. of vehicle registration (V5) changes within 12 working days.

  Maintain records that enable vehicle keepers to be successfully traced—target 75 per cent. of Harmonised Registration Certificates to be issued by March 2005.

  E-enable core customer-facing services

  Completion of Post Office barcoding (BART Phase 3) by August 2004 to enable automatic immediate update of DVLA licensing records.

  Commence national roll out of Electronic Vehicle Licensing phase 2 by March 2005.

  Deliver a One Stop Service

  First driver to receive replacement licence after passing their driving test, using the Automatic Driving Licensing Issue system by June 2004.

  57WS

  DVO Corporate Objective

  Secretary of State Target

  Improve data accuracy

  First full Harmonised Registration Certificate issued on 1 July 2004.

  Help reduce driver and vehicle related crime and anti-social behaviour

  Reduce revenue loss arising from Vehicle Excise Duty evasion from 4.5 per cent. to 4 per cent. by end of March 2005.

  Successfully reduce the vehicle "inactive register" arising from Continuous Registration by 10 per cent. by end of March 2005.

  Deliver more efficient services

  Deliver Return on Capital Employed target of 3.5 per cent. Deliver 2.5 per cent. efficiency gain.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Certification Agency are:

  DVO Corporate Objective

  Secretary of State Target

  Deliver core services effectively

  Have at least 98 per cent. of approved certificates issued error-free

  Help improve road safety

  Have plans in place and no track to implement new approval procedures for buses by 2007 (working with VOSA).

  Deliver more efficient services

  Achieve at least break even for 2004—

  Complete the roll out of the integrated expense management system across the Agency and provide data to support better business development for 2005–06 Business Plan.

  The key targets for the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency are:

  DVO Corporate Objective

  Secretary of State Target

  Deliver core services effectively

  Improve licence application turnaround times by determining 85 per cent. of unopposed applications within 10 weeks from date of receipt of the application.

  Improve HGV and PSV test availability by offering a test appointment on or within 18 days of the requested date 95 per cent. of the time

  Maintain or improve levels of customer satisfaction against 2003 baselines (operaters licensing 78 per cent., testing 73 per cent., fitters and presenters—roadside checks 89 per cent., testing 92 per cent.; and MOT customers 93 per cent.)

  E-enable core customer-facing services

  Have a robust MOT computerisation system being rolled out nationally by March 2005

  Deliver a One Stop Service

  Develop a commercial customer portal delivering access to operator self-service by May 2004 an e-payment facility by 31 March 2005 and development of self service test bookings for implementation by April 2006.

  58WS

  DVO Corporate Objective

  Secretary of State Target

  Help improve road safety

  Contribute to the improved compliance of the lorry, bus and coach industries (operators and drivers) through effectively targeted compliance inspections, penalties and advice; as measured by Performance Gain points (2003 baseline of 8,295,459).

  Deliver more efficient services

  Contribute to the DVO Group 5 per cent. Value for Money target by delivering against an agreed VOSA Value for Money plan, achieving 2.5 per cent. efficiency and 2.5 per cent. effectiveness measures.

  Develop joined-up support services

  Agree design templates for our estate modernization programme and have completed 30 per cent. of phase one by 31 March 2005.

  Road Transport (Working Time) Directive
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  On 21 October 2003, the Department for Transport launched a consultation exercise to consider the options for implementing the road transport (working time) directive—2002/15/EC (RTD) into UK legislation. This directive provides extra protection for drivers and crew of heavy goods and public service vehicles, who carry out road transport activities covered by the EU drivers' hours rules—regulation (EEC) 3820/85.

  This exercise has now finished. In the light of responses received the Government has decided that the UK regulations should:

  Implement the two derogations available under the RTD. This means that:
  The four month reference period for calculating the average 48-hour week can be extended to six months.
  night workers will be allowed to work more than 10 hours work for every 24-hour period.

  To take advantage of the derogations, there will need to be either a collective agreement, or a workforce agreement at company level between the employer and employees. In addition, drivers will still be subject to the limits under EU drivers' hours rules (regulation 3820/85/EEC)
  define "night time" as a period between 00.00-04.00 for drivers and crew of goods vehicles, but as 01.00-05.00 for drivers and crew of passenger vehicles.
  VOSA (DVTANI) will enforce the new regulations; primarily in response to complaints they receive. This approach will be reviewed before March 2009.
  Self-employed drivers will not be covered by UK regulations until March 2009.
  Workers who are only occasionally subject to the RTD will be covered by the requirements of the directive—in particular the 60 hour weekly limit, 10 hour limit (when doing night work) as well as the daily/weekly rest requirement and break requirements.
  The definitions under the RTD will be copied in to domestic law.
  59WS
  Detailed guidance on the new legislation, including the definitions (notably, working time and periods of availability) and occasional drivers or mobile workers will be published in due course.

  In early June, the Department will consult on the draft text of the new regulations. The RTD will be implemented by 23 March 2005.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parliamentary Boundaries
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended by the Boundary Commissions Act 1992, requires that the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland undertake periodical reviews of 60WS
  constituencies in Northern Ireland. The commission are required to submit a report to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland not less than eight or more than twelve years from their last report. The present review commenced on 16 May 2003.

  The commission are announcing their provisional recommendations for constituencies in Northern Ireland today. The proposals are to be made available for public inspection at district council headquarters and electoral offices, public libraries and at the offices of the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Commission to coincide with the formal publication of the provisional recommendations on 6 May. The commission are required to take into consideration any representations made within one month of publication of the proposals.

  I will, of course, report back to Parliament once the commission has made its final recommendations.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Draft Disability Discrimination Bill
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they now expect their new Disability Discrimination Bill to be presented to Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, our expectations have not changed. We are on track to introduce the Disability Discrimination Bill in this Parliament. Indeed, as noble Lords are aware, a draft is undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. We will respond to the committee's report as soon as possible after it is published. Announcements on the legislative programme will be made in the Queen's Speech in the usual way.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, as ever, and to my noble friend Lord Carter and the Joint Committee for consulting disabled people with such unfailing care. It was movingly exemplified for me by their readiness—in the Easter Recess—to visit Sir Peter Large, who is currently too severely disabled to leave home.
While I warmly acknowledge their manifold legislative achievements for disabled people, can we be assured that Ministers will move with all speed to enact the Bill, resorting if necessary to the rollover procedure now available to expedite Royal Assent?
Will they also back the DRC's call for the "reasonable adjustments duty" on public authorities to be clearly stated as an anticipatory one in the Bill: a duty owed to disabled people generally, not only to individual disabled people who request help?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that the House will join me in recognising the huge achievements of Sir Peter Large over many years. Obviously, his health is a concern for all of us but he has been a great figure in the world and has done so much for the disability cause.
My noble friend asked about speed, rollover, and so on. That is a matter for the usual channels, but I can repeat again that we are on track to deliver the Bill within this Parliament.
My noble friend's third substantive question was about local authorities' anticipatory duty, as opposed to a reactive duty. The issue is whether local authorities are obliged, through their services, their functions and the public premises they own to anticipate the needs of
882
disabled people by ensuring that ramps, audio loops, and so on are available. Yes, we believe that the duty for local authorities is anticipatory; we believe that the drafting makes it clear. But if, for example, the scrutiny committee believes on reflection that it is not as clear as it should be, we are willing to take this away and discuss it with legal counsel in order to ensure that we deliver transparency in the Bill. Of course, when the Bill goes through either House, it will be subject to the Pepper v Hart proceedings which make clear the intent behind the proposals.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Joint Committee completed its deliberations this week and the report should be published in the week of 24 May. The Minister will know that the report is based on the draft Bill which is, itself, an enabling Bill, based on the framework of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I hope that in the light of that, the Government will be able to respond rather more quickly than the two months that they normally take to respond to such reports. I can assure the Minister that the recommendations are quite straightforward. If she could bring the process of response forward so that the Bill could be introduced before the Summer Recess, that would be extremely helpful.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we will have to see what the recommendations say. My noble friend who chairs the committee is in a better position to tell the House this than I am, but my understanding is that we are due to receive the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee on about 24 May. Normally there is a two-month period after that which would take us through to 24 July. As that is the beginning of the recess, we would lose valuable time. So if there is any way of compressing the timetable, we will certainly try to do it. However, that depends on how substantial, dramatic, surprising or worrying the committee's recommendations may be. But if my noble friend has those concerns at heart, then I am sure that he will produce recommendations which we can respond to very quickly.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentions valuable parliamentary time. Can she say by when she anticipates that full implementation of the Bill will occur? Is the end of 2006 a realistic objective? Will the publication be accompanied by the draft orders which, at one point, were promised to the Joint Committee?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the last point, my understanding is that we still hope to publish the draft regulations simultaneously with the Committee stage of the Bill, as far as possible. From my own experience, if, for any reason we are unable to do that, partly because a late Clause 15 has been introduced into the Bill, obviously there will be a very full explanatory memorandum in lieu. We want to be helpful to the House and I am sure that the House would want that.
I have no reason to think that we will not be on track to meet such a timetable in its broad terms. But the noble Lord will understand that there are aspects, not necessarily within the Bill, but associated with disability issues, such as transport, which obviously have a very long

883
timetable because of requiring very heavy investment. So although we might expect to be able to meet such a proposed timetable, the noble Lord will understand that on some issues—aviation, shipping, trains, buses, and so on—there are different timetables in which vehicles will be fully accessible over a much longer period of time than 2006. However, within the substance of the Bill, I might hope to meet such a timetable.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have taken up a great deal of time over many years asking about when legislation of this type will be enacted? Would the Minister be open to a deal that if we get this through as quickly as possible, the usual suspects will not ask any more questions about when it will happen? Surely that would free up a great deal of time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I would be severely disappointed in your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, if, having got the Bill through the House, they continued to ask when it would come before the House.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I was very sorry to miss the early part of my noble friend's Answer, so I am speaking rather in the dark. Is she aware that last Monday the Home Secretary announced that legislation on identity cards would be introduced in the autumn and on the statute book before the general election? Has she been able to give that kind of undertaking to the House today'? If not, will she bear in mind that the identity card legislation is highly controversial and, as she will gather from these exchanges, the question of a disability Bill is not contentious and should go through the House very easily? Can she give that commitment, please?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I can only repeat the first Answer that I gave to my noble friend Lord Morris. Our expectations have not changed; we are on track to introduce the Disability Discrimination Bill in this Parliament. In that way, we will fulfil the commitment we made in our manifesto to extend civil rights to disabled people.

Prime Minister: Plans to Meet Senator John Kerry
11.8 a.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Prime Minister has any plans to meet Senator John Kerry before the United States presidential election.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Prime Minister has no current plans to do so.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, do not the Government agree that there should be a true balance between the Government, the Democrats and the Republicans? Even if President Bush and those around him will not acknowledge any possibility of defeat—and that will not be the first time that they have got it wrong—is it not vital that there should be a good rapport between the Government and the Democratic candidate?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree about the importance of government to government relationships. Of course, party-to-party relationships continue, whatever the parties happen to be, and I include the opposition parties in this country as well as overseas. However, I am bound to say to my noble friend that government-to-party relationships become increasingly sensitive in an election year. That is true whether we are talking about an election in the world's most powerful country or, in my experience, whether we are talking about elections in some very small countries around the world. We have to be sensitive about the way in which we handle those relationships at such a time.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, while I recognise the reasons behind what the Minister said, it is still some six months before the US election takes place. Would it not be therefore wise, in the interests of being even-handed—although we on these Benches recognise that the Prime Minister and Mr Bush are very close—to arrange some kind of meeting well before the time the campaign is under way?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the relationship is indeed close, as was my right honourable friend's relationship with a president of a former party. My right honourable friend has recently returned from the United States. He might well have seen Mr Kerry when he was there, but that was not the way in which diaries worked at the time. I was careful in the way that I formulated my Answer. A meeting is not ruled out entirely but, as a matter of fact, the Prime Minister does not have any current plans for one.
Lord Richard: My Lords, may I take it from that answer that if Senator Kerry were to request a meeting with the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister might be prepared to smile upon it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot control my right honourable friend's diary. I suggest to my noble friend that that would be a question of timing. I do not see any reason why there should not be such a meeting. I have indicated to your

885
Lordships that such a meeting might have taken place only a few days ago had diaries worked. However, as the election draws closer, one would rightly expect the Government, when acting as government, to be circumspect about any meetings with opposition parties or with parties of the governing party—but not with the US Government. That is common sense.
Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, does the noble Baroness believe that circumstances might ever arise in which the Prime Minister would differ from the President of the United States in public?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thought that somebody might ask me that. I shall try to remind the noble Lord of when that has happened. The Prime Minister has differed from the President of the United States on the important issues of climate change and the Kyoto Protocol. The Prime Minister has differed from the President of the United States on his dedication to the death penalty. I have argued fiercely on many occasions with the US Administration about it. We have substantial differences with the United States on that. We also have sharp differences over trade; we have had trade disputes. The Prime Minister has spoken out forcefully against the way in which the President of the United States dealt with the steel issue. There have been frequent disagreements on territorial legislation as it has affected Cuba, Libya and, of course, Iran. There have also been frequent disputes and difficulties between us over a number of different countries. I shall instance at this point solely Cuba, because it is the one of which I had direct experience myself. We decided to resume relationships with Cuba. The noble Lord will know that we have diplomatic relations with a number of countries with which the United States does not. I think that I have been able to give the noble Lord a fairly comprehensive answer on that point.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that we have a very large embassy in Washington and that it would become very difficult for diplomats if the Prime Minister were to carry on discussions with political parties? Nobody would be quite sure whether he was speaking as member of the Labour Party or as the Prime Minister. People in the Labour Party have traditionally gone to talk to their political opposite numbers. I would be surprised if the Labour Party was not doing that now—the Conservative Party surely does the same—on the basis of political party to political party. It is naïve to cloud the issue.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not know whether contacts are being made by members of the Labour Party at this moment. I made a point of not asking that question, because I wanted to answer the Question of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, as I must, from this Dispatch Box, as a government Minister. I, and other Ministers who are far more senior and important, understand the difference between being a party political animal and being a member of a government.

Supermarkets: Independent Watchdog
11.15 a.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to appoint an independent supermarket watchdog.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Office of Fair Trading is currently conducting an audit of compliance with the statutory code of practice governing supermarkets' relations with their suppliers. The results are expected to be published by the end of this year. The Government will consider what action may be appropriate in the light of the OFT's conclusions.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which offers me rather more hope than I had expected. The matter is an urgent one. The Prime Minister has admitted that the supermarkets have an armlock on the farmers. The rate of suicide among farmers continues to rise. The rate of salaries paid to people who run supermarkets also continues to rise. That is a crying scandal and a disgrace that should be put right as soon as possible. We should not wait too long.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, if I might try to detect a question in what the noble Lord has said, I think that it was to ask whether the Government will act with the greatest possible dispatch in light of all the concerns that he raised. The answer must be "yes". All those matters should concern us. I look forward to seeing the report of the OFT. That report should be based on good evidence, because good evidence is the best way of proceeding. We eagerly await that report and the opportunity to act on it.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, supermarkets have for a long time demanded greater returns from suppliers and farmers. They have wanted ever-bigger discounts and have taken ever-larger amounts. That has caused tremendous problems. Is there not a danger, if too much is done in that area, that those supermarkets will then buy their products from overseas and therefore cause much greater difficulty for the current suppliers here?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. It is vital to the United Kingdom's farming industry that a high proportion of the goods that are sold in supermarkets, food goods in particular, are sourced in the United Kingdom. Supermarkets now provide many non-food goods and services. We would want those to come from United Kingdom producers and service producers if that is possible. While I know that some criticisms have been made of the supermarket industry, supermarkets are major players in the realm of employment. One of them, Tesco, employs more than 200,000 people in just under 2,000 communities across the United Kingdom.

887
Supermarkets are large and dynamic players. If they can be linked with other parts of UK production, that must be in all our interests.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, leaving aside for a moment the virtues and vices of supermarkets, does the Minister agree that we already have a sufficiency of watchdogs? One wonders whether there is sufficient, suitable kennel accommodation for them.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I hope that I have made the point that the OFT has the decisive role. Until the OFT reports, and in case its report contains anything on which we should reflect in that regard, we have no plans to change the watchdog. However, watchdogs get the chance to bark only if they see something that they have to bark at. More watchdogs will not alter that fact.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, while recognising the important issue that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has raised, we from these Benches would sympathise with the Minister's reply that the answer is to deal with this via the Office of Fair Trading code. Does the Minister agree that there was perhaps a slightly Freudian slip in his first Answer when he said that it was a statutory code? I thought it was a voluntary code for the supermarkets. Does he not also agree that pressure could perhaps be put on the OFT to appoint a dedicated food trade inspector with particular responsibility for this area in order to reassure the public on this vital matter?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not know that there is a huge amount to add to my last answer. Until the OFT report is available and we can consider whether there are any proposals of that kind, I am not sure that it would help to increase the number of inspections or inspectorates, although I understand the point. In reality, there is quite a lot of dissatisfaction about the operation of the code. I think that my noble friend Lord Whitty, in a recent press statement, drew attention to that fact. We want to see better relations between suppliers and buyers and we want to ensure that we move in the right direction when the changes take place. I have absolutely no doubt that the noble Lord's suggestion will be among the matters that we consider.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, the Minister says that there is no evidence on this subject. Last week, Tesco published profits of £1.5 billion, which is equivalent to half the profits of the British agricultural industry; milk producers are receiving the equivalent of 9 pence per pint for their milk; and 1,700 milk producers went out of business in the past 12 months. What further evidence is required? Surely compliance with the code has to be formally sorted out. The British agricultural industry and British farming will go right down the drain if action is not taken soon.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I did not say there was no evidence; I just said that we needed to collect sufficient
888
evidence to be certain that we are moving in the right direction. I too have read the accounts of the profits of that particular company. I would draw attention in the briefest way to the fact that those profits are generated now out of non-food items including banking arrangements and a very wide range of things. As they are not disaggregated in the annual report it is difficult to tell which parts are due to food and farming production in the first place, although of course that will be significant. Whatever people feel about the proportion of profitability in relation to agriculture, the Consumers' Association has made the point that the whole of the operation has been extremely good for consumers.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I think that the Question deals primarily with food. Does the Minister accept that in many instances there are good relationships between farmers and the supermarkets they supply? Many of them are quite happy with the arrangements. However, others feel aggrieved by the arrangements, and one of their problems is deciding whether to jeopardise their relationship with the supermarkets by giving evidence. Can the Minister give us any guidance on how that problem can be overcome? If the Office of Fair Trading does not have the evidence, it is in a very difficult position.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, that is a very fair point. My attention has been drawn to some of the publications particularly in the farming world in which farmers' representatives have made the point that many people are anxious about providing evidence lest it should soil their relationship with the supermarkets. I can only observe that we must try to produce an environment in which people are not fearful. It is extremely hard to take the right steps unless there is as much detailed evidence as possible. I can say with confidence that the Government would take a very severe view of anything that imported undue fear into the minds of people whose evidence we need.

EU: Draft Constitutional Treaty
11.24 a.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have put to their European Union partners for an alternative treaty, setting out and simplifying appropriate rules for an enlarged Union, in the event of failure to agree the current draft constitutional treaty or to ratify it by one or more member states.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, none.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that short and concise but none the less slightly disappointing reply. Would it, in fact, not be prudent and in the interests of the United Kingdom and the enlarged European Union—which comes into being this weekend and we greatly welcome—to have some kind of plan B,

889
especially as the noble Baroness's close and very well informed colleague Gisela Stuart MP and many other very well informed people have said that we should tear up this constitutional draft and start again? Europe needs something different and more modern from what we are being asked to look at over the next few weeks.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear in another place last week that the Government believe that if the treaty contains our essential points—and I remind your Lordships that there is still a very tough negotiation ahead—it will be in our interests to sign it. Unilaterally proposing a completely different treaty at the moment would be unrealistic and pointless. Worse, it would be against Britain's interests because it would undermine our own basis of negotiation.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure she is—that it really would be the most extraordinary way to negotiate if, in the middle of trying to negotiate a treaty which is plan A, you should disclose to the other side with whom you are negotiating what plan B is? I am delighted that she has rejected that extraordinary proposition.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, when I looked at the Order Paper I could not help wondering about the genesis of the Question. I found it so breathtaking that I thought it could not possibly have come from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who as we all know is a very sensible and serious man. Perhaps he can put it to whoever in the Conservative Party thought that this was a jolly good Question to table that it is customary to finish trying to negotiate one treaty on a subject before proposing alternative wording for another one.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister find it a little paradoxical that now that the current Government have adopted Harold Wilson's position on a referendum, the Conservative Opposition have adopted Tony Benn's position, which is that all other governments should be forced to renegotiate on what we think might be changed? Is she aware of any efforts that the Conservative Party may have made to discover whether any serious parties in any other governments within the EU might sympathise with its position?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that I think he needs to have a little chat with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on that point. I cannot argue for what the Conservative Party has been up to. I know very well what the Government have been up to. The Government have been up to ensuring that we argue for the points I have put before your Lordships on a number of occasions. We have stated those in a White Paper and been open and quite clear about them. Perhaps the noble Lord and the noble Lord from the Opposition Front Bench need to have a quiet word together.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the proposition put forward by Giscard d'Estaing this morning that a "no" to the constitution in a referendum is not necessarily "no" to Europe and British membership of the EU?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I do agree with that. However, I also agree with the other very serious point that Giscard d'Estaing made—that a "no" would mean that Britain would be pushed to the sidelines and lose its influence in the European Union. We cannot quote him on the consequences—perhaps it can be done on other points—and say, "Isn't that right?", without giving the whole quote, which was that we would lose influence in Europe and be pushed to the sidelines—in effect, where we were before 1997, not where we are now.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the draft treaty does indeed set out and simplify the appropriate roles for the enlarged Union and that failure to ratify the proposed draft treaty will actually increase red tape for British business?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that the draft treaty sets out and simplifies the rules for an enlarged EU. What I particularly welcome about the decision on the referendum, which I believe is the right decision, is that we are now able to stop talking about process and start talking about the substance of this draft treaty. I, for one, welcome that.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister not realise that some of us find it a little curious that the Government appear to have been bounced into agreeing to a meeting on 18 June at which it is intended to agree the final version when, as of yesterday, the current draft was not available to the Government? Indeed, the Minister for Europe told the EU Committee of this House yesterday that the Government did not expect it until 15 May. There really is quite inadequate time between 15 May and 18 June to consider the new version. Parliament will have virtually no opportunity to comment. Given that the matter will take at least a year after any agreement that may be reached on 18 June, surely it would have been better to take a little longer on the preparation as there have been a lot of changes since December.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government have been bounced, as the noble Lord puts it, into anything. The Government hope to reach agreement on 18 June. No one can be certain whether agreement will be reached. There are still many difficulties. Indeed, I emphasised the problems with negotiation in my answers to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. Those are the problems that the UK Government perceive. No doubt other governments will also have problems. The noble Lord says that too short a time is available. We are very clear

891
about our negotiating objectives; we do not need the full draft treaty to see that, but the matter will involve extremely hard work. Of course, your Lordships and another place will rightly want to go through the draft treaty once it is before your Lordships regarding any legislation that the Government bring forward.

Fire and Rescue Services Bill
Lord Triesman: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Fire and Rescue Services Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 52,

Schedule 1,

Clause 53,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 54 to 62.—(Lord Triesman.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
11.32 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord President, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill 55 as first printed for the Commons.]
1 After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"Removal or suspension from listed judicial offices
In section 7 of the 2002 Act in subsection (5) (agreement of the Lord Chief Justice required to the removal or suspension of a person from a listed judicial office) for "without the agreement or substitute "except after consultation with"."
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
For those of us who have worked on this Bill previously it will be no surprise that the Government have taken the opportunity in another place to reintroduce this clause which was removed on Report in this House. Its effect is to amend Section 7(5) of the 2002 Act to remove what would otherwise be the Lord Chief Justice's veto over the removal of a listed judicial office holder after a proper process of inspection, inquiry and hearing.
892
I sought at Report to set out clearly why the Government thought that it was important to retain this provision and to offer what I hoped were appropriate reassurances. I am happy to do so again, although perhaps not quite at the same length. I want to start by making it absolutely clear that if we thought that there was any conceivable risk to judicial independence, we would not be taking this step.
I wish to describe what will happen after devolution of justice. Perhaps that is the first point that I should mark. We are not talking about provisions that will come into effect this year. We know not when they will come in. These provisions will come into effect only when devolution has occurred and, subsequent to devolution, when the Government judge that there is sufficient stability and confidence for policing and judicial affairs to be dealt with in Northern Ireland. So we are not talking about the current environment which was discussed in a very interesting debate last night.
I turn to how the process will work under the provisions as amended by the Commons. We have discussed this. They go to the heart of the issue of whether there is any risk that a judge could wrongly be dismissed as a consequence of these measures. We should be clear about who it does not apply to. It will not apply to the removal of a Lord Chief Justice, a Lord Justice of Appeal or a High Court judge appointed before devolution of judicial functions. The removal of those office holders, were they to be found guilty of misbehaviour, would require not only the recommendation of a removal tribunal but also an Address to both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, this clause does not refer at all to that category of judicial office holder.
I turn to the remaining category of judge, I shall seek to put this more succinctly than I did on Report although I hope it was helpful that I talked in deconstructed detail at that stage. In summary, what the 2002 Act says—it is good that it does so—is that before any judge in Northern Ireland can be removed, there has to be a consideration of the case for removal by a tribunal of three people. That is different from what happened previously when effectively it was a decision of the Lord Chancellor. The three people are composed as follows: two of them are judges and one of them is a lay person. That begs the question: who chooses the two judges who will sit on the panel of three? The situation is clear. Those two judicial members will be chosen by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in all cases except for High Court judges and above, when the Lord Chancellor will choose those two judges. Noble Lords may ask who will choose them when the Lord Chancellor is abolished—an issue that we are discussing in Select Committee—and the answer to that is the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. He will choose them after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Lord President of the Council in Scotland, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.

893
The point I am labouring is that this panel of three will be senior significant judges appointed by people who have the strongest responsibility possible to protect the independence of the judiciary. I go further. The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland can himself decide to chair any tribunal except in respect of High Court judges and above. If he has any concerns at all, he can chair the relevant tribunal himself. If he decides not to do so, it is beyond reason to think that he would not put on to the panel of that tribunal two judges in whom he had considerable confidence regarding their judgment and thoughtfulness. That point does not need to be laboured.
Therefore, the tribunal—it is proper that a tribunal should look into judicial misconduct or incapacity—is dominated by the judiciary but not so dominated that there is no scope for a lay person also to be present to give a view from a wider perspective than just that of the judiciary. We cannot see—I have scratched my head subsequently about this—where there is risk or harm in that. Noble Lords might therefore ask why we are doing this. We are doing it because it sits in the context of Northern Ireland politics and how we try to move forward in those difficult circumstances.
The Government remain firmly committed to the Belfast agreement. We have tried steadfastly to create the conditions that will allow us to get the devolved institutions up and running and operating successfully. It is self-evident to all of us that there have been problems along the way and that the process was never going to be easy. However, the situation in Northern Ireland has improved considerably compared with what it was previously, albeit it is not as good as any of us wish. I refer to the important and timely debate that we had yesterday in that regard.
The criminal justice review flowed directly from the Belfast agreement. It goes to the heart of how you seek to build confidence in the criminal justice system in civil society across all communities in that society in ways that will allow for healing, harmony and for affairs in the future to be run much more in Northern Ireland itself. The Bill is about implementing that review in a way that will help us to move forward.
In short, the Criminal Justice Review led to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, but that Act included one measure that was not in the review; namely, a power of veto by the Lord Chief Justice. In the discussions that took place around the Hillsborough agreement, and as part of that agreement, it was argued and the Government accepted that it was not right for any one person to have a power of veto over a decision, or rather a recommendation, made by such a tribunal. I have been privileged to have experience of two Lords Chief Justice for Northern Ireland in my role as Northern Ireland courts Minister, and I find it hard to believe how anyone would doubt the integrity of such people. Nevertheless, in the society of Northern Ireland, one might with a bit of imagination understand why some would feel it important that no one person would ever be able to appoint a judge, or recommend or veto a judge's dismissal. That is at the heart of the issue.
894
If I thought that the provision was likely to threaten judicial independence as a consequence, I do not believe that I would be happy to stand at this Dispatch Box. However, for the reasons that I have explained, I cannot see how a tribunal, constituted as it is, could bring forward a recommendation over which a Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland would wish to exercise a veto. I have given serious thought to that.
The Hillsborough agreement agreed with that measure because it was part of a process of moving forward. The Government think that this House should support the Commons because we have to be seen to stand by our agreements if we are to put pressure on other people to come up to the mark and stand by theirs. That is the nub of the matter. Therefore, I commend the Commons amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Filkin.)
11.45 a.m.
Lord Kingslandrose to move Amendment No. 1A, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject matter of the amendment has been debated on no fewer than three occasions in your Lordships' House—at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report—so I shall be brief in moving my amendment.
Until the passage of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, the dismissal of High Court judges in Northern Ireland, like the dismissal of High Court judges in England and Wales, could take place only on an address by both Houses of Parliament to the Queen.
When that Act is implemented, the situation for newly appointed High Court judges in Northern Ireland, but not for any class of High Court judges in England and Wales, will change. Henceforth, alleged misdemeanours will be considered by a committee consisting of two senior judges and one lay person. If that committee subsequently recommends dismissal, it can take effect only if consent is given by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. In other words, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland has a veto.
If Clause 5 were to be enacted, the situation would change because the veto of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland would be removed. Thus, in the space of less than two years, noble Lords would be facing the loss by newly appointed High Court judges in Northern Ireland of not one constitutional protection, but two. Newly appointed High Court judges in Northern Ireland no longer enjoy the protection of an address by both Houses of Parliament to the Queen, by virtue of the 2002 Act. In addition, if the Bill is passed, they will lose the protection of the requirement that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland concurs with their dismissal before it takes place.

895
What a contrast with the situation in England and Wales. Under the Government's proposals in the Constitutional Reform Bill, High Court judges in England and Wales will not only retain the protection of an address by both Houses of Parliament but also, if the Bill goes through in its present form, acquire the additional protection of the consent of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. What kind of signal is that sending to the judiciary in Northern Ireland?
Today, and on previous occasions, in your Lordships' House, the Minister has given a number of explanations of why the change is required. First, the noble Lord says that it is required by the Criminal Justice Review. In my submission, that is a groundless suggestion. The conclusions of the review were known to the Government when the 2002 Act went through Parliament yet the veto of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was inserted into that Act. Moroever, nothing in the text of the review requires the veto of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland to be removed.
Secondly, it has been said, not only by the Minister, but by his honourable friend in another place, that the veto is unnecessary in any case because, in practice, it would never be used. If the veto is unnecessary, why on earth did the Government strive so hard to insert it in the 2002 Act? Equally, if it is unimportant, why are they striving so hard to remove it from the Bill?
The third reason that the Minister has given is that the requirement to remove the veto of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is part of the Hillsborough agreement. That agreement is not a treaty. It does not bind your Lordships' House or another place. It is a political agreement. Noble Lords are entitled to take an entirely fresh view about whether the contents of the agreement merit enshrinement in an Act of Parliament. Moreover, if, in the opinion of the Minister the veto will never be used, why was it even on the agenda of the Hillsborough agreement? If it is so unimportant, why did it trouble the negotiators at Hillsborough?
The Minister has given a fourth reason this morning, which is that the membership of the disciplinary committee will be composed of senior judges chosen by the Lord Chancellor. We all agree that Lord Chancellors, present and past, have all been extremely well qualified to make such a selection. However, if the Government get their way in the Constitutional Reform Bill, we understand that the Lord Chancellor will be replaced by a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs who, in all likelihood, will be a political animal, probably without a legal qualification. What qualifications will the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, probably located in the House of Commons, have in future to choose those senior members of the tribunal?
The most startling contrast of all is that between what the Government are trying to do in their Constitutional Reform Bill and in this Bill. In the Constitutional Reform Bill, they are saying that the judges do not have sufficient protection and that
896
Bill is designed to give them additional protection. I find it extremely difficult not to conclude that the philosophy underlying what the Government are trying to do in this Bill moves in the opposite direction; and, in my submission, there are, as a consequence, real dangers to the United Kingdom.
The tradition of judicial independence in Northern Ireland is long-standing and deep-seated, no better manifested than in the courageous decisions of so many High Court judges during the past 35 years. We must not put that at risk. If the Government want to have a system to protect judges which matches the quality of the system we have in England and Wales, I urge them to accept my amendment, wait until the Constitutional Reform Bill is enacted and then reconsider the matter. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Kingsland.)
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I will seize the moment. I will not respond at great length because we have previously engaged in these issues. I should make a slight correction. I am advised that when I opened the debate on the amendment, I referred to the Lord Chancellor having a veto when of course I meant the Lord Chief Justice. I am also in favour of the Lord Chancellor having lots of vetoes—but perhaps that is another matter.
The issue turns on the question: is there risk and why does it matter? I can but emphasise the points I made previously. I cannot conceive how there is a risk that a judge could be wrongly dismissed—and that would matter massively if it were so—when the procedure for investigating an apparent complaint or an issue of incapacity is so much under the control of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. And so it should be. It is right that the Lord Chief Justice has the ability to chair the committee and appoint both its judicial members. It is also right in those very rare circumstances that it would not be he because they are of the High Court or above, and that they are determined by the Lord Chancellor or, subsequently, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, after consultation with the most senior judicial figures in the United Kingdom.
I should also have marked the fact that the Lord Chief Justice would also determine the rules and procedures of the tribunal. Therefore it is a process properly under the authority, shadow, influence and direction of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. But that is distinct from saying that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting alone, should have the ability either to sack or to block the dismissal of a judge. Even though I have put on record my view about the quality and integrity of the Lord Chief Justices I have met in Northern Ireland, it does not require much imagination to understand why that issue might cause anxiety in some quarters.

897
The Lord Chief Justice would not be able to block a recommendation from a tribunal, but would be able to ensure that its recommendation was likely to be as fair and as proper as it is conceivable to imagine. And it matters because we have to stand by our agreements if we are to expect others to do so. There is therefore no harm and this measure, as affirmed by the Commons, is right and proper for this House to support.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response and I shall be even briefer. I want to react only to one matter that he raised concerning the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland being able to block a disciplinary tribunal decision.
I wonder whether the noble Lord has chosen the right description for such potential action by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. If, as I hope he will, the noble Lord accepts that Lord Chief Justices of Northern Ireland have been appointments not only of impeccable quality but also of unimpeachable independence, the only reason why a Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland would wish to veto the decision of a disciplinary committee would be on jurisprudential grounds. In my submission, the word "block", in those circumstances, is wholly inappropriate.
The Minister and I have had several exchanges on this matter during the past month. I have great respect for him. He knows that on this occasion I disagree and therefore I would like to test the opinion of the House.
11.56 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Home, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howe, E.

Biffen, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Blackwell, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Blatch, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Bowness, L.

Inge, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kingsland, L.

Buscombe, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Byford, B.

Liverpool, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Luke, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Chester, Bp.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dundee, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Elton, L.

Montrose, D.

Ferrers, E.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Noakes, B.

Glentoran, L.

Northesk, E.

Higgins, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

898

O'Cathain, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Palmer, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Perry of Southwark, B.

Selborne, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Selsdon, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rawlings, B.

Trumpington, B.

Reay, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rees, L.

Wakeham, L.

Roberts of Convey, L.

Warnock, B.

Rogan, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hayman, B.

Addington, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ahmed, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hooson, L.

Amos, B. (Lord Presia'ent of the Council)

Howells of St, Davids, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Andrews, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Joffe, L.

Berkeley, L.

King of West Bromwich L.

Bhatia, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Billingham, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lipsey, L.

Borrie, L.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Bradshaw, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Christopher, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Marsh, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Methuen, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Northover, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ouseley, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Patel, L.

Desai, L.

Pendry, L.

Dholakia, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Razzall, L.

Elder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rooker, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Roper, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Filkin, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Gale, B.

Sewel, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gilbert, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Golding, B.

Simon, V.

Goodhart, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stern, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Greengross, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Grocott, L, [Teller]

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Haskel, L.

Tenby, V.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

899

Thomas of Walliswood. B.

Whitaker, B.

Triesman, L. [Teller]

Whitty, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wilkins, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Warner, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Weatherill. L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
12.6 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 11, page 8, line 20, leave out "and" and insert—00
"() after paragraph (3) insert—
"(3A) If, on an application made by a constable, a justice of the peace is satisfied that—
(a) there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person who is liable to arrest under paragraph (3) is to be found on the premises specified in the application; and
(b) any of the conditions specified in paragraph (3B) is satisfied,
he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter those premises (if need be by force) and search them for the purpose of arresting that person.
(3B) The conditions mentioned in paragraph (3A) are—
(a) that it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry to the premises;
(b) that entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced;
(c) that the purpose of a search of the premises may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless a constable arriving at the premises can secure immediate entry to them."; and"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. Because of some helpful, aggressive grouping by Opposition Front Benches, that amendment is grouped with Commons Amendments Nos. 8, 7, 3, 4, 5, 11, 9, 10 and 6. In the hope that it will help to shorten the debate, I shall try to explain in my opening remarks what those amendments are about.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 8 are intended to provide the Police Service of Northern Ireland with powers of entry, which can be exercised to effect an arrest under the powers of arrest without warrant under Article 6(3) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. The power in Amendment No. 2 applies in non-scheduled cases and the power in Amendment No. 8 applies in scheduled cases. The powers of entry can be exercised only if the police have been granted a warrant by a justice of the peace.
Amendment No. 2 provides that if a person is liable to be arrested under Article 6(3), a justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter the specified premises for the purpose of effecting the arrest.
Amendment No. 8 provides that if a person is liable to be arrested under Article 2(4), a JP may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter specified premises, again, for the purposes of effecting the arrest.
900
The aim of the amendments is to enhance the powers of arrest available to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in respect of a person who breaches, or is likely to breach, a condition of his bail. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for encouraging us to look at these issues, which we have done, subsequent to our earlier discussions with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We believe that they appropriately strengthen the powers of the PSNI.
However, as part of that, we had to ensure that the issue of Article 8 of the ECHR, with which the exercise of such a power would have engaged, was appropriately addressed and that Article 8(2) was complied with and the power exercised proportionately. That is why a justice of the peace must make that judgment and issue a warrant.
All the safeguards under Articles 17 and 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 will apply to the application for, and execution of, the warrant.
Amendment No. 7 makes the offences under paragraphs 1(1) and (2) of Schedule 2 to the Bill scheduled offences. Schedule 2 to the Bill creates two new offences of absconding while on bail in a scheduled case. These offences replace the offence of absconding while on bail under Section 67 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
In explanation of Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 and 11, Clause 12 currently provides that prisoners who are subject to compulsory transfers may be transferred to England and Wales. The amendments provide that prisoners may be transferred to either Scotland or England and Wales.
Before Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 were accepted in another place, Schedule 3 allowed judges, magistrates, coroners, social security commissioners, the High Court Master (Taxing) and the High Court Master (Enforcement of Judgments) to give directions to court security officers by virtue of the fact that they were defined as "persons in authority". However, other Masters of the High Court—for example, those who deal with bankruptcy—are not designated as "persons in authority", and therefore those Masters would not have been able to give directions to court security officers. The amendments address that issue.
I trust that the amendments do not cause any disquiet to noble Lords, which is why I suspect they have been agreed for grouping in this manner.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
3 Clause 12, page 8, line 42, leave out "England and Wales" and insert "another part of the United Kingdom",
4 Page 9, line 1, leave out "England and Wales" and insert "that other part",
5 Page 9, line 22, at end insert—
"(7) In paragraph 13—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1) after "1(1)(a)" insert "or (2A)(a)";
(b) in sub-paragraph (2) after "1(1)(b)" insert "or (2A)(b)"."
6 Clause 22, page 11, line 9, leave out subsection (2)
7 Schedule 2, page 14, line 14, at end insert—
"(5) In Part 1 of Schedule 9 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (scheduled offences) after paragraph 22 insert—

Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004
22A Offences under paragraph 1(1) or (2) of Schedule 2 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004 (absconding by persons admitted to bail in respect of a scheduled offence), subject to note 1 below.""
8 Page 14, line 39, at end insert—
"(5) If, on an application made by a constable, a justice of the peace is satisfied that—

(a) there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person who is liable to arrest under sub-paragraph (4) is to be found on premises specified in the application; and

(b) any of the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (6) is satisfied,

he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter those premises (if need be by force) and search them for the purpose of arresting that person
(6) The conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) are—

(a) that it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry to the premises;

(b) that entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced;

(c) that the purpose of a search of the premises may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless a constable arriving at the premises can secure immediate entry to them."

9 Schedule 3, page 17, line 27, at end insert—
"() a statutory officer (within the meaning of section 70 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978) who is exercising functions in the building,"
10 Page 17, line 28, leave out ", (c), (d) or (e)" and insert "or (c)"
11 In the Title, line 7, leave out "England and Wales" and insert another part of the United Kingdom"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 11.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 11.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Relations Bill
12.12 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until quarter past twelve.
Earl Ferrers: Why?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I fear that the Whip on duty made an error of judgment about timing.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for such a courteous self-reprimand.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I apologise for the slight delay.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The aim of the Government is a stable and thriving labour market characterised by high employment, flexibility and choice, and a constructive climate of employment relations.
Through the Employment Relations Act 1999 and other legislation, we have put in place a framework for fair employment and fair pay, ensuring protections for the most vulnerable workers. We are moving from competition based on low pay and low standards to competition based on best practice, high performance and a committed, motivated workforce.
Vital to the success of this strategy has been a shift in workplace culture. We have worked with our key stakeholders to foster and support a better climate of employment relations based on partnership between employers and employees in the workplace. Over the past seven years we have seen a move towards more dialogue, and more productive workplaces. A new trend is being established on which we want to build.
The evidence shows that our policies are working. Better employment and trade union rights have not jeopardised jobs or led to industrial unrest as predicted. Quite the opposite. The UK now has the highest ever level of employment and the growth in jobs goes from strength to strength. The number of people in work at February 2004 was 28.3 million, up 183,000 on the previous three months and up 318,000 on a year ago.
We have created an environment in which business can grow and prosper. Job creation in the private sector is strong, especially in the retail, distribution, hotel and restaurant sectors. Employment in small and medium-sized enterprises has risen by over 637,000 since 1997. It is now our task to build on these achievements, moving towards high performance workplaces and worthwhile jobs.
It is against this background that I am pleased to stand before the House today to debate the Employment Relations Bill. The Bill draws together the key elements of our strategy and builds on the success of the 1999 Employment Relations Act.
I shall now outline to the House the ways in which the Bill will achieve this. We want high performance workplaces where employees are informed, involved and committed to the success of their business. We believe that the best employers thrive through good employment conditions and good workplace relations. Many of our most successful companies already work in partnership; for example, companies such as the Compass Group and Legal and General. The information and consultation directive, which the Bill

903
implements, will ensure that this standard will apply across the large and medium workplaces. Employees will have the right to be informed and consulted on key decisions affecting their future. Stories about employees hearing of redundancies by text or on the radio have abounded in the media. We do not think that that is an acceptable way to conduct employment relations and neither do the best companies.
Draft implementing regulations, which the Government have already published, are based on a landmark framework agreement between the CBI and the TUC. We have also consulted extensively with other stakeholders on the new provisions, first on the principles of information and consultation, and again on the detail of the draft regulations, as well as holding a series of roundtable discussions around the country.
We have been mindful not to ride roughshod over existing arrangements or to prescribe a "one size fits all" solution. The draft regulations will enable firms to tailor arrangements that suit their needs. Employers will of course be free to manage and to take decisions as they see fit, but the opportunity for ongoing consultation will lead to better decisions and help the process of change by creating a climate of trust and co-operation.
I turn now to statutory recognition, which is dealt with in Part 1 of the Bill. The Employment Relations Act 1999 was a landmark piece of legislation. It enshrined in law the cornerstones of our fairness at work agenda—fair minimum standards, a new culture of partnership and family-friendly working. At the centrepiece of the 1999 Act was a new procedure for trade union recognition and derecognition in the workplace, where the majority of the workforce so choose. The Government gave an undertaking to review the operation of the 1999 Act and in July 2002 we delivered on that promise with the launch of a detailed and wide ranging review.
It was said at the time that the new recognition procedure was introduced that it would be unworkable and would lead to disputes. I am happy to report to the House that the review of the 1999 Act shows that quite the reverse is true. The statutory recognition procedure has been a resounding success. We wanted it to encourage parties to resolve issues voluntarily. That is exactly what has occurred. More than a thousand deals for voluntary recognition have been agreed between employers and unions since 1998. In contrast, the Central Arbitration Committee had made 89 declarations of statutory recognition by the end of March 2004.
The statutory procedure is workable for both employers and unions and has enabled the timely settlement of recognition applications. Contrary to the gloomy forecasts that the new procedure would encourage strike activity and jeopardise jobs, stoppages from industrial disputes are at their lowest since the 1920s.
We have therefore concluded that the overall structure of the procedure, its criteria and voting thresholds, are sound. There is no case for change.
904
However, the review has identified a number of areas where the procedures could operate more efficiently and successfully.
Part 1 also contains important new measures to prevent the intimidation of workers during the period of recognition ballots, whether by a union or by an employer. Intimidation has been a problem in only a small number of cases to date, but we believe it is important that we take action to stop this type of reprehensible behaviour growing and undermining the success of the statutory procedure. There are two elements to our approach. First, the Bill ensures that access meetings between the union and the workers in the bargaining unit during the ballot period are private.
Secondly, we are importing tried and tested standards of general elections into recognition ballots. The Bill places a new duty on both employers and unions not to engage in improper campaigning activity. That will ensure that unions and employers cannot induce, coerce or threaten workers into voting a particular way or use undue influence to affect the outcome of a vote. These measures are fair and balanced. They send a clear message to both employers and unions that intimidatory behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
The Bill contains a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out what the remedies for breach of these provisions should be. It is our intention to bring forward amendments that will set out the remedies on the face of the Bill. We have taken the opportunity to consult fully with employer organisations and unions before finalising these policies.
I turn now to another major aspect of the Bill: the power to make money available for the purposes of union modernisation. I know this issue has attracted some criticism in the other place. So let me spend some time setting out the background and purpose of the fund.
We believe that unions have an important role to play in society. They are the collective voice of millions of workers throughout this country and they have a vital role to play in taking forward partnership at work. Modern efficient unions working closely with employers can help to encourage high-performance workplaces and a motivated productive workforce. Unions like other organisations need targeted support to enable them to adapt to the changing labour market, to modernise their operations and to meet the needs of their increasingly diverse membership.
The union modernisation fund will help them on the path to achieving that. We are talking about a relatively modest sum of money—£5 million to £10 million—spread over several years, to support innovative projects that would not otherwise take place.
I should like to set the record straight at the outset and say that the fund is not to be used to support recruitment drives by unions or their day-to-day activities; and it cannot be diverted for political purposes. The law on the use of political funds is clear. Unions are not permitted to spend money on political objects—including the making of donations to political parties—unless they have a separate political fund for that purpose. The law prevents them using

905
money from their general fund for such purposes or from transferring money from that fund to their political funds. Monies allocated from the union modernisation fund will go into unions' general funds and therefore will be clearly ring fenced.
The allocation of funds and the monitoring of their use will be carefully controlled. We envisage that it will operate on similar lines to the partnership at work fund. If so, unions will be asked to bid periodically for funding, and their applications would be assessed against clear selection criteria. The process would be overseen by an independent supervisory body that could advise Ministers on the ranking of projects, and, more generally, on the fund's overall operation. We would from the outset develop a clear evaluation strategy to measure the effects of the fund and ensure it achieves its stated objectives.
We intend to issue detailed rules on the fund for consultation with all stakeholders in the autumn. Informal prior consultations with key stakeholders have already begun.
I want to say a few words about the other key elements of the Bill. Part 2 deals with the law on industrial action. The evidence from the review is that on the whole the law on industrial action works well. All parties to a dispute want a speedy resolution; and the evidence is that the present law supports that. The review of the 1999 Act concluded that the eight-week protections are working adequately. Analyses by the Office for National Statistics indicate that 93 per cent of all industrial action lasts for less than eight weeks. The essential features of industrial action law will therefore remain the same. However, there are areas where we believe the law could be usefully clarified.
Noble Lords may be aware of the regrettable events at the Friction Dynamics plant at Caernarfon. Striking workers were prevented from returning to work and subsequently sacked by their employer. Although an employment tribunal found that they had been unfairly dismissed, the workers and their families have suffered unnecessarily; and we do not wish to see history repeat itself. The Bill clarifies that days when employees on lawfully organised official strike action are locked out from their workplace do not count towards the eight week protected period for striking workers.
It emerged from the Friction Dynamics case that the employer merely paid lip service to the procedures for resolving disputes. We are taking measures to ensure that does not happen again by clarifying the reasonable steps which employers and unions are required to take to resolve a dispute.
The review of the 1999 Act also concluded that the current law on information, which unions are required to provide to employers prior to industrial action, could be simplified and clarified. The Bill contains provisions to address that.
Part 3 deals with an important set of rights, which stem from the 2002 European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the case of Wilson and Palmer. The judgment concluded that UK trade union law breached Article 11 of the European Convention on
906
Human Rights. We take our international obligations very seriously. We have examined the judgment in detail as part of the review and consulted with stakeholders on our proposals to amend the law. The provisions will make it unlawful for employers to offer inducements to union members to relinquish key union rights. They provide a clear entitlement for union members to use the services of their union, and will ensure that workers as well as employees are covered by these essential protections. We have also safeguarded key business concerns and protected the ability of employers to offer enhanced terms to key workers.
I draw the attention of the House to another very important provision in Part 3, which deals with the racist infiltration of unions by far right extremists. Unions are dedicated to the promotion of tolerance and equality. The actions of those who seek to undermine unions and use them as a vehicle to promote racism and xenophobia are deplorable. There is no place for such views within unions. I am pleased that we are bringing forward measures to address that. The Commission for Racial Equality supports those measures.
I have set out some of the Bill's key features. I shall mention very briefly some of the other measures. We are introducing a set of provisions to improve enforcement of the national minimum wage, as a result of a small consultation exercise that we carried out last summer. We propose to bring forward one further measure to enable enforcement officers to withdraw or amend enforcement and penalty notices where they have made an error or new evidence has come to light.
The Bill also clarifies the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings. It makes improvements to the procedures of the certification officer and will streamline union operations, as recommended by the Better Regulation Task Force.
Finally, we propose to bring forward an amendment to the Bill, which will provide protections from detriment and dismissal for employees who undertake jury service. The Bill will further our partnership agenda and build on the solid foundations laid down in the Employment Relations Act 1999. It does not make radical changes to the balance of trade union and employment law but brings forward a set of sensible provisions, which mainly improve the operation of existing legislation.
We recognise that there are parts of the Bill about which both employer organisations and unions have concerns, but the measures being taken forward are based on extensive consultation. Overall, we believe that we have got the balance right. The TUC has welcomed many of the changes proposed in the Bill and the CBI has broadly welcomed the outcome of the review. It states:
"The Employment Relations Act was intended to encourage the development of more dialogue and less confrontation at the workplace. The CBI strongly supports such objectives and the broad thrust of the Government's Review".

907
There is a wealth of expertise and experience in industrial relations matters in this House. I look forward to the debate on the Bill and to a constructive and detailed examination of it in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, this is the fourth major Bill on employment relations that the Government have introduced since they came into office. That is, without all the references to the subject in other Acts, and to say nothing of statutory instruments too numerous to count.
Before us today we have another stage in the drop by drop dismantling of the employment legislation enacted under the previous government, which brought order out of the chaos of industrial relations that had resulted in the United Kingdom being rightly described as the "sick man of Europe".
The Government are now introducing the Bill, which is very largely intended to take another slice off the salami of the industrial relations regime that served the economy so well during the 1980s and most of the 1990s. The Secretary of State told the other place:
"The recognition arrangements that we put in place in the Employment Relations Act 1999 have been a resounding success".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/04; col. 823.]
On the American principle of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", why are we being asked to tinker with the recognition arrangements in the Bill? Answering myself—I believe that it is further to strengthen the hands of the unions.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the 1999 Act is based on the Government's White Paper, Fairness at Work, which was the subject of detailed and widespread consultation. Barely had the ink dried on the Act when, on 11 July 2002, the Government announced a review of it, and this Bill is the consequence. As originally presented to Parliament, this Bill contained 45 clauses and two schedules. As my honourable friend the Member for Edddisbury predicted at Second Reading in the other place, it could grow upwards and outwards rapidly. Indeed, it did. It began with 45 clauses, but like Topsy, it has just "growed" to 55 clauses.
Let me make it clear that it is not our view that everything in this Bill is bad, or that everything is unnecessary, as the noble Lord often tells me. On the contrary, just like the Curate's egg, it is quite good in parts. First and foremost, we join the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, and others, in welcoming what is not in the Bill—the decision not to extend the union recognition rights to small businesses. I suspect, from remarks made by some Labour Members in the other place, that might be just a temporary reprieve until the Government introduce yet another employment Bill. We welcome the fact that pensions are not included in this
908
legislation, and the fact that the eight-week time limit of protection against dismissal of strikers has not been extended, except for adding on lock-out days.
The CBI, in giving a limited welcome to the Bill, points out:
"The current legislation which is still new … appears to be working quite well".
It does, however, have some reservations about certain of the Bill's provisions, on which we shall be seeking clarification at a later stage. They include the proposed new consultation proposals. Why are these provisions, which are based on an EC directive, given effect in the Bill, rather than by a statutory instrument, as I believe is the usual practice? Also, my impression is that the Bill goes further than is required by the directive. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that when replying to the debate. If he cannot do so now, as he courteously offered to discuss any problems that I have in a meeting before the next stage, perhaps we can put that on the agenda.
The CBI, based on its members' experience, says:
"Recognition campaigns at the workplace are divisive and detrimental to performance".
The CBI has serious concerns that new proposed duties on employers to supply information to the unions, and the power of the Central Arbitration Committee to end the period for agreement about bargaining units, seriously erode the time frame for employers—and to what end? What abuses of the status quo are these two further turns of the screw designed to remedy? Perhaps the Minister could address that when he replies.
We are also concerned that there is no qualification for the duration of union membership before a worker is qualified to be counted in a demand for recognition. It seems that he need not even have paid a subscription. We shall seek to remedy this potential abuse but we trust that in the interest of fairness the Government and the unions would agree that this is a proper safeguard. The Engineering Employers' Federation suggests:
"Each of the proposed changes may, in themselves, be relatively small, but the cumulative effect of all of them is potentially quite significant".
For example, the first part of the Bill, expanded into 20 clauses, deal with union recognition. Clause 10 amends two paragraphs of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act by altering the words "pay, hours or holidays", to,
"all of the following: pay, hours or holidays",
which the Bill now says will be called "the core topics". I should be grateful to hear an explanation of the significance of this distinction, which appears to be a distinction without a difference.
Of greater importance is the introduction of postal voting, for,
"workers absent from ballot at workplace".
On the face of it, it might appear to be reasonable for workers who do not attend at the designated workplace—itinerant workers and workers seconded to other places of employment to be able to participate in the ballot. That would be subject to the caveat that the CAC should be responsible for

909
ensuring that there are adequate precautions against fraud. It seems to me that some sort of cat was inadvertently let out of the bag at Second Reading in the other place. The honourable Member for Warrington, North asked the Secretary of State to,
"look once again at the rules on trade union recognition ballots, as, in effect, they count abstentions as no votes".
The Secretary of State replied that,
"we shall be tightening up on that aspect … under the current Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/04; cols. 823–24.]
I am advised that, in fact, Clause 7 does no such thing. Giving voting facilities to workers who it is known will be absent from the workplace is perfectly proper, but placing an interpretation either way on abstentions is something else and is entirely unacceptable. The only legitimate interpretation that can be placed on the fact that a person did not vote is that he did not vote. I invite the Minister to make it clear that that might have been an off-the-cuff remark of his colleague, not an interpretation of the Act by the Government. Such a clarification by the Minister today would save us the trouble of seeking it in an amendment.
I note that the CAC does not have procedural rules for its operations. This too is unacceptable, and we shall be calling on the Government to promulgate them, so that this powerful body has operating rules, like any other quasi-judicial body.
I will talk about the three important provisions that were introduced into the Bill during its passage through the other place. One was the change of the law as to dismissal during strike, which I have already mentioned. However, we will look to the Government to provide a clear legal definition of the word "lock-out", as distinct from any rhetorical term of abuse that is sometimes used in the course of a trade dispute.
Secondly, in Committee in the other place the Government introduced new provisions by means of convoluted amendments to the 1992 Act, which in effect enable unions to expel members for racism or for support for the BNP. We do not disagree with these worthy objectives, but care must be taken to ensure that this powerful weapon is not used by an unscrupulous leadership to get rid of political opponents, or even those who might campaign in opposition to their policies. We will need to look carefully at the clause, simply to see that it does not go too far, or further than the Government intend.
The third important provision, in Clause 51, is the provision of a hand out. The Minister said that it would be between £5 million and £10 million, but I am advised that it is probably £10 million to £15 million. That amount is just to start with, with possibly more to come. It will be given to the trade unions for what the marginal note euphemistically calls "modernisation". There is no ceiling or time limit on this open-ended fund. When you look at the possible uses of that money, your Lordships will see that it need not have anything to do with modernisation, for it can be used to,
"improve the carrying out of any of its existing functions".
Does this include the provision of strike pay? It can be used to,
"carry out any new function".
910
How wide is the word "any"? Does it include political campaigning? I heard what the Minister said in his opening speech, but the Bill says that it can be used to,
"increase the range of services it offers to persons who … may become members".
That does not look as if it cannot be used for recruiting—in other words, to enable unions to offer inducements to persons to join the union.
Many noble Lords might have read today a report of Digby Jones' speech to the Institute of Directors conference yesterday, where he argued that taxpayers' money should not go to what he described as a lobby group. I think that he said something like an "irrelevant lobby group", but I was being more polite than that. The fact is that not just that subsection, but the whole of the so-called modernisation money could be nothing much more than a blatant bribe, unless all these points are clarified. In so far as a union uses the money, which it would have provided out of its own funds for its normal union services, by means of using it that way if they are allowed to, by means of some creative book-keeping, it would not be difficult to find that the taxpayers' money was recycled into political donations to the Labour party.
Perhaps it is indicative of the tenor of the Government's altitude to even-handedness in this Bill that when my honourable friends in the other place introduced an amendment against intimidation of employees in recognition ballots, it was negatived, and I believe that it was whipped by the Government. I note again what the Minister said today, and I am happy for him to correct me on that point if I have been misinformed about the result of the vote on that amendment. If it is not so, we will be introducing a similar amendment in Committee. But on the matter of intimidation, the Government have introduced Clause 28, described in the marginal note as,
"Inducements relating to collective bargaining"—
which has the result of repealing Section 17(4) of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The Minister has actually mentioned that. That subsection permits a worker to make a separate agreement with his employer, whereby in return for performing additional services with a monetary value he can receive extra pay. The Government have used the cases of Wilson and Palmer before the European Court of Human Rights as their justification for that. The Minister did say that the Government do, of course, obey European rules and results of courts, and so on.
But the Wilson and Palmer cases related to agreements banning the workers—banning them—from trade union membership. Section 17(4) provided—anticipating the ECHR decision by five years—that such an agreement was excluded; I know that well. After the subsection was passed, the TUC denounced it and demanded that what it called "the Miller amendment" should be repealed. I was immensely flattered because no one has ever named anything after me, let alone an amendment—especially not one on trade union law. But it is not for that reason that we want to see that we do something about that, because that was a negotiated compromise with the Government, which was reinstated and accepted by the

911
Government without a Division. I will not take up any more time on that now. We will doubtless have an interesting debate about that later.
The Bill contains provisions about information and consultation in the workplace, which implement another EU directive. The cost of that over a 10-year period is estimated at £258 million, although the IOD suggest it could be £430 million. The Birmingham chamber of commerce reported a survey among its members showing, that 76 per cent were very concerned at the additional cost on business. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, described the provision as simply the imposition of new European work rules. But they are yet another instance of directions being given on how UK companies should run their businesses and in fact could interfere with business decision-making and give scope for all kinds of over-the-top rules in the workplace.
My honourable friend the Member for Eddisbury complained, quite rightly, that the Government will be adopting the job-destroying employment model that undermines labour flexibility. Earlier this month, Germany, once the engine of European industry, reported yet another increase in unemployment, which now stands at 10.4 per cent. So I hope the Government might look at that and see whether they really want it that way.
Perhaps it is not surprising that a survey last January reported that a third of 500 workers surveyed were worried about losing their jobs. Had they known that, 100 per cent of the workers at the 200-year-old factory of Terry's of York would have expressed similar fears since their jobs are being exported next year, including some to eastern Europe. That worry transcended worries about levels of pay or long working hours. Is it not the case that these regulations, along with the many others imposed from the EC, will do nothing to give people the confidence they need that they will be able to remain in work?
In conclusion, the Bill has been most extraordinarily difficult to prepare for because it does not contain free-standing provisions that can be examined on their own merit. I see the Minister is nodding —I hope in agreement. It is a large series of bit-by-bit amendments to another Act, which was a consolidating Act, which we may well need after the Bill is passed. The Bill is a series of tweaks, adjustments and fine-tuning, and substantial amendments of that other Act. Yet, despite the considerable impact and importance of those adjustments, the meat on the Bill is still not clearly visible, and it needs to be picked out from the effect on the other Act. That is illustrated by the particularly obscure Explanatory Notes, which compare most unfavourably with the outstandingly high standards of helpfulness of the notes usually prepared for Parliament by the DTI. I certainly do not blame the officials—I can imagine that they had difficulty looking at all these Bills.
912
When the Bill reaches Committee we shall certainly give it the careful attention it needs and which the Minister said he welcomed, especially as the procedures of the other place often deny giving the same kind of scrutiny that we are able to provide in this House.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his introduction to the Bill. There is much to welcome in it. Trade union recognition is important, and means by which it can be achieved should be set out clearly in legislation.
Furthermore, individuals who want to belong to a union, to benefit from union services and to be represented by a union should not be discouraged from achieving these very legitimate aims by employers who wish to avoid dealing with their employees in a civilised fashion.
Part 1 of the Bill sets out the procedures by which unions may acquire recognition and the right to bargain collectively for their members. The procedures have already been explained by the Minister in his opening speech. They are of great interest to me, since much of my union career was spent dealing with recognition issues. The union of which I was assistant general secretary—then called ASTMS, now AMICUS—recruited and organised in private industry as well as in some public services. In many of the industries concerned—notably financial services—there was often no tradition of union recognition, except through what were sometimes house unions.
In the 1970s, a number of these organisations joined the union, and we then had to secure recognition and collective bargaining rights from employers unused to dealing with unions and often extremely reluctant to do so. An earlier Labour government did introduce legislation—the Employment Protection Act—which was of assistance to unions, but that disappeared under a swathe of legislation introduced by subsequent Conservative administrations.
I was therefore very interested in the new procedures proposed in the Bill and I applaud the Government's intention to ensure that the procedures are clarified. I must say however, speaking personally and based on my own experience, that they do seem to be rather complicated. Part 1, which is almost entirely concerned with recognition, takes up about 22 pages. Of course, a great deal of it is necessary—I do not dispute that. It is necessary to deal with bargaining units, the powers of the Central Arbitration Committee, what happens in amalgamations, and so on.
But why is it necessary to have a "suitable independent person", probably paid for by the union, in order for the union to communicate with the workforce? In my day, we used to campaign for recognition—holding meetings on site or adjacent to the site, getting union representatives to put out material to non-members—and we used the procedures to recruit more members, and why not? We certainly did not need a "suitable independent person" to assist with communication with the workforce.
I am not sure either about the QIP—the qualified independent person—to conduct ballots. ACAS has conducted ballots in the past, and indeed provisions

913
exist in the Bill for ACAS to have a balloting role in some circumstances. My impression is that the QIP simply adds to complication and cost.
On the ballot itself, why must the union's application—if it is to be successful—be supported by a majority of those voting, which is fair enough, but also by at least 40 per cent of those entitled to vote? Why the 40 per cent? Is a straight majority of those voting not enough?
Then there is the limitation of the right to bargain to "core" issues. Pensions are quite specifically excluded. I note that there is provision for the Secretary of State to amend that by order. But as we all now know, pensions are becoming massively important. I certainly bargained about pensions in my union career. I occasionally meet retired members who tell me that they are very grateful for what the union did for them in those days. I see no reason to rule out pensions as an issue on which there may be bargaining.
The same is true of a number of other issues— training, redundancy, redeployment, discrimination, bullying, and so on. I see no reason why these important issues—important to many workers, and perhaps even the reason why some have wanted to join a union and get the backing of union support—should be ruled out. It is wrong to limit bargaining rights in the way the Bill does.
I am however glad that the right to be accompanied by a companion in meetings with management is to be clarified, but it does not seem that the right to be represented by a companion has been effectively established—that is something we shall pursue further in Committee.
There is concern that the legislation is limited when it comes to small firms. The TUC in particular has protested that firms with less than 21 workers are to be excluded from the legislation. Yet it is often in small firms that employees are most in need of union protection. Again, this is something to which we may return in Committee.
I acknowledge that the Government are attempting to deal with the well-known Wilson case in Clause 28. This was the case that arose because of the existence of legislation which allows employers to offer inducements to employees to give up their right to be members of trades unions—the famous Ullswater amendment. I remember it well because I was very active in the House at that time. This has been held to be in breach of Article 11 of the ECHR.
The Scrutiny Committee has reported on the relevant clauses of the Bill. It has reached the conclusion that the proposed legislation in the Bill does not succeed in offering a secure protection for rights under Article 11. It has comments to offer on a number of issues—whether there is an effective remedy for trade unions—and on the matter of the employer's purpose it suggests that the words "sole or main" be omitted.
It is further suggested that the legislation should provide that each employee and trade union should be given both the right not to be offered inducements to give up Article 11 rights, and the right not to have better terms and conditions of employment made
914
available to other employees who have agreed to forego these rights. Furthermore, the legislation should apply whether or not the union is recognised. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to deal with some of these points.
On the matter of industrial disputes, I note that the Government are seeking to deal with cases which have arisen of dismissal of striking workers by excluding lock-outs from counting towards the eight-week period during which there is protection against dismissal. Any improvement is, of course, to be welcomed, but why retain the eight-week period at all? ILO conventions specifically protect the right to withdraw labour and our own law legitimises such action subject to prescribed procedures having been followed. At present it is possible for a stubborn and particularly obdurate employer to prolong a dispute until it becomes possible for him to get rid of some employees he would like to do without. Again, this is something we may explore in Committee. Perhaps we can get the eight-week period extended.
So far as concerns individual rights, I welcome the protection for employees seeking to exercise their right to request to work flexibly. This is becoming increasingly important. The Government freely acknowledge the contribution made by carers. They are mostly women, undertaking duties which otherwise would put a severe strain on overworked social services. Many employers are willing to co-operate in this regard and to make flexible working available; others should be encouraged to do so.
I am also glad to note that further steps are to be taken in regard to minimum wage enforcement. Most people were shocked and horrified at the fate of the Chinese cockle pickers on Morecombe Bay. Clearly they were being exploited and paid much less than the minimum wage for the dangerous work they were doing. Had there been an effective inspectorate, perhaps this would have been exposed earlier and lives might have been saved. I realise that this is part of the larger problem of illegals, who can be exploited by criminal elements because they are vulnerable. However, something should be done to stop this unacceptable exploitation, and a more numerous and powerful inspectorate could help.
Reverting to the main thrust of the Bill, which is about recognition, the TUC has been concerned to ensure that intimidatory tactics by employers to deter workers from supporting union campaigns for recognition should be dealt with. As a result, an amendment designed to deal with this was included in the Bill in the Commons. However, Clauses 9 and 12 apply to both employers and unions because the Government want an even-handed approach. But the management of a company and a union seeking recognition are not really in a position of equality.
Trade unions campaigning for recognition must obviously offer benefits of union membership as part of the reason why employees should join. Threats or bribes from an employer made to prevent the union from gaining support—which is what the clauses aim to deal with—are by no means the same as the union

915
benefits on offer as part of a recognition campaign. As the clauses stand, it would be open to an employer to complain to the CAC that the union was making offers even though it was doing nothing more than setting out the benefits of union membership. I think we must look again at this issue in Committee.
Another clause introduced in the Commons seeks to amend the laws on exclusion or expulsion of workers from unions where a member behaves in a way that is contrary to union rules. I understand that the TUC is seeking to broaden this to include the union's objectives. This is important. Whatever their rules may say, most unions have very strong policies against racial discrimination. Therefore, the replacement of the present wording,
"contrary to the rules of the union",
with
"inconsistent with the rules and objectives of the union"
might be more appropriate. Again, we would want to explore this issue further.
I repeat what I said at the commencement of my remarks: there is a great deal to welcome in the Bill—it contains many improvements, which we are very glad to see—and I look forward to exploring it further in Committee.
12.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon on her detailed and careful assessment of the provisions of the Bill, with which I agree. In particular, I agree with her comments about the costs of its imposition to business; the cumulative effect of the provisions; the question of resignation, with which I shall deal; abstention on votes and funding. I am using telegraph to save time but the House will know, having listened to my noble friend's speech, what she had in mind.
I do not question the careful criticisms of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, to whose practical experience the House will no doubt, as usual, defer. So why should someone who some 40 years ago, when in opposition, set up and chaired the first Conservative committee on trade union law and employment relations—on which, informally, it sought and obtained the continuing advice of the trade union leaders, without which it could not have operated—presume to speak in this debate from these Back Benches at no one's behest?
The reason is that the Government's policy, as reflected in the Bill, is not in the interests of the rank-and-file membership, the employer or the conduct of business; it is not conducive to the better order of employment relations in the national interest. The Bill is a deal between the Government and the TUC. In the current climate of industrial relations, it is not in any sense able to serve to sweeten the symbiotic relationship soured by the distrust and disillusion which is about to manifest itself, again, in June at a meeting to be attended by UNISON, the RMT, the
916
Transport and General Workers' Union, ASLEF, the Fire Brigades Union, and so on, and the rank-and-file membership, at which an adverse vote is predicted.
No matter of current common concern to the public and to the unions is addressed by this Bill, such as the want of improvement to our public services, on which £20 billion has been spent each year for seven years without improvement. No attempt is made to deal with the problem of common concern to the public of disproportionate disruption. The Long Title inhibits requisite reform. Long before 9/11, the Iraq war, and the EU constitution, which some people refer to as "events", such requisite reform—long overdue on such matters—was recognised by the Prime Minister. He gave an undertaking to deal with them. That undertaking has not been met, and cannot be implemented under this Bill.
The work of that committee, incidentally, was not implemented by the Heath administration, who did not like it much. It was implemented much later in the Thatcher reforms, the broad substance of which remain. This Bill disturbs the long-established balance to increase the powers of the leadership and puts it to an advantage, while putting employers and industry to a disadvantage, which inevitably slights the prospect of employment.
Within the remit of the Long Title, there is a need not only for a broader appointment to the Central Arbitration Committee, but also for procedural rules on discovery to include all branch records, for evidence to be taken on oath, for cross-examination, for safeguards to avoid jeopardising the conciliation process, and to avoid destruction of confidentiality. There is also a need, as expressed by an employers' association, for the CAC to have clear procedural rules in view of the new responsibilities concerning enforcement of their practices during statutory union ballots, and enforcement of the new information and consultation regulations. As far as the latter is concerned, it is considered that this new and very different set of enforcement responsibilities means that the CAC should have a broader spectrum of members, and in particular that its membership should include employer and employee representatives who have had practical experience of information and consultation arrangements in a non-unionised environment, and that the addition of the detailed requirements about behaviour during conciliation and mediation proceedings is unnecessary.
There is no doubt whatever, having listened to the previous speakers, that in Grand Committee this Bill shall receive meticulous examination such as was not afforded to the Trojan stalking horse, and that due note will be taken of the Tenth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the question of compatibility. I shall not take time on that on Second Reading.
The constraints of time also preclude an analysis of Clauses 1 to 16 of Part 1, regarding recognition of collective bargaining, supply of information, union communication, postal votes in ballots, notice to bring an end to bargaining arrangements, and so on. Quite simply, a recognition dispute arises either at the instigation of a single union or as a result of an inter-union dispute. The first attempt at regulation was

917
Barbara Castle's Industrial Relations Bill 1971, which, in effect, on this aspect, was implemented by the Heath administration. It worked extremely well, and I remember Vic Feather saying to me that it worked well to general satisfaction—the only trouble was that it was a branch of the High Court. Of course that objection was removed long ago. We have heard today, as my noble friend Lady Miller pointed out, that not only in another place but elsewhere everything is working extremely well.
What is it all about? Why has this aspect of the longstanding balance to be disturbed? I think there is some explanation due, if everything is working satisfactorily, as to why this burden of complexity has to be imposed. Why, in subsection 2G inserted by Clause 21(4), should the union be entitled to determine who is to vote in a ballot? Why, in Sections 145A to 145E inserted by Clause 28, should the employer be prevented from offering an inducement to a worker which the worker is entitled to accept on pain of penalty, because it puts the union at a disadvantage relating to membership taking industrial action, or the provision of services? Why, in new section 145F(3), should the worker be deprived of resort to the High Court on a sort of ouster clause? These are only examples, and one could pick out all sorts of things, but there is not time to deal with them. Lastly, in Clause 47(1) and (2), why, on appeal from a decision of a certification officer, should the extant right to have an appeal on any question of fact be restricted to a matter of law, which in fact effectively stifles an appeal?
Finally, and in conclusion, what about the consequences of this Bill —and my noble friend Lady Miller touched on this in her speech—on the burden on business? What about the consequences on the prospects of employment? Those prospects are entirely dependent on demand of profitable business, save for some sort of state intervention or subvention, such as when 160,000 jobseekers have been shifted onto benefits where there is no obligation to seek work. But that is rather a one-off situation, I hope.
There has been a steady fall in productivity over seven years, as well as the mammoth shift in manufacturing, business, banking, communications, IT and other services towards cheap labour abroad, and the benefit of lower taxation. This is a commercial fact of life on the Internet which cannot be forestalled and is bound to accelerate. We stand on the threshold of a more massive spending which cannot be met without further borrowing and taxation. There is an immovable mountain of government and personal debt. Those are the circumstances in which this new burdensome tide of bureaucracy, with statutory impositions of penalties for non-compliance, is to be imposed on the employers.
You have only to read the papers to see that industry struggles with redundancy. When these provisions seep through the clogged sieve, it is not the leadership of the trades unions that will suffer from want of employment—it is the rank and file.
1.11 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to return to the approach taken by the Minister in introducing the Bill, because I rather feel that subsequent speakers on the other side so far have missed the point.
The Bill has been criticised because it modifies, adjusts, changes at the margin and adds at the margin, to the Employment Relations Act 1999. Of course it does—this is the way we approach legislation in all subjects now. We certainly do it in matters involving the law, prison reform and health service reform. We introduce Bills and modify what happened in the past, and then we pass on. That has to be understood.
I was glad that the Minister went through the past— what was done in the 1999 Act, what we are attempting to do now and what may have to be done in the future to extend the legislation and provisions for regulation of the labour market. This is a continuous process now.
It is true, of course, that in the past seven years since my party has been in office, there has been a succession of Acts. You can argue about how you count them up—my counting is not quite the same as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for example. I make it seven Acts in seven years—three general and four special, the most important of which was the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. There was also the legislation on dispute resolution, on public disclosure, and so on. In rough terms, you might say that we have been legislating every year. In addition, because we agreed to scrap the opt-out negotiated by the previous Conservative government, we have not held up—in fact, we have encouraged—the implementation of a series of directives from Europe. That, too, will continue.
In any case, it is very strange for people on the Opposition Benches to complain about this, because that is exactly what Mrs Thatcher did. It is true that if you take her first seven years, I do not think she introduced more than five such Acts. There were two concerning employment, one about trade unions, one about wages and one about sex discrimination. But they all moved on from the previous piece of legislation—that is what you do nowadays. The critical difference is the balance.
We took the view then and we take the view now that what was wrong with the successive Acts passed by the previous government—and they did not stop after seven years; in fact, the pace escalated and got more radical—was that the balance was one-sided. Two thirds of the proposals in the Bills introduced in the first seven years restricted the right to organise, the right of trade unions to run their own concerns and the right to strike. That is not a good balance.
It was said at the time that two thirds of the proposals were anti-union. That is a crude way of putting it, but reasonable. It is true that the other third was sometimes pro-worker, but many of them took away the individual rights of workers. Those that added to the individual rights of workers—most particularly, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975—were introduced because there was no way out. The

919
Conservatives were very reluctant to introduce a Bill which advanced workers' rights and they got rid of them by signing the Maastricht opt-out.
The basic difference is not the number of Acts but their content and balance. The Government have been trying to restore the balance, and that will be maintained. When we consider what is being suggested in this Bill, the balance is being maintained. There are some further restorations of trade union rights—that is right and proper. Some of us on this side of the House do not think that there are enough, but that is another debate. This is a further restoration of the balance.
There were also extensions of individual worker rights, such as unfair dismissal, maternity provisions, discrimination, and so on. They have been provided and will continue to be provided because we accept the need to extend individual worker rights. There is, in fact, an essential need to do this. If we take the view that trade union organisation and the extension of collective bargaining is becoming increasingly difficult, you must have some alternative. The only alternative we have so far found is individual employment rights. That movement, therefore, will continue. There are still gaps, as I said. My noble friend Lady Turner mentioned some of the things we think must be done. The Bill contains quite a few of them.
I shall concentrate my remarks on one major gap in the Bill because I am rather worried at what has been said so far. It concerns protection against discrimination in actions short of dismissal against trade unionists. It goes back to the first time a government attempted to do something about this, in the Employment Protection Act 1975. Section 53 effectively provided for the first time that there must be some restriction on the right of employers to use action short of dismissal—not dismissal—in order to discourage trade union membership.
Part of the trouble has been that for all their expertise, the Government are not very good on history. They do not go in for history very much. The central point for them to understand is that this is the oldest trick in the world. If you read the Webbs, G.D.H. Cole and Askwith in Industrial Problems and Disputes, in the First World War, employers divided into three groups. There were the good ones who encouraged trade union membership; there were the bad ones who sacked anybody who joined a trade union; and there were those in the middle who thought they were decent chaps. They did not sack their employees for belonging to trade unions but they did not encourage them. They shifted them on to slightly better work; they promoted them to foremen; they moved them on to established status; they gave them executive washrooms; and, above all, they gave them extra money.
This was the kind, nice way of dealing with trade unionism and it is as old as the hills. It is a good thing that we have tried to deal with it by law, but we cannot do so entirely. Old Adam will always be there and there will always be employers who give trade unionists executive washrooms to bribe them out of the union.
920
An attempt was made to accept that in the 1960s and 1970s, but it was not until the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an attempt to narrow and to destroy Section 53 of the Employment Protection Act that the Ullswater amendment was tabled in this House. My noble friend Lady Turner has mentioned it. I do not know how many noble Lords who are here today were here then, but I can remember the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, standing at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain who is bribing whom? I never come across that kind of thing in trade union affairs. I may have misheard. What is going on?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am making a speech. That is what is going on. Can the noble Lord not hear me or can he not understand me?
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to washroom bribery.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the most traditional and common way of seeking to give trade unions less influence and power and fewer members was to offer privileges to trade unionists on the condition that they became non-unionists. One of those privileges was better conditions and better washrooms, but, above all, more money. I hope that is clear.
Matters came to head with the Ullswater amendment was tabled in 1993 at 3.45 p.m. However, the Government now have a chance to deal with the problem. They have received a clear edict that the amendment runs contrary to international obligations to which this country is committed. They have received three reports from the Joint Committee. I am a little surprised and upset that we have not yet heard a word on what the Government intend to do now. A member of the Government is to sum up. The Government must tell us. If they cannot tell us now, they should give us some indication that they intend completely to revoke that amendment, on the strength of the four concrete suggestions advanced in the latest report from the Joint Committee. Those suggestions are clearly spelt out. Words are required. If the Government do not act, we shall be back to international legal conflict. We shall be back to tribunals and courts if we do not accept the committee's findings. The only option now is to accept the decision. Of course, it will not stop executive washrooms, but it is a start. It is just an attempt to go back to the simple principles of the Employment Protection Act.
I end by going into the future, just for a few moments. Since it is a Bill of bits and pieces—and there is nothing wrong with that—there are a few positive reforms to employment protection. That is partly because it is an evolving issue, but also because, although both parties have improved employment protection, no party has so far thought about the scope for employment protection in a period when trade union organisation is falling but job insecurity is rising. What should the Government's policy be? For the most part, successive governments have been pushed into employment protection legislation by

921
external factors. The Labour Party—I make no apologies for it—has been pushed by trade unions. Trade unions have stated that they should have certain employment rights. The Labour Party, as well as the Conservatives, has been pushed also by particular groups; for example, women's groups. It was not trade unions that won women's employment protection rights—until they found a friendly Minister—so much as women's groups. That was also the case with race discrimination and disability rights and so on. For the most part, changes have been brought about by external groups, when they have not been brought about by an even more external group; that is, directives from the European Union.
The Government should be thinking now about what they want to see as a government in terms of employment protection. They should be doing so not in this Bill, which is probably the last important Bill before the general election, but beyond the general election. If one looks in detail at employment protection, it is very uneven. For example, we enforce the minimum wage in one way, but we enforce most other employment rights in a quite different way. We set up ever-bigger commissions to suggest improvements in certain kinds of employment rights, such as discrimination rights, but we have no body of comparable size or importance to look at the most common case to go to industrial tribunals; namely, unfair dismissal. There is a considerable amount wrong with the way in which we deal with unfair dismissal, but nobody tries to think about a new policy. After all, the outcome of the 90 per cent of the cases that result in a positive award by the tribunal is not reinstatement, but dismissal with compensation.
I could continue, but I do not want to. It is time for the Government to think about a more coherent policy for unfair dismissal. The Government would be party to it because they had thought it out, in part, in their own election manifesto. But perhaps that is a debate for another day and another place.
1.27 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I echo my noble friends Lady Turner of Camden and Lord McCarthy in their broad support for the Bill. I shall begin by giving some historical context to the Bill's significance. It concerns the pattern of collective agreements versus the role of the law in employment relations.
If we look at not just the European but the whole international picture, this country has been relatively light on individual legal protection for the reasons that my noble friend Lord McCarthy has indicated. It has also been light on rules governing collective representation. For various reasons, collective agreements have now been supplemented by what one might call benchmark collective rules on representation.
The Bill is historically interesting because, broadly speaking, we now have three levels of legal regulation. A debate has been taking place for the past 50 years that has resulted in the third level of regulation being built into the Bill before us today. I shall explain what I am referring to.
922
The first rung of legal representation is the individual right of the worker in all companies to be able to raise a grievance and to have some rights of due process in any disciplinary hearing. In some ways, that is the most important step forward. But it cannot be isolated from the context in which trade unions play their role, which is not only at the level of representation in a grievance or disciplinary procedure, if the individual worker so wishes, but also in the balance of interests which determine the culture of the workplace— often where not a great number of workers are actually members of the union.
I have described the first rung of representation. I should just like to mention, before I come to the second rung, the third rung. This is trade union recognition through the procedure of the Central Arbitration Committee, of which I happen to be a member, through the 1999 Act, following a framework agreement between the TUC and CBI. The historic change of this Bill, and why I am glad it is on the face of the Bill rather than being introduced through regulation, is that we have the results of a framework agreement between the TUC and the CBI, against a background of the European Directive on Information and Consultation. The directive is a framework agreement at two levels. It is a classic framework agreement under the Social Chapter in Brussels. There have been some remarkable achievements since the Labour government signed the Social Chapter as one of their first acts of government in 1997. Those who think that nothing of practical benefit to workers has come from the Social Chapter, that it is all bureaucracy in Brussels, could not be more wrong. Workers have four weeks' holiday: many workers, from the construction industries through to agriculture, had never dreamed of four weeks holiday with money up front. That has been an historic advance for workers in this country. There are pro rata rights for part-time workers. The more we want so-called atypical workers to be part of a thriving economy, the more there must be some framework right for them. That has been an advance through very flexible negotiations in Brussels, and is a simple collective agreement to be understood by employers and anions in industry. With regard to fixed-term contract workers, if they are going to be part of a modern labour market, are we saying there should be no minimum benchmark rules for those workers?
We have still to crack the issue of agency workers. We have seen the recent exposure of the terrible chaos in the case of gangmasters in Morecambe Bay. Trade unions dealing with such agency workers in agriculture or construction on a daily basis in East Anglia know that this needs to be covered as well.
In some respects, the pièce de résistance of the Social Chapter procedure has been the way it has reached a conclusion—not without difficulty—on the question of information and consultation. This was agreed in Brussels, and is a relatively short text that has now been transposed, you might say, into the recommendation for national law through the framework agreement between the TUC and the CBI. This Social Chapter procedure stands in sharp contrast to the procedure used if the employers and unions cannot agree to go down the road of social dialogue. I have in mind the endless criticism of the Working Time Directive. The significance of the

923
contrast between that and the procedures we have in the Bill for information and consultation, is that one has a much more complicated text because it was done as a directive of Article 118a of the Treaty of Rome, health and safety provisions, and there has been a lot of difficulty in implementing it. However, the alternative, rejected by employers, was to have done it through a framework agreement. We have the framework agreement on information and consultation. If somebody wants to say it is a revolution I think that would be stretching language, but let us say that it is. It is a revolution because for the first time—it is a debate that would have gone the other way in the trade union movement 50, even 25, years ago—a collective system of representation should be open to election of workers' representatives by all of the people in the workplace. Unions can have slates of supported candidates, but there is certainly no guarantee that the union candidates will win the election.
There are a million reasons—such as whether this could be an alternative to union recognition, or whether there could be manipulation by employers why some people have not, historically, been over the moon about that sort of approach. Now that the TUC and the unions have bitten the bullet across Europe, and this is part of the procedure, I want to say that this is an historic moment that we must welcome in order to see rung two of the employment relationship in place. It will apply to every company above a certain size. The argument about numbers began with 150, then 120; there can be arguments about the pace of progress on these numbers. But this has been a very important development, providing a context in which we are discussing this Bill.
I hope I am conveying a picture which is very different from that presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, when she said that this is a drop by drop dismantling of the Thatcher legislation and it reminds her of when we were the "sick man of Europe". I do not think that this is the most measured of her contributions on this topic.
I should like to mention the debate about the union modernisation fund. I cannot corroborate exactly what Digby Jones said—according to this morning's press—in his speech yesterday, but it would be a little rich if he wanted to describe the TUC as an "irrelevant lobby group", without somebody saying "touché". The fact is that social partners are the alternative to the sort of heavy legislation to which employers purport to be particularly opposed. On the actual substance of £10 million, over many years we have known that sums like £100 million, £200 million—it all depends what you include, such as subsidies to training courses in industry—go in the direction of the employers. There is squealing perhaps because the supposition that new Labour is about dismantling the trade unions turns out not to be true. I never thought that it was true. It is hard to believe that people seriously thought that that was the agenda. There is squealing now that we are trying to create a level playing field.
There is no doubt that we need to do some work on that level playing field. The pensions issue is one example. At the end of next month, I think, we will be
924
considering a Bill on that issue. Directors of FTSE 100 companies receive something like 80 per cent of the tax benefits from the present pension arrangements, whereas workers are often left with nothing—as in the case of Allied Steel and Wire—when a firm goes into liquidation. That has to be dealt with. There is no doubt that, despite the minimum wage, inequality in income distribution towards the top end of the distribution spectrum has grown by leaps and bounds.
The trade unions are the only bulwark for ensuring greater equality. All the OECD statistics show a striking correlation between the density of trade union membership and equality. If we want a tolerably equal society, it is in the interests of public policy that we have a strong trade union movement. Whatever the Government do, they cannot ensure that. However, small steps such as those in the Bill are very welcome. I commend the Bill to the House.
1.42 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, in winding up from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and having listened to a number of speeches from both sides, perhaps I may start by bringing noble Lords back to what I should have thought was common ground—although it does not appear to be—which is that the Bill makes relatively small amendments to the previous legislation. Having listened to a number of the speeches—particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who saw fit to spend 16 minutes giving us a history lecture but does not seem to have time to be in his place for the winding-up speeches—one might think that the Bill will lead to hordes of workers led by Arthur Scargill marching on Westminster. Having listened to the Minister, however, I have the impression that this is a relatively small Bill, building on the experience of the previous legislation. With one or two reservations to which I shall return, the Bill was largely supported by my party in another place, and it will be supported by my party in your Lordships' House.
I start with two general points and will then turn to the three specific areas on which we will want to touch in Committee. First, having listened to some of the language in your Lordships' House on reports this morning of comments made by Digby Jones on behalf of the CBI, I think it a great shame that, despite the fact that we appear to have probably the best industrial relations that we have had in my adult lifetime in terms of hours lost through strikes, we still seem to have coming from both the CBI and the TUC the rhetoric of confrontation that so bedevilled industrial relations in the past. As I think Malcolm Bruce said in another place either on Second Reading or in Committee, when the Government present their legislative proposals in this area, the press releases from the CBI and the TUC can almost be written in advance.
So I have some sympathy with the Minister as he tries to find a path between the two approaches of the CBI and the TUC. As someone not involved in any of those discussions or procedures, were I to be treating this as a football game, I do not think I would call it a score draw between the TUC and the CBI as regards consultation on the Bill. I should think that any

925
objective observer would say that it is a pretty significant away win for the CBI. The TUC came in with a large number of pretty radical proposals that it thought should go in the Bill, many of which the Government have rejected. So to those on this side of the House who seem to suggest that this is a deal between the TUC and the Government, all I can say is, "Some deal". If it was a deal, the Government have certainly played a much stronger hand than the TUC managed to do.
That is probably not something on which the Minister will want to comment. However, it would be unfortunate if we started off our deliberations on the Bill by characterising it as a radical attempt to change employment law. It is not. It is a small attempt to improve on the workings of the previous legislation. As I said, from these Benches we welcome most of the reforms.
The second general point will be relevant when we consider the Bill in Committee. It is becoming almost a characteristic of any Bill which the Minister introduces to this House that it has probably not had proper scrutiny in another place. The Bill was passed by another place under a programmed structure, and amendments of quite fundamental importance were introduced at Report and Third Reading. Far be it from me to say that it would have changed the course of history, but, because of the programmed nature of the debate, the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman was not even called on Third Reading to indicate my party's views and reservations. That is not the Minister's fault, and he will certainly not be criticised for it. However, it gives your Lordships House greater licence to table amendments and to ask the Government to take our amendments more seriously than they would perhaps feel necessary if the Bill had had 100 per cent proper scrutiny in another place.
I see a number of heads on both sides of the House nodding at that. I hope that the Government will take those remarks in the spirit in which I intended them. From these Benches we certainly do not intend in any way to attempt to wreck the Bill.
I should like to speak to three areas of concern on which we should like to probe the Government a little further in Committee. The first concerns Clause 39, which goes much further than simply tidying up the recognition and bargaining provisions in the previous legislation. It is the start of implementing the European directive of February 2002 requiring member states to establish national systems for informing and consulting employees in undertakings with at least 50 employees. Clause 39 gives the Government power to introduce regulations to implement that directive.
Lord Lea of Crondall: It is Clause 31, my Lords.
Lord Razzall: I apologise, my Lords; it is Clause 31.
In view of some of the very high profile examples of failure to consult employees regarding closures and the fact that probably half of all private sector places of work are not unionized, the importance of these regulations and the likely future of industrial relations in this country as a result of these regulations cannot be overestimated.
926
Indeed, somebody at Warwick University thought that in due course the implementation of this directive will revolutionise the way in which industrial relations are conducted in the United Kingdom.
Liberal Democrats in another place wanted to extend the powers of the Government and take them a little further down the path of implementing this directive, and we will seek to bring forth amendments in Committee to this effect.
The second area in which Liberal Democrats in another place tried to see whether the Bill was satisfactory or if there was a gap in it that could be filled was that of unofficial strikes; and whether the law as it currently stands deals satisfactorily with the position of unofficial strikes, both in non-unionised workplaces—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not being in my place when he started.
I agree with him on the question that he raises, but it is without the ambit of the Long Title of the Bill. It cannot be extended to deal with strikes and unofficial strikes without amending the Long Title.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, it may well be that such a change to the drafting would be necessary, but in this Second Reading debate I am trying to deal with a point of substance.
In the light of recent experience of unofficial strikes in the Post Office—to name but one organisation—we on these Benches will seek to probe the Government on whether further improvements or amendments to employment law could be put into this legislation.
The third area on which a number of noble Lords have touched—and here we have considerable sympathy with the points raised by noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—is the provision of money for trade union modernisation.
If there is one area where your Lordships need to be absolutely certain that the section is in its correct form and the necessary safeguards have been put in before we pass it, this is it. I do not wish to make a wider point. But when a Labour Government—who are significantly funded by the trade union movement—use their majority in the House of Commons on a whipped vote to pass this particular clause, then your Lordships need to be certain that the appropriate safeguards are in place before passing it.
We do not disagree with public money being made available to trade unions for this purpose—indeed we support the principle—but your Lordships have a duty to the electorate in this area in particular to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place.
1.53 p.m.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I have listened attentively to the debate. As ever, it has been a debate among noble Lords with a huge amount of experience,

927
and the quality of the contributions has reflected that. I am grateful to everybody who has participated in our discussion here today.
A number of important and telling points have been made and I will do my best to address as many of them as possible. But first I should like to make some general points about the Bill, to underline the core arguments made by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury in his opening remarks.
Let me remind the House of the significant achievements of this Government in the field of employment relations. This is a limited list. Among other things, we have put in place fair minimum standards and fair wages for all through minimum wage legislation; paid holidays, rest breaks and a cap on the working week; flexible and family friendly working, which has provided greater choice for employees, encouraged the retention of skilled and experienced employees, and enabled employers to cope with the changing demands of their business.
My noble friend Lady Turner asked for consideration of other areas of flexibility, and I have no doubt that there will be a discussion on those points.
We have also put in place new protections against discrimination at work on grounds of sexual orientation, religion or belief, and work is under way to provide new protections against discrimination on grounds of age. Trade unions now have the right to be recognised for collective bargaining purposes where the majority of the workforce want this. It is now unlawful to dismiss workers for taking industrial action within eight weeks of the start of that action, or after that time if the employer has not taken reasonable steps to resolve the dispute. I shall return to that point when I deal with some of the detailed questions that have been asked.
In reminding the House of these achievements and in summing up the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, is right to say that it is a relatively small sequence of additions, precisely for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. This is a process that will continue. As the world of work changes—and we all discussed change in that light—it is inevitable that all the things that I have mentioned, and all that my noble friend Lord Lea mentioned about the gains that have been made over a period producing, as he put it, a very different picture, are matters of some importance to your Lordships.
I remind the House that these achievements have been accompanied at each step by predictions that the policies were bound to lead to unemployment, would damage business and would encourage industrial unrest or worse. No doubt we will hear the same comments made about this Bill. The arguments will be as unfounded as they have been on other occasions.
As this is an issue of such principle, this is the right moment to take up one or two of the points about the big picture that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.
928
The cumulative effects of the legislation that has been introduced during the life of this Government can scarcely be liable to cause the damage that has been described on the one hand, and on the other be understood against a background of employment stability, the lowest rates of unemployment in living memory, and unprecedented economic progress. Those cannot both be true. I ask noble Lords to reflect on the likelihood that the rather draconian predictions are not likely to be accurate. I have the deepest respect for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, put it, and I know that he has had a deep interest in these matters for many years, but none the less I put that point to him.
We believe that our policies make sense for employees, that they will lead to the tolerable equality that my noble friend Lord Lea mentioned and that they will be good for business and for the economy. Our record bears this out. As I have said, we are enjoying an unprecedentedly good period in economic and employment terms. All of those advantages lie at the foundations of sound government.
The Bill takes us one stage further. It builds on our successes and sets down solid foundations for the future: a future based on high performance workplaces and high quality jobs; a future where employers, employees and their representatives are informed, involved and committed, working together for mutual benefit.
Unions play a central part in taking forward the partnership agenda and contributing to greater productivity. That has been among their greatest accomplishments. We want unions, like businesses, to embrace new ways of working and to modernise. The union modernisation fund will help to achieve this goal.
I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, made about wanting to ensure that the funds that go through it could not be diverted in ways that would be inappropriate. In his opening speech, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury made the point that that could not happen under political fund legislation. None the less, we believe that the modernisation issues are fundamental in ensuring that we have hard-working, stable industrial relations. I do not accept the argument advanced in the past few days by Digby Jones that 7 million organised working people constitute some kind of fragmentary lobby group. That seems to be a disparagement rather than an analysis and probably in due course he will think the better of it.
We want to ensure as a matter of sound law that the good work of unions can continue without being hindered by racists and xenophobes who seek to use unions to spread their vile message of hatred and intolerance. We have brought forward measures in the legislation to enable unions to address this. We have delivered on our commitment to review the operation of the Employment Relations Act 1999, and I believe that most of the evidence shows it is working well.
The statutory recognition procedure has been a resounding success. It has encouraged voluntary recognition in more than 1,000 cases and has contributed towards a new partnership approach between unions and employers. I

929
wonder whether I might pay my own personal tribute to Sir Michael Burton for his exceptional leadership of the CAC and the efforts his colleagues have made, which have unquestionably led to smoother and better relations. The Bill will make improvements to statutory procedure, which will enhance its smooth operation and ensure that the spirit of co-operation and fair play that has contributed to his success is not undermined either by a minority of employers or unions who prefer to use intimidation rather than play by the rules that have been established.
It is an essential feature of a fair and modern society that workers are free to belong to and to be represented by a trade union, and the Bill puts in place important protections for trade union members of the kind my noble friend Lady Turner described. They will ensure that they have clear rights to use union services and cannot be induced by employers to forgo their union representation.
I will turn to some of the points about the European consultation procedures, which are very important. No one wants to see a repeat of the most unfortunate events of Friction Dynamics. The Bill will strengthen protection for workers on legitimate strike action and will ensure that employers and unions take their obligations to resolve disputes seriously.
I shall now deal with as many of the questions as I can handle in the brief time available. First, the noble Baroness. Lady Miller asked about the overall increase in employment legislation. Generally speaking, the point has been addressed by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. I will not elaborate on it—we have needed to deal with matters as the situation has changed. It cannot be said that Europe is dictating employment law, as has perhaps been suggested. The original version of the directive presented by the European Commission would have imposed a single works council model on everyone. Changes were agreed by all of the member states to give more flexibility for employers and employees to agree arrangements suited to their particular circumstances. That was the basis on which the Government agreed to it.
We have been asked why we chose not to use statutory instruments but instead chose to use primary legislation. It is not possible to implement all of the agreed CBI and TUC framework under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act, as originally intended, without having a Bill that allows us to do so. The employment relations Bill is a timely vehicle to achieve that objective. The Bill will implement the directive. That is not in itself a convention—we have opted to do it because this is the appropriate moment to do it.
We have been asked about whether this gold plates the directive in any respect. The framework and draft regulations have been agreed with the CBI and the TUC and, as both parties agree, no gold plating is involved. We have used a light and flexible touch in the implementation process. The wording used in the clauses of the Bill makes it clear that that is the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, understandably asks why the "Miller amendment" should not be retained. Having read about the Miller amendment for
930
many years, I am delighted now to sit on the Benches opposite its author. The amendment concerned the need to retain necessary employer flexibility when rewarding staff. Our proposals already adequately safeguard these key business concerns and protect the ability of employers to offer enhanced terms to key workers who they wish to retain for sound business reasons and not in a way that undermines collective bargaining. The Bill secures this in a way that balances employer interests against the necessary rights of union members.
The amendment inserted into the Employment Relations Act 1999, which pre-dates the European Court's judgment, is an important turning point. It was inserted in what is now Section 17 of that Act. That section has never been commenced and its provisions are superseded by this Bill and by the judgment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller asked us to define "lock out". We are a little loath to do so. The definition would not necessarily be useful. The possibility has been considered. We believe that any definition would risk covering situations which it should not and failing to cover situations which it should. We believe that it is a matter best left to the courts and the tribunals to decide in the light of the situation on the ground. The term "lock out" has been used in this legislation for many years without further definition and I do not believe that the absence of a definition has itself caused legal difficulties.
We were asked why the procedural rules for the CAC were not set out in statute. We want to provide the CAC with the necessary freedom to determine its own procedures. It has done it very well so far and it has been a signal success. Its ability to operate effectively under a senior judge has been one of its greatest virtues.
We were asked, with regard to Clause 3 and the provision of information to unions regarding proposed bargaining units, what abuses we are intending to address. The statutory procedure was designed to encourage the voluntary resolution of claims at every opportunity. The limited information which must be supplied to the union under Clause 3 is intended to facilitate agreement between the parties on what the bargaining unit should be. Such information is often revealed to the union in the course of such negotiations in any case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the House will forgive me for intervening. Could the noble Lord deal with a serious problem relating to the procedure of the court? Is he prepared to consider that evidence should be given on oath? Is he prepared to consider that there should be cross-examination? Is he also prepared to consider whether the discovery rules as to procedure should include branch discovery of records, which I am told do not?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is probably as well if I try to address that immediately. It is a complex issue and I should be prepared to discuss it in much more detail in Committee.

931
On the application to undertakings employing fewer than 50 employees, we are wary of imposing additional regulatory burdens on small firms unless there is an absolutely clear need to do so. The directive acknowledges this by giving the option of applying only to undertakings with more than 50 employees. In practice, the vast majority of UK employees—about three quarters of them—will gain new rights under the information and consultation legislation. But we will be considering good practice guidance on employee dialogue in small firms not covered by the legislation.
We do not intend to change the status of abstentions in recognition ballots. However, the Government are keen to ensure that as many workers as possible vote. It is obviously good for democracy and for the standing of the ballot result. Indeed, the introduction of postal votes, for example, in relation to industrial action ballots was designed entirely to accomplish that objective—at least that was the argument put for it by the Conservative government at the time—hence, the need to introduce the provision in Clause 7 to give workers a chance to vote by post in workplace ballots.
The significance of the changes in the wording of paragraphs 35 and 44, which are referred to in Clause 10, was discussed in the review of the Employment Relations Act. The review found that there was some confusion in the meaning of the paragraphs, which would be resolved by this kind of wording.
In all these cases, we are seeing sensible resolutions to outstanding issues. Having raised those matters, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is entitled to a serious answer to them. If I have missed any of her other points, I shall be happy to write to her in due course.
My noble friend Lady Turner raised several very important questions—echoed, I believe, by my noble friend Lord McCarthy—about the complexity of the procedures. I am sure that that matter will be discussed in greater detail, and therefore I would say only that the complexity is, without question, a reflection of the fact that ambiguities have been thought to exist in the processes as they stand. A great deal has been spent on legal advice in order to try to find a solid route through some of these matters, and one often ends up with as many pieces of advice as the number of lawyers to whom one turns. Even if the procedures are lengthy, the intention must be to ensure the greatest possible transparency for everyone.
To my answer to my noble friend Lady Turner, I would add that the use of a qualified independent person in ballots and suitable independent persons for the purpose of union communications is to give greater confidence to everyone involved that the matters have all been handled fairly and efficiently and so that every party can have confidence in the results.
Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I do not intend today to go over the arguments and evidence on the 21-worker threshold or the 40 per cent ballot threshold. Much evidence relates to these areas, and I have no doubt that the matter will be discussed in Grand Committee. However, the evidence suggests
932
that those are not insuperable barriers in any respect and, in fact, they place upon everyone the need to work harder to produce sensible results.
The core bargaining agenda is important. What we have—I shall not disguise it—is the basis of an agreement between the TUC and the CBI about the core topics. There is no question that other matters may well be discussed by additional routes, but they will not themselves represent the greatest level of consensus that was achieved in those discussions, which I believe were hugely valuable. I make the same point to my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lady Turner. Again, there is a great deal of evidence in relation to the whole issue of the eight-week rule in industrial action, and I believe that that is probably best handled in Grand Committee. In short, there is at least a degree of consensus on all those matters, even if the TUC and the CBI would like us to go further.
In going through many of those issues and in considering some of the others, in the brief time available I want to touch on just one other matter that was raised—that is, the question of the JCHR report. The Government have prepared a detailed response to the concerns, which is available in the Library of the House. The memorandum explains why we consider the Bill's provisions on Wilson and Palmer to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the implementation of the European Court's judgment in that case. However. I say openly that we shall look forward to discussing that matter in detail in Grand Committee.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps I may get one matter clear. Is my noble friend telling me that he has written something new which we have not seen and that it is now in the Library?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am saying exactly that. It is very recent and very new. Even yesterday, I myself was not aware of its contents but I am today.
Things are, in a general sense, working well. We were asked why we should change that position. As my noble friend Lord McCarthy said in making his point about incremental change, it makes the law more explicit and more effective.
In summing up, perhaps I may say that it is a privilege and a pleasure to be involved in this Bill. I look forward to the continuing and detailed discussions that we shall no doubt have in Grand Committee, where I am sure we shall receive the benefit of everyone's close and expert scrutiny. I completely agree with the point that any rhetoric of confrontation will not help that process. The measures contained in the Bill will take us further down the road of partnership and high-performance workplaces and will help to maintain the impressive climate of employment relations that we enjoy today, which are so fundamental to the well-being of our economy. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement on Enlargement of the European Economic Area) Order 2004
2.15 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Deanrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26 April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am pleased to move the Motion for this order on enlargement of the European economic area. As the House is aware, the Government have put tremendous effort into ensuring that our friends in central Europe, Cyprus and Malta are able to join the European Union this Saturday. This order is a formal step towards delivering that enlargement.
I apologise for the short notice in bringing the order before the House. EEA enlargement is due to take place with EU enlargement on Saturday, 1 May. However, unfortunately the Foreign and Commonwealth Office failed to take into account the Easter Recess when calculating the 21 sitting days required between the order being laid in the House and the subsequent debate. The command paper was laid in the House on 15 April, but we should like to secure ratification as soon as possible in order to co-ordinate with EEA enlargement. Approval of the order today would allow it to be considered by the Privy Council on 6 May. If the Privy Council approves the order, the UK will be able to ratify in the week of EEA and EU enlargement. Therefore, I apologise to your Lordships. It was, indeed, a slip-up, but I hope that it will not impede our progress.
The European Commission had prepared provisional administrative measures for the eventuality that not all member states would be able to ratify EEA enlargement in time for 1 May itself. I believe that the UK can be proud of the major part that it has played in ensuring that the conditions are right for EU enlargement to take place. We shall continue to promote and support reform in the accession states, helping those countries to fulfil their potential.
The subject of the order—the agreement signed in Luxembourg on 14 October 2003—together with four protocols, which are not the subject of the order, allow the participation of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic in the European economic area. The EEA allows our friends in Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein to participate in the internal EU market, bringing benefits to them and to us in terms of trade and the free movement of people. An effective internal market is crucial to the success of the EU. We must ensure that the market embraces the accession states as soon as they join so that they will be able to trade as liberally as we, or any other EU member states, already do with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.
Through the EEA enlargement agreement, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein will make valuable financial contributions to economic and social reform in the accession states over the next five years. Under the terms of the agreement and four associated protocols, Iceland,
934
Norway and Liechtenstein will contribute £415 million over a five-year period to help to alleviate social and economic difficulties in the accession states. Moreover. Norway will contribute an additional £393 million to help to facilitate the integration of the accession states into the internal market.
I believe that this is a positive measure for the United Kingdom, ensuring effective free trade between European partners. I am sure the House will agree that it is a welcome agreement that supplements part of the EU enlargement process, ensuring that the full benefits are available to all. I hope that we shall be able to approve the order today. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26 April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the order. Despite a small amount of confusion which has been apparent in the relaying of this SI, we do not propose to oppose its passage through this House.
As the Minister said, in essence this is a technical measure to translate the agreement on the European economic area signed at Oporto in 1992, to which the accession countries signed up in 2003, into a community treaty. We are pleased to see these accession countries moving forward to full EU membership at the weekend. That is something which we have always supported, and we support this measure, which is designed to allow accession countries fully to enjoy the benefits of sharing in the internal market.
However, I have a small number of points which I hope the noble Baroness can clarify. First, given that this SI relates to accession countries due to accede on 1 May, why is it being brought before us at this time so near to 1 May? What, if anything, does this SI and the translation from agreement to community treaty substantially change? Finally, when does the noble Baroness envisage that ratification will occur?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we all welcome—indeed, we are all going to rather too many parties welcoming—the enlargement of the European Union which takes place this weekend. I have to accept that the Government must have found it rather easy to forget about the European economic area in all of this. The EEA is a leftover of an attempted negotiation in the late 1980s between the European Community and the European free trade area countries to provide them with an acceptable alternative to membership which did not impose on them the full obligations of participation in the European Union. As I am sure Members of the Conservative Party remember well—they were then in government—by the time those negotiations were concluded, the majority of members of EFTA had decided that there was no viable alternative to membership and that they were better off becoming full members.

935
I am not entirely sure whether the Conservative opposition sees the relationship between Iceland and the EU, Norway and the EU or Liechtenstein and the EU as its preferred model for Britain's future association or whether, indeed, it would prefer to reject the EEA as well and take, perhaps, the Swiss position. I heard a Conservative on the radio the other day suggest that Norway was the ideal model for Britain's relationship with the EU. Therefore, I am very pleased that the Minister reminded us that Norway has agreed to become the largest contributor per head of financial assistance to new member states thus reminding the Conservative opposition that one does not entirely opt out of everything one does not want to have if one attempts to renegotiate. Indeed, I am well aware, as I have taken part in conferences both in Oslo and Reykjavik in the past 18 months, of an active debate within both those countries as to whether they would now be better to reconsider and become full members.
Having made that very slightly partisan point, perhaps I may say that we on these Benches welcome the agreement. The EEA is a useful minor part of the European Union's external relations. I hope that once we have got over the celebrations of enlargement, we shall have some time in this House to debate the wider issues of the European Union's relations with its neighbours. After all, its other neighbours are far more difficult than the three covered by this order.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, perhaps I may add to the point that has just been made. In everything that is done in the European Union, not only in respect of industrial free trade but many of the regulations concerning public procurement, and so forth—the list is very long indeed—Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein do not sit at the table. Therefore, their interests are not directly spoken to at the time that such arrangements are made, and they are contributing to the funds of the European Union in the guise of the European economic area, which of course, has the characteristics described by my noble friend.
Therefore, this is a very good opportunity to underline the fact that this would be a hopeless formula for a country such as Britain. I think we shall hear more of this question as the months go by.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever, and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for the support that they have offered the Government on this order. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we did not forget the EEA. As I attempted to say in my opening remarks, the delay in presenting the order to your Lordships was a miscalculation of the number of sitting days between the day the order was laid before the House and I May. I apologise again to
936
noble Lords for that. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, about why this is so close to 1 May. It was not meant to be quite so close. As I have said, there was a mistake. I am grateful to both noble Lords for being so generous in passing gracefully over that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked what real difference the order would make. It does not make any material difference to the issues covered, but extends the relationship between the European Union countries which are full members today and the three countries concerned to the 10 countries which will join us on Saturday. So it is not a question of changing the nature of the agreement; it simply changes its geographical coverage. When all the EU members have been through their acceptance process, there will be ratification in the usual way and I would not expect that to present any particular difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked whether the arrangements for Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein might provide a model for the future. As noble Lords would expect, I agree very much with the points made by my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall. We would not be happy sitting in this position in relation to the rest of Europe, but perhaps that is a debate for another day.
I re-emphasise the comments of my noble friend Lord Lea. The British Government value the United Kingdom's excellent relations with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. Clearly, they contribute far more than just an effective internal market. The figures I have been able to give noble Lords regarding the very generous contributions that all three countries arc able to make over the next five years to the economic and social development of the accession countries speak for themselves. I think that her Majesty's Government would be very pleased to support any of the peoples and governments of those three countries were they to choose to apply for EU membership. We would support that wholeheartedly.
I believe that the House overwhelmingly supported the legislation ratifying the EU enlargement last year and by approving the order on the EEA today the House has had an opportunity to reaffirm its support for the inclusion of the accession states in the process of building a competitive and effective Europe. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this brief exchange for their support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Protection Agency Bill [H.L.]
2.28 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [Functions: supplementary]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 26, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we last debated Clause 4 of the Bill, the Minister laid down what I described as a veritable barrage of legislative

937
precedent in relation to his new provisions in Clause 4(7). giving the appropriate authority, by which is normally meant the Secretary of State, the power to direct the agency to have regard in exercising any of its functions to such aspects of the policies of the authority as the authority directs. and also the default powers, to persuade us that there was very good precedent for both aspects of the new amendments he proposed at that time. When the smoke cleared, however—effectively after I had read Hansard subsequent to the debate—it struck me that a number of questions remained regarding what the Minister had said.
There is no dispute between any of the Benches on the question of the default powers. They fall fair and square with virtually every other agency that the Secretary of State for Health has to deal with, whether it is the FSA, the regulators or many other bodies. It is really over the subsection (7) powers that there is some doubt.
When the Minister referred to the new subsection he referred to CHI—Iknow that that is now called the Healthcare Commission, so one must remember to change our vocabulary as time goes on—and CSCI, which I believe has not changed its name. These bodies have a very different role to that of the Health Protection Authority.
The Minister referred to chapter and verse. He referred to Section 131 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act as regards CSCI, and he referred to Section 132 of that Act, as regards the Healthcare Commission.
The Minister skated very lightly over one matter— indeed, he did not mention it. This is the aspect that interested me when the smoke cleared. The FSA, which has much more analogous functions to the Health Protection Agency, does not have any power of that kind available to the Secretary of State. This is the dog that did not bark in the night. Perhaps the Minister would give us further background on the issue.
The default powers are in Section 24 of the Food Standards Act 1999. There are other powers relating to international treaties, and indeed powers to remove members of the agency, which are quite interesting in the context of the HPA Bill. But there is nothing similar to subsection (7). That seems rather strange. Could the Minister explain why we are adopting this provision when no such provision exists in the case of the Food Standards Agency? I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has such difficulty with my extensive explanation of our thinking on Report. Clause 4(7) is part and parcel of the revised powers of direction as to the exercise of functions, which we agreed to incorporate in the Bill on Report. I would suggest that removing it would not improve the Bill. It particularly goes together with Clause 4(8). So, they arc part and parcel of the same approach.
938
I shall not go through the extensive explanations that I gave on Report, but I should like to focus on one particular point. I shall return to the point about the Food Standards Agency. I would remind the House that Clause 4(7) is virtually identical in terms to the wording in Section 131— subsection (1) in particular —of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. Whatever else we did in the Bill, we combed through it extensively and had extensive debates on whether those provisions would unreasonably fetter the independence of those bodies and on whether it would put the Secretary of State in a position rather whimsically to give directions to the Healthcare Commission and CSCI. After our debates, the Act on the statute book had virtually identical wording to that in Clause 4(7).
I reiterate to those who are concerned that Clause 4(7) will be used to prevent the agency carrying out an act that an appropriate authority did not believe to be appropriate, that that is not a backdoor way of maintaining the wider power of direction which we removed from the Bill on Report.
The fact that we have not followed slavishly the wording in the Food Standards Act means that we have not copied that Act. We have related the powers here much more to health bodies, and we have drafted the Bill accordingly. The noble Lord shakes his head. He may not like the elegance of our drafting or the wording or my explanation, but my account explains why we have framed this legislation in this way. The legislation on the Health Protection Agency, in terms of this reserved provision in relation to directions, is virtually the same wording as that used in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act. That is the position, and I suggest that it is not necessary to pursue the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister has considerable chutzpah in coming back and virtually repeating word for word, except for a few excisions, the statements that he made on Report. Accusing me of saying that there were objections to the Government not having copied slavishly the Food Standards Act is fairly breathtaking. The point is not just that the Government have not copied slavishly the Food Standards Act; they have inserted provisions that were never contained in it. We have got away from the charge that is laid against me.
I accept the Minister's assurance that this is not a backdoor way of giving directions to the agency. It has been limited. I think that the Minister did listen. Whether he has gone far enough, we will have to judge on the actual behaviour of future Secretaries of State in the way they relate to the agency. We have on the record fairly adamant assurances at virtually every stage of the Bill that that power will be used properly and within the policy framework. The precise interpretation of the subsection no doubt will take place on a future occasion. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 42, at end insert—
"() But subsection (11) does not authorise a disclosure of information which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other two government amendments in this group, although they relate to slightly different issues.
Amendment No. 2 responds to a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at Grand Committee and on Report. I am extremely grateful to him for having drawn our attention to it. We all recognise that the Health Protection Agency, in order to discharge its functions, will need to handle confidential and sensitive information. Quite properly, information of this nature needs to be subject, as a general rule, to various restrictions on its handling. There will, however, be circumstances in which the agency will need to disclose information which it holds to the other bodies with which it works, in order for the agency and those bodies effectively to discharge their functions. There will also be circumstances in which the agency will need to receive information from such bodies, again in order for both parties effectively to perform their functions.
In very many such cases, there is already legislation in place, which requires such information to be protected and provides a basis on which it can be passed to, and received from, others with whom it needs to be shared.
However, it is not possible to say that whatever functions the agency takes on under the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3, and whatever the areas within which other bodies seek its co-operation, there will always he—and in every circumstance—a clear legal basis on which the agency and its partners can share the information that they need to share effectively to perform their functions. There may be restrictions on sharing some information that the agency and its partners need to share. It is for that reason that Clause 4(11) is included in the Bill.
Clause 4(11) disapplies from the agency and its partners restrictions on the disclosure of information. It allows the agency and its partners to disclose information to, and receive it from, each other in some circumstances where they would not otherwise be able to do so. In practice, as far as we can judge, occasions when Clause 4(11) might need to be invoked will not be common. However, it needs to be there, to ensure that the agency and its partners have a lawful basis for any necessary disclosures of information that would otherwise be subject to restrictions.
It is not the case, as was suggested in some of our earlier debates, that Clause 4(11) authorises the agency to disclose personal information to an unlimited number of bodies, or to everyone in those bodies. Clause 4(11) would authorise disclosure where it was necessary for one of the functions specified; but the disclosure would still need to be in the public interest, and it would need to be proportionate if European Convention rights were engaged.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question of whether Clause 4(11) would override the requirements of the Data Protection Act. The Bill as currently drafted does provide such an override. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the point that the Data Protection Act does not prevent the dissemination of personal data when that is necessary in the public interest. That is an important point, and that is why we have looked at the drafting of the Bill again.
My officials have worked closely on this with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is the custodian of wisdom on the Data Protection Act. They have also discussed thoroughly with the Health Protection Agency Special Health Authority and the National Radiological Protection Board—the bodies that currently carry out the functions planned for the agency—what those bodies think the practical implications of modifying Clause 4(11) might be. I am glad to say that in the light of this further work, we have come to the conclusion that it is not essential to disapply from the Health Protection Agency and its partners the requirements of the Data Protection Act. The government amendment therefore makes clear that the requirements of the Data Protection Act will apply.
Turning to the second government amendment in this group, on Report we replaced the words "one or more schemes" with "a scheme" at each point where they then appeared in Clause 8. This further minor change follows through the logic of that change, by making a similar change to the new material that we added to Clause 8 on Report.
Finally, the third government amendment is a purely technical amendment, which simply ensures that Schedule 4 reflects an amendment that we included in Schedule 3 on Report. I beg to move.
2.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I intervene briefly to say how much I welcome Amendment No. 2. which is clearly the product of a great deal of deliberation by Ministers in a number of departments. I am grateful that the concerns that I raised at earlier stages of the Bill on the issues of confidentiality and data protection have been taken on board as seriously as they have been. The amendment resolves a great many questions, but I ask the Minister to say something about guidance on these matters.
The Data Protection Act 1998 is a carefully considered piece of legislation, but even its closest friends would concede that its effects and implications are not always self-explanatory. The fact that Clause 4(11) will be subject to the over-riding provisions of the Data Protection Act is welcome. but the interpretation of the subsection, at a practical level, may leave many people doubtful about what they may legally do and not do. It seems that guidance is required to clarify the principles involved here, not only as to the initial disclosure of personal information and the circumstances where disclosure needs to happen, but also as to what should happen to information once it has been disclosed.

941
If a local authority, in pursuit of its duty of co-operation, receives sensitive personal data of a medical nature, who in the authority, and indeed outside, should be entitled to read that information? How should it be stored? Suppose after a while there is no strict need to continue holding the data, because the matter has been dealt with, what should be done with the files? Should the local authority retain the data just in case, or should they be destroyed? All these questions arise as a matter of practice.
The Minister was helpful on Report in putting these provisions into the context of the Human Rights Act, but the duty of co-operation under Clause 5 extends far and wide. It is obvious that the more people who receive data relating to, let us say, HIV-positive men and women living in a particular area, the more scope there is for such data to permeate to unauthorised individuals unless we are particularly careful. The Health Service Control of Patient Information Regulations 2002 are clearly important in this context, but they are not referred to specifically here. It might be thought that they are overridden by the wording of Clause 4(11) I am sure that the Minister will tell me that that is not so, but it might be thought to be so.
The Minister has gone to a great deal of trouble to listen to the concerns raised by noble Lords throughout proceedings on the Bill, and he has responded most constructively to those concerns by bringing forward government amendments. I am extremely grateful to him and to his officials for all that they have done. It seems to me that in several significant, albeit small ways, the Bill is now improved. Furthermore, our debates have clarified both the underlying principles and the practical implications of this legislation, which we all agree is to be welcomed. We wish the agency well in the important work that lies ahead of it.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, very briefly, we wish to support and thank the Minister for putting forward this amendment. Issues now surround the Data Protection Act, and we have already had debates on Starred Questions about whether a review of the Act would be appropriate. Many of us believe that that would be a useful way forward.
As regards the regulations under Section 60 referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the question of whether subsection (11) overrides the requirements of the Data Protection Act is important, since this has been the subject of considerable debate. This being Third Reading and the last opportunity to thank the Minister for his constructive engagement on this Bill, and for the amendments that have been made, I will do so. I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in wishing the agency well with the new powers that it will receive under this Act.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords. I hesitate to prolong the discussion very much, but can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the HPA has indeed had approval from the Patient Information Advisory Group, under Section 60, to use information about
942
patients in the public interest without the patient's consent, under certain circumstances that, the PIAG could approve?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, very briefly, I thank the Minister for having listened so carefully to all the points that have been made at previous stages of the Bill. I apologise that I was unable to be in the House the last time that the Bill was before us, but I formally thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for the work that they did to ensure that the agency will work closely in collaboration with the service in Wales, and that the concerns have been allayed by establishing observer status on the board.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks made by a number of noble Lords. This has been a co-operative venture, in that we have tried to make this Bill as constructive and useful as possible for the new agency. I share their views. We wish the Health Protection Agency well.
On the issue of guidance in relation to the Data Protection Act, it will be open to the agency. I am sure that it will look carefully at what has been said in this House to issue guidance to staff about the way in which the Act should be interpreted and used, based on the plentiful guidance that has already been issued in relation to that Act, and is available to all employers.
Does Clause 4(11) override Section 60 regulations? Yes, it overrides restrictions on disclosure, but only in the circumstances that I outlined, which are specified there. I will write with more details to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the relationship with the Section 60 provisions, and to my noble friend Lord Turnberg.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Transfer of property and staff etc.]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 23, leave out "one or more schemes" and insert "a scheme"
On Question. amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 20, column 2, leave out line 33 and insert——
"In section 133(4), after paragraph (c)(i) "or" and after paragraph (d)(ii) "or""
On Question. amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Warner.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Regional Development Agencies and Science
2.51 p.m.
Lord Patelrose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Science and the RDAs: SETting the regional agenda (5th Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 140).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to present to the House the July 2003 report on Science and the RDAs by the Science and Technology Committee. The committee looked at how to improve, to mutual advantage, the interaction between the recently established regional development agencies—the RDAs of the title—and science, engineering and technology, normally contracted to "SET".
While the committee took account of the longer experience of these matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I should explain that our inquiry concentrated on the nine English agencies which were set up some five years ago. Strictly speaking, only eight of those are RDAs. However, the separately established London Development Agency is essentially the same. My and others' references to RDAs should therefore be understood to include the London body.
Alongside the report, we shall be considering the Government's December 2003 response to the committee's wide-ranging recommendations. Copies of the response are available in the Printed Paper Office, and will be published in a follow-up report after this debate. We shall also need from time to time to refer to the Government's December 2003 innovation reportߞ Competing in the Global Economy: the Innovation Challenge—and the contemporaneous report of the Lambert review of business-university collaboration—which helped inform the innovation report. Both of those reports acknowledge the influence of the committee's recommendations, and I am pleased about that.
I shall also be able to draw on useful material from the RDAs themselves about their actions in the light of the committee's and these other reports. The RDAs have found the report helpful and that is encouraging and pleasing. That material too is available in the Printed Paper Office and will be published in due course.
Before turning to the key points arising from the report and the Government's response, I should like to thank the Select Committee for the honour of chairing the inquiry, and the other members of the sub-committee for making that such an enjoyable experience—most of the time. I am sure that they will join me in thanking the many people who helped us complete our task: those who provided in writing and orally much useful source material, all as published in the 349 pages of the evidence volume accompanying the report; all those involved in a valuable series of visits in England, Scotland and Wales which helped us to understand the position on the ground, as summarised in appendices to the report; our specialist adviser, Dr Marilyn Wedgwood, Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University, for helping us work through the inquiry's many interrelated strands—her knowledge of RDAs is phenomenal, to say the least. And
944
to our Clerk, Roger Morgan, I give especial thanks as this was his last inquiry, and I, on behalf of the committee, wish him well in his retirement. We were also helped by the Clerk who followed, Christopher Johnson, and the scientific adviser, Jonathan Radcliffe. I thank them, too.
No modern economy can be successful without innovation. Much of that innovation is technological, involving the application and exploitation of SET. The English structures for encouraging innovation as a driver of economic growth were substantially changed in the late 1990s with the introduction of RDAs. The starting point of our inquiry was the effect this explicitly regional perspective is having on the national SET base.
I think it is fair to say that at least some sub-committee members started by doubting that the apparent fragmentation of influences on the national SET base could be beneficial. However, we were quickly won over by what we heard and, during our various visits, saw on the ground. RDAs' activities at the interface between economic development and SET can, when properly focused, be a potent force for good.
While the energy and enthusiasm of RDAs' board members and staff cannot be faulted, our emerging concern was that the framework within which they were required to operate meant that their activities were not always focused on the right things. To allow RDAs to focus their activities better, with consequent benefits to regional and national economics, we saw the main needs as greater coherence, longer-term perspectives and reduced bureaucracy.
To that end, the committee made 19 recommendations, addressed to the Government and others. These arise at various points in our report, but are, for convenience, collected together on pages 8 to 10. I will briefly outline the key points, and comment on them further in the light of the Government's response.
However, on a general point, it is a little disappointing that the Government's formal response deals only with the report's individual recommendations. Most Select Committee reports are more than the sum of their specific recommendations. They normally also represent a committee's considered reflection on a particular issue or area of policy. The response provides no introductory section giving the Government's overview of the role and future of the RDAs. It is therefore difficult to infer the Government's overview from the response, or to glean this from the various references in last December's innovation report.
I hope that the Minister, when replying to this debate, in order to set the context for his more detailed points, will be able to give a brief overview on the lines I have indicated. In particular, I would welcome his assurance that the Government plan to involve RDAs as vital partners in developing arrangements for the exploitation of SET.
Turning to the committee's detailed recommendations, we found that the principal handicap for the RDAs—and others—was the absence of coherent policies for the exploitation of SET. Accordingly, our key recommendation—at sub-paragraph (a) on page 8—was that the Government should involve relevant national and regional players in urgently devising and implementing a national policy

945
and strategy for SET exploitation that truly integrates national and regional perspectives. I am pleased that the Government's response fully recognises the importance of filling this major gap. It mentions various activities towards this end, and I wonder if the Minister is able to update the House on the progress made and the timetable for completion.
At the operational level, we recommended at sub-paragraph (b) the establishment of a forum to enable national and regional interests to address the impact of and synergy between national and regional SET investments and, as far as possible, harmonise them. The Government's response states their belief that the Steering Group for the Research Councils and RDAs will fulfil this task. My fear is that this body may not be at a level involving the right people to resolve the operational issues. What will the Government do to ensure that their expectations for the steering group are realised? Are there any incentives for the stakeholders more actively to strive for the highly desirable national/regional synergy?
Several regions made strong representations about the mismatch between the Government's emphasis on regional development and reluctance to increase their R&D funding outside the South East in areas that are far from scientific deserts. We illustrated this with 1999 figures, the latest year for which full data were available at the time. Our recommendation at sub-paragraph (c) on page 8 was that the Government should urgently publish the latest possible information about their R&D spend per region and keep this up to date as a performance measure of support for regional economies through nationally-provided SET.
The Government's comment that regions' success in attracting others' R&D funding might be more relevant—and we accepted its value as a regional performance measure at sub-paragraph (f)—I thought missed the point of our recommendation. However, I appreciate that there are more recent data for government R&D spend per region. Can the Minister again say whether later figures show any proportionate increase for regions outside the South East?
Our final recommendation relating to overall coherence—in sub-paragraph (d) on page 8—addressed the need for an analysis of the complex issues in the demand for and supply of SET, better to inform future policies on SET exploitation. The Government's response acknowledges that the thrust of the recommendation was on target, but I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether the activity outlined in the response is now yielding the necessary results.
I now turn to our recommendations on metrics and bureaucracy. Alongside the absence of coherent policies for the exploitation of SET, we found the other principal handicap for RDAs was the government-set framework within which they were required to operate. As noted in Box 4 on page 21 of our report, RDAs are subject to a bewildering array of performance measures. Although SET is both directly and indirectly relevant to a wide range of RDAs' activities, it is mentioned only peripherally in the definition of the eleventh Tier 2 outcome concerning innovation.
946
Not only were the wrong things being measured, measurements are made over periods too short to allow necessary longer-term projects to show their worth. Moreover, all that was compounded by bureaucratic demands. RDAs operate under some 1,400 pages of guidance documents which. having been developed at different times and by different limbs of government, contain many ambiguities and contradictions. Accordingly, we made a series of recommendations, at sub-paragraphs (e) to (h) on page 9, about providing RDAs with a simplified and more relevant set of performance measures and reducing their bureaucratic load.
The Government's response notes these as covering similar ground to the National Audit Office's November 2003 report Success in the Regions. Of course, our report in fact predated the NAO's report, but I welcome the indication that the committee's comments will be taken into account in implementing the NAO's recommendations. Is the Minister able to say when he expects that work to be complete?
Specifically on SET, did the Government achieve their indicated target of developing a limited set of innovation indicators by the end of March 2004?
The committee made a number of subsidiary recommendations, addressed principally to RDAs, regional business and higher education interests, about boosting regional capacity and connections on SET-related matters. Time does not permit me to expand on those, although I am pleased to report that RDAs have welcomed these and are tackling them energetically.
There is, however, one particular issue that I should like to highlight before I finish—that of public sector procurement. Small businesses are often the source of the most technologically-innovative products and services. Encouraging their growth is good for the economy and SET base at both regional and national levels. We were concerned to learn that public sector purchasing policies can actively work against such businesses. The committee heard from an Internet company that, solely on the grounds of turnover, was precluded from bidding for a project within its internationally-established competence. Another example was of a small company that could not sell its high-tech equipment needed by the local hospital other than through the German-based preferred contractor.
Accordingly we recommended, at sub-paragraph (p) on page 10, that consideration be given to the case for arrangements such as the USA's small company set aside scheme to help small firms participate in public sector procurements, either directly or as sub-contractors in larger projects. It seemed to us to be a win-win solution: small companies and their regions would benefit from the better opportunities; at the same time, the public sector would benefit from the innovation that is the characteristic of small SET-related businesses.
It is therefore disappointing that the Government rejected this recommendation, particularly as, from the limited steps described in their response to increase the success of smaller businesses in government procurements, they seem to accept that there is a real problem here.

947
Two reasons are given for the rejection. The first is that such a move would run counter to the Government's objective of basing all public procurement decisions on value for money for the taxpayer. Neither of the examples I gave had anything to do with the price of the product. Even where that is an issue, however, is there not also a broader value for taxpayers' money in helping to develop a vibrant small company sector?
The Government's second objection was conflict with EC and WTO treaty obligations. However, they have presumably not stood in the way of the present limited initiatives. Can the Government really not explore whether any further elbow room might be available?
I have covered most of the recommendations and I hope that my colleagues on the committee will cover the others. I am aware of the time. I look forward to hearing the views of my colleagues on the committee and to the Minister's reply.
I conclude by observing that, as the relatively new RDAs have paid attention to the role of SET in their economic strategies, weaknesses and opportunities have become apparent in the structures intended to encourage and support SET-based economic development. While some of those weaknesses are matters of process, others are consequences of a deep-seated lack of coherence in the various policy levers. For the good of regional and national economies, all those weaknesses need urgently to be redressed. As indicated in the title of our report, SET needs to be an explicit and integral part of the regional agenda. Securing this now will help ensure our national prosperity in the increasingly challenging years to come. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Science and the RDAs: SETting the regional agenda (5th Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 140).—(Lord Patel.)
3.9 p.m.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for introducing the debate. The noble Lord was an inspirational and incisive chairman who kept us on the straight and narrow. We travelled to many places in the UK, but I have to admit some disappointment that the noble Lord was not able to get us to visit Dundee. I also have to thank the noble Lord because it was he who co-opted me onto the sub-committee for microprocessors during the next 20 years, which has led to me being on the Select Committee on Science and Technology itself, a role and a position for which I am truly grateful.
I thank Marilyn Wedgwood, our special adviser. As the noble Lord said, she has a phenomenal knowledge of RDAs, and she too was able to guide us through a difficult period of understanding how the various RDAs operate. I have to thank twice over our Clerk, Roger Morgan, for his superb work. I omitted to thank him when we had the debate on microprocessors.
948
We have produced a jolly good report. I hope that those people who read it, particularly in the DTI but also elsewhere throughout the country, will take notice of what we have to say. We have made some powerful recommendations.
To be frank, I was left with a series of worries about the report itself. The first was whether we were looking at RDAs too early into their life. Many of them had been going for less than five years, and I wondered if that really was the period when we should be looking at them and seeing how they were doing. Sometimes I had the feeling that we were digging up the plants to see how they were growing. Perhaps we should look at the subject again in three or four years' time. How well are they doing? Well, I am not sure. The jury is out on this, but we certainly saw some encouraging aspects.
My other, perhaps more important, worry about the RDAs concerns how the RDAs themselves operate. I had this feeling that no sooner had they been incorporated than the normal corporatist trappings were being put into the way that they operate. The good and the great were associated with the RDAs: the directors of the public companies, the professors, the knights of the realm. But where were the entrepreneurs? Where were the real customers? We did not see very many of those, and I think that is a great pity. We went to a sumptuous dinner at the splendid offices of the Royal Society in Edinburgh. We had a superb lunch at AstraZeneca in Macclesfield. Speaking frankly, I would have preferred to have gone to the pub with the entrepreneurs in their t-shirts and jeans, and to have shot the breeze with them.
I have this overwhelming worry that the RDAs have become too posh, too grand and too out of touch, and I hope that they keep close to their prime customers, the entrepreneurs and the people who are in the regions. The job of the RDAs is to create the correct environment. It is not necessarily to back winners, and they must become accessible and not remote from the population.
The prime job, I suppose, of an RDA is to generate regional growth and regeneration, but at the moment that is actually happening before our eyes. In our major regional cities which, 10 or 15 years ago, were almost beyond hope, we are seeing some tremendous growth occurring. I think of Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow. Leeds is now a major financial centre in this country. There was an article in the Economist this week that indicated that, for the first time, more people are moving north than are moving south. House prices, as most noble Lords will know, are rising faster in the North than they are in the South. There are economic reasons that propel regional growth. It may even be said that things people might not think are important, such as the Commonwealth Games being in Manchester, or Liverpool being awarded the European Capital of Culture for 2008, actually are important, because they all demonstrate that the regional areas are nice places to live, and they will attract the key people and the key investments that we need in these areas. It is said that while 39 per cent of Newcastle University graduates used to stay within that region after they graduated, that figure is now

949
close to half—another positive move. So the RDAs are not pushing against a closed door. The moves are going in that direction, the regions are becoming much more attractive, and it makes the job the RDAs are doing all the more important.
It has to be said that one of the reasons why many of our deprived areas are doing well, the North in particular, is the strong economy in this country. I know it is the usual mantra that will be heard from these Benches, but the facts are true: the lowest unemployment, the lowest inflation and low interest rates. Indeed, a smile crossed my face just the other day to read that the inflation rate is dangerously close to 1 per cent, a point at which the Governor of the Bank of England has to write to the Chancellor explaining why inflation is low. I think that is all good news. We can scoff, if we like, at boom and bust—and I know people do—but stability and steady growth are absolutely key to regeneration, and they bring their own reward. To quote a phrase, "when the tide comes in, all boats rise", and I think that is what we are seeing in the north of the country.
One of the recommendations we make in the report concerns the funding gap. It is a perennial issue that has been discussed certainly as long as I have been involved in economics. The venture capital community in this country has revolutionised investment in the UK, but there are still problems, and so there are roles for the regional development authorities. There are not many angels around who make seed investments. That is a job for institutions, whether it is the University Challenge Fund, or any other body that is supported by the RDAs. But I have found from my own experience that venture capitalists are not really interested in investments of less than £5 million. It is too costly, it takes up too much time, and, who knows, it may be too risky as well. That is something we saw when we were in Silicon Valley on the microprocessor investigation. So it is important that the RDAs are able to fund this gap. How does my noble friend the Minister, who I know has an interest in this area beyond most people, see this issue and what changes are being made with respect to funding the investment gap below £5 million.
I want to draw attention to one recommendation. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned the small company set-aside scheme, which relies on the importance of government spending on pump priming with regard to small companies. Once more, in Silicon Valley, we saw the benefit. The US Government use their spending money to give a leg-up to small companies. It is hard for such companies to get government funds—they do not know who to go to, they cannot fill out the reports, they do not have the infrastructure. We recommended in our report that the DTI should emulate US small company set-aside schemes. So I should like to ask the Minister a difficult question that I think he needs to answer.
This country is spending probably £10 billion on IT infrastructure investments—in the NHS, Defra and the Ministry of Defence—but I do not see any directive in that spending to support small companies. I should like to know why that is. I have heard the reasons, but I cannot believe them. The first is that when one tenders,
950
Europe insists on pan-European Union tendering, and somehow the small companies do not lit in on that. The second is that all governments have had a lamentable history on major projects in the IT sector that have gone wrong, and if small companies are brought in the risk will be increased. Somehow it is felt that we cannot fail again with the NHS, the MoD, and so on. Frankly, I find this all a little lame. We have got to be much bolder in what we do, and we must insist that large companies involve small companies in tendering.
Finally, we have heard about the DTI report on innovation; we have heard about the Lambert report on universities and business; there are various reports from the House of Commons. Is it not possible that these reports could be co-ordinated so that we could bring forward some recommendations that make sense across the board?
3.20 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for chairing the Select Committee, on which I was privileged to serve as a co-opted member. The noble Lord's patience, persistence and good humour are quite remarkable. I put it down to his having worked for more than 30 years with real patients in the health sector. For me, a humble accountant, not a scientist, serving on the committee has been a prolonged adult education course., learning more and more about the science base in this country and how government in the public sector can assure that we develop it, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, said, to be one of the most dynamic in the world, at the forefront of events.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was being a bit too modest when he said that very soon after the Select Committee's report was published, a number of public sector reports were published. He seemed to imply that these came in parallel. I detect a good deal of influence exerted by the committee and by the report on a number of public sector reports, which I shall mention for the record. The National Audit Office's report, Success in the Regions, was published towards the end of 2003. The Treasury published Bridging the Finance Gap, and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, referred, quite rightly, to the funding gap. There was also the DTI's innovation report and, of course, the Lambert review. All four reports drew in some measure—some greater than others— on the work of the committee.
I was impressed by the regional development agencies as we went around the country. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, in his typical fresh, invigorating style, said he thought that some of them were "too posh". The further north I went—north of Yorkshire and Humberside, through the north-west, the north-east and Scotland—the more impressed I became, particularly in the north of England, at how hard-working and how directly rooted those agencies were in the business community. I applaud what they have already achieved; I think their individual responses, which I am sure your Lordships will look forward to reading in due course, were very constructive.

951
I hope that your Lordships will return, as a matter of discipline, to this subject again in two or three years' time. Parliaments have a great habit of writing reports, listening to the government's response and then all the papers get filed away in the Library. As a discipline, we, as parliamentarians, ought to return to the same subject and see what has and has not been achieved, otherwise the collective memory dissipates and our effect is diminished.
The three points I want to deal with have already been touched upon. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said about bureaucracy and metrics—that is, the measurement of innovation performance and support. Secondly, I want to refer to the funding gap and the success that universities have in spinning out high technology, with or without the support of regional development agencies. Finally, I should like to say a word on the valuable recommendation made in the report about the relationships between universities and the regional development agencies.
On bureaucracy and metrics, it was interesting to read in the National Audit Office's report which was published after that of the Select Committee that the NAO said that the DTI must allow maximum delegation—that is, delegation of responsibility to the regional development agencies. It said that the DTI,
"must give the Agencies freedom to derive maximum benefit from their private sector leadership and regional knowledge".
Those, I believe, are very wise words.
My noble friend Lord Wade and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—whom it is very nice to see in his place both have a very deep knowledge of the work of the Northwest Development Agency, to which I pay tribute. In the agencies' response to the Government's report, they raised a very interesting point. They said that they believed that a wider approach to reducing bureaucracy should initially be dealt with at RDA chair and government Minister level. If the Minister could share his valuable experience and much appreciated work with the chairmen of the nine English RDAs, that would be much appreciated. Those discussions will surely complement what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was talking about—the introduction by March this year of performance indicators for the support of innovation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, talked about the funding gap. Clearly there has been a problem in funding new start-up technology companies, particularly in the bracket which the noble Lord referred to—between £250,000 and £500,000 and up to about £5 million, for reasons which he spelt out very clearly. That problem is both cyclical and structural. The Government are seeking to alleviate that problem. My understanding is that detailed bidding guidance was going to be given by the spring of this year on how companies can bid for what is described as a pathfinder round of new enterprise capital funds. I am not sure whether that guidance has been issued by Her Majesty's Treasury or the DTI. Such funds are set up to support the growth of small companies which might have been started up inside or outside university with debt finance coming from the Government to support equity raised locally or nationally. That is modelled on the United
952
States Small Business Investment Corporation. I am sure that many of your Lordships will have welcomed that initiative and the announcement when it was made in December last year, but we want to see some progress.
The only point I would add to what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, said is that in addition to the funding gap, I think there is an entrepreneurial gap. It is very difficult for academics to make that transition from university to the tough world of making money to understand how an idea is translated into a profitable company and how an idea or invention is turned into a product that is needed by the world economy. The regional development agencies have a big role to play because they are rooted in the business community and the advice that they can give to universities in particular is much appreciated and necessary.
My final point is to do with recommendation (r) and the need for greater co-operation between universities and the regional development agencies in strategic working. Universities should co-operate more, in my humble judgment, on a regional basis, in interfacing with the relevant RDA. The RDA can identify the industrial demand—what clusters of specialisation of industrial knowledge exist in the region and what, therefore, is needed in terms of support, not only from the universities within that region but also nationally. I greatly welcome the setting up of science and industry councils by the RDAs and their participation in them.
The Lambert review referred to the DTI needing to shift its pattern of regional support from projects which created jobs to those where there was an opportunity for collaboration between the regional development agencies and universities on important research and development products. It is the research and development as well as the creation of jobs which is very important. Anything the Minister can say on that would be appreciated.
I end by declaring a prospective interest. Along with Dr Kenny Tang and with Mr Ajay Vohora from Nottingham University, I am co-editing a book to be published this autumn on this very subject—the development of spin-outs from universities and how the local business community can succour and support them. In advance, I thank the Minister very warmly for having agreed to write a foreword to the book.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for introducing this debate on our report on science and the RDAs. He was an able chairman and we would not have achieved what we did without his help. It was an interesting inquiry. We much benefited also from the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Macclesfield, whom I am glad to see in his place. His experience as a sometime chairman of the North West RDA was absolutely invaluable to us. We would also have been lost without the expertise of our specialist adviser, Dr Marilyn Wedgwood, and the support of our clerk, Roger Morgan. Roger came into the House when I was sitting on EU Sub-Committee B. Between us, he and I contributed to no fewer than four reports to the House. We also represented the House at the Eureka conferences on

953
three occasions. We had extensive meetings around the country, and were able to view the practical aspects of what had been achieved, not only in England, but also in Scotland and Wales.
Those visits brought home to me the disparate nature of the problems with which an RDA is faced. Let us take Advantage West Midlands as an example. Not only does it have the benefit of the leading universities of Birmingham, Aston, Warwick and Keele on its doorstep, but also the run-down industrial areas of the Black Country, with substantial ethnic minorities and unemployment. It has the diminishing ceramics industry in the Potteries, and the rural areas of Herefordshire and Shropshire. Similar circumstances apply for many RDAs, though perhaps less so in the south-east of England. That disparity requires different solutions to promote growth in the various parts of the region. One size does not fit all. A typical solution for rural areas is the enabling of broadband communications for the benefit of both private and commercial users. The RDAs can promulgate that.
The RDAs are a comparatively new creation and there was a substantial learning curve before they began to be effective in promoting science, engineering and technology in their regions. That was in part due to the lack of staff suitably qualified to promote SET, although that situation is now being rectified.
When we were in Newcastle, we had a meeting with the North East Science and Industry Council, which comprised local people who had the relevant scientific and industrial experience and who were committed to their region's future. Such councils have a central role to play in helping to steer the region's regeneration. That point was reinforced by the Government's response to conclusion (k) in our report.
However, the regions do not operate in isolation. They must form part of a national agenda. Cross-regional co-operation and co-ordination are vital and they are occurring. Correspondingly, the regions' relationship with the research councils needs to be optimised. The formation of the steering group for the research councils and the RDAs, as mentioned in the Government's innovation report, will go some way to meeting that necessity. However, I suggest that it needs to meet more than the once a year, which I understand to be the current proposal.
I shall emphasise some other local issues. The RDA has a vital role to play in ensuring that the regional education system, at all levels, produces people with the requisite skills for the regions' industries, particularly for the high-tech industries that are now emerging. We must also remember that we need the craft skills such as those produced by the Modern Apprenticeship Scheme; that is, we need a well balanced and well trained workforce. Those people will need employment in the region. It worries me that the start-up and university spin-off companies may achieve only a fraction of what is actually required, particularly in the regions of our old heavy industry—the north-west and the north-east. Thousands of jobs have been lost there in mining and the heavy industries, yet the new start-ups and spin-offs are providing only tens of jobs each. The arithmetic does not add up.
954
The regions can however maximise opportunities by providing premises for start-up companies and expert professional help during their initial years of operation. It has been remarked that many people in university start-up companies are essentially boffins and do not have the business expertise to do the job. Bureaucracy at the start-up stage needs to be minimised. We received several comments that the RDAs were too bureaucratic and too slow to respond at those early stages.
The RDAs should have a greater responsibility for identifying transport priorities and producing a regional transport strategy that covers both passenger and freight carriage by road and rail. Discussions with various RDAs suggested that central government took insufficient notice of an RDA's transport requirements; particularly for rail. A recent Commons Written Answer to Mr Philip Hammond MP stated that the powers of RDAs or regional assemblies—when they come into existence—would be limited to making proposals for schemes of regional importance to the Highways Authority or the NRA. It was emphasised to us that transport is vital to regional regeneration and the promulgation of science and technology. More note should be taken of an RDA's or a regional assembly's concerns to enable it to meet its objectives.
I am glad to see that the Government's response to our report indicates that they have taken some notice of our conclusions. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his chairmanship of an enjoyable and interesting inquiry. I declare an interest as I hold a university position in Cardiff. I had the honour of serving on the inquiry into science and RDAs and learnt much in the process.
The Welsh Development Agency welcomed a visit from the inquiry team. The agency explained how it promotes enterprise in conjunction with universities in Wales. I hope to illustrate how the WDA has worked towards the "five Cs" recommended by our report: coherence; connectivity; co-ordination; communication; and co-operation. Our report recommended that they should apply also to the English RDAs.
The Welsh Development Agency was established in 1976. Unlike the new English RDAs, it therefore has long experience of trying to serve the people of Wales by stimulating businesses to grow in vibrant communities and to become more competitive. It has been involved in community regeneration across Wales during the decline of traditional industries, being aware that only successful businesses could create the prosperity needed. Most Welsh companies were fairly small and unable to commit large sums to corporate research and development. Although the WDA played a role in supporting science, technology and innovation since the early 1990s, that activity increased considerably following the development of the Wales Regional Technology Plan in 1996. It is now a major strategic activity.
Since devolution, a close working relationship has been established at ministerial and official level between the WDA and the Assembly, especially

955
with its Economic Development Committee. The Assembly's national economic development strategy, A Winning Wales, outlined the WDA's framework, identifying developments that are key to the future prosperity of Wales, such as the Innovation Action Plan. The WDA's board is private-sector led and it meets formally with the economic development Minister at, least twice a year. It has adopted a "Team Wales" approach to bring together partners from academic institutions, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, local authorities, private sector providers and the Welsh Assembly government.
In Wales, the human dimension of personal networks, short lines of decision-making and responsiveness are particularly helpful drivers to a knowledge-based economy in an increasingly competitive world. Partnerships between public bodies and the private and voluntary sectors are assisted by Wales being, as Roger Jones, Chairman of the WDA described, "a two-telephone call economy". If you phone someone about a problem and they cannot give an answer, they will tell you whom to phone to get the answer. Most things in Wales are therefore two phone calls away.
Against that background, strategic links between the WDA and the university sector have developed for the benefit of all. For example, Cardiff University, which is a Russell Group member, has doubled its research income in the past four years.
The WDA supports applied and collaborative research and outreach to businesses through its Centres of Excellence for Technology and Industrial Collaboration programme, or CETIC. Six of these centres are hosted by Cardiff University, and the funding provided by the WDA enables the university to appoint commercial managers to work at the interface between industry and the academic research teams.
The WDA has been key to the development of strategic all-Wales initiatives based on a critical mass of high-quality research, such as the Wales Gene Park, which is one of the UK's genetic knowledge parks. The Wales Gene Park programme is led by Cardiff University, with links to other universities ill Wales, and the university continues to work with the WDA towards developing the next phase of the Wales Gene Park, which will include a physical infrastructure. The Cardiff Institute of Tissue Repair is another example of the WDA being a catalyst for collaborative developments.
Cardiff University hosts one of the nodes of the UK Grid: the Welsh e-Science Centre. Through financial support from the WDA's Wales Information Society initiative, the Welsh e-Science Centre has been able to appoint specialist staff to bring the benefits of the grid to industry in Wales.
The WDA organises showcase events for Welsh R&D technologies, such as the BioWales and Technology Wales events. I went to BioWales 2004 last month. It is ground-level networking and enhances innovation, bringing together people with ideas and those who are able to put those ideas into practice.
The quarterly publication Advances Wales highlights new science and technology from academic institutions, and companies undertaking R&D in
956
Wales. The journal always features articles from the university sector and is distributed widely in Wales and beyond, and through the WDA's offices overseas.
The WDA "field-force", the technology and innovation team, comprises some 65 staff who work closely with businesses. It includes 16 innovation and technology counsellors based across Wales, in Cardiff, Treforest, Swansea, Aberystwyth, Newtown and St Asaph, and also commercial managers in 20 Welsh institutions. The staff individually play an important role in alerting businesses to the expertise and specialised facilities available in our academic institutions, and in bringing opportunities for collaboration to the universities.
The WDA has financially supported academics attending international conferences and trade fairs, to facilitate international research collaborations and technology marketing, and has placed students with industry and businesses to form strategic partnerships. It has collaborated with neighbouring English RDAs where there are areas of common interest, such as with the north-west in aerospace development.
The WDA has also worked closely with universities in developing and funding the Wales Spinout Programme, to support the establishment of new enterprises from Welsh universities and colleges. Through this programme alone, which is now managed by the WDA subsidiary Finance Wales, Cardiff University has created 11 spinout companies since the scheme was launched in 2000. The Wales Spinout Programme works especially well in tandem with the Treasury and Wellcome Trust-funded University Challenge Seed Fund at Cardiff University.
The Technium concept is the brainchild of the WDA and Swansea University. The WDA-managed site provides administrative support and business advice to start-ups and spin-off enterprises as short-term tenants who can then move on as their business grows. Technium is now being rolled out across Wales as cluster-related developments. The optoelectronics sector development, OpTIC Technium, has developed in north Wales, where 40 per cent of the UK optoelectronics capacity is based. The Centre for Advanced Software Technologies was also developed in north Wales, with Objective 1 funding, and the Technium concept is now at the centre of Welsh economic development strategy.
The problems of metrics alluded to in the report have been addressed in Wales, as they need to be addressed everywhere. This is about measuring performance, and was highlighted by our inquiry because GDP and job creation are crude markers of success. Metrics are the subject of collaborative research between the WDA and Cardiff Business School.
Forgive me for continuing to talk about Wales, but this is just a taste of what the WDA has done over the years, to try to find locally relevant solutions to national and international development problems. I am confident that a warm welcome to the inquiry came from the confidence of experience over time and the history of having made a very positive difference to

957
Wales. To use the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, I personally believe that the WDA has taken root, and when we went to visit it we were not digging it up to see what was happening to its roots. I hope that the new RDAs can draw on the Welsh experience.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Macclesfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for providing the opportunity for this debate. When I first met him, the proposed timescale was six months and that frightened the life out of me, because I knew how long it would take me to assess all the ideas about RDAs. However, we did it, although we could have overrun and still hit the target. I would certainly like to thank the special adviser as well because, like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, she taught me in four weeks what would have taken me four years to learn.
I should immediately declare I was not only a co-opted member of this committee but, from 1999 to 2003, I was chairman of the North-West Development Agency. This debate follows a list of complementary reports on RDA operations and involves, for example, reducing the growth rates between regions; the future of higher education, in as much as it involves RDAs; and the provision of support to industries and business—all set up by the House of Commons. Our report predated those later reports, and it is interesting to note that, in general, they confirm our views and conclusions.
There are 350 pages of evidence, but I would like to concentrate on just one indisputable fact when it comes to research and development. It is on page 192 of the evidence, in case anybody wants to check it out. The north-west has the third largest expenditure by private business on research and development, beaten only by the south-east and eastern regions. In stark contrast, it has the third lowest public expenditure on research and development of any region except the north-east and Yorkshire and Humberside, which are the comparable regions in the north. Why is that true, and continue to be true? Does the private sector waste money in the northern regions, I ask myself? Or have we not invested sufficient resources in our northern universities?
If that was true, how would we explain that the splitting of the atom, or the facility to random access computer memory, were invented in our Manchester University, to name just two examples? But these two examples changed the world as we know it. The importance of splitting the atom is self-evident, but RAM—random access memory—gave us what we today call computers, and was invented as recently as the 1950s. Without computers, much of the world would not be able to operate as it does now. It appears to me, and to many others, to be an example of academics' and civil servants' preference for universities in the south-east or eastern regions, with many of those civil servants and academics being trained by those universities, and now living in the south-cast. Only government can change the distribution of public sector investment, and they should not be put off by the self-serving claims that it is all based on peer groups views on excellence. Only recently, a
958
couple of university professors in Manchester came to me, trying to raise money for what will be a global breakthrough in medicine. They were told that if they moved south, into the "golden triangle", funding would be no problem. I am glad to say they are not going to move, and their launch will be this autumn; it will he, yet again, of global significance.
We in the North-West Development Agency pioneered the setting up of Science Council, led by Tom McKillop of AstraZeneca, and including leading scientists and industrialists from diverse groups such as the National Health Service, BAe, Pilkingtons, Unilever, AstraZeneca, BN FL and many others. At no cost to the public purse, they provide those services free, and they are very busy men and women. Such science councils are being replicated elsewhere.
We were told that science, engineering and technology in business clusters are the way forward for improving the region's GNP, and, moreover, that the DTI has all the necessary expertise in those areas. Accepting that the private sector apparently knew nothing about those areas of expertise, we asked for some of these people from DTI to be seconded to the regions. As recorded in our evidence, the DTI needed both notice of that question and time to reply. As far as I know, however, no one with such alleged experience was ever seconded to any of the nine regions of England between 1999 and 2003. I understand that that is still the position.
Only the Government can change the Civil Service's reluctance to change attitudes on regional issues, particularly within the DTI. MOR I published a report on a national study of stakeholders' views on RDAs. commissioned by the DTI after RDAs had been operating for four years. The study addressed various issues. I have all the statistics but I shall not bore the House by providing them; but some are very relevant. To the question, "How would you rate the performance of your individual RDA compared with the government office in your region?", 51 per cent thought the RDAs were better and only 9 per cent thought them worse. To the question, "How do you compare that with the local authorities in your region?", 42 per cent thought the RDAs better and only 16 per cent thought them worse. To the question, "How do they compare with all other organisations providing funding and investment?", 52 per cent thought them better and 11 per cent thought them worse. To the question on European funding—which is there for all RDAs to grab; this wits the clincher in terms of funding-60 per cent thought the RDAs better, but 72 per cent thought that the North-West Development Agency was better.
Forgive me for bringing to your Lordships' attention the fact that MORI described the north-west of England as the most successful of the nine English regions in those four formative years. The Select Committee was unsure about the new RDAs, and just five years ago the Conservative Party was totally opposed to their formation. However, the results speak for themselves.

959
My conversion on the road to Damascus happened for two reasons. First, I got to know the industrialists and scientists who live in the great north-west, where 7 million people live. Although I had already been aware of it, I was again impressed by their intellectual input and commitment to the north-west. If we ever have a regional assembly, it will incorporate the RDAs and the private sector boards that make up the RDAs. It will have sole responsibility for economic development in our region. Although I know that some of my friends in the House will disagree with me on this issue, it is a fundamental point for me. I also have a lot of experience of the power and contacts of such boards. They have always given us excellent advice.
The previous speaker dealt with the Welsh experience. As a banker for 40 years I learned that, on development agencies, the Scots were way ahead of everyone else. However, when they were given a Parliament they did away with their development agency after which politicians dealt with those matters. The Welsh took a different line by embracing the private sector and all the knowledge of that sector. As your Lordships can probably tell from my accent, I am very pleased to see that the Welsh RDA is doing wonderful work.
Many people of Conservative views have been converted on RDAs. However, Damascus is a long way off for the DTI in Whitehall. We know where the policy is pinching. RDAs have never taken anything from local authorities, but their budgets and powers are continuing to come from Whitehall thanks to the effective support of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I am delighted that he has been able to join us today and to give me the opportunity to congratulate him on the excellent job he did as chairman of the North West Regional Development Agency. He established it in great style. I hope that it has been able to continue in that direction. I agree with him that it is terribly important that it is business led and that all the development agencies are business led. Whatever changes the Government may decide to bring to the regions, I hope to God that they do not change that very important fact.
I join other noble Lords in expressing our pleasure in working under our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Patel. One of the great pleasures of being part of this great establishment is to sit on Select Committees. It is always a great pleasure to meet and work with different Select Committee chairmen. The noble Lord brought his great charm and drive to a most enjoyable and, I thought, very effective Select Committee.
My noble colleagues have dealt with a lot of the detail of the report, which I fully endorse. I shall therefore make a more general point.
960
In the 1970s and 1980s I was in the food export business. As a major supplier of British foods to the United States I was a member of the United States Cheese and Deli Association which brought together all those involved in that fascinating industry. On one occasion I went to the annual meeting which took place in Loews Hotel, in Dallas. We were given a major address by the then chairman of Federated Foods, an enormous conglomerate in the United States. At the appropriate time we all gathered in a vast auditorium—there were many thousands; it is an enormous industry in America—and waited for the speaker. While we waited, soft music played. A very seductive voice said, "Move forward. Move forward". So we were all ready for something very exciting. Finally, the curtains parted and on to the stage drove an enormous open-topped white Cadillac. Fastened to its front were the horns of an enormous beast. Out of it stepped a little fat man in a white suit. It was he. He walked to the front of the stage and said, "Always question the status quo". I have remembered that very clearly, as I was intended to do, ever since.
To question the status quo means innovation. It is the key to many successful businesses. It is the key to financial growth. It is the key to the growing economy and the extra wealth of our nation. It is brought about by science, engineering, technology and their application in business.
Such wealth creation is the reason why RDAs were set up in the first place. They were set up to ensure that each region of the United Kingdom could achieve the highest regional growth levels in the whole of Europe. To achieve that, there would have to be a higher growth rate in the north-west and other regions than there was in some of our wealthier regions. That could happen only by driving businesses to their limits and creating as much enthusiasm and ability in businesses as possible. That entails an understanding and knowledge at the local level. It is in small entrepreneurial businesses that the great innovation occurs that leads to benefits for products and consumers.
The message that came to me as we went through the evidence and discussed the various issues with the RDAs themselves and with all the various businesses and organisations that gave evidence to us was that the Government agreed and wanted to see growth in the regions but did not quite understand how to do it.
I was interested to receive yesterday a paper that has been brought out by the DTI in conjunction with the Treasury and Department for Education and Skills called Science and innovation: working towards a ten-year investment framework. They put down the problems and ask some questions, one of which is:
"How can the Government and the Regional Development Agencies and their equivalents in the Devolved Administrations help integrate funding of science research on a predominantly national basis with development and delivery of regional economic strategies? In particular how can Government and RDAs strengthen partnership working to facilitate more effective knowledge transfer and research collaboration?"

961
The first thing they could do would be to read our report, which would go a long way to explaining the answers. The key is talking at the right level, and giving authority at the right level.
As I listened again to the evidence, it occurred to me that there was too wide a misunderstanding between the power and the influence that the RDAs could bring about, and those in central government who wanted to achieve something but were not close enough to the operators to make it happen. If we want to achieve what both the Government and the RDAs want to achieve, they must give the RDAs more power to get on with things.
They should understand that innovation is not a one-off development that can be created, but is a continuous process; and that, while something might be innovative one year, there could be something entirely different that needs to be innovative the following year. That means that they have to be close enough to the various industries involved in these changes to see how the policy can be changed and new ideas introduced in order to encourage development and to be influential and definite at the local level.
Far too much regulation was placed on the RDAs and there were far too many frameworks for fitting in with government policy. These were not flexible enough and could not be adjusted at the local level in response to these changing needs.
I hope the Government will ensure that our report is not just read and dismissed, but read, considered and acted upon. I hope they will understand that the power of the RDAs to change so much of what they want to see happen—and what needs to happen for our economy to grow—lies in that advice. Let them get on with it; encourage new ideas; give them the resources; and ensure that by monitoring effectively over a period of time we can see more innovative and exciting business developments that are going to be the key to our success.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Patel for his wisdom and skill in guiding this inquiry through to a successful conclusion. I, too, wish to add my thanks to our special adviser, Dr Marilyn Wedgwood and to our clerk, Dr Roger Morgan.
Duly respecting devolved authority, the inquiry was restricted to the English regions. However, we made very valuable visits to Scotland and Wales to learn from their experience. To ensure total impartiality, we selected our chairman from Scotland.
I must confess that before this inquiry got under way and we started visiting the RDAs, I was not entirely clear how they might play an effective role in the support and promotion of science and technology. But having seen first hand some examples of their work and visited them, I am converted and am an enthusiastic supporter.
962
Arguably the most important single institution that any region that believes in exploiting its science and technology base can have is a science council. An effective science council can provide a forum in which representatives of all those in the region with an interest in science and technology—whether from industry, commerce, SMEs or universities—are able to meet each other and devise a science strategy for the region.
At the very least this may provide an opportunity for all to know what research and development is going on in the region, what particular needs exist, and what specialist facilities are available. More optimistically, it may offer the opportunity for the pooling of resources and possibly for preparing collaborative applications for funding to external organisations such as central government or the EU. It can make the region aware of opportunities to strengthen the regional science base to the advantage of local industry.
An excellent example of this was the decision of the North West RDA to provide some tens of millions of pounds to facilitate the merger between the University of Manchester and UMIST. In doing so it acquired for the region what must become one of the most formidable universities in the country, extremely strong in a number of important areas of science and engineering.
The same authority saw advantage in putting money into the famous Jodrell Bank radio telescope, recognising that this historic instrument was not only able to attract able scientists to the area but was also an important tourist attraction.
Although there is scope for many different ways of operating science councils and achieving the desired objectives, it appeared to us that a particularly effective model was one in which the council stood alongside the official RDA structure and was business led, but received some infrastructural support such as a secretariat from the RDA. We saw advantage in the science council being able to offer independent advice to the RDA but without the danger of being stifled by possible RDA bureaucracy.
It was a disappointment to us to see that the research councils found it difficult to interact with the RDAs. Occasional meetings do take place, but we got the feeling that their function was rather for the councils to announce from above to the RDAs what they had decided to do, rather than to enter into a constructive discussion.
From time to time the research councils have to make decisions about the location of particular research facilities or research centres. Sometimes there are very compelling scientific reasons why these should be located in a particular place, but on other occasions there may be several equally attractive sites. Given that such facilities invariably feel that they need more money than is provided for them, partnerships with a particular RDA that had a special interest and was prepared to provide a site or a building could offer

963
advantage to both the council and the region. I personally feel that this is an opportunity that the research councils are missing.
Although we came across great enthusiasm and a great deal of imagination, one could not escape the impression that some of the RDAs were in the losing game of picking winners when it came to selecting areas of technology that the region wished to promote. The trouble was that time and time again we saw the same winners picked: biotechnology, microelectronics, IT systems and so on, rather than looking for local niche opportunities. Experience shows that identifying and backing bright and energetic individuals is the way to optimise chances of success. To be fair, we did see examples of this where the regions were providing advice and inexpensive start-up incubator units in which new businesses spend their vulnerable years. In passing we discovered that one of the performance indicators used by the DTI in assessing the performance of RDAs was the number of new businesses started. Going forward, it would be much more informative to count the number that were still in business after five years. A 20 per cent success rate would be rather good.
I have just returned from Singapore, which I visit several times a year as a member of A*star, the Singapore governmental advisory committee on science technology and research. It occurred to me during my return flight that, given the population of Singapore at 3 million indigenous Singaporeans and 1 million residents from abroad, its three universities and various polytechnics and so on, it was about the size of a small English RDA, and I was a member of the Science Council.
The east Midlands region of England has around 4.3 million people. At a guess it has a score of universities and colleges, although it is hard to keep track in these days of multiple mergers. In both Singapore and the East Midlands the spend on R&D is about 2 per cent of the local GDP. Why should Singapore appear to be so successful and prosperous? I do not mean to suggest that the east Midlands is not, but I think that most people would agree that there is a bit of a difference. Why in Singapore is there a superb system of roads, an excellent underground system and a major international airport that is both architecturally and functionally outstanding? Why in Singapore do we see the startling developments of Futuropolis and of Biopolis? The latter is a complex of excellent buildings with state-of-the-art laboratories that are attracting research workers from all over the world. Indeed, I know that the Minister has visited at least some of those facilities in the recent past.
There is no time today to address the question of the success or otherwise of Singapore, but the point I wish to make is that great achievements are possible in a socio-economic-geographical area the size of our English regions. However, I make two observations. It is clear that while the RDAs are enthusiastic about stimulating economic growth in their regions, they feel that they are hampered by external bureaucratic
964
control, whether it be in planning their road systems or other aspects of infrastructure, or, indeed, in being obliged by Whitehall to meet a series of key performance indicators that may have limited relevance to the problems of that particular region. They do not have significant control over essential resources.
The RDAs would perhaps argue that although the research spend in their regions may in some cases be at the same level as that in Singapore, the difference is that they do not control it. In both cases more than half that spend comes from private industry and therefore it is not controlled by the region. However, the big difference is that government research spend is in the case of our RDAs virtually all controlled from outside the region and to a great extent without the needs of the region in mind. That makes an enormous difference. We know that there are very good reasons for some of the issues, but perhaps everything points in the same direction. If the RDAs are expected to stimulate economic growth in their areas, they must have the tools with which to do so. Those that they have at present are insufficient.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, as a former Member of Parliament for the east Midlands, and perhaps speaking for Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Northamptonshire, I am not sure that Rolls-Royce, a Derbyshire company, would feel entirely comfortable about the noble Lord's analysis. Indeed, the same might be true in Northamptonshire, where we do not have a company of a similar size to Rolls-Royce.
As vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on Singapore, I am not sure that the noble Lord's analysis stands up in the manner that he suggests. Surely the difference is that Singapore is a unitary state. It is very single-minded under the leadership of a family business, with Lee Kuan Yew, BG Lee and the present incumbent. That leadership is very single-minded on what Singapore is about. East Midlands as a whole does not wish the regional development agency to be particularly successful; the east Midlands is very successful on its own.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord. I thought that I had made it clear that there was absolutely no reflection on the east Midlands area. Indeed, I endorse his comments about the businesses that he described. However, if he visited Singapore today—I do not know how recent his experience is—he would find it difficult to parallel the focused scientific energy that one finds there. I could not find it anywhere in this country. There is total commitment of the government and the people to get together and achieve something, and I simply say that our regions do not having anything like that. In a way, that was the point that he was making, but that does not mean that we cannot learn from Singapore.
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the whole Science and Technology Committee for bringing to the

965
House this very timely and good report. When it did so, I was not a member of the committee and I did not benefit from the visits that were made but, in the course of my academic life, I have spent a certain amount of time looking at some of the issues covered by the report. From that standpoint, I would like to make a few comments on the debate and, in winding up on it from these Benches, talk a little about the Liberal Democrats' stance on some of the issues.
The Minister and I were both present yesterday afternoon at a session held by the Institute of Biology that looked at the development of science policy. One issue raised there was that of university/industry links, and there was a very good presentation by Professor Gareth Roberts that looked at how we could measure the issue in the context of the research assessment exercise. In that presentation, he produced the old chestnut from which we all start; namely, that Britain is good at science—by any measurement, we actually come close to the top of the league tables in the production of science—but bad at exploitation. Somewhere or other along the line, we produce the ideas but do not manage to carry them through into new products and processes.
I started to think about what I was going to say in this debate, and I was amused to go back to the Waldegrave report. In 1992, John Major put William Waldegrave—now the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave—into the Cabinet as the Minister for Science, and it was the first time that we had a Minister for Science since 1963. He took that core question—can we explain why Britain is good at science but bad at exploiting it?—to wide consultation before he brought out his White Paper on science and technology in 1993. Out of the White Paper came the whole exercise of foresight.
If we look at what happened to research and development in the UK between 1992 and 2003, we see that the proportion spent by businesses on it fell from 1.39 per cent of GDP to 1.24 per cent. If we look at the course of that instead of only those two points, we see that the low point was 1997, when the figure was 1.16 per cent. The hope had been that, by involving industry in the foresight exercise—getting industrialists to sit down with scientists and government experts and have a look at different emerging areas—it would be inspired to look to the future, which would help to promote R&D. In spite of that hope, it did not work. Other factors, perhaps macro-economic, had overridden this. Thanks partly to the leadership provided by the Government, we have seen an improvement since 1997. I pay tribute to the work of the Minister in being the champion for science and technology. We have seen a turnaround in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is correct in saying that there are new drivers in the system. In the 1990s, work was done on what was wrong with science and technology in this country and on what other countries were doing. There is a recognition that the agenda is moving on from wanting merely national leadership. Many countries are grabbing that leadership from below and moving it on.
In looking through the evidence, I saw a nice piece from our Embassy in the United States on a number of initiatives there and I want to quote the example of
966
Georgia. The initiative in Georgia was taken because it was missing out on development into a high-tech economy. It was stated that in the 1990s,
"The State of Georgia … invested $242 million in the alliance … through research and development programmes at the six member universities, matched by $65 million in private funds. This investment has helped to attract over $600 million in additional sponsored research. At the heart of the programme has been the luring of 32 'eminent scholars' to chairs at Georgia universities. These scholars serve as a magnet for economic activity, as technology based companies seek to form alliances with the leading scientific talent, often resulting in the location of corporate R&D labs and operations".
That is precisely what we are hoping to achieve in Britain. Not only has Georgia been undertaking this work—it was being undertaken in terms of Silicon Valley, the research triangle in North Carolina, Route 122 at Harvard and, in this country, the Cambridge phenomenon.
The great hope is that we will capture a new dynamism which can drive things forward and the concept of that new dynamism is welcomed by these Benches. We Liberal Democrats believe in constitutional devolution, but we also believe that full devolution cannot be achieved unless there is also economic devolution. The two run side by side and it is important that regional and local authorities have far greater autonomy to make their own decisions.
I am delighted by the degree to which the RDAs are grasping that nettle and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Macclesfield, for the work that the North-West Development Agency has done, for example. However, on autonomy, the development agencies are poor relations to the state of Georgia, to California and to the German Läander, for example, which are able to do their own thing.
Let us return to the age of entrepreneurship when cities such as Manchester and Birmingham were promoting their new tram and electricity systems and so forth. What did they do? They went out and borrowed that money to invest in assets which bore great fruit for many generations. Can the RDAs invest in such assets? The answer is: no; they have no such discretion.
I was very struck by the statement that came from the North-West Development Agency. One general conclusion that emerged from the discussion was:
"Whitehall tended to micro-manage the RDAs with over-concentration on short-term targets of questionable relevance. RDAs needed more freedom to pursue longer-term goals and might usefully assist Whitehall in devising more relevant measures for evaluating success".
I know that that point has been brought out to a large extent by the report as a whole, but one should consider the amount of time that officials working for the RDAs have to spend filling in performance indicator forms. I believe that that point came through strongly from the evidence. Is it not a waste of time? Why cannot we give people more time to get on with doing the job? That type of task pervades all public services, does it not? I feel very strongly that the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, of greater autonomy for organisations to get on with doing their own thing is of vital importance.

967
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, talked about Singapore. I frequently make the analogy with Ireland. Ireland's great advantage was that it did not have the Treasury. I know that Ireland had many advantages with an enormous amount of structural funds going into the country.
I was also struck by a point that arose from the evidence from Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may quote a paragraph from the report because it is quite telling. It indicates the advantage of setting a long-term target and pursuing that target over a given period of time with leverage. Again, Northern Ireland has the advantage of having structural funds available. I quote from the evidence given by the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies at the University of Newcastle. It said:
"We would draw the Committee's attention to the case of Northern Ireland, where the IRTU were able to mix a range of EU, national and local policies to revitalise their research base. A central focus of this activity was in improving the research performance of the University sector; ERDF [the European Regional Development Fund] for example providing support for recurrent costs, infrastructure costs and new research establishments which very quickly moved to win other funding, from EPSRC, Framework Programme and through the RAE, with the effect of raising their game.
"The main benefit came from focusing on strengthening the research base".
All those very important, long-term activities—mutually reinforcing activities—if pursued over a longer period of time really reap benefits.
The other point that I want to make relates to people. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, said that the RDAs are full of the great and the good. They have people such as Sir Tom McKillop of AstraZeneca. He is a fantastic person and I am delighted that he is leading the science council. However, they are dominated to some extent by the big investors—the multinational companies—and if we look at the miserable record of business R&D in Britain, the big problem does not lie with the big companies. We know that organisations such as the pharmaceutical companies, Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace are putting a great deal of money into research. The problem arises from the fact that our small and medium-sized businesses are not putting money into R&D. When they are pressed, they do not have the knowledge to go up-market. Instead, they go down-market, the competitive pressures are even greater and they go out of business. We know that small and medium-sized companies that have an R&D presence and can move up-market often succeed, whereas others fall by the wayside.
Therefore, one big question is: how can we get such small and medium-sized businesses to pick up and use the science base? They will not naturally go along to their local university and say, "Hi, I've got a problem", but it is vitally necessary that we pull them into the networks. The networks need to be wider than just our universities. We need to embrace our further education colleges, which have a lot of technical expertise. If we were in Germany they would be pulled in through the Chamber of Commerce. The small and medium-sized businesses would have access to this
968
expertise because they would meet side by side at the Chamber of Commerce. It does not happen in quite the same way here.
We have a large number of measures to promote R&D. Starting from the university sector, there is Higher Education Reach-out to Business and the Community Fund (HEROBAC), which used to be called HEROIC, and there are other measures that encourage links. However, we also have tax credits which encourage companies to undertake R&D. The UUK study on university and industry links raised the possibility that perhaps too much investment was going into the kind of measures which encourage capital investment and not enough into those which encourage people.
The Germans had a very good scheme, which they introduced in the mid-1970s, when they were worried about R&D in small and medium-sized businesses, which subsidised the salaries of those engaged in R&D in those businesses. By the mid-1980s they withdrew it because they reckoned that the problem was solved. They reintroduced it with a new lender in the early 1990s and it ran throughout most of the 1990s.
I wonder whether that might be an idea that we could consider in terms of trying to pull in small and medium-sized businesses. Certainly, this whole issue is a central one. There is a need for the RDAs to be involved in the skills and training agenda in pulling together these networks of support for industry within the region.
As I have said, we welcome the report, which is very much along the right lines. I hope that the Minister takes note of its recommendation.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, it is almost with fear and trepidation that I attempt to follow the superb contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I am not a scientist or an academic, but her breadth of knowledge and enthusiasm has really added to the debate today.
I thank the Select Committee for this excellent report, which is informative, readable and commendably to the point. It is the second seriously punchy report to government that I have read in recent days. I highly commend the committee.
The report highlights the importance of innovation in many industries, including aerospace, pharmaceuticals, software, engineering, medical technologies, and so forth. I share the view that innovation is an important driver to economic growth. Accepting all of that, it is disappointing to read in the DTI's innovation report published in December last year that Britain still lags behind its competitors in R&D investment. Where the UK spends 1.25 per cent of GDP on research and development, the United States spends 2.06 per cent and Germany 1.75 per cent. If government expenditure on defence is excluded to identify only non-government business activity, the UK's investment level is even lower and is already less than the OECD average. That is not a good picture.

969
Bearing those figures in mind, it is necessary to examine why this lag exists. To that end, this report makes some important observations. At the heart of the report is the reality that for innovation to occur and for this to translate into commercial products and services that are competitive in the global marketplace, UK firms need to be able to harness our expertise in science, engineering and technology. For too many years and generations we have been the inventors without being able to convert that into product and profit for the nation.
In paragraph 1.5 the report concludes that while there is a great deal of activity at all levels encouraging the exploitation of SET for economic gain, that has been complicated by the introduction of the nine regional development agencies.
I shall turn to a few references within the report because I am anxious that the Minister should respond and say what the Government are doing about the report and its negative comments. The report has been out for nine months, so they have had time to think about it and to get the matter together.
On page 8 we have the five Cs, so ably outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, at the beginning of the debate. Where are we on that? On page 21, referring to RDAs and RDA targets, the EEDA and Universities UK comment:
"Tier 2 targets remain a stumbling block for delivery of complex and strategic activity at regional level".
That does not sound like a good omen. On page 22, paragraph 3.28 states:
"On the basis that what gets measured gets done, we recommend that the Government should work with the RDAs urgently to develop simplified performance measures that take better account of SET's [Science Engineering and Technology] importance in economic development, and accommodate both realistic timescales for results and the differing circumstances of individual regions".
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made the point that timescales are very relevant and that much of the Government's policies are too short-term. They have to become longer-term and more far-sighted, with better commitment to capital funding of one sort or another.
On bureaucracy—the bane of any government's life, but this Government seem to be the worse yet for bureaucracy—the committee states in paragraph 3.30:
"However, we heard many concerns that the bureaucratic demands to meet this accountability were unnecessarily burdensome and sometimes contradictory".
That is followed through by a comment from SEEDA. It states:
"We have to conduct our business in accordance with numerous guidance documents totalling some 1400 pages [which] have been developed at different times, often in isolation from each other and inevitably embody contradictions and ambiguities as they come from several departmental sources".
970
What hope have the universities, RDAs and others of getting together with this sort of environment and background?
The report continues on page 23 that the Better Regulation Task Force noted:
"When we looked at the delivery process from Whitehall to the ground level, we found too many initiatives, confused accountabilities and overly bureaucratic monitoring and reporting systems. We recommend that the centre delivers a programme of reviews focused on local delivery issues which cross departmental boundaries".
What position have the Government reached on that issue?
Paragraph 3.33 states:
"Regardless of developing the stronger bottom up approach to performance measurement … we recommend that the Government should reduce the bureaucratic load on RDAs and work with them to ensure that its guidance is reduced to the essential minimum and is, in any case, made consistent'.
On page 32, on support schemes, the committee states:
"There is no shortage of support schemes … Indeed, there are far too many schemes, leading to high transaction costs in applying for and administering them, and wasteful confusion and lost opportunities under complicated rules".
Then there are the comments of Dr Keaton of Campus Ventures on the Better Regulation Task Force. He said:
"When we looked at the delivery process from Whitehall to the ground level, we found too many initiatives, confused accountabilities and overly bureaucratic monitoring and delivery systems".
If one goes on through the report, as I and I am sure other noble Lords have done, certainly the early part is full of such criticisms. They are real and objective criticisms. I am sure that the committee made them as objective criticisms to be tackled by the Government and by the department.
I turn to the section on public sector procurement. Other noble Lords have talked about the funding gap. On page 34, paragraphs 4.52 and 4.55 state:
"The growth of any sector depends on businesses securing orders … We were concerned to learn from Mr Wren-Hilton that his Internet company was precluded from bidding for a project within its technical competence (and in which it had a good international track record) solely on grounds of turnover".
The day before yesterday, I was fortunate to have a meeting with a lady from the Ethnic Minority Business Group, and she told us that this was one of the major problems for ethnic minority business groups getting business. She told us that more than 50 per cent of ethnic minority entrepreneurs skipped round these barriers and took their business offshore using international agents. The cost of entry for innovative entrepreneurs is too high, and it is too high because of overregulation. The report makes that point abundantly clear.
However, all of the regional development agencies place an emphasis on SET in their economic strategies. Relationships are complex and widely varied. The report goes on to suggest that work is needed to rationalise activity to allow for better SET exploitation. It argues for coherent longer-term perspectives and reduced bureaucracy—the points that I hope I have been making to your Lordships. In paragraph 6.37, the report says that

971
national leadership is required on exploitation of SET to provide the right drivers and processes for the exploitation of SET for economic gain. The report calls for the five Cs, to which we have already referred. Looking specifically at RDAs, the report recommends a revision of current accountability and targets to take into account the importance of SET in economic development strategies. An incoming Conservative government will work with RDAs, business interests in the regions and local authorities to reform RDAs to create effective, business-led, economic regeneration vehicles in those areas where regeneration is required, and to focus the RDAs on innovation, capacity building, entrepreneurship and the skills base in those regions where this agenda is more appropriate.
In all cases the RDAs, if they are to provide a valuable contribution in the future, need to be genuinely business-led, but also need to be accountable to the communities they serve. There is a delicate balance to be struck, and Conservatives will engage with business and local authorities to ensure that the balance is right, so that properly restructured, business-led RDAs can play their part in addressing local needs.
One other point that I have not made is the possible introduction of regional government. That will increase the confusion and the bureaucratic complications, but that is not a point that I should be making from this side of the House at this stage. It is not part of this report, but it is yet another possible difficulty on the skyline for our business ventures.
In summary, this is a very worthwhile and interesting report. I hope that the Government will study its recommendations carefully. The Government's primary role is to provide the strategic direction and framework, which is the five Cs that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his committee have laid down clearly. Their role is to ensure that the five Cs can be applied, and that SET can be harnessed for the economic benefit of local communities. If this is achieved, it will surely reap rich rewards for the United Kingdom.
Just to refer once more to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. noble Lords will know that I am a Northern Ireland man. I come from Northern Ireland, and I have experienced and seen at first hand the incredible growth of the Republic of Ireland. I have also seen what can really be done with a community of 1.3 million people, when the infrastructure is right and when the communications are right. There has been such growth, despite the terrorism and everything else that has taken place in the past few years in Northern Ireland, because it is a tightly-managed and tightly-knit community, with totally committed entrepreneurs, and close relationships with competent civil servants. I believe that it is an example. The Republic of Ireland has done the same, again for the same reasons. If the infrastructure can be got right, if the bureaucracy can be reduced to a sensible level, and if the directives can be held and contained to be positive and objective, we will have a great future in this field ahead of us. This report points out of all of this very clearly, and I congratulate the committee.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his opening speech this afternoon and for drawing the attention of this House to the report on science and the RDAs, which was published last summer by this House's Science and Technology Committee. I also thank other noble Lords for their contribution and insights this afternoon. We have had a fascinating debate, bringing together two areas of key importance to the Government—the growth of the UK science base and increased prosperity for UK regions.
The Government welcomed the conclusions of the report when it was published last year. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that we have already responded to the report and have taken action where we think that is appropriate.
I am very pleased that the committee has been converted to the value of RDAs and indeed converted to the view of the enormously important role they can play in innovation. That is a view that we have been pushing extremely hard in Government for the last four or five years, and I hope that the committee will go on communicating this message both to business and indeed to other political parties of which they are members, so that they too realise that the issues of RDAs and the RDAs' role in innovation are extremely important for the future of this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, said that we had had a lot of reports. I do not make any apology for that long list of reports, because that is how we convince people of the importance of innovation and of the science and technology agenda, and indeed of the importance of that to the regions. We have had a whole series of reports, going back to 1998. We started with one on biotechnology clusters, we then had Excellence and Opportunity, which set out the science agenda and what we needed to do, but which also made the point that that was all about innovation. We also started some of the initiatives on innovation.
We had the White Paper, Opportunity for All in a World of Change, in which we first set out that approach. That report refers to the need to change regional policy away from merely trying to create jobs of any kind to a strong focus on innovation as the means of improving regional prosperity. We have now had Investing in Innovation, which again deals with the people issues and how we support our best young scientists. We had various ideas on fellowships and improving science in schools. Recently we have had the innovation report. I make no apology for those reports. That has been a major campaign to change people's views and I welcome the committee's report supporting this general approach enormously.
I shall reply to some of the points made on specific issues, but I will first set out our policy on the UK science base and the role of the RDAs. Investment in the UK science base is at the heart of the UK's national economic strategy. We believe that in an increasingly global economy, science and engineering skills—and a supply of new ideas—are crucial to the UK's ability to compete in high-technology, high value-added sectors. We need to do that because increasingly in this global

973
world we have to compete with countries such as China where the wages are 5 per cent of what they are in this country. We will not be able to compete on the basis of low costs. We have to compete on the basis of innovation.
The UK already has an excellent science base and this Government have taken many steps since 1997 to ensure that we do not fall behind our competitors. When we came into government the science budget was £1.3 billion; today it is growing at 10 per cent per annum in real terms and will be £2.9 billion in 2005—06. So when the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, complains about the level of science spending by government in this country, he should remember that we would be a lot worse if it was not for the action of this Government. The previous Conservative government presided over a disastrous fall, not only, interestingly, in government research—which as the noble Baroness said fell dramatically—but also in business R&D, which fell from something like 1.5 per cent to 1.16 per cent over the last period of Conservative government. So it was not only government spending which went down; business R&D went down because the view was not held that that was where the future of the country lay. That situation has now changed. The figure came down to 1.16 per cent but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out, in the year that I became a science Minister it turned round and business R&D started to move up and is now at 1.24 per cent. That is still not anywhere near where we need to be but there are many policies in the business innovation report for increasing it.
We have also made significant investments to improve the scientific infrastructure of the UK which, in many cases, was falling apart. Over the next two years we shall move up to spending about £500 million a year on the scientific infrastructure, £350 million of which will be for ongoing development and £150 million to catch up on the nearly £2 billion shortfall in the scientific infrastructure.
On the back of the growth in funding and the renewal of our science base we are now in a position to look forward to where we want UK science to be in the next decade. The Government will therefore be publishing alongside the forthcoming spending review their framework for science, technology and engineering research and innovation over the next decade. That, again, is a sign of the Government's commitment to spending on the science base.
In it we will set out the direction in which policy will need to continue to develop to make the most of our investment in the science base and to identify how this will contribute to economic growth and the Government's public service priorities. The framework will provide a clear lead to all those who invest, and want to continue to invest, in our science base, including universities, business and the RDAs.
We are extremely pleased at the way in which the RDAs in England and similar bodies in the devolved administrations have picked up the challenge of how we support science and innovation in the regions. In 2002—03, the RDAs committed themselves to invest £240 million in science and innovation-related activities, some 15 per cent of their total budgets. Most
974
RDAs have identified science and innovation as high priorities in their economic strategies, recognising the benefits it will bring.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Mitchell that this is an early moment to look at science and innovation policy in the RDAs; it is very much a developing story. The original task of the RDAs flowed very much from the bodies they took over, which were concerned with property and regeneration. We then established the innovation fund, which was the beginning of their use of innovation in their strategies.
My noble friend Lord Mitchell told us of his lunch at AstraZeneca. I should say to him that the whole story of science and industry councils started in the north-west. It was originally put forward by businessmen and scientists in the north-west as a result of Diamond Synchrotron. One of the suggestions to come out of that was that a science and industry council should be established, and I was very happy to persuade Sir Torn McKillop to lead it.
It is absolutely essential to the success of science and industry councils that they are led by either distinguished businessmen or scientists. That is what gives them credibility; that is what encourages other businessmen and the universities to take them seriously. Sir Tom McKillop has done a fantastic job for the north-west in this respect, as Sir Ian Gibson has done in the north-east. They have led the way in how to use science and industry councils to make these changes. We have encouraged all the other RDAs to set up science and industry councils on the back of that good performance, and I am glad to say that they are now all committed to doing so.
Any idea that my own department, the Department of Trade and Industry, was against this development and somehow held it back is quite wrong. The DTI took the lead in sponsoring innovation in regional policy and in the establishment of science and industry councils, and it is greatly to its credit that it did so.
The RDAs' approach to supporting regional science and innovation has been diverse in scale and direction, but that is how it should be, reflecting the different starting points of each region and their individual challenges. Some have funded the physical infrastructure of clusters, others have co-funded university research and supported technology transfer. Many of the RDAs have now established Science and Industry Councils, and they are all going to do that.
Given the historical concentration of research funding in the Golden Triangle in the south-east of England, some have argued that we are allowing our goal of world-class science supporting UK-based innovation to override the Government's regional economic goals to increase prosperity and reduce the gap between regions. I do not think this is the case. We have to balance these two objectives. On the one hand there is the need for excellent world-class research universities; on the other, getting money into the regions and supporting regional growth. I think we have done that in the right way, which is to give substantially larger budgets to the RDAs in the regions that have traditionally performed less well, so that they can use that money as they wish.

975
Rather than having science and technology budgets, we have now adopted the strategy of the "single pot", which is about saying to RDAs that they have a single pot of money to use as they wish, and if they wish to spend it on science and technology, we support that. I think that is the right way to go. What we do not want to do is micro-manage it. If one is to devolve authority, one has to give money to people and let them make the decisions. They can then tension spending on science and technology against their other regional objectives. What is key to this whole issue is that the proper connectivity is achieved at a regional level.
In its report, the committee succinctly concluded:
"The main message of our Report is the need for coherence, longer term perspectives and reduced bureaucracy … The primary need is for a clear sense of national direction and purpose to create the conditions in which all stakeholders can make their optimal contributions … The message can be summed up in the five Cs—coherence, connectivity, coordination, communication and co-operation. Applying these to the exploitation of SET will improve the growth of regional economies, with consequent benefits for the nation as a whole".
We very much accept that view.
I would, however, make one organisational point, one that comes from my experience in industry. If one has delegation or devolution, one has to stick with it. What always happens in these things is that people say "We will delegate to a particular division or region", which is immediately followed by people saying "Ah, but we have to have coherence. We have to co-ordinate everything." If one does that, one ends up with bureaucracy. So I do not think the committee can say that it wants devolution, delegation, coherence, co-ordination and no bureaucracy, because that is not the real world. Delegation means that some things will not be co-ordinated, as regions will do what they think is right for their region. We must have the courage to say that we believe in delegation, which will mean some things will not be co-ordinated, but people will have ownership and get the co-ordination and delivery right at a regional level. That is a more important objective.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked about the Government's approach to RDAs and regional innovation. Our overall approach is set out very fully in the innovation report, Competing in the Global Economy—The Innovation Challenge. A whole section of that report is entirely about the regional innovation agenda, and in it we make a whole series of proposals that are directly about how we see science and innovation within regional policy, including a proposal about science and industry councils. It had important recommendations about regional selective assistance. Instead of simply concentrating on the number of jobs and using that as the only criterion for inward investment, innovation—that is, research and development—is now the measure. There is no point in having inward investment when it is a question of a
976
number of low value jobs which will not have a great deal of long-term success. We want to import into the regions high value-added jobs which will contribute to their innovation and dynamism.
There were proposals about adding on to the manufacturing advisory service, which is delivered at regional level, services related to innovation and design. That is another way in which we can contribute to the regional agenda. The Lambert report contains many aspects which go in the same direction.
I think I have covered the points that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, raised about the integration of government policies. Let me say a word about the links with the research councils. We have a forum for the OST, RDAs and other key players to address the impact and synergy between national and regional SET investments. The steering group for the research councils and the regional development agencies was formed in 2003. It provides a high level of strategic advice to develop the relationship and to provide a communication channel between the RDAs and the research councils. To facilitate the development of outcomes from RCUK and the RDA meetings on RDA innovation, we have established a more operational level science and technology group, which includes representatives from the RDAs as well as from the OST and DTI.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, also asked about government statistics about government R&D in different regions. The figures for 2000–01 show a proportionate increase for the north-east, north-west, Yorkshire and Humber, east Midlands and east of London. But there is a huge skewed distribution of government institutions across the country. This is an historical fact.
Very few new facilities are being built in this way. The whole move is towards putting the research much more into universities rather than stand-alone institutes. There are very good reasons why that is happening, although I shall not go into them now. So new research institutes are not being built. In addition, I do not think these are nearly as important to regional growth as what is happening in the universities. That is where we are seeing the most innovation and change which is relevant for regional growth.
While the RDAs are saying that we should put more research money into the north and the midlands, the South East England Development Agency is asking why they do not have a pot of money like they have so they can support knowledge transfer in the south-east.
The noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Mitchell, both raised the major question of whether we should follow the USA and have a small company set-aside scheme. There are, I am afraid, very clear international reasons why this is difficult to do in the EU. More importantly, however, is the fact that we change our procurement policies at all levels to make them support innovation rather than an old, traditional view of value for money. The innovation report shows the importance we attach to procurement being changed to support innovation in suppliers. This applies to all levels of business.

977
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Patricia Hewitt, is leading a cross-government team which is considering, as one of its main issues, how we change the £109 billion of government procurement so that it focuses more on innovation in suppliers. Of course, this is a major task because it is about changing around the whole way in which procurement is carried out to give value for money while also taking innovation into account. We have had the Small Business Research Initiative, which is again based on an American scheme, to bring money for research into small companies. That does not have nearly enough drive behind it, so we are changing it to achieve more.
The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, raised the question of transport. The Department for Transport regards the RDAs as customers rather than the people who will make transport decisions, but we all agree that transport is a key part of regional development and we must keep it under review.
I shall respond to a few other points that were made during the debate. My noble friend Lord Mitchell asked about regional venture capital. We have the regional venture capital funds, but I agree with him that the key area is business angels. They are still very unevenly spread across the country. We have a strong business angel community in some areas, but we need to extend it across the country.
In addition, the Enterprise Capital Funds are coming forward. I have a great personal interest in them, because I wrote a Fabian pamphlet in 1982, arguing that we should look at small business investment companies in America and see if we could copy them in this country. I was therefore delighted when the Chancellor said in the last Budget that he would look at them. It seemed that the Fabian Society motto—"the inevitability of gradualness"—was for once coming true. That move will give further support to that kind of small business.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, is writing a book on spin-offs. There is a very good story to be told of a dramatic change in British culture. Those stories relate in some sense to schemes such as science enterprise centres, to HEIF and to University Challenge, which, if nothing else, have changed the climate in universities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and a number of other noble Lords drew attention to one of the most interesting aspects of the whole area of innovation across the world, which is the extraordinary performance of small countries with a typical population of 3 million to 5 million. That is true of Finland—which has enjoyed one of the most dramatic changes—Ireland, Israel and Singapore. That is the size of the average US state. The message seems to be that if one wants to co-ordinate matters and bring all the players together, one can do it more easily in a population of 5 million, whether it is a US state, an RDA or a small country. That demonstrates the importance of co-ordination at a regional level. It is why the RDAs are particularly successful.
978
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Macclesfield spoke about strengthening capability of regions. I totally agree with him. We are looking at whether there is a way in which we could do that as part of our spending review.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, happily reminded me of a body that I thought had gone out of my life, which is the US Cheese and Deli Association. I thought that I would never come across it again in my life, so it was nice to make contact with it again. I have already alluded to his point, that delegation is not a "yes or no" issue. It is always about what you delegate and what you do not delegate. We are still trying to work out that relationship properly with the RDAs. It is quite a subtle relationship. We want to delegate to them, but it would be an absurdity if every RDA were to begin producing its own forward look on the biotech industry. That should be done centrally. There is otherwise always a danger of their going to a consultancy, which produces the North West Strategy for Biotechnology, promptly followed by the consultancy selling the same document to the north, the south-west and the east of England and so on. The overall strategy needs to stay in the centre, but we should delegate much more of the operational side. We are working on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, raised the question of picking winners. The RDAs started off picking very much the same areas. That has changed. They are now much more selective and much more inclined to look at where they have areas of strength, be it in aerospace or the chemical industry, and to realise that it is more important to make certain that those clusters are working efficiently.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, raised the question of business R&D. Suffice to say that it is now going up. We see this as one of the most important objectives, and in terms of the framework for science and innovation, it is one of the targets we will pick up from the innovation report. We want that figure to be a leading figure in the major countries of Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, talked about the business support scheme. We inherited over 100 business support schemes when we came into government, and are now in the process of whittling that down to 10. That simplification is enormously valuable to industry.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised the issue of the dynamism of our economy. That is already beginning to take place. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, pointed to what is happening in places such as Manchester. Some very interesting figures have been produced by Citicorp, showing that we in this country have a rather strong position in terms of high-tech manufacturing and knowledge-intensive services compared to the rest of Europe. We are beginning to see the value of the flexibility in the British economy in enabling growth areas to progress very fast, and that is helping our industrial performance. On the ground, one can see the importance of science and technology innovation to our future success.
We have had an opportunity to air some very important issues this afternoon, and I am grateful for the inputs of all noble Lords. As your Lordships have

979
heard, the Government have already taken action to implement many of the report's recommendations, and will continue to refer to its findings in the future development of policy. The UK has many scientific assets of which it can be proud. It is now up to the Government, RDAs, universities and businesses to make the most of them, and to ensure that they are connected fully to the regional and national economies.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I could not have wished for a better debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have participated.
It is traditional at this stage to pick up on some of the points, but I shall not do that because we have had a full debate. All the speakers paid tribute to me as chairman. Let me pay a tribute in return: it was a pleasure to chair the committee. All the committee members, as evidenced in their speeches, are colourful characters. That made it a pleasure. I might regret my next comment, but if I were asked to do so again with the same membership, it would be a pleasure.
I sincerely thank the Minister for answering all the questions fully. We all know that he is a champion of the need to promote science and technology, and his answers, given at length, typified that. We are
980
fortunate to have a Science Minister who has a full understanding of the issues related to the promotion of science and innovation.
Several noble Lords, as did the Minister, made the point that the RDAs are developing, and have been in existence for a relatively short time. It would be appropriate to have another look at the problems of RDAs in three to four years' time, and I am sure the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee has noted that.
Lastly, a true entrepreneur never misses an opportunity, as demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, advertising his book—not only naming the authors, but linking the Minister in promoting the book.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
Bill returned from the Commons with a Lords amendment disagreed to, with a reason for such disagreement, with another amendment disagreed to but with an amendment proposed in lieu thereof, and with the remaining amendment agreed to; the Commons reason and amendment were ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past five o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Traffic Management Bill
  (Third Day)
  Thursday, 29 April 2004.
  The Committee met at a quarter past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) in the Chair.]
  Clause 33 [Preparation of permit schemes]:
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 100:
  Page 15, line 6, leave out "him" and insert "it"
  The noble Lord said: This is a very important amendment. I was advised by an eminent lawyer that my amendment would improve the wording. In my ever-helpful way, I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We think that it is clear from the clause that it is the national authority to which the highway authority is required to submit its scheme. Nevertheless, we are happy to investigate the wording to see whether any change is desirable to improve the clarity of the clause. If my noble friend is content to withdraw his amendment for the time being, we will consider the matter.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 101:
  Page 15, line 14, leave out "and"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 101, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 102. As the Committee will be aware from proceedings during the previous sitting, we are talking about permit schemes.
  The amendments are designed to ensure that, before a permit scheme is introduced, there is consultation. Noble Lords may think that that is superfluous, but it is always worth talking about, just to make sure that those who are bringing in the regulations consult. Some do it very well, but some do it less well.
  As many noble Lords said on Tuesday, the key thing is that the scheme must work. It must be practicable, and it must balance the need to minimise congestion with the need to maintain and provide essential services from the utilities, as noble Lords said on Tuesday. The scheme must also take into account the needs of the highway authorities, the police and the emergency services, environmental health services,
  GC 122
  transport authorities, traffic managers and parking managers. We must ensure that the utilities and the local authorities conform in a fair way.
  I have a concern about the permits. I suspect that we shall talk about them later. On Tuesday, we discussed cases in which there might be an urgent need to do something. I do not know whether it will be possible to get a permit by e-mail by return. There is also the fact that so many different people are involved. It is not just the utilities and the highway authorities. Many other organisations from within local authorities might wish to be involved.
  I can give the Committee one or two examples. A utility might apply for a permit to work on a major road and, in the interests of reducing traffic congestion, the local authority might require the work to be carried out at weekends or in the evening and issue a permit accordingly. However, when the work is being carried out, the council's environmental health department can object to the noise. Who will claim off whom? Will the work go ahead or be stopped? There will be a row.
  Again, a utility might apply for work in a busy street and traffic management controls agreed with the highways authorities to enable the permit to be issued. But, there is also the matter of the suspension of residents parking and parking bays that are managed by a separate department of the council. That department could object and could place quite separate restrictions on proposed works.
  A utility could apply for a permit that may be approved, but due to illegal parking may not be able to carry out the work. In this Bill, I do not think that we are talking about utilities being able to tow away illegally parked cars. Therefore, someone else would have to do that, which could cause problems. I am sure that many other conflicts could arise, such as public transport, the needs of the police, public events and so forth.
  This group of amendments is designed to ensure that maximum consultation takes place on permit schemes. A way around all those problems, and any others that the Committee may think of, must be found before the system is in place, in order that it works smoothly, with maximum local support, when it goes ahead. I beg to move.
  Lord Borrie: I support my noble friend Lord Berkeley. Despite the somewhat negative attitude of Her Majesty's Government to an amendment that I sought to put forward earlier this week, I am still hopeful that, ultimately, permit schemes will be devised to exempt emergency works, minor works and so forth from the need for permits. I trust that some form of wording to that effect will be included in the Bill or in regulations. None the less, whatever is left for permit schemes to apply to, it is most important that they satisfy the understanding, comprehension and goodwill of the police, the utilities and the bodies mentioned in my noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 102.

  GC 123
  I dare say that the Minister may use a well honed answer to an amendment of this kind: namely, that consultation is bound to take place and, of course, there is no need therefore for an amendment of this kind. If only one could be so trusting that on all necessary occasions there would be consultation, that would be fair enough, but it would be better to have a limited, understandable and clear provision of this type in the Bill to ensure that there is consultation. We all know that that is properly legally interpreted as meaning a full consultation and not just some pretence at getting in touch with someone, but taking no notice whatever at what they say. Consultation in real terms is required. It may be helpful to have that in the Bill.
  Viscount Astor: I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said. He said it all. There is nothing that I need to add, except that I support the general thrust of the amendment.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 102 and Amendment No. 102, which is consequential, would require authorities preparing permit schemes to consult and have regard to persons representing the police, undertakers and such persons as they think appropriate.
  Clause 36(2) already provides for the permit regulations to set out procedural provision with which those preparing permit schemes must comply and provision as to the publicity to be given to permit schemes. Those provisions will enable the appropriate national authorities to impose requirements on authorities preparing schemes as to who they should consult.
  I have listened to what has been said, in particular, by my noble friend Lord Borrie about consultation; namely, that there is a spirit of consultation that sometimes does not work and sometimes is not full consultation. But we are determined that the permit scheme should work properly. It would be preposterous to have a permit scheme which does not work and that people—whoever they are—do not like. So we have asked the working group of undertakers and authorities looking at permit regulations to consider whether the regulations should place such a requirement on authorities and, if so, whom they should be required to consult. The group will be talking to everyone affected, including the police, local authorities and representatives of the utilities. Moreover, our deliberations here, at Second Reading and on Report will illuminate its work because the group will read what is being said. I hope, therefore, that the worst fears of my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Borrie will not be realised.
  As we begin to talk about permits, I think it is worth emphasising at the outset that the Government feel that they must get the permit system right. If they do not do so, the whole thing will not work. With that watertight assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for that response. I have had good experiences of
  GC 124
  government consultation exercises, certainly more recently, and so I am confident that the Government will do as my noble friend says. No doubt they will take into consideration what is said by noble Lords at each stage of the Bill. I shall read what he has said with great interest. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
  Clause 33 agreed to.
  Clause 34 [Implementation etc. of local highway authority authority permit schemes]
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 102A:
  Page 15, line 28, after "may" insert "(in accordance with permit regulations)"
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 102A and 102B have been tabled in response to a recommendation from the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. For the sake of clarity, the amendments make it clear that where a national authority—the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales—makes an order approving an application from a highway authority to operate a permit scheme, the powers under Clauses 34 and 35 for that order to modify or disapply existing enactments apply only to the extent allowed for by permit regulations made under Part 3 of the Bill. Amendment No. 102A applies to schemes operated by local highway authorities, while Amendment No. 102B relates to those operated by national authorities themselves. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: We welcome the amendments, and we are glad that the Government have taken note, as they usually do, of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 35 [Implementation etc. of other permit schemes]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 102B:
  Page 16, line 3, after "may" insert "(in accordance with permit regulations)"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
  3.30 p.m.
  Clause 36 [Permit regulations]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 103:
  Page 16, line 20, at end insert—
  "() Permit regulations shall set out standard provisions which must be included in a permit scheme so as to ensure a reasonable level of consistency between permit schemes within an authority's area, and in particular to ensure that a single electronic noticing system may be used to implement permit schemes within an authority's area."
  The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 103 relates to Clause 36 and permit regulations. The amendment refers to multiple schemes. We believe that multiple schemes could be an administrative nightmare for operators who would have to operate within different rules in different areas and would be subject to penalties for inadvertent failures to comply. I hope that the Government will see my amendment as a positive change that would ensure consistency, minimise confusion and allow the system to be more easily operated by all, thereby reducing costly and time-consuming disputes. It would also, and more importantly, allow the focus to be on reducing congestion.
  In order to improve congestion, an electronic register of all works is essential to enable utilities to align their works with local authority works as well as with other utilities. In Standing Committee in another place the Minister agreed that the more standardisation there is, the better. The amendment addresses that concern. I know that some county councils are worried about having a myriad of schemes and advocate a national scheme that can be flexible in some areas to take account of local circumstances. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Erroll: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we took my Amendment No. 103A with this because it is really just an alternative. Perhaps I should have been more alert, but as a Cross-Bencher I have not done this very often. Is it procedurally correct if I talk to it at the same time? It actually covers the same point. Would that be to the convenience of the Committee?
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): You want to group Amendment No. 103A with which amendment?
  The Earl of Erroll: I want to talk to Amendment No. 103A at the same time as Amendment No. 103.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Yes, that is all right.
  The Earl of Erroll: The two amendments are trying to achieve the same thing. In fact, to save time, I will mention that Amendments Nos. 105B and 105C are all concerned with the same matter.
  I have also been briefed that the problem is that one wants the maximum degree of standardisation possible between the permit schemes, not a lot of different schemes applying differently in different places. Mr McNulty, a Minister in the Department for Transport, said in another place:
  "The greater the standardisation that the group can achieve, the better".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 29/1/04; col. 166.]
  It would ensure the maximum level of consistency across the affected counties. Having the same permit scheme throughout is extremely important. Otherwise, there will be confusion. People will not know how to apply. If they move from one authority to another, they will have different sets of rules to learn. It just creates more work for everybody.
  GC 126
  It has been said that different permit schemes should take account of local circumstances, and I see that point. On the other hand, any permit scheme should be flexible enough to take account of different types of roads and the different traffic conditions prevailing on them. It seems to me that, if we cannot simplify or coordinate across all the schemes, we are making a job creation scheme. Therefore, whether we accept Amendment No. 103 or Amendment No. 103A, the principles embodied in the amendment are very important.
  In order to make it easier for people to deal with this, we are trying to implement electronic government and to move into the modern communications age. That is all that Amendments Nos. 105B and 105C are about. It is an add-on to the point to say that the registers for the permits should be kept electronically and that they should be available for everyone to see so that they can co-ordinate their works as well, if they want to. It would be a logical extension of having a standardised permit scheme.
  I thought it was easier to talk to my amendment with this amendment. I thank the Committee.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The amendment appears to be intended to require that regulations made under Clause 36 would have to ensure a reasonable level of consistency between permit schemes. The regulations would have to set out certain standard provisions that would be common to all permit schemes, especially in relation to electronic noticing systems.
  The Government agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that there should be some degree of standardisation between different permit schemes. It cannot be sensible to have dozens of entirely different schemes operating in different parts of the country. However, we do not want to be prescriptive about this issue and put in the Bill. It is an issue that we feel can be safely dealt with through regulations. The working group that we have set up to consider the details of permit regulations and the accompanying guidance has been asked specifically to look at the issue of standardisation. The question will be how far that standardisation should go.
  The points that have been made this afternoon will be given to the working group, and we expect it to make its recommendations to us later in the year. We will then go out to public consultation on the way forward. A very important part of that will be how the permits are delivered: in traditional printed form or electronically. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that electronic delivery is the way forward, but that is just my view. That idea will be fed to the working group, and we will see what it says. I would be very surprised if it were not adopted.
  I hope that I can reassure the Committee that the working group will do a good job. I am absolutely sure that everybody will see the benefits of standardisation as far as possible of the permits.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for that helpful answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 103A not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 103B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 104:
  Page 16, line 32, at end insert
  "() for or in connection with the provision of an independent mediation and dispute resolution procedure for use in prescribed cases,"
  The noble Lord said: Under Clause 36(4)(b), permit regulations may make provision for a right of appeal. My amendment would provide that the appeal should be, in colloquial terms, quick and dirty and easy. It will be a good one. The utilities are worried that, when the highway authorities give out permits, they are also responsible for street works. There could therefore be a conflict of interests. An independent appeals mechanism is needed to ensure that disputes are fair, consistent, even-handed and done in a timely manner.
  The Association of London Government's parking appeals process is a good example of how that is done. I have never been through it, but a relation of mine has. Many people have told me how good it is. It is very easy; one does not need lawyers; and it works extremely well. I do not know whether that would be the right model. My noble friend Lord Borrie will probably speak about what lawyers want. The important point is that there is a fear that, when Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 was introduced in 2000, many costly and time-consuming disputes arose where parties tried to understand the regulations. Many different disputes arose around the country, because there were different systems in each local authority area, and some ended up in court.
  If the regulations in this Bill are to be introduced quickly next year, there is a fear that the same thing could happen. There must be a quick mediation process without the need for lengthy negotiations and arbitration using lawyers; otherwise, I foresee that the utilities will say, "These are all putting costs up; we will put our costs up in case we run into problems". They say that the costs of night-time work are around 35 to 40 per cent higher, certainly in the Greater London area, because of the shortage of suitable workers. All those costs will be added to the consumer's electricity or telephone hills, for example.
  Everyone would like a quick and easy appeals mechanism and, as has been said in respect of earlier amendments, at least some consistency in how the schemes are introduced across the country. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: This is an important amendment because it would add a provision to allow disputes to be settled by arbitration. As drafted, the Bill will lead to a situation whereby highway authorities give out permits while also being responsible for half of all
  GC 128
  street works. An independent appeals mechanism is surely essential to ensure that disputes are resolved in a fair, consistent, even-handed and timely manner.
  There is a provision in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 for dealing with arbitration. The Government have given no explanation why they feel there should not be an arbitration provision in this Bill. Surely, it would be a sensible safeguard; many utilities and local authorities work closely together but, occasionally, they do not. The National Utilities Group is concerned that some local authorities could seek to maximise the revenue-generating opportunities available in the exercise of permit schemes. They could dispute utilities activities even when it was unreasonable to do so.
  An independent appeals mechanism would therefore provide some form of safeguard for both sides and would ensure that issues could be resolved not only even-handedly but in a way that did not incur large costs. That would enable the focus to be on reducing congestion rather than increasing contention with regard to street works. The Minister may say that there is somewhere in the Bill an opportunity for that; if there is, I would be grateful to him for pointing it out. However, it would also be helpful if he could say how, when in subsection (4)(b) it refers to conferring the right of appeal, how the appeal system would work. What is the mechanism? Who are they appealing to, and who will arbitrate in that appeal? That would aid the Committee in its consideration of this issue.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We agree that some form of appeal procedure within permit schemes would be sensible. Clause 36(4) already allows for standard appeal arrangements to be set out in the permit regulations which will underpin schemes. The working group comprising representatives of local authorities and utilities, which will be considering the draft regulations and guidance, will look at what arrangements are desirable and will make recommendations to us. However, we arc also considering whether further provision is needed to allow for certain other dispute resolution procedures, such as arbitration, to be provided for in regulations. The Government may, therefore, wish to table amendments on Report to allow for that.
  I hope that, in the light of that reassurance and in the knowledge that amendments may come through on Report, the noble Lord will not only be able to withdraw his amendment but will feel happy to do so.
  Viscount Astor: Before the noble Lord comes to that tumultuous decision, will the Minister answer my question about the current right of appeal in the Bill? He did not say how that is intended to work, or if there is a place in the Bill that explains the process or how the appeal mechanism would work. It would be helpful to have some clarity.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I do not think that I will be able to give the noble Viscount clarity. The powers are very wide and we have yet to work out how

  GC 129
  they will be used. That is another matter under discussion by the group that is considering the regulations and the best way in which to proceed.
  Viscount Astor: I understand the conundrum in which the Minister finds himself. Perhaps I could just make a plea that while the Government make up their mind exactly what they are going to do, they might he kind enough to write before Report to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and myself to explain how the system works in the Bill at the moment and what they intend to do.
  Lord Borrie: I am surprised that my noble friend the Minister has not at least been able to say whether it is an appeal to a court or to somebody else. At the moment, Clause 36(4)(b) simply refers to a right of appeal without any mention of the person to whom the appeal should be made. Even if the Minister has not determined what level of court, at least he might say whether it is to be a court or not.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that I can help my noble friend Lord Borrie a little further. I am advised that the appeal will probably not be made to the courts, but at the moment I cannot give members of the Committee any more direction about where the appeals will be made to. Apparently, the current thinking is that the appeal will not be made to the courts.
  Lord Berkeley: I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response. I trust that the appeals will not be made to the authority that is managing the permit scheme. At least, I assume that that is not the case—otherwise it would not really be an appeal, would it?
  As my noble friend the Minister suggested, on the basis of what he said I am very happy to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 105:
  Page 16, line 40, at end insert—
  "() for or in connection with the obtaining of permits for works carried out by the highway authority, or the inclusion of works carried out by the highway authority in a register of permits (or both)."
  The noble Viscount said: This amendment aims to place the highways authority on a similar footing with the utility companies by requiring not only the utility companies but the highways authority to have a permit for works that it carries out—in effect, issuing itself a permit. Alternatively, the amendment would allow the inclusion of the highway authority works in the register of permits, so that it could be held accountable by the public for the works that it does. At least, in that case, we would know what works are being done by the utilities and what works are being done by the highways authority. That would enable us to consider the data for comparison in terms of road disruption in either case.
  We have had debates previously on why it would be difficult for a highways authority to charge itself. It seems to me that what a highways authority ought to do is, in the same way as a utility company, to keep a register of the works that it does. The simplest way in which to do that would be to keep it in the same permit scheme, so the public can have that consistency.
  The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is in a similar vein. I am not sure whether my amendment is preferable to his—his might even be preferable to mine—but we are both concerned with the same point. It is an important point. I beg to move.
  Lord Borrie: May I express considerable interest in and sympathy with the amendment just moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor? Amendment No, 106, which is coupled with it and tabled in the name of myself and the noble Earl, Lord Errol, is slightly more detailed. However, it certainly has the same purpose— of trying to ensure that the Bill will be applied equally, whether the work is being carried out by highway authorities, local authorities or utilities.
  A great deal of the Bill relates to co-ordination. If there is one public grouse bigger than any other in relation to the nuisance caused by disruptive road works, it is that one minute the gas people are digging up the road, the next minute it is the electricity people, the next minute it is the water people, and that they do not co-ordinate the work. Parliament has tried before, and this Bill is meant to try, with greater success, to ensure that all that work is properly co-ordinated.
  One aspect of co-ordination is surely to co-ordinate the work of utilities, whichever they are, on the one hand, and works performed by local authorities on the other. I do not see how street works can be co-ordinated unless utilities are able to align the work that they want to do with the work done by local authorities.
  Part 2 of the Bill, which we have already discussed in this Committee, requires local authorities to manage their works as part of their overall road network management duty. While the Government have claimed that the Bill is intended to be applied equitably, that does not really seem to be the case. Utilities are to be subject to charges for permits and to fines should they be in breach of those permits. Local authorities will not be so subject to charges and penalties.
  As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and one of the Ministers pointed out, I have to accept that there is a dangerous circuity in fining government-related bodies. You take money from one government body and put it into the hands of another. Clearly, there will not be equitable treatment if one accepts that argument. When I proposed Amendment No. 70 during a previous sitting of the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, all accepted the desirability of achieving in some way equity between local authorities on the one hand and utilities on the other.
  I understand that a suggestion has been made by one of the working groups which has been established that there should be a points system. In the interests of harmonious working between the utilities and the

  GC 131
  highway authorities, I should like to suggest that such a scheme be given serious consideration and be applied to both the utilities and the highway authorities. This would have the additional benefit of ensuring that the new scheme is not tarred with the accusation of being a revenue-generating mechanism. The Government have been at pains to say that they are not engaged in such an exercise and it is right that they should seek to disabuse us of the notion.
  Naturally, the detail must be left to the consideration of the working groups, but I suggest that the Government should at least consider the adoption of this approach in, let us say, the first year after implementation so that all parties can work together to co-ordinate their street works and roadworks in a non-confrontational environment. My amendment, which goes into a little more detail than that of the noble Viscount, would make the provision of such a scheme straightforward because it would impose the requirement to maintain a record in the register required by the Bill as it stands of all instances of breaches of the conditions on street works, whoever is responsible for that breach. With those words, I have spoken to Amendment No. 6 tabled in my name as well as giving support to the amendment of the noble Viscount.
  Lord Bradshaw: I believe that the best authorities are probably approaching the Bill in precisely the way outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I do not know whether he was part of the group which visited the London Traffic Control Centre, but we saw there an attempt to co-ordinate the activities of the different bodies. A diagram had been produced which showed all the various developers, contractors, utilities and boroughs—which do most of the work of the highway authorities—in a loop around the street works controller. Thus the controller aims to embrace all the different bodies working within his area.
  However, I accept that there probably is a need within authorities to separate the highway authority that actually does the work from the person who is controlling street works and issues the permit. Is that the intention here? Even though the authority and the highway authority may be in the same place and part of the same body, are they to be separate people who do not live in each other's pockets? Can he ensure that there will be equality of treatment both for highway works and other works? I do not want to see a system that fines bodies for undertaking works, in particular if we are simply going to fine the highway authority. By doing so, money from hard-pressed council tax payers is taken by the Treasury in the form of fines. That will lead to a stupid and circular movement of money that is to no one's benefit.
  However, I want to see the highway authority putting itself under the same discipline that will apply to other bodies which have a legitimate need to dig up the road. However, we must always accept that the highway authority represents everyone, whereas a utility will represent only a particular interest. Striking a balance between the different needs may be difficult.
  Lord Berkeley: I support the amendments. As I said in respect of Amendment No. 102, we must not forget
  GC 132
  that local authorities have many different departments. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is right: the best ones will do it very well, as we saw when we visited Transport for London. Sadly, not all are the best. Protection and fairness must be introduced. I can envisage an environmental health officer putting a stop order on something and a dispute or arbitration arising to find out who was responsible. Ditto parking bay suspensions and cars parked in the wrong space. The scheme will work in theory, but I think that everyone would feel much happier if the process were open, transparent and seen to be fair across all parts of local authorities and the utilities.
  The Earl of Erroll: I fully endorse everything that has been said so far. I added my name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, as it seemed the better one to put on an equal footing all those digging up roads. If we do not, people will not be able to go to one place to get a unified view of what is happening and the disruption that might be caused. Such a unified view and a common permit scheme would help the traffic manager to carry out his duty of road network management.
  Further to my comment that the information should be published electronically, it would be useful to include such a provision in the Bill, given that, despite the efforts of the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, for the past 10 years to get Parliamentary Questions for Written Answers answered electronically, it has still not happened. Departments are very good at burying such issues if there is not a very strong incentive to carry them out. Some government departments are having a lot of trouble coming into the 21st century.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As we have heard, both Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 are intended to enable regulations to be made that would set up controls on the carrying out of work by local authorities. In the case of Amendment No. 106, those would have to correspond to equivalent controls on utility works under permit schemes. In fact, we believe the amendment is not necessary. The interpretation provision in Clause 38(1) makes clear the scope of "works" means that permit schemes can include works under the Highways Act 1980 covering a wide range of works by authorities, including road maintenance works.
  The regulation-making powers can enable those works to be subject to controls through a permit scheme anyway, including, in relation to permit registers, taking into account the unavoidable different considerations that apply in regulating the activities of public authorities and private companies. We wish to make absolutely clear our expectation that the permit scheme in any area would apply to both utility works and highway works. We have asked the working group of utility and highway authority representatives looking at permit regulations and guidance to consider how works carried out by authorities can be incorporated within permit schemes. The aim of permit schemes is to improve the management of all road works in the street, including highway authorities' own works.

  GC 133
  We take on board the very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and other Members of the Committee that co-ordination is absolutely the central requirement.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked about keeping information in registers. Authorities must already keep a register of their own works and utility works. We are likely to say in regulations that they must keep permit information in the register.
  Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about the independence of the person controlling the permits. Some authorities, as he probably knows, already separate the function of controlling and co-ordinating activity on the road from the part of the authority doing the road work. That reflects the sort of independence that we are looking for in treating everybody in the same manner.
  I hope that, with that answer, the noble Viscount will be able to withdraw the amendment.
  4 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: That was an interesting reply. It was helpful as far as it went, but I noticed that, every time that the Minister said, "We can include it in regulations", he said, "We are likely to say that local authorities must keep permit schemes in their register". I hope that, if the Minister does not want another amendment on Report, he will write to us before Report saying that it is the Government's intention that regulations "will" say it, not "might" or "could" say it. It is an important area, and we want to make sure that they say it.
  The scheme must be open. The public must be able to see it, and utility companies must see what it is. Street works and utility works will often cross over and take place at the same time in the same place. There are always opportunities for confusion, so I hope that, between now and the next stage, the Government will be a little more forthcoming and say that regulations "will include", rather than "could include".
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The only reason that I used the word "may", rather than "will" is that the working group is considering the matter now. It might be slightly arrogant of us to pre-empt their discussions by saying what we want. We will talk to the working group and write to noble Lords.
  The Earl of Erroll: Is that not the tail wagging the dog? I thought that Parliament was supposed to tell the executive what was permissible, rather than waiting for the executive to tell it what it wants it to do.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: What the noble Earl says is a travesty of what I intended to say. There are certain areas relating to the Bill in which we need expert advice. All I am saying is that it would look slightly presumptuous of us to make decisions that anticipate what the experts will say, before the expert advice actually arrives. Having said that, we will talk
  GC 134
  to the working group and see whether we can give the noble Viscount the assurance that he requires by Report, so that he need not table an amendment.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister. If he wants expert advice, he should have a quick chat with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I can think of no more expert advice that he could get. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 105A:
  Page 17, line 2, at end insert—
  "() A local highway authority must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from fees or charges does not exceed the cost of the performance of the function or doing the thing (as the case may be)."
  The noble Lord said: The Minister will doubtless recognise this as an amendment that was made to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill when the Government introduced the question of fees into it. I have lifted the wording from that, so it is probably rather imperfectly adapted to this Bill. However, the Government then made the point that, while giving local authorities greater scope to vary the fees they charge, they wanted to ensure that authorities would not run their planning departments as a profit centre. I was opposed to that and tried to get them to let local authorities run planning departments as a profit centre—first, because local authorities need the money and, secondly, because they need a real incentive to make their planning departments efficient and ensure that they are staffed by good people. There are real problems in that area.
  However, I lost that argument. I do not want to lose it the other way on the Bill, where there is no excuse for local authorities to be running this part of their activities as a profit centre. We have done away with the poll tax—let us not have the hole tax. There will be scope for local authorities to ensure that they charge for every cigarette packet dropped on the road as a street works if they can make profits out of the permit that will be required by someone who needed to place it on the road. In order that the scheme be rational, local authorities must not have the incentive to try to use the fees regime to make money. Those of us who have occasion to park in Kensington, Westminster or similar boroughs know that that is what is happened with parking. We should not expect cash-strapped local authorities to resist the chance if we give them it.
  So on this occasion, I welcome what the Government did in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and hope that they will do it in this Bill. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Erroll: I support the amendment, because it is eminently sensible to be equitable between government and private bodies.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am afraid that we did not recognise that this amendment had been tabled to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.

  GC 135
  Perhaps the fact that it was a government amendment to that Bill explains why I shall give the noble Lord a sympathetic answer.
  Clause 36(5) allows for the levels of fees to be set out in regulations. Those provisions were discussed at considerable length in another place and my ministerial colleague undertook at Report to reflect further on the points that were made, with a view to providing more information during the Bill's passage through the House. We expect to do that at Report, but I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few things now.
  The Minister also made clear that we wanted to allow the working group advising on the form and content of the regulations to consider whether those applying for a permit would need to pay a fee and, if so, at what level fees should be set. So we return to the point that we hit discussing the last amendment: a committee is considering that very problem and we look forward to hearing what it advises. No decision has yet been made on fee levels or on how permits would fit in with existing schemes, such as charging for overrunning or lane rentals for utility works. One option would be for a permit system to replace both of those schemes.
  As I said, we expect to return to the subject at Report, but for the record I make it absolutely clear that we are not looking to load multiple charges or excessive costs on those carrying out necessary works. I hope that, with the assurance that we will return to the matter on Report, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Although in principle I have no problem at all with the notion that local authorities should in no way see this as a licence to print money, I caution against crossing wholesale from the planning regime to this one, for the simple reason that, far from making money on planning applications, local authorities were often running up huge bills. The scale of fees determined centrally often left local authorities receiving the same amount of money for large planning applications that had taken a lot of time and resource to resolve and for those that were much more straightforward.
  There has certainly never been any question of local authorities making money on planning applications. So the two situations are not the same, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister says at Report, because it is important for everyone to feel fairly treated. Local authorities do not want to have to fight with the utilities or, possibly, the public every time they make what seems to be a proper charge, with accusations of overcharging.
  Lord Lucas: I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, that there are different circumstances. Currently, planning fees are far too low. One very much hopes that the Government will put them up substantially. I think that we have yet to hear the figures. There should not
  GC 136
  be a loss. People are making a lot of money out of planning. Local authorities should not be forced to run at a loss on that activity.
  I would like this to be a break-even situation. As opposed to parking, I am encouraged at what the Minister said. I am happy to wait for Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 105B and 105C not moved.]
  Clause 36 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 107:
  After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
  "COST OF PERMIT SCHEMES
  No fee in respect of any application for a permit or the issue of a permit under Part 3 of this Act shall be set at a higher level than that necessary to cover the administrative costs of—

  (a) responding to permit applications (other than applications by the authority itself);

  (b) issuing permits (other than permits to the authority itself); and

  (c) maintaining a register of permits."

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, my amendment is similar to the amendment that has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas. As a result of the reply from the Minister I shall be briefer in my introduction because some of the points have been answered. However, my amendment is slightly different because my noble friend Lord Lucas raised concern with the overall income, whereas my amendment is tighter. The amendment refers to the "Cost of permit schemes" and attempts to put a ceiling on any charges for permits at a level of reasonable costs that might be incurred to administer the scheme in terms of responding to permit applications, issuing permits and maintaining the register of permits.
  In other words, local authorities must set up administrative systems on a reasonable basis; charges should be reasonable; there should be no additional charges; and unnecessarily large empires should not be created to deal with permits. When the Minister responds, perhaps he could respond to the rest of the points about charging in the way that he did for a previous amendment. It is important that we have an assurance from him that Amendment No. 107 will be considered, as well as Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 that are subsequent to it.
  It is important that, from the beginning, there should be an understanding that there should be no cross-subsidisation on permits from one company to another, one scheme to another or, indeed, to a third party. Costs should relate solely to the administrative costs of the permit scheme with respect to that individual permit. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a similar assurance to that given to my noble friend on the previous amendment; namely, that these issues will be considered. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I want to follow on from the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, with regard to the fact that he would not

  GC 137
  want cross-subsidisation. Perhaps we may, at a later stage, have a little more clarification about how that situation will be managed. After all, this refers to co-ordination of work. It is very easy to envisage a situation where several companies will be working together at the same time. We need to get to grips with how those costs should be allocated, how one might then refer back on appeal and how one utility might respond if it felt that it had been overcharged. Those are issues to which we need to return.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 107 would confine the level of fees for issuing permits to being no higher than the cost to the highways authority of responding to permit applications, issuing permits and maintaining a register of permits. The Government are already giving careful consideration to all the issues raised by this part of the Bill, which were discussed at considerable length in another place.
  The Government undertook to reflect further on the points that were made and to provide more information during the Bill's passage. We expect to do that on Report. I hope that that further information will be given to noble Lords well before Report so that they have plenty of time to consider it.
  I also explained that we have asked the group looking at the form and content of the permit regulations to consider permit fee levels. All the points that have been made by noble Lords, including those of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, will be passed on to the group. I hope that, before Report, I will be able to relieve any anxieties by providing the information that noble Lords require. In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the assurance given by the Minister. I make only one plea: the term "well before Report" should not mean only 24 hours before that stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 107A:
  After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
  "REVIEW OF OPERATION OF PART 3
  The appropriate national authority shall, within three years of the coming into force of this Part, publish a review of the first two years of operation of this Part."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 107A provides that within three years of coming into force of Part 3 of the Bill, the Government or the National Assembly for Wales shall publish a review of the first two years of its operation.
  Once the powers in Part 3 are brought into force, we will finalise and lay regulations before the House setting out certain standard arrangements for the running of permit schemes and issue guidance to authorities on their operation. It would then be for
  GC 138
  individual authorities, or more than one authority operating together, to submit their proposals for schemes to Ministers for approval. Some authorities may choose to do this very soon after the powers are activated, while others may wait longer.
  Assuming that the proposals are approved, authorities would have to ensure that sufficient time is left to allow those likely to be affected by schemes to prepare for their introduction before they could start operation.
  As regards England, we will consider how best to monitor the use and effectiveness of these powers so that we can consider whether changes need to be made to the secondary legislation. We have undertaken reviews of lane rental and powers to charge for overrun, neither of which was inspired by a fixed date set out in legislation. We are likely to adopt a similar approach with regard to permit schemes.
  I have no difficulty with the idea that we should formally review the operation of permit schemes after a period of time. However, given what I have just said about the stages to be gone through before the scheme starts and the fact that we do not yet know how quickly authorities are likely to take up the new powers, I do not believe that it would be sensible to set a fixed date for review of the primary legislation.
  I hope that, in the light of those comments, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Lucas: I will certainly think about what the Minister has said in response before coming back on Report, if at all. One of the problems we face in this House is that we concentrate hard on passing legislation, much of which will depend on regulations. At that stage we lose sight of it. Indeed, in its briefing published today the Local Government Association has said that there are problems with the implementation of bus lane enforcement resulting from provisions in the Transport Act 2000. That had escaped my notice, but it immediately made me feel hot under the collar. I become deeply annoyed every time someone zips past me on the left when I am being a good citizen on the right.
  Unless there is a mechanism to draw to our attention the way in which these complicated but nevertheless very important schemes that we care about deeply are working, then it is more than likely that we shall miss the opportunity to hold the Government to account and to encourage them to do better by way of regulations or enforcement. So I should very much like to see a provision in some form. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has a suggestion.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As far as bus lane enforcement is concerned, the problem is that we are still waiting for the regulations to emanate from the department. In a series of Questions for Written Answer my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has been told that they are coming "soon", "imminently", and "shortly". This is a saga that goes back some two years. Having recently raised this question myself during Oral Questions, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that they would be dealt

  GC 139
  with under the auspices of this Bill. So the problem is not one of holding the Government to account; we know that they are accountable. The problem is getting an answer out of them—soon, shortly or imminently.
  Lord Lucas: The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, is arguing that my amendment is the right one because whether or not the Government have promulgated the regulations and whether or not they have been brought into force is part of what we should be reviewing. I shall certainly think on what the noble Lord has said. He may well hear from me again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 37 [Crown application]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Berkeley: I oppose the Question whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill so as to try to understand what it means. I understand that the Crown will presumably include the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in relation to the roads in Royal Parks, which we talked about the other day. I suppose the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency also come under the Crown. In fact, everybody who cannot be got at probably comes under the Crown. I became interested in Her Majesty— presumably we are allowed to talk about her because she is on the face of the Bill—in her private capacity, and the Duke of Cornwall.
  I am no great expert on royal matters but I know that the Duke of Cornwall has done a lot of development and had many ideas for villages on the land he owns. Does that mean that because that is in a private capacity, he does not need a permit if he digs up the road and that he will not be fined for it? It certainly means that the Government do need a permit or will be fined. I believe that everybody should be equal. If it is good for somebody to delay traffic by digging up a road to which the public have access, everybody should be treated in the same way. I am sure that my noble friend will put me right.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am not sure that I will put my noble friend right because I agree with the sentiment that we are all equal. Having said that, I must say that works carried out by or on behalf of central government will also require a permit from an authority before they can commence. However, works carried out by or on behalf of the Queen in her private capacity, through the Duchy of Lancaster or by the Duke of Cornwall would not require a permit under a scheme. Subsection 2 provides that any offence relating to permit schemes which may be created in regulations would not apply to works carried out by or on behalf of central government. I can see from the expression on my noble friend's face that that does not in any way satisfy him.
  Lord Astor: Before the noble Lord replies, I must say that the Minister's answer leaves a lot to be desired. It
  GC 140
  is difficult to see where Her Majesty is going to conduct street works in a private capacity. Perhaps we are talking about Windsor Great Park, which would be understandable. I understand that aspect of the clause. More importantly, it is entirely perplexing that it includes the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duke of Cornwall. The Minister did not cover that point in his reply. The Duchy of Lancaster is a very large landowner in the north-west of England. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that any works done in the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall are not precluded by Clause 37 of the Bill? If they are not precluded, what does this mean?
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for his answer. He was trying hard. There are two issues here. One is the fact that the Crown, as government, must get permits but would not be fined. That is different from the position of local authorities which are, after all, also in the public sector. They need not apply for permits, and they would not be fined. Again, it does not seem right that there should be separate categories of those who would not have to pay fines. We have talked about that before.
  We may have to examine the matter again. The noble Viscount hit the nail on the head: where are Her Majesty the Queen, the Duke of Lancaster—I do not know who the Duke of Lancaster is—and the Duke of Cornwall—I know who he is—likely to do it and on what roads? We cannot let the matter go until we know whether we are talking about somebody's back-door entrance that needs a little tarring, which will not affect anyone, or will we find that half the roads in Lancashire or Cornwall are privately owned by the relevant duke, who will not need a permit? My noble friend might write to me, if he does not want to delay things now. On that basis, I will not oppose the Question.
  Viscount Astor: Does the Minister wish to reply? He could be a little more explicit. Has he received further information on the clause?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: No, the noble Lord does not wish to come back to provide more helpful information. It is an interesting topic and I undertake to write to my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Viscount to explain the matter further. I hope that we will not need to return to it on Report.
  Clause 37 agreed to.
  Clause 38 [Interpretation of Part 3]:
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 107AA:
  Page 17, leave out lines 42 to 44.
  The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I cannot see Royal Parks mentioned anywhere in Part 3, so I wonder why there has to be a definition in Clause 38. It may be that I am blind, but I am sure that my noble friend has an answer. If it is a good answer, we can follow up what we talked about the other day. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Line 11 of page 15 refers to,
  "the management and control of streets in the Royal Parks".
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 107B:
  Page 18 line 19, at end insert—
  "() The first permit regulations may not be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 107B will amend Clause 38(4) and make it clear that the first set of regulations underpinning permit schemes would be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution in Parliament. Amendment No. 108A is consequential on that and simply makes it clear that subsequent sets of permit regulations would remain subject to the negative procedure.
  Having considered representations from various quarters, including the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, the Government have come, to the conclusion that affirmative resolution for the first set of permit regulations, those which will lay down the broad framework for operating permit schemes and certain standard provisions relating to all schemes, would be appropriate. Subsequent regulations would then be subject to negative resolution. We believe that that strikes a reasonable balance in allowing for a greater level of parliamentary scrutiny when it matters most. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 108 trot moved.]
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 108A:
  Page 18, line 20, at beginning insert "Subject to that,"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
  Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 39 [Increase in penalties for summary offences under 1991 Act]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 39 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Rotherwick: I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question that both clauses stand part to probe the Government on their thinking behind the increase in penalties—I am also speaking to the Question whether Clause 40 stand part of' the Bill.
  The utilities industries were led to believe by the Department for Transport that the increase in fixed penalties would be minimal. However, the level of fines proposed is totally disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence and is likely to lead to an increase in serving notices for revenue generation purposes,
  GC 142
  despite Government assurances to the contrary. One might be forgiven for perceiving this as a stealth tax— a tax that will be passed on to the consumer.
  Clauses 39 and 40 are of concern for a number of reasons. First and foremost, they appear to be a crude attempt to generate revenue and have little to do with improving congestion. Although fines are legitimate performance incentives in some instances, the levels being proposed are totally disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence. Furthermore, the nature of the offences will in most cases have no direct impact on traffic congestion. Increasing fines to such levels will encourage over-zealous application by local authorities seeking to increase their revenue. That will not only he reflected in customers' hills, but may adversely impact on congestion and labour shortages if small firms are fined out of existence.
  Let us consider fixed penalties associated with incorrect noticing. A typical nationwide utility sends out 1 million notices a year. If that utility achieves 90 per cent accuracy, it would still be subject to the fixed penalty notice for 100,000 notices. If the fixed penalty notice is £750, as proposed by local authorities and the joint fixed penalty regulations working group, the utility would pay £75 million. At £300 the cost would equate to £30 million. Even at £50 per fixed penalty notice, the utility would still pay £5 million per year—a substantial sum in anyone's hook. If the utility achieved 99 per cent accuracy, at £750 per notice it would still pay £7.5 million. At £300, it would pay 3 million; at £50 per fixed penalty notice, it would pay half a million pounds. No one can argue that 99 per cent is not exceptional, given the volume of notices and the differing and complex rules of their interpretation.
  It is envisaged that fines will be levied based on information from local authorities' computer records. Experience of Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which provides for overstay charging, showed that many charges were made as a result of spurious or incorrect records, resulting in time-consuming negotiations before the invoices were ultimately cancelled. Equally, with possible implementation as early as next year, system changes may be rushed and inaccurate data capture is likely while all parties get used to the new administrative arrangements and interpretation of the new legislation.
  Again, that will result in many disputes, with utilities being responsible for establishing the cause of' failure, which may be due to the local authority or system provider inaccuracies, rather than a utility failure. That will be a time-consuming and costly process for all, involving protracted negotiations and possibly the magistrates' courts, which will distract both local authorities and utilities from addressing the real issue of minimising congestion.
  The clauses are in direct contradiction to assurances given to members of the utilities industry by the Department for Transport. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Briefly. I am unable to oppose the clause standing part. I am slightly mystified by the arguments advanced, which appeared to accept that the whole rationale for the Bill was

  GC 143
  essentially the reduction of congestion—in particular, that part of congestion played by unco-ordinated and often difficult street works. However, somehow they suggested that the fines for them need to be a light touch and not painful. If we go down that route, there is no incentive to take place.
  So I am slightly mystified. With all due respect to the noble Lord, he seems to want it both ways. He wants a regime that incentivises the proper running of such matters but without the penalties that we all think necessary. We have tried doing it nicely for the past 20 years; the results are evident for everyone to see. It has reached the time when we have to be a bit tougher.
  Lord Berkeley: Perhaps it would be helpful if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 110A to 110C, to Schedule 3, because they are designed to achieve similar objectives while keeping the Bill intact. Basically, I tabled them to ensure that the amount of penalty bears some relationship to the congestion caused or the seriousness of the offence.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, cited some pretty horrendous figures, which I suspect are rather higher than would occur in practice. As the noble Baroness said, no doubt there needs to be more incentive for utilities to co-ordinate their work. But there is a great deal of difference between digging up Piccadilly or Whitehall in the middle of the rush hour and failing to spell Acacia Avenue with the right number of "a"s in the application. It was also suggested that people would receive a penalty if they failed to take down the sign on Westminster Bridge about the marathon at the right time.
  The penalty must be proportionate, which is why I tabled the amendments. That is an important part of encouraging utilities to work together. When considering the proportionate cost, it is a little sad that the regulatory impact assessment of the cost of utility street work on the economy as a whole is 14 years-old. Many people have tried to estimate the cost of congestion. The CBI's latest figure is £20 million; other people will soon be producing some figures. Those figures can get out of hand. Although the utilities need to sharpen up their act, it will all end up as a cost to the consumer in the end, so it needs to be fair and proportionate.
  Viscount Astor: As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has spoken to his Amendment No. 110, which is not grouped, it may be convenient if I speak to it now as well. It raises the question of what rights the utilities have to appeal against penalty payments. It would help if the Minister could tell us what rights exist and where they are to be found in the Bill. Is there any possibility of adjudication if there is an appeal? If so, how will that happen and under what clause? Who would adjudicate?
  When we discussed appeal under a previous amendment, the Government—extraordinarily, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, pointed out—had not worked out whether there was to be an appeal to a court or to somewhere else. I should have thought that
  GC 144
  that was a fundamental issue that the department would have considered. So it would be helpful if the Minister could give us an answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley: whether there is to be an appeal system and, if so, how it may work.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We believe that the existing regime for enforcing offences under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 in relation to utility street works is inadequate and needs to be revisited if we are to ensure that such works are carried out safely, to a high standard and with minimum disruption.
  We are therefore adopting two related approaches to address this problem. The first is to address the question of maximum fines for offences. Those were set out in 1991 at level 3 on the standard scale—currently £1,000—for each of the offences under the relevant part of the Act, including offences relating to carrying out unauthorised works, failing to execute works to a high standard and not taking the appropriate safety measures. Authorities have frequently expressed concern to us that existing fines are far too low to provide an adequate deterrent—a point that has been made this afternoon—especially as these are maximum fines, and that, in practice, the fines imposed by the courts are generally lower still. So authorities' legal costs often outweigh the levels of fine available to the courts. On top of this, of course, the passage of time since 1991 has considerably reduced the value of £1,000.
  The increases in fines were discussed with a working party of utilities and local authority representatives and the level of increases was broadly agreed with them. Obviously, this is a measure that targets the guilty and not the innocent. Therefore, law-abiding undertakers have nothing to fear.
  Moving to Clause 40, as I explained in relation to the previous clause, we are introducing two measures in the Bill to help enforcement of undertakers' works. The second of these is to allow for certain offences under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to be subject to fixed penalty notices, rather than being dealt with automatically by the courts.
  This clause provides that the offences listed in Schedule 2 are the ones for which a fixed penalty notice can be issued. However, by making an order—which would be subject to affirmative resolution—the Secretary of State can remove offences from the list of those for which penalty notices can be issued or, alternatively, one or more of the remaining offences under Part 3 of the 1991 Act can be added to the list.
  The offences listed in Schedule 2 which could be subject to penalty notices are generally those relating to the notification of works—for instance, where an undertaker fails to give an authority advance notice of its intention to dig up the street. We do not envisage that it would be right for certain other offences to be subject to a penalty notice regime, most obviously those relating to safety at work. More detailed arrangements governing the rules for issuing fixed penalty notices would need to be set out in regulations, including stating what the authority would need to do with fine income paid and how fines should be paid.

  GC 145
  I should like to make one thing very clear—I am repeating what I said to the previous amendment. These measures are not intended as a revenue-raising exercise. On the contrary, they provide a simple and non-bureaucratic way of enforcing the law without necessarily having to involve the courts, a change that has potential benefits for all sides. Only if the undertaker chose not to pay the fine for an offence would the issue need to go to a magistrate's court. The clause allows for quicker resolutions without the two parties incurring significant legal costs and without putting extra pressure on the courts.
  Clearly, the fine detail of the penalty notice scheme, to be set out in regulations, would need to be discussed with undertakers, authorities and others to ensure that it was balanced and fair to all sides. I stress that there will be a consultation period; we are talking; and we want a balanced and fair solution. As with the previous clause, the idea of introducing penalty notices was discussed with a working party of utilities and local government representatives, and which offences should be included in such a regime was broadly agreed with the group.
  In response to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the purpose of a fixed penalty system is that it should be easily administered and an efficient way of dealing with offences. I do not think that it would be possible to prescribe in regulations appropriate amounts to suit a variety of circumstances. It would also be difficult to prescribe an amount in accordance with the degree of disruption caused or likely to be caused by the offence. That would not be a simple calculation that could be easily measured in advance of an offence being committed. Giving authorised officers discretion to vary amounts would also make a system more complicated and could lead to imbalances in how offences are dealt with, both within an authority and between different authorities.
  The likely outcome of the amendments would be a prolonged negotiation over what the suitable amount for a fixed penalty should be. For the system to be effective, it must he easily understood by those giving and receiving the penalty, with clear amounts set out for offences. I hope that answers the points raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
  On the appeals process, referred to in a question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, Schedule 3, at line 12 on page 61, sets out, among other things, the provision for utilities to make representations against a fixed penalty notice. Local authorities can withdraw the fixed penalty notice, if they so wish.
  4.45 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: The Minister's answer on the appeal process was a statement of what is in Schedule 3, but it did not address the fundamental issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his amendment about an appeal. It is unclear to me what the appeals system is and whether there is a process of arbitration. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wishes to join in the debate. Clearly, the Committee is striving to
  GC 146
  understand the issue. The noble Lord may be able to help us further today, or perhaps he will have to write to us. We do not seem to have got our minds around how the system will work.
  Lord Berkeley: Clearly, I have confused the Committee, for which I apologise. I spoke to Amendment No. 110A, which relates to Schedule 3. My Amendment No. 110 relates to disputes about penalty payments and proposes adjudication. We have talked about adjudication and appeals. With reference to line 12 on page 61, my noble friend spoke about how utilities could appeal. I cannot see such a provision at line 12 on page 61; perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.
  Nevertheless, having confused the Committee completely but having got on to the subject of appeals, perhaps it would be helpful to point out that there needs to be some kind of appeals procedure against fixed penalties. There is for parking, and there should be here. I have put forward one suggestion as to how it would be done, but there are probably many others. Clearly, it needs to be an appeal to a body that is independent of the authority making the penalty. I would be grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his comments.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am going to confuse the Committee even more, because I gave the wrong reference. The correct reference is page 63, line 6.
  The Bill provides for the utility to make representations to the local authority, which can, if it is persuaded, withdraw the fixed penalty notice. To put it mildly, that may not satisfy Members of the Committee, but that is the arrangement in the Bill at the moment.
  Viscount Astor: Before my noble friend winds up, I have to say that I do not believe that that satisfies either myself or the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. There seems to be a need for an appeal system, and I hope that the Minister will consider that matter between now and Report. It would save us all an enormous amount of work if his officials came up with an appeal system rather than us trying to draft one. Perhaps that is something that we could discus with the Minister before Report.
  Members of the Committee on all sides of the House feel that an appeal system would be beneficial, not necessarily for the benefit of one side or the other but because it would make the whole process work better. Anything that can encourage sensible, quick arbitration so that costs are kept down and issues are dealt with quickly and easily must be a good idea. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
  Lord Berkeley: I entirely agree with the noble Viscount. There has to be some appeals mechanism. I know that some local authorities will perform with absolute perfection but, sadly, there will be others that will not. They will give the penalty and, as my noble friend said, clearly it will be fixed at whatever level is deemed appropriate, even if the name of the street is spelt wrong. There needs to be an appeals mechanism

  GC 147
  to a body separate from the street authority which is supposed to consider the representations mentioned on page 63.
  Lord Lucas: I would have thought that that was an absolutely gross injustice. As the noble Lord says, such a provision is provided everywhere else, so I am sure that in this case it is an omission. If the Government try to maintain their position at Report, I shall be very rude about it.
  Lord Rotherwick: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said and shall take his response away to consider it. However, I am most interested in what he has to say about legal costs. It comes as no shock that legal costs can be greater than fines, so that is certainly a concern. People may not appeal because they will think it not worth their while, even if they consider that the fine was unfair.
  Clause 39 agreed to.
  Schedule I agreed to.
  Clause 40 [Fixed penalty notices]:
  [Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
  Clause 40 agreed to.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Schedule 4B to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991]:
  [Amendments Nos. 110A to 110C not moved.]
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Clause 41 [Duty of street authority to co-ordinate works]:
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 111:
  Page 20, line 1, at end insert—
  "() After subsection (2) there is inserted—
  "(2A) A street authority shall in particular ensure the coordination of relevant activities by the Highway Authority.""
  The noble Lord said: I believe that we have dealt with the matter under the amendment in other parts of the Bill. We have now covered adequately the issue that the highway authority must consider itself one of the bodies that the street authority takes into account. We shall expect all authorities to appoint someone separate from the highway authority to be responsible for all street works.
  [Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clause 42 [Directions relating to timing of street works]:
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 111A:
  Page 20, line 27, at end insert—
  "() A direction may not be given under subsection (1A) in respect of works for which a permit has been issued under a permit scheme which is in effect under Part 3 of the Traffic Management Act 2004."
  The noble Lord said: I would simply like to know how the two acts are going to work together. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: My amendment is grouped with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas. They are similar in that they aim to ensure that an authority may not give a direction under this section regarding works for which a permit under Part 3 has already been issued. That is a small simple question, I hope. In fact, it might be a small complicated question, but it is certainly a small question. I look forward to the Minister's answer.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 111AA relates to the power under Section 56 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 for street authorities to direct an undertaker as to the times at which it can carry out street works. The amendment is intended to have the effect that a street authority should not give an undertaker a direction relating to the timing of one of its works where a permit had already been issued for that works. Amendment No. 111A would have a similar effect except that would apply only in relation to "subsisting" works— that is to say, works which had already started.
  Clause 36(8) of the Bill provides that regulations made by the appropriate national authority may set out provisions that modify or disapply primary and subordinate legislation. Depending upon the exact structure of permit schemes, in the light of the consultation that we discussed earlier and the work of the working group, I would expect it to be necessary for the regulations to set aside certain sections of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 which currently set down how, where and when roadworks can be carried out. That would be necessary to ensure that we do not duplicate controls in certain areas.
  We have asked the working group of utilities and local authorities to consider which existing legislation should be dealt with in that way. Parliament will of course have an opportunity to scrutinise the regulations once they are laid. It may be that the power to make directions under Section 56 is one that we would want to set aside in cases where a permit has been issued, but this is a matter best left for the working group to consider and to report back on, rather than for us to be prescriptive in the Bill.
  In the light of my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Lucas: I should be very grateful if the Minister would give me at least a preliminary view of which bits of legislation it is intended to set aside. I should also be grateful to know under which power in the Bill we shall allow regulations to set aside large parts of other Acts. I had missed that that was something that would be possible under this Bill. If the Minister could answer those questions, I shall be very grateful.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We hope to have the draft ready and out for consultation by the beginning of September this year.
  Lord Lucas: I thank the Minister for that, but the second part of my question was, "Under which clause in the Bill are we giving the regulations powers to set aside chunks of other acts in this unspecified manner?".
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Clause 35(3)(b).
  Lord Lucas: Perhaps that is something to which we will need to return. I had not realised that the ambit of that clause was so large. I will need to think about that, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 111.AA not moved.]
  Clause 42 agreed to.
  Clause 43 agreed to.
  Clause 44 [The street works register]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 44 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Viscount Astor: The clause concerns the street work register. I have a number of general points to raise with the Minister. The street works register came in under the 1991 Act. This clause adds to that register. So that I have got it right, can the Minister say whether the Government regard the current register as being successfully kept and kept up to date? I assume it is open for public inspection so that the records are accessible. Does the clause include access to the Transport for London street works scheme? Does it have a register, or does that come under a separate part of the Bill? I would be grateful for a brief explanation.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The clause concerns the register which street authorities are required to keep containing information on the streets for which they are responsible. At present, registers have to contain, among other things, information on utility street works being carried out on these roads as well as authorities' own road works. The clause will allow the regulations to require that other information must also be kept on the registers, notably about skips and scaffolding which occupy the road and the position of apparatus buried beneath the roads. The clause also clarifies the fact that central registers can be set up containing information on more than one authority area and that the Secretary of State may require authorities to provide information on their streets to the body operating a central register.
  Authorities already have a duty to co-ordinate all works that take place on their roads in order to help to reduce the disruption that they cause. Given that, we think it would be sensible to be able to require that other activities that can cause disruption, such as scaffolding from building works that intrudes into the road, should also be included on the register. It would also be sensible to ensure that those operating
  GC 150
  centralised registers are able to obtain the information that they need, so that their registers are comprehensive. We would, of course, consult extensively with authorities, utilities and others before implementing any such regulations in order to ensure that we were not imposing unreasonable burdens on them.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked three questions, which I hope to answer. The first was whether these registers have been kept successfully. The answer that I have starts with the word "patchy". Some authorities are much better than others. The Government wish to see standards improved across the board. Secondly, registers are required to be open for inspection at reasonable times. Presumably, "reasonable times" means when the local authority buildings are open. In addition, Transport for London is covered by the same requirements.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be interested to know that I very much hope that electronic delivery will be possible so that utilities and others can access necessary information from a website 24 hours a day.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I am always concerned when I hear the approach's success described as patchy, because it implies that accessing information electronically will perhaps be a greater task than one can imagine. If the success of the first approach is patchy, the next one could be very patchy. We shall have to see whether we wish to include a provision in the Bill to encourage local authorities to keep their registers up to date and to see what may be done. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the details.
  Clause 44 agreed to.
  Clause 45 agreed to.
  Clause 46 [Duties relating to the location of unexpected apparatus]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 111AB:
  Page 23, line 7, leave out "and keeps"
  The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 111AC to 111AE. The amendments would ensure that records of all unexpected apparatus are held in a central place thus increasing safety. The Bill as currently drafted provides for a utility to be required to record any unexpected apparatus that it finds when excavating the street—that is, unexpected to the utility as opposed to unexpected generally. When they find something that is not in the records and that they did not expect to find, that is important information for local services such as drainage authorities. Local authorities, as road network managers, should be required to keep those records when those excavating the street report such information to them. That could be achieved by regulations made under Section 79 or Section 53 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.
  It seems eminently sensible that any person executing works in the street who happens upon unexpected things under the ground should be asked

  GC 151
  to record to it. It also seems sensible that those records should be held in a central place. Indeed, proposed subsection (5) in Clause 46(6) allows for just that.
  The Minister in another place, in Standing Committee, commented:
  "It is right and sensible to set up a practical regulatory regime … that balances the need to ensure that all apparatus under the street is accurately recorded with not placing an unfair burden on the 'innocent' persons carrying out the work".
  He continued:
  "They are not responsible for what they find under the road, but as and when they find apparatus, it seems logical to mark it and inform whoever keeps the register".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 3/2/04; col. 229.]
  To ask utilities to store as well as make records of apparatus that does not belong to them seems not only an inappropriate burden but would require a search of every utility's records of discovered apparatus to determine whether there was any. That does not seem the place for the records to be kept.
  It seems sensible and logical for the local authority, as the road network manager, to be required to keep those records. That would not only further the Government's stated intention of balancing the need for record-keeping without unfairly burdening innocent parties, it would also increase safety and accessibility to relevant information for interested parties.
  What could be unduly burdensome is a regime that requires undertakers and local authorities to keep those records. It seems sensible that they should be kept in one place. That must be the Government's intention, but it is not clear from the Bill, which is why I move the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The amendments would restrict the duty imposed on undertakers to keep a record of unrecorded apparatus that they find. The amendments would mean that they have only to make the record, not keep it.
  Section 80 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 sets out the duties that a person carrying out street works must comply with, where he discovers apparatus belonging to another person that is not recorded or wrongly marked on existing records. It is important that the location of apparatus is accurately recorded. For example, the consequences of hitting a gas main that was unmarked or wrongly marked in existing records could be serious. So, where such apparatus is located, the opportunity needs to be taken to make an accurate record for the future. Even where such apparatus is found, it may not always be possible to identify the owner and so require them to amend their own records so that they are accurate.
  Clause 46(4) substitutes a new subsection (2) in Section 80 of the 1991 Act. On reflection, we felt that the original Section 80 placed an unfair burden on the undertaker who accidentally located the apparatus, which is why the section has never been commenced. Clause 46, therefore, provides that, where a person finds unmarked or wrongly marked apparatus that does not belong to him and is unable to ascertain to
  GC 152
  whom it belongs after taking reasonable steps to find out, he must comply with requirements set down in regulations.
  I shall give an example. A contractor in Scotland examined all the records from other utilities, after his team had hit a fibre optic cable while working. When the police and Army arrived, they discovered that they had hit the line between the White House and the US nuclear base at Holy Loch, which was not, for obvious reasons, marked on the records.
  The regulations may prescribe that the undertaker who finds the unrecorded apparatus should make and keep a record of its location. Amendment No. 111AB would restrict that requirement, so that the regulations were able to prescribe only that the undertaker must make a record of the apparatus. Amendment No. 111AC is consequential and would restrict the provision in new subsection (2A)(a), as set out in Clause 46, which allows for regulations to set out the form and manner of records of unrecorded apparatus that is found. The amendment would mean that only the form and manner in which records were made rather than kept could be prescribed.
  Amendment No. 111AD would delete the reference in new subsection 2A(c) for regulations to make provision that records of unrecorded apparatus can be included in records kept by undertakers under Section 79(1); that is, records of their own apparatus. Amendment No. 111AE would restrict the provision for regulations to allow for the establishment of one or more registers of information.
  The purpose of the amendments appears to be to allow undertakers to avoid having a duty to keep any records of unrecorded apparatus that they find. The implication is that, once they have made a record, they would give it to a street authority, and it would be the authority's duty to keep the record.
  As I explained, Clause 46 allows for the exact arrangements covering the finding of such apparatus to be set out in regulations. In deciding what they will be, we will ensure that they do not place an unfair burden on utilities that find apparatus, and the details will be discussed with utilities and authorities before any regulations are made.
  It seems sensible that regulations may be made so that a record is kept by the undertaker who finds the apparatus, in the same way that an authority records unexpected apparatus that they might find in the course of their works. It is possible that a central register of unrecorded apparatus will eventually be set up, in which case it is likely that the undertakers would simply have to pass on the record that they have already made. However, given that they already have a duty to keep records of their own apparatus, it is not an unfair requirement to ask undertakers to keep additional records of unrecorded apparatus when they find it. There will be very few such cases, and keeping a record should not prove any more of a burden than making it in the first place. I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Astor: There could be an unfair burden here. If a utility discovers something unexpected, I understand that it should report it; there is no disagreement about that. The Minister accepts that the matter should be reported to the local authority. I am sure that when an undertaker is producing the plans of what it has done to a road it will have in its records what it found while digging the road or filling it in.
  The Minister talked about a central register, but for the information to be useful it needs to be stored by the local authority; otherwise, how would anyone else find it? Someone would have to trawl the utilities to see whether they have records of anything unexpected. We ought to be somewhat prescriptive and place a duty on the local authority to hold those records so it is the first place anyone goes to conduct a search about what might be there. That is what I am attempting to do; I wish neither to put an unfair burden on the local authority nor to take away any responsibility from the utility. Once things are found, someone must work out where the information will be stored.
  Obviously a central register would be helpful, but, in the meantime, it is important that there is a duty on the local authority to keep these records. We do not want a situation where the local authority has not kept the record properly and someone carries out work in the street at a later date and finds something unexpected which creates a problem that results in delay, congestion and expense. I hope that the Minister understands the principles on which I base my remarks and can give me some comfort that these issues will be dealt with by regulations.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The Bill does not prevent the duty being placed on the local authority to keep these records. That may well be the case. The noble Viscount has laid out the problem very fairly and we must think about the matter between now and Report.
  Lord Astor: I am very grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. The Government need to look at whether there is a clear explanation of the duties of a local authority in this area, either in the Bill or in regulations. It would help local authorities to understand what their responsibilities are and it would be helpful to the utilities. I am grateful for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 111AC to 111AE not moved.]
  Clause 46 agreed to.
  Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
  Clause 49 [Restriction on works following substantial road works]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 111 AF:
  Page 25, line 13, at end insert "and for "three months" there is substituted "such period as may be prescribed""
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 111AG. The amendments have been tabled in response to recommendations made to us by the working group of local authorities and undertakers. We asked the group to consider, among other things, what form of secondary legislation we should make in relation to the power in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, as amendment by Clause 49, which allows a highway authority to restrict further works being carried out in a street where they have carried out "substantial" road works.
  On the first of these, the authority must notify in advance certain persons—for instance, a person who has apparatus located in that street—of the proposed restriction, so as to give them the chance to carry out any works of their own before the substantial works proceed and the restriction takes effect. The relevant persons must be notified at least three months before the substantial works start. However, having given that more thought, on the working group's recommendation, we believe that there is a strong case for allowing more flexibility to require more than three months advance notice to be given in certain circumstances. Amendment No. 111AF provides, therefore, that the advance notice given must be more than,
  "such period as may be prescribed".
  On a related matter, the 1991 Act lists those persons who must be notified of forthcoming restrictions. At present that is limited to a relatively small range of bodies such as bridge, transport and sewer authorities. Again, on the working group's recommendation, we believe that added flexibility would be sensible here to prescribe certain other persons who should be notified—for instance those persons living in, or I hose persons based in, the street where the restriction is to be introduced, and who might also wish to ask for work to be carried out before the restriction takes effect. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Evans of Temple Golfing Lord Evans of Temple Golfing moved Amendment No. 111AG:
  Page 25, line 13, at end insert—
  "() In subsection (3) after paragraph (e) there is inserted "and (f) any other person of a prescribed description:" (and the word "and" after paragraph (d) is omitted)."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 49, as amended, agreed to. Clause 50 agreed to.
  Schedule 4 [Schedule 3A to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991]:
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 111B:
  Page 66, line 20, after "authority;" insert—
  "() where no reasonable alternative method exists for the connection of a customer to a utility;"
  The noble Lord said: The intention of the amendment is simply to tease out the Government's intention with regard to this part of the Bill. If a number of existing utilities are planning ahead and are told that the street will be off-limits, they need to know

  GC 155
  for what period that will be the case—will it be six months, a year or two years, for example? In that way, they can bring forward plans that they have for particular developments under that road, the work all gets done in a nice and co-ordinated way and the street stays clean and pristine for whatever period the Government intend.
  Let us suppose, however, that under that road we have the trunk for one of the new broadband providers, and a major customer half a mile away wants to contract with that provider for the provision of broadband services, which would require a fibre-optic cable to be put in from the trunk to his premises. Is the customer to be told that that cannot be done for two years because the street has just been polished? In that case, presumably, the customer would go off to BT, which has an existing trunk running up the required street. Will special provision be made for the eventuality, because there does not appear to be any arrangement here for anyone to be exempted unless by the good will of the local authority, which may care more for its street than the competitive difference between BT and some other provider in the provision of broadband services? I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: The amendment relates to paragraph 5 of the schedule, sub-paragraph (1) of which refers to paragraph 4, which refers to the direction restricting further works. The start of that paragraph gives the local authority power to restrict works in the street. Can the Minister give us some idea of how often that happens? Does it happen now, under the 1991 Act? Is it something that the Government expect to happen often? Is it meant for major trunk roads or can it be for minor roads? Are there any parameters, and will there be guidance on how the legislation is to be used, or will it be done by regulations?
  On the particular point made by my noble friend in his amendment, should there be a restriction? What happens to someone who needs to get connected? Has that happened, and what do they do about it? Is there any process by which they can go along and plead their case, if it is an important matter? I should like a little clarity on the effect of paragraph 5.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 111B would add customer connections, where no reasonable alternative method of carrying them out existed, to the list of types of works which could be carried out in a particular street, even where a highway authority had placed a restriction on any further works being carried out in that street for a period. In fact, paragraph 5(2)(c) of new Schedule 3A already allows regulations to prescribe other types of work that could be carried out during a restriction period. However— and this is the important aspect—we have charged the working group of utilities and local authorities looking at the detailed arrangements for introducing the new powers to consider what exemptions should be allowed for.
  GC 156
  All of us with common sense can work out that, with the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, of the fibre-optic cable, it would be absolutely potty to restrict access to repairing it in order to give back to everyone in the street their access to broadband. So, for instance, the regulations governing the equivalent powers allowing highway authorities to restrict street works after substantial road works set out exemptions for, among other things, urgent works and customer connections which it was not practicable to carry out before the restriction began.
  As yet we have not decided what exemptions it would be sensible to allow for in relation to the new power, and I am sure that the House would agree that it is sensible to retain the flexibility for which the Bill provides. The power is likely to apply to major roads only. As I said, the regulations will be able to exempt certain work, and the working group is considering what the exemptions should be. Given that we could all describe what we see as the right sort of exemptions, I am sure that the working group will come up with exemptions that will satisfy Members of the Committee.
  In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Lucas: Yes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to.
  Clause 53 [Power of street authority to require undertaker to re-surface street]:
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 111C:
  Page 27, line 7, leave out from "to" to end of line 8 and insert—
  "(a) execute such re-surfacing works in the street as may be specified, or
  (b) make a specified financial contribution to the cost of future resurfacing works."
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 111D and 111E.
  I do not place any particular importance on the drafting of these amendments. I am aiming to provide an illustration of what might be done to provide certainty to a utility or someone else digging holes in the road as to what their liability will be. If a connection is being put in for a customer, the company will want to charge the customer at the time, or ask the customer to bear the cost at the time of the works being done to make the connection. The company will not want to discover, five years down the line, that it suddenly has a bill for several thousand pounds from a local authority that has just decided to resurface the roads and has made a note that the company was party to damaging them.
  That is not the sort of basis on which we can ask commercial concerns to operate. We ought to offer certainty, and there is no reason why it should not be a fairly generous certainty in terms of the contributions being made. It should be specified in some way so that a company knows how much a disruption to 100 yards

  GC 157
  of street will cost it for resurfacing. The payment should be made or provided for on day one, so that the company can charge its customer or bill it to its own expenses, as it chooses. It should not be left with some unspecified liability hanging over it that its auditors will not know how to deal with in the accounts and that might amount to several times what the company expected, several years in the future. We should not impose that on utilities. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: I am not sure whether I agree with my noble friend's amendment as regards its effect on Clause 53. However, it raises an important issue that we must consider.
  Clauses 53 and 54 give local authorities the opportunity to require utilities to either undertake or pay towards the cost of resurfacing the whole or part of a road, over and above their current statutory requirement to reinstate the area that they have excavated to a required standard. Clauses 53 to 55 provide for local authorities to require utilities to undertake or pay towards the cost of resurfacing some or all of a road at any time in the future. That is over and above their statutory duty to reinstate the area that they have excavated to the required standard.
  Giving local authorities the ability to require utilities to carry out such works either immediately after they have undertaken the works or at any time in the future—that is the important aspect—could have a detrimental effect on utilities' operational planning and effectiveness. They will not know when or where they will be required to undertake such works.
  Alternatively, local authorities can ask for a contribution at any time to the cost of full or half-width reinstatement undertaken by the authority itself, another utility or a contractor. The complexity of those costs and of calculating what each utility and the local authority might contribute could make the proposals unworkable, as there are so many variables—for example, the current state of the road, its composition and the surrounding ground conditions; the type and number of vehicular movements on the road, whether cars or heavy lorries; the number, type and scale of excavations; and at what point the decision is triggered to resurface the road.
  Such requirements will introduce regulatory and balance-sheet uncertainty, as utilities will be unable to assess when such costs may be due and how much they might be. They may have to add sums to their balance sheet without really understanding what their liabilities might be.
  There is a perception that these requirements could allow local authorities to get their roads resurfaced on the cheap at the expense of utilities. Resurfacing a larger proportion of the road than necessary will require lengthier and greater occupation of the road, causing more congestion not less. Of course we consider that a utility should be required to undertake to repair a road to the state in which it found it. But it is important that the local authority can use the requirement of reinstatement to put an unfair burden
  GC 158
  on utilities, as ultimately those costs will be passed on to the consumer. That is why I support the thrust of my noble friend's amendment.
  Lord Berkeley: The noble Lords who spoke gave good arguments about the difficulties involved. However, when water, gas, electricity and telecom apparatus runs along the same road, it will need to be resurfaced each time it is dug up. When local authorities come to carry out such works, drainage is the responsibility of the drainage authority but it is the local authority that installs gullies. I do not know where the difference lies, because gullies are usually installed at the highest point of the road so that there is a good flood. When the utilities reinstate a road after digging a hole, the result is usually a nice hump, causing yet further holes.
  There is a minefield of problems. I hope that my noble friend has some solutions or that the working parties will produce one, because I envisage endless legal actions between different authorities and not much work being done on the ground. I hope that I am wrong.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am sure that we all know situations where a street has been dug up over several years by a succession of undertakers and as a result looks very unsightly. My noble friend Lord Berkeley has given us a very graphic picture of such roads. As well as the visual effect, even if individual works are carried out well, such a succession of works can adversely affect the longevity of the road structure, especially with the increased risk of water getting into the foundations.
  Furthermore, a series of trenches can lead to a very uneven road surface, which makes it uncomfortable, and possibly even dangerous, for cyclists and motorcyclists. As we have heard, several Members of the Committee are keen to ensure that the interests of road users on two wheels are kept in mind. I remember in particular my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, who is not with us today. In such circumstances it is only right that those who have caused such effects should contribute towards the cost of rectifying them. Clause 53, along with Clauses 54 and 55, provides powers to achieve that.
  The circumstances in which a street authority will be able to require an undertaker to resurface all or part of a street will be prescribed in regulations. We do not intend that that will be widespread but that it will be used where problems are serious. To be covered by this requirement, such an undertaker would have to have carried out works within a period that may be prescribed in regulations, to be currently carrying out works, or to have given notice that it intends to carry out works.
  Amendments Nos. 111C to 111E would fundamentally change that position. In particular, Amendment 111D would exclude undertakers who had previously carried out works in the street in question and those currently carrying out works. That is not fair either to the undertakers who are covered or to the authority, which would have to pick up much more of the cost of resurfacing.
  Amendments 111C and 111E would also give the undertakers the option of paying a contribution, to be prescribed, towards future resurfacing. That does not fit

  GC 159
  with the purpose of the clauses. The trigger for resurfacing will be that there is a problem now. It is not provision for future resurfacing that is needed but resurfacing now or when the current or planned works are finished. Clause 54 already provides for circumstances to be prescribed when an undertaker can decide not to do the resurfacing itself but instead pay a sum of money to the authority. Thus the principle of choice behind the amendment is already in the Bill but in the context of an imminent need to resurface rather than some future need.
  I hope that, with that explanation, and with the reassurance that the regulations and guidance will be the subject of discussions and consultation with utilities and authorities, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
  I wish to respond to at least two of the questions raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I was asked about the uncertainty of some utilities and companies about whether they might incur costs some years later. It is right that utilities that damage the road should contribute to its resurfacing. We do not intend that that power will be invoked frequently, so the costs should not be unreasonable. It is not a means for local authorities to do their resurfacing on the cheap, if that thought occurred to any Members of the Committee.
  In response to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that utilities may have to carry a liability on their balance sheet for many years, regulations can limit how long a utility can be liable to pay a contribution for a particular works—for example, they cannot be asked to pay more than five years after the works took place.
  I hope that in the light of those explanations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Viscount Astor: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, may I say to the Minister that his response was helpful in principle but it concerns me that areas here will cause us difficulty. At one point he gave me great comfort when he said that resurfacing would be a requirement given at the beginning of the process or while the utility is doing the work. When he finished he then said that regulations may prescribe that it might be five years before it has to be done. The important point is when they will know. It is crucial to the utilities that, if they are expected to do a resurfacing, whether in one year, three years or whatever, they know when they are doing the original work that they will have to do it. It does not seem to be right that the utility could do the work, think that it had done it satisfactorily—there would be no reason for it to assume that it had not—and then someone comes along later and says that the road must be resurfaced. That is the point. I do not think that the Government intend this. I hope that the regulations will be able to deal with that point and that the Minister will be able to give me some comfort on that.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that I can reassure the noble Viscount that the local authority will know that the road needs to be resurfaced only
  GC 160
  when the conditions I described earlier are triggered. That is the first point. The second point is that this will be prescribed in regulations and it will be fair. It will not happen that a local authority will say to a utility, "Resurface this road because it is unsightly and you were working on it 10 years ago". I hope that when the draft regulations are available the noble Viscount will be reassured on that point.
  Lord Lucas: I hope that we will see these draft regulations before Report because the Minister said very little that I found comforting. As the Minister describes it, the situation is that at some point a road will clearly need resurfacing, at which point, under rather unspecified circumstances, it may be decided that utilities should bear a share. I would like some clarity, even an outline, of the Government's thinking on the circumstances in which a road will trigger this charge-back on utilities that have previously worked on the road. The Minister said a limit of five years. Is that what it will be? That would be helpful. He said that it will not be many roads. What will the main restrictions be? I do not require this answer today but I would like it in writing before Report because it will be a problem. Imagine if the Mayor of London were to operate congestion charging in this way: he would put cameras up around London and in five years' time he would say, "I am going to resurface Oxford Street. Any car using Oxford Street will pay me £5 for every time it has used it in the past five years". People would not be pleased suddenly to discover that they have a bill for £10,000 because they had been up and down Oxford Street and had not realised when they did it that it would require resurfacing.
  There must be some certainty in these matters. A utility that does something to the road must know that it is likely to have to provide part of the cost of resurfacing it or that it is unlikely. The cost of resurfacing a road, even a fifth share, if that is what it turns out to be, may be several times the cost of the installation that the utility made to a customer's premises. These are very large sums of money that could entirely alter the commerciality of a particular connection. It would be extremely hard to get it back from the customer and will be extremely hard to provide for properly on balance sheets. Unless there is a very clear limitation, this could cumulatively have a significant effect on the viability of a commercial concern. All companies do not have balance sheets like BT. We must have more certainty on this before we come to Report. I hope that the Minister will be able to write to me.
  5.45 p.m
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The noble Lord. Lord Lucas, raised some very interesting and reasonable points. I undertake to write to him well before Report, giving him, I hope, assurances that will satisfy him.
  Lord Lucas: I, too, hope so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 111D and 111E not moved.]
  Clause 53 agreed to.
  Clause 54 [Re-surfacing: regulations and guidance]:
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 111F:
  Page 29, line 4, at end insert—
  "() specify that road markings or surface materials which indicate the presence of a bus lane, cycle lane, cycle track or waymarked cycle route should be reinstated on a "like-for-like" basis;"
  The noble Lord said: I shall speak to Amendment No. 111F briefly. I believe that the resurfacing regulations must include the need to ensure that road markings and surface materials are replaced at least on a "like-for-like" basis, so that bus lanes, cycle lanes, cycle tracks and so forth should be reinstated. Road markings and surface materials are usually part of the legal requirements and signs on a road that give confidence to cyclists, motorcyclists, road users and pedestrians. I believe that if they are not there, that would be highly dangerous.
  There is slight worry that, with an incentive to carry out street works more quickly in order to reduce congestion for cars or motorbikes, corners might be cut. This is just a suggestion that the regulations should specify that suitable road markings and surface materials are put down quickly after the work is completed. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 111F would write into the Bill a requirement that the regulations may in particular specify that all road markings and surfacing materials for bus and cycle facilities should be reinstated like-for-like when the resurfacing powers are invoked.
  I can understand that the noble Lord wishes to ensure that where specific provision has been made for buses or cyclists, that is not lost when resurfacing is carried out under the new powers in Clauses 53 to 55 of the Bill. I am entirely in agreement with that intent.
  As with existing requirements under the New Roads and Street Works Act for the reinstatement of utilities excavations, the intention is that there should normally be like-for-like resurfacing. That would include any special surface treatments and the replacement of road markings. That would apply to pedestrian crossings, to road markings generally and not just to those associated with bus and cycle facilities. To single out buses and cycles in the Bill would therefore be inappropriate.
  The regulations and guidance will of course be subject to discussion and consultation with all the interested parties. Bus and cycle interests will be able to have their say. I hope therefore that with that reassurance the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am not terribly reassured. As a member of a local authority and someone who works with a number of others, it is often the case that utilities do not replace the white lines, nor do they replace or render completely usable surfaces that have been put in at significant public cost. This brings to mind the point
  GC 162
  made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is no longer in his place. He spoke about the reasonable costs for reinstating roads and who should pay. Put simply, when reinstatement has to be done, someone has to pay for it. Therefore, the debate is whether it is fairer for the wider public purse to pay for it through council tax or whether the individual customer should pay via utility bills.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I am partly comforted by what my noble friend said. I would refer him—as I will many more times—to this lovely book called, The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. 2002, which gives all the pictures. Noble Lords can obtain it from the Printed Paper Office if they want some bedtime reading. The key is that it has got colours, all the rules and both road markings and traffic signs. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that these should be reinstated on a like-for-like basis. With those comments, I shall read carefully what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 54 agreed to.
  Clause 55 agreed to.
  Clause 56 [Inspections]:
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 112:
  Page 30, line 40, at end insert—
  "() Guidance under this section shall provide for the funding of inspections by fees and permits to defray costs."
  The noble Lord said: I do not think that we have touched on this issue, but I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to it. In fixing fees and permits, I should like the Government to have regard to the costs to local authorities of issuing these permits, but, more particularly, the costs that would be necessary to carry out the inspections required under the legislation.
  Currently, local authorities have few, generally badly paid people to inspect roadworks. They have a duty to inspect all roadworks, report any defects and have them made good. However, the people who go around and inspect utility works are very lowly paid officials. As such, those officials would be open to bribery. They are people who are paid very little money in the hierarchy of local government.
  I am sure that all Members of the Committee have heard about people who look after building control and the enforcement of planning regulations and the little amount of that that is done. They may have heard how people have often said, "He must know someone who is a building inspector or a planning inspector. They must be in his pocket rather than the local authority's pocket".
  It is important that when we have a perfect system of inspecting street works, the people responsible for carrying out those regulations are properly informed about what is going on. They should not find out what is going on so long after the event that it does not matter. Inspectorates should be staffed by people who are adequately paid and motivated to do the job properly. In a moment, I shall turn to the issue of the people who enforce environmental controls.
  The fines that are levied on people whose vehicles flout the omissions controls are so low that local authorities cannot afford to enforce the regulations. They cannot afford to pay the environmental health officers whose job it is to enforce the regulations, and the Government give no help. The same will apply to the people whose job it will be to inspect street works, unless they are adequately trained and adequately paid. I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort on this matter. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: I am a bit perplexed by this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. He said that the inspectors should be adequately paid. Presumably, they would be part of the pay scheme within a local authority budget and standard. It seems to me that the matter should be dealt with on that basis. In Amendment No. 112 the words,
  "shall provide for the funding of inspections by fees and permits"
  also confuse me. It is difficult to know who will pay that and on what basis. I am a little confused about whether this will be an additional cost to the permit. Presumably, under the permit scheme that we discussed in earlier amendments, all local authorities will be able to charge reasonable and appropriate costs. It may be that I have not clearly understood the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but I am a little confused. No doubt the Minister will probably have an explanation that will give us a third alternative when looking at this issue.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: If I may assist the noble Viscount, the point here is that when the Government are setting the scale of charges and fees, we hope that they will take into account that part of the costs incurred by local authorities will be inspection of the reinstatement. If that is not taken into account, local authorities will simply not be able to afford to perform the inspection. In that case, much of this part of the Bill will be rendered useless.
  That has happened with other elements of government policy, especially, as we heard from my noble friend, with regard to emissions testing. Because they are cash-strapped, authorities have a choice between doing a particular piece of work or doing something else. They would rather that did not happen with inspection of reinstated roads.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As we have heard, the amendment would extend the power of the Secretary of State to make guidance for street authorities dealing with inspection of an undertaker's work. It would allow the guidance to provide that the inspections are funded by,
  "fees and permits to defray costs".
  Section 75 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 sets out certain rules covering inspection by highway authorities of individual street works. Those inspections are carried out to ensure that they meet the relevant national standards, such as quality and reinstatement.
  Section 75 also provides that:
  GC 164
  "An undertaker executing street works shall, subject to the provisions of any scheme under this section, pay to the street authority the prescribed fee in respect of each inspection of the works carried out by the authority".
  The amendment is therefore unnecessary, as there is already provision to cover the funding of inspection of utilities works through a scheme set under regulations. Regulations made under Section 75 of the 1991 Act already provide that a street authority can inspect up to 30 per cent of utilities' works and charge a fee of £21. They can inspect more than 30 per cent. but cannot charge a fee, although they can recover their costs from an undertaker if a reinstatement defect is found.
  Clause 36(5) allows for the level of permit fees to be set out in regulations. We have asked the working group, made up of representatives of utilities and local authorities, to consider whether those applying for a permit would need to pay a fee and, if so, at what level the fee should be set. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the spectre of bribery and corruption. We will draw the committee's attention to his point through Hansard, so that it can form part of the working group's considerations.
  The group will be considering whether part of the fee should cover the costs of ensuring that conditions of a permit are complied with. However, that will be a separate matter from ensuring that works are carried out according to national standards. There are already provisions to deal with the funding of such inspections. I hope that, in the light of my comments, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, I am pretty dissatisfied with it. He reiterated that the fee is £21. If someone is pretty conscientious and goes round by car to perform, say, 10 inspections a day and fills in the necessary forms, the fee will not even pay his wages for the day. What local authority can be expected to take on extra people, whose wages they cannot pay? Highway inspectors are the lowest in the hierarchy, yet we still cannot afford to pay their wages.
  That new sort of money —£21—does not constitute a reasonable amount. If you call out the gas man, or someone of that sort, someone to do a bit of plumbing, or something, he will charge at least £60 to come to your house, let alone to do any work.
  I would press the Minister very hard that fee levels should be adequate and should bear some comparison with the fee levels charged by other people who are called out to inspect other work. I do not expect profits to be made; I simply expect a reasonable sum of money to be raised so that local authorities can afford to pay people decent wages to do a decent job.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Before the noble Lord sits down, it may be helpful to him, when he argues that the £21 fee is too low, to know that that figure is based on a recent study and represents the average actual cost of an inspection.
  Lord Bradshaw: I note what the Minister says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 56 agreed to.
  Clause 57 [Strategic roads in London]:
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 113:
  Page 31, line 32, at end insert—
  "() Before exercising any of the powers conferred on him under this section, the Secretary of State shall first publish guidance setting out under what criteria he will designate a road as a strategic road under this section."
  The noble Lord said: We now turn to Part 5, which covers strategic roads in London and the initial designation by the Secretary of State.
  I am anxious that in London—this issue has been raised before—we ensure that the Secretary of State sets out guidance to ensure that we know which roads form the strategic road network. We have referred several times today to forthcoming guidance. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has said several times and has been reiterated by other Members of the Committee, it is difficult to guess what will be in the guidance when it comes. In many cases, it will arrive some time after the Bill is published.
  It is most important that the Secretary of State himself publishes guidance. In future amendments, we will turn to the issue of whether the Mayor of London, because he presides over a number of borough highway authorities, will be able to issue guidance in turn to those authorities, so that there is a hierarchy of guidance and some coherence of control over the strategic road network. I beg to move.
  Lord Rotherwick: I support the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on Amendments Nos. 113 and 114. As he said, the aim is to gain further clarification of the criteria that will be used to determine whether roads should be designated as strategic roads and, most importantly, the relationship between Transport for London and local authorities on the strategic issue.
  We are grateful for having been given yesterday a briefing on the development of strategic roads in London. As I understand it—I have probably got it wrong, because I am not very good at these things—a steering group has been established to advise the Minister but, as yet, it has not considered the definition and/or the criteria for strategic roads.
  As I also understand it, a consultation exercise is to take place after the mayoral elections in June that will last for another 12 weeks. I am bemused that the steering group has yet to consider the specific criteria, but must do so in the next four to six weeks and report back to the Minister. Maybe that is what they are doing, which is great news for us all because then the Minister can then come back to tell us what are the criteria. Can the Minister enlighten us on where the steering group is? Maybe it has moved on since yesterday and is about to consider the specific criteria, because I also understand that it now has the information that it needs to do that. If so, when will it be able to issue the guidance on the criteria to the Minister? Is my understanding of the timetable correct? Notwithstanding that, can the Minister also
  GC 166
  answer the second point, to which I alluded earlier, concerning the relationship between Transport for London and local authorities?
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Briefly, I support the amendments. It is important that there are clear criteria. If there are no criteria, selection of the roads would appear to be arbitrary. The criteria must be sufficiently broadly defined so that the unique nature of London's roads, which we discussed in Committee on Tuesday, is properly recognised and so that the purpose of strategic roads can be implemented to the full.
  Lord Berkeley: I also support the amendments. I have one question for my noble friend. Presumably, a strategic road is also a street. As we have been talking about traffic, which includes cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians, strategic cycle routes could also be included in that network. TfL has produced an interesting and useful book on the strategic cycle network for London. I should be interested in hearing my noble friend's views on that.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Before I speak to the amendment, I reiterate that there is a briefing paper on the table on the development of strategic roads in London which has been provided to assist the Committee in its consideration of Clauses 57 to 60.
  Amendment No. 113 amends Clause 57 so that before the Secretary of State uses his power to designate certain roads in London as strategic, he first issues guidance on the criteria for designating a road as such. Similarly, Amendment No. 114 amends Clause 58 so that the Greater London Authority must issue guidance on the criteria before designating a road as strategic. It is not intended that guidance will be issued on the initial designation of which roads will be strategic as the question of what will be considered strategic will be covered in the consultation document to be published prior to the Secretary of State exercising the power.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, mentioned that consultation, which is now taking place. Comments received will be taken into account before the Secretary of State makes his final decision on which roads should become strategic under Clause 57. The steering group has met twice already; the third meeting, which will be held shortly, will define a network. After June, when the work on that is finished, we will consult—not necessarily immediately after the election, but shortly after.
  Lord Rotherwick: Can the Minister tell us when the criteria will be published? I understand that the consultation will be conducted in June, so obviously the criteria must be set by then.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As I believe I said, there is no intention to publish criteria separately.
  Lord Rotherwick: It would help enormously if we could understand what are the criteria. I think that that is what the noble Lord is asking for and it is

  GC 167
  important that we should see them. Is there no chance of the Minister writing to us later with the criteria, in the light of our discussion?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The consultation will provide a list of possible routes and will seek views on those roads. Given the way the process is going, it will go out to consultation on the routes. A decision will then be made by the Secretary of State in the light of the feedback he gets from that consultation.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply. I think he now fully understands where we are coming from, and the fact that there is a need for this guidance. Since speaking earlier, I have obtained the paper issued yesterday, of which I was not aware. We await the publication of the guidance. I hesitate to repeat the word "shortly" because it has very unfortunate connotations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 57 agreed to.
  Clause 58 [Orders of the Greater London Authority changing what are strategic roads]:
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 114:
  Page 32, line 13, at end insert—
  "() Before exercising any of the powers conferred on it under this section, the Greater London Authority shall first publish guidance setting out under what criteria it will designate a road as a strategic road under this section."
  The noble Lord said: We can deal fairly quickly with Clause 58, which requires the Greater London Authority, Transport for London or the Mayor to publish guidance to set out the criteria for a road that is strategic. However, that can hardly be done until the national guidance is available. Under the previous amendment, we heard that that guidance will be available shortly. Therefore, in the light of that, it was somewhat premature to put down this amendment.
  [Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
  Clause 58 agreed to.
  Clause 59 [London borough council exercising powers under Highways Act 1980 so as to affect strategic roads]:
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 115:
  Page 33, line 3, at end insert—
  "() Under this section, the Greater London Authority shall not refuse consent to a London borough council that wishes to carry out works that may affect a road designated as a strategic road under section 57 or 58 of this Act unless it has first published criteria setting out on what grounds it will withhold such consent."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  Lord Rotherwick: I understand that Transport for London would have the power to refuse to allow any local authority works to take place on a strategic road where, for example, two adjacent boroughs were planning to undertake works on a major route at the same time. The Government have said that the aim of this provision is to try to ensure the more effective planning of works rather than to prevent them taking place. However, that is not made clear in the wording
  GC 168
  of the Bill and I feel that it is only fair, in following good governance, transparency and accountability, that Transport for London should have to publish the grounds on which it withholds consent.
  As drafted, the Bill only requires the borough to notify Transport for London or a neighbouring borough of any works it is planning. That may affect strategic roads. Given that the provisions of the Bill seek to reduce congestion through the more effective planning of works, it seems sensible to place a similar requirement on Transport for London to notify the borough of any works it is planning to undertake on the Transport for London road network that may affect the new strategic road network. This would help to ensure that boroughs could undertake advance planning to overcome any traffic displacement resulting from Transport for London's own planned works.
  There have been examples of situations where severe congestion has been caused on borough roads as a result of works on the Transport for London road network. One such example occurred in 2000 following the closure of two lanes on the A2 to allow works on a railway bridge at New Cross Gate. Those works were not preceded by any warning to the local authorities concerned. They caused severe congestion on the surrounding road network.
  In light of the arguments for good governance, transparency, accountability and practicality, I support these amendments.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I rise only because of the last remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. He referred to the case of the closure of lanes on the A2 at New Cross Gate. The matter was set out in the Association of London Government briefing which has been sent to a number of noble Lords. Unfortunately, it is very wide of the mark. I have been informed that Transport for London was told on 21 March 2001 that they had received notification from Railtrack that the New Cross Gate bridge had a zero-weight loading on the two outside traffic lanes. Someone from Transport for London briefed the head of Lewisham Transportation on 18 April 2001. Traffic counts were carried out by Lewisham Council, letters were sent out to local MPs, ward members, Lewisham officers and 5,000 residents in the same month. Some 30 advance warning signs were erected and a Lewisham Direct team was then appointed as a contractor by Transport for London to install barrier restrictions on the bridge.
  It is a pity that the ALG is putting out information that is quite clearly wrong and misleading. I am afraid that I oppose these amendments on the basis that they are far too restrictive. They would make it impossible for the concept of the strategic network to function properly.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: These amendments seek to amend Clauses 59 and 60 respectively so that the GLA must issue the criteria that it will use when withholding consent for a borough to carry out works

  GC 169
  on strategic roads. Transport for London can already prevent borough works which may affect GLA roads taking place under Section 301A of the Highways Act 1980 and Section 121B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Under these Acts, criteria describing when TfL might prevent works taking place are not required and so it would be inconsistent with these existing powers to produce criteria for TfL to prevent works on strategic roads.
  Amendment No. 117 inserts a new clause that intends that where TfL is carrying out works that may affect strategic roads, they should first inform the borough responsible for that strategic road. This amendment aims to achieve what is already covered by Section 59 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 where a street authority has a duty to co-ordinate with other street authorities where works in a street for which one authority is responsible affects streets for which other authorities are responsible.
  I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that response and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 59 agreed to.
  Clause 60 [London borough council exercising powers under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 so as to affect strategic roads]:
  [Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 not moved.]
  Clause 61 [Fixed penalty offences under the Highways Act 1980]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 117ZA:
  Page 34, line 11, at end insert—
  "() Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may—

  (a) make provision for Greater London different from that made for the rest of England;

  (b) make consequential provision (including provision disapplying sections 8 to 11 of, and Schedule 2 to, the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 in relation to any offence prescribed in such regulations);

  (c) make transitional provision."

  The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendments No. 117ZA, 117ZB, 117ZC and 128A is to deal with certain Highways Act 1980 offences which can become fixed penalty—FPN—offences under the Bill that are also covered under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
  Clause 61 inserts new Section 314A into the Highways Act, which allows for certain criminal offences under the Act to be subject to fixed penalty notices rather than automatic criminal prosecution. Schedule 5 of the Bill inserts new Schedule 22A into the Highways Act, which lists the offences that can be subject to FPNs. Some of those offences relate to skips and scaffolding on the highway and can also become FPN offences under Schedule 4 of the London Act.
  The relevant overlap offences, as listed in new Schedule 22A, refer to the following sections of the Highways Act: Section 139(3), which concerns offences relating to the depositing of a skip on the highway without permission; Section 139(4), which refers to offences relating to failing to light or mark a skip or not removing it as soon as practicable once it is filled, or not complying with any conditions attached to placing it in the street; and Section 169(5) which refers to offences relating to obstruction caused by the placing of scaffolding or similar structures on the highway.
  The Secretary of State has recently approved an application from the ALG that in London a number of FPN offences will be subject to a penalty of £ 100. That includes the overlap offences relating to skips and scaffolding. However, the Bill allows us to impose maximum penalty amounts of up to £300 for the skip offences and £1,500 for the scaffolding ones. A working group will be looking at appropriate amounts for the penalty, and we shall also be liasing with the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Setting the limits that high was intended to give us maximum flexibility, rather than as a statement of intent. However, the overlap presents a possible conflict of having two separate regimes for the same offences. Also there is the potential for the amounts of the overlap penalties in London to fall below those set outside London. The amendments give us flexibility to allow for different solutions to the possible conflict.
  Amendment No. 117ZA inserts a new subsection into new Section 314A of the Highways Act. It allows regulations to make provision in London different to that in the rest of England. That could mean that we introduced FPNs under the Bill only outside London and left the London system in operation. In effect, there would be two separate systems for the overlap FPNs. The amendment also allows that if regulations brought into effect FPNs under the Bill they could disapply the overlap London FPNs. In effect, that would replace them with FPNs under the Bill. Transitional provisions could be made to deal with any changes from one FPN system to another.
  Amendment No. 117ZB inserts a new subsection into Clause 61, which in turn inserts a new subsection into the London Act. This will give the Secretary of State a reserve power under that Act to make regulations to increase the rate of the overlap FPNs in London. It would be possible to make regulations as described above that could then apply the Bill's FPNs just outside London. Once such an increase had been made, it would not be possible for the London boroughs or Transport for London to set lower amounts for the penalties.
  Schedule 6 allows for regulations which provide further details of the FPNs under the Bill. Amendment No. 117ZC provides for regulations to make different provision for different areas. That could be used, for example, to set a higher amount for the penalties in London compared to elsewhere. Amendment No. 128A amends a typographical error in Schedule 12 of the Bill

  GC 171
  which repeals the financial provisions in the 2003 Act as far as they apply to the provisions relating to fixed penalty notices. It was not the intention to repeal these provisions.
  The amendments give us flexibility to address the possible conflicts that I have outlined. They are intended as reasonable safeguards which can be used depending on the proposed amounts for the overlap offences. As well as liasing with other government departments, we would consult ALG and TFL before implementing any solutions. I beg to move.
  Lord Astor: I thank the Minister for such a detailed and comprehensive explanation of his amendments. I struggled to keep up with it and I look forward to reading Hansard. However, since in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, he has shown such extraordinary ability this afternoon in dealing with the complexities of this clause and his amendments, I am sure that he will not mind if I ask him a couple of questions.
  The Minister explained that the amendments deal with Highways Act offences that can become fixed penalty offences under the Bill, and which are also covered under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. They relate to skips and scaffolding on the highway. The overlap of the Bill and the Act presents the problem of two separate regimes for the same offence. There is also a potential for the overlap to allow the levels of fixed penalty notices for London to fall below those set elsewhere. The Minister explained that the Bill allows the Government to impose a maximum fixed penalty of up to £300. But, if I heard him correctly, he said that this is for skip offences and that it is the intention of the Government to limit it to £100. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong. He said that there would be a maximum fine of £1,500 for scaffolding offences and explained that these are set as maximums to provide flexibility rather than as a statement of intent. I am surprised. Penalties are normally fixed by regulations rather than in a Bill. If the Government ever want to amend them, whether up or down, as they may well do, they could do so by regulation rather than in primary legislation. I wonder whether the Minister has considered that. Can he tell us whether the Government have consulted on this issue and whether they have done any form of cost-benefit analysis on whether those using or responsible for skips could afford such fines? If they have not, will there be consultation, and under what criteria?
  As the Minister said, the amendments give the Government the flexibility to allow for different solutions to the problem of overlap, so that they can disapply the overlap and replace it with one in this Bill or raise the level of London notices and apply the notices in this Bill only outside London. I am somewhat nervous of leaving this issue unresolved and to be dealt with by regulation. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that there will be a full consultation before implementing any of these solutions. It is important that we have an assurance that there will be full consultation with those involved
  GC 172
  before the Government use this flexibility to deal with the overlap. He gave me to understand that, but he will appreciate that his explanation of the amendments was somewhat lengthy. It would be helpful if he could deal with those few points.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I shall deal first with the question of consultation. As well as liaising with other government departments, we will consult with the ALG and TfL before implementing any of the solutions, although I gather that the consultation will be much wider than that. I can assure the noble Viscount that consultation is the order of the day. In addition, there will be a regulatory impact assessment.
  I will write on the other matters. On the particular point made by the noble Viscount, I do not think I said that the Secretary of State has recently approved an application from the ALG that in London a number of FPN offences should be subject to fines of £100, with fines of £300 for skip offences and £1,500 for scaffolding ones.
  I went on to say—and this is where the confusion starts and ends—that a working group should be looking into appropriate levels of penalty. We shall liaise with the Home Office on that. It is my understanding that this is an interim arrangement made by the Secretary of State after an application from the ALG and may be modified when the working group produces a solution. However, if that is an incorrect or inaccurate answer, I shall write to the noble Viscount.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 117ZB:
  Page 34, line 16, at end insert—
  "() In the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (c. iii), in section 11 (fixed penalties: reserve powers of Secretary of State) after subsection (6) there is inserted—
  "(7) The Secretary of State may make regulations increasing the level of fixed penalty under this Act in respect of an offence listed in Schedule 22A to the Highways Act 1980 (as well as Schedule 4 to this Act).
  (8) While regulations under subsection (7) are in force in respect of an offence, the borough councils and Transport for London may not set the level of fixed penalty in respect of that offence below that set by the regulations.""
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 5 agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Schedule 22B to the Highways Act 1980]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 117ZC:
  Page 70, line 21, leave out from "may" to end of line 22 and insert "—

  (a) make different provision (including provision prescribing the amount of the penalty or the discounted amount) for different purposes or areas;

  (b) make consequential or transitional provision."

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.
  Clause 64 [Builders' skips: charge determined by reference to duration of occupation of highway]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 117ZD:
  Page 37, leave out lines 17 to 21.
  The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 117ZE, 117ZF and 117ZG in the group. These are minor amendments relating to placing builders' skips, scaffolding or similar items in the street.
  Amendments Nos. 117ZD and 117ZE remove an ambiguity in the language of the provision made under the Bill for two different charging regimes: one to charge the owners of skips where the period they occupy the road exceeds an agreed period; and a second to charge them for the entire period that the skip occupies the road. This applies to the power for regulations to prescribe different charges according to different circumstances—such as what proportion of the road the skip occupies, and provides that this applies consistently to both charging schemes.
  Amendments Nos. 117ZF and 117ZG simply remove an inconsistency in the language of the provision relating to charges imposed where the period for which scaffolding, building materials or temporary minor excavations occupy the road for longer than an agreed period by inserting the terms "relevant period" and -relevant structure" which are used elsewhere in the clause. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: I understand what the noble Lord has said about the latter part of his amendments, but Amendment No. 117ZD removes subsection (d) of Clause 64 which states:
  "The regulations may prescribe different rates of charge according to —

  (a) the extent to which the skip occupies the highway;

  (b) the place and time of the occupation;

  (c) such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant".

  Is the noble Lord saying that it is otiose because it can be dealt with elsewhere in the Bill? I am not entirely clear about the position. However, I am happy for the Minister to write to me if that would be more convenient.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The brief answer is that the subsection is not necessary because the provisions are covered in another part of the Bill.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps he will write to me before we reach the Report stage to explain where the point is covered. I do not need to know now, but that would be helpful for the next stage.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 117ZE:
  Page 37, line 25, leave out "(9)" and insert "(8)"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Scaffolding, building materials and excavations: charge for occupation of highway for unreasonable period]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendments Nos. 117ZF and 117ZG:
  Page 38, line 5, leave out first "the" and insert "a relevant"
  Page 38, line 42, leave out from first "the" to end of line 43 and insert "relevant period"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 66 to 69 agreed to.
  Clause 70 [Contraventions subject to civil enforcement]:
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 117A:
  Page 42, line 23, at end insert—
  "() cycle lane and cycle track contraventions:"
  The noble Lord said: We have moved on to Part 6 dealing with civil enforcement. In moving Amendment No. 117A, for the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 118A and 118B.
  Subsection (2) lists four categories of road traffic contraventions subject to civil enforcement. They cover various kinds of parking, bus lanes, London lorry lane bans and moving traffic contraventions set out in Schedule 7. Bus lanes are specifically identified, but no reference is made to cycle facilities. During the various Commons debates on Schedule 7, an assurance was given that this provision would cover some cycle lane and cycle track contraventions. Since then, however, more detailed investigations have revealed various anomalies in cycle and other facilities.
  For example, parking on cycle tracks would be subject to decriminalised enforcement, but not parking on segregated cycle lanes. Drivers stopping within the limits of zebra, pelican and puffin crossings would face penalty notices, but not for stopping on toucan, single-cycle or pedestrian crossings. Driving a moped—the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, will tell us exactly what kind of vehicle that is—through an alleyway with a "no motor vehicles" sign would attract a penalty notice, but not if it was signed with a shared separated pedestrian and cycle route. Moreover, drivers proceeding the wrong way along a one-way street with a cycle contraflow lane could not face a penalty notice for the one-way traffic scheme enforcement. I could cite several more instances.
  The amendments seek to bring cycling provision contravenions up to the same level as contraventions in bus lanes. I hope that my noble friend will agree that it is just as important to ensure that fixed penalties can be issued to people contravening rules ensuring the safety of cyclists as they can for those which prevent bus delays.
  The amendments cover the detail in a new Part 2A in Schedule 7. However, I have not been able to reproduce with my amendments copies of all the

  GC 175
  coloured signs for reference. I will be able to do so upstairs if I can locate a colour photocopier. But the signage is listed in the amendments and is reasonably self-explanatory. With that short explanation, I beg to move.
  Lord Rotherwick: I support sympathetic policing; that is where I am coming from. Cyclists are very important, and I could not agree more with the noble Lord that drivers should be policed on parking in areas where their vehicles can cause serious problems to a cyclist; for example, on a bicycle way. As a bicyclist and a motorcyclist I know that cyclists receive considerable goodwill from cars. It would worry me considerably if cars and the like were persecuted in a draconian way that set them against cyclists. I therefore suggest that any such provisions should be sympathetic.
  Bicyclists do a very good job at jumping red lights and abusing other road regulations. Is the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, suggesting that policing should go both ways? If bicyclists have these great privileges, should they not go with balanced policing of their responsibilities? I am not sure whether the noble Lord is opening a can of worms that could backfire on bicyclists. I support the noble Lord in principle but raise a flag of caution.
  Viscount Simon: Diagrams 1043 and 1044 in the Statutory Instrument show the box-junction markings. At Second Reading, I expressed suspicion that the markings shown do not cover roundabouts, which would mean that civil enforcement could not take place on roundabouts. I am not certain whether that is right, but if they can be part of it, the table could of course be used.
  Lord Berkeley: I agree entirely with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. Cyclists should not be above the law. They should obey traffic lights and comply with other road signals. If a way can be found to penalise them with a fixed penalty, that would be entirely fair. Similarly, however, one must respect the fact that motorcyclists, cyclists and moped riders are more vulnerable on the outside than cars. The green boxes or advance stop signs at traffic lights have been very successful. They are used illegally by motorcyclists also, but I would not object to that, because at least the motorist sees people.
  I tabled the amendments to open a discussion. I would be very pleased if I could have a discussion with my noble friend before Report, as I have probably got some of the numbers or letters wrong. In addition, noble Lords may have other ideas to contribute. It is important to recognise and to clarify, if necessary, some of the anomalies that I mentioned.
  Lord Rotherwick: The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has an incredibly interesting bedside reading book with him. I do not have it. I do not mind whether it is in black and white or colour, but we would love to see the drawings in his book.
  Green cyclist boxes and lanes are not working very well in London. A number of them, particularly one on the Embankment that was drawn on the pavement at
  GC 176
  extreme expense, are never used by bicyclists. It does not matter whether the boxes in front of traffic lights are green or less expensively painted; they are used in the same way. Some thought on the issue is needed.
  Lord Berkeley: We could carry on this discussion for a long time. The book is available in the Printed Paper Office in full colour.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: There are two documents available to noble Lords. One is headed "Civil Enforcement of Traffic Offences (Completely New Enforcement Powers Provided in the Bill Are Highlighted)". The document, which will be handed out, outlines the new offences. We then have the pictures, referred to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, of traffic signs subject to civil enforcement under Part 4 of Schedule 7. The documents are now available for all Members of the Committee.
  I start by dealing with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Simon. He said that box junctions did not cover roundabouts. The traffic sign regulations explicitly acknowledge that box junctions can be used at roundabouts. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend.
  The overall purpose of the amendment is to make driving in a cycle lane or on a cycle track an offence subject to civil enforcement. Parking in cycle lanes bounded by a solid white line, known as mandatory cycle lanes, will often amount to the enforceable contravention of a traffic regulation order made under Sections 1, 6 or 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Parking on advisory cycle lanes marked with broken white lines is not enforceable.
  Part 6 of the Bill provides for the civil enforcement of parking restrictions on cycle lanes and therefore addresses the main complaint of cyclists—vehicles parking in cycle lanes forcing them to move out into the main flow of traffic, from which cycle lanes are designed to segregate them.
  Parking in a mandatory cycle lane is likely to be an offence under Section 5, 8 or 11 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and will therefore be subject to civil enforcement by virtue of paragraphs 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(b) of Schedule 7. Parking on a cycle track, an offence under Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, is also subject to civil enforcement under the Bill by virtue of paragraphs 3(2)(g) and 4(2)(h) of Schedule 7.
  Driving on a route for use by buses and pedal cycles only is one of the moving vehicle contraventions caught under the provisions of Part 4 of Schedule 7. The signs listed in Part 4 mirror those listed in Schedule 3 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
  Amendment No. 118B suggests the addition of a number of other signs to the list in Part 4 that would enable civil enforcement of contraventions of routes or lanes provided to benefit cyclists. I should point out that it is intended that enforcement of traffic signals should remain a matter for the police. It is important that the enforcement of advance cycle stop lines

  GC 177
  remains with the police because of the difficult judgment calls often raised. For example, sometimes a driver may be faced with the choice to continue over a junction or to stop, but only after they have inevitably moved into the cycle reservoir between stop lines. The driver who accelerates to clear the junction may cause a greater danger, but it may be the driver who brakes and decreases his speed who is caught by camera going over the first stop line on red. In such a situation, camera enforcement without appropriate analysis and discretion may have an adverse road safety impact.
  The powers to enforce moving traffic contraventions in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 have not yet been used in practice. Their use will be piloted by six London boroughs, including Camden and Hammersmith and Fulham, for Traffic for London. The pilot is due to begin in June.
  Against that background, our initial inclination was to gather some experience of the civil enforcement of moving traffic contraventions before expanding the lists of signs that can be enforced. However, I have listened carefully to my noble friend and would like to consider further the case for adding now to Part 4 of Schedule 7 signs that would enable the civil enforcement of the contravention of driving in a mandatory cycle lane. On that understanding, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that very detailed response, which I shall have to read because I cannot remember all the references. In particular, I am grateful to him for his last assurance. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 70 agreed to.
  Schedule 7 [Road traffic contraventions subject to civil enforcement]:
  Viscount Astor Viscount Astor had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 118:
  Page 70, line 27, at end insert—

  CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC CONTRAVENTIONS

    Civil enforcement of traffic contraventions
    1 (1) The appropriate national authority may issue guidance to any local authority undertaking civil enforcement powers under Part 6 of this Act or the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (c. iii) about any matter relating to the exercise by it of any power to impose civil penalties for road traffic contraventions.
    (2) In exercising their powers of civil enforcement of traffic contraventions a local authority shall have regard to guidance under this section."
    The noble Viscount said: The Government have introduced Amendment No. 124, which deals with the issues in Amendment No. 118. I have a considerable speech to make—my rant on behalf of the British motorist and his great fight-back. However, bearing in mind the time, it is best that I leave my speech for when we deal with the government amendments.
    [Amendment No. 118 not moved. ]
    [Amendments Nos. I I8A and 118B not moved.]
    Schedule 7 agreed to.
    Clause 71 agreed to.
    Schedule 8 agreed to.
    Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday 4 May at 3.30 p.m. I hope that everybody has a very nice weekend.
    The Committee adjourned at nine minutes before seven o'clock.

  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Regulations: Cost to Business
  Regulations: Cost to Business
  Gas Oil Bowsers
  Gas Oil Bowsers
  Single Railway Track: South-west
  Single Railway Track: South-west
  Mentally Incapacitated Patients: Artificial Nutrition and Hydration
  Mentally Incapacitated Patients: Artificial Nutrition and Hydration
  Foot and Mouth: Fraud Offences
  Foot and Mouth: Fraud Offences
  Apples: UK Production
  Apples: UK Production
  Rural Delivery Review
  Rural Delivery Review
  Animal Welfare Bill
  Animal Welfare Bill
  Local Environments: "Spring Cleans"
  Local Environments: "Spring Cleans"

  International Development Association
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the following Statement.

  In 2002, the UK agreed to contribute £900 million to the 13th replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA), the World Bank's concessional lending arm which is designed to meet the needs of the world's poorest countries. In addition to this contribution, the UK set aside another £100 million to be provided on condition that a satisfactory framework was agreed to compensate the IDA for the costs of introducing grants under its 13th replenishment (IDA 13). Both the initial £900 million contribution and the additional provisional contribution of £100 million were approved by Parliament on 3 December 2002.

  I am pleased to announce that a satisfactory framework for compensating IDA 13 for the introduction of grants has now been agreed. Under this framework, donors will compensate IDA upfront for the administrative costs associated with providing grants. through making additional contributions to the next replenishment (IDA 14). (These are costs which arise early in the project cycle and, in the case of loans, would be covered by recipient countries.) Meanwhile, donors will compensate for the lost reflows from recipient countries as and when these would have fallen due. Given the 10-year grace period provided under IDA on repayment of loans, this would not have happened until 2013 at the earliest. Compensation payments will not therefore be required until this time, and the exact means of compensation will be discussed as part of future IDA replenishments.

  An essential and fundamental principle of the agreed grants compensation framework is that donors should contribute to the cost of compensation in line with their share of IDA 13 (their "burden share"). If the UK were to contribute the full £100 million set aside to cover the costs of upfront compensation, we would effectively displace the contributions of other donors. We have therefore decided to cover both our burden share under IDA 13, and the structural financing gap inherent in this replenishment (equivalent to 9.37 per cent of total resource needs from donors), making a total UK contribution for upfront IDA 13 grants compensation of £64.8 million.

  Northern Ireland Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended by the Boundary Commissions Act 1992 requires that the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland undertake periodical reviews of constituencies in Northern Ireland. The commission is required to submit a report to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland not less than eight or more than 12 years from its last report. The present review commenced on 16 May 2003.

  The commission is announcing its provisional recommendations for constituencies in Northern Ireland today. The proposals are to be made available for public inspection at district council headquarters and electoral offices, public libraries and the offices of the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Commission to coincide with the formal publication of the provisional recommendations on 6 May. The commission is required to take into consideration any representations made within one month of publication of the proposals.

  I will, of course, report back to Parliament once the commission has made its final recommendations.

  Department for International Development: Departmental Report 2004
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development is today laying before Parliament copies of the Department for International Development's departmental report 2004.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has, in accordance with Section 7A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 as amended by Section 53 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, extended the remit of work that may be undertaken by Crown Prosecution Service designated caseworkers.

  Designated caseworkers are now permitted to undertake all work in the magistrates' court other than: trials; proofs in absence in either-way cases; committals and sendings; pre-trial reviews; Newton hearings; contested bail hearings.

  The extended remit of designated caseworkers will enhance the role of the designated caseworker and enable more effective court listing. It will also support the effective delivery by the Crown Prosecution Service of pre-charge advice.
  WS 39
  A designated caseworker will not be permitted to undertake the extended remit until successfully completing a training programme and receiving a personal letter of appointment from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  The following documents will be lodged in the Libraries of Parliament:

  The extended remit of Crown Prosecution Service designated caseworkers.

  The governance scheme for Crown Prosecution Service designated caseworkers, which sets out the supervision arrangements.

  The statement of ethical principles for Crown Prosecution Service designated caseworkers.

  Iran: Export Licence
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  The Government have issued an open licence for the export to Iran of goods that will be listed in the United Kingdom strategic export controls annual report as "components for military aero engines". The goods will be used by the oil and gas industry to overhaul turbines that power pumps for oil and gas pipelines. The goods are military listed because they were originally designed and used for military aircraft engines. In this instance, the Government are satisfied that there is a minimal risk of diversion to a military end use and are prepared to make an exception to the UK national arms embargo. Other aspects of the application were considered against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  Immigration Rules
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  I have today laid before the House a statement of changes to the immigration rules. From 1 May 2004, as a result of the accession of 10 new states to the European Union, nationals of those EU accession states will not require immigration leave to enter or stay in the UK. Consequently it is necessary to remove all references to the individual EU accession states in the immigration rules with effect from the date of accession.

  We have also decided to amend the European Economic Area (EEA) national settlement requirements to enable those currently in immigration categories leading to settlement to aggregate time spent here under the immigration rules with that as an EEA national in the UK when making an application to settle. This ensures that new EU nationals will not have to spend a longer time in the UK to qualify for settlement than they would if accession had not occurred. This mirrors the practice followed in previous accessions.

  Zahid Mubarek: Public Inquiry
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Today my right honourable friend the Home Secretary (David Blunkett) announced that, in line with the House of Lords judgment on 16 October 2003, he has established a public inquiry into the murder of Zahid Mubarek at Feltham Young Offender Institution in March 2000. The honourable Mr Justice Keith will chair the inquiry; he will be assisted by three expert advisors who will provide advice and support to the inquiry on matters relating to race, prison operations and issues affecting prisoners. The inquiry will start immediately with the following terms of reference:

  In the light of the House of Lords judgment in the case of Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Amin, to investigate and report to the Home Secretary on the death of Zahid Mubarek, and the events leading up to the attack on him, and make recommendations about the prevention of such attacks in the future, taking into account the investigations that have already taken place—in particular, those by the Prison Service and the Commission for Racial Equality.

  A report of the inquiry, subject to matters of confidentiality, will be published.

  Food Standards Agency: Departmental Report Spring 2004
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health (Miss Johnson) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  The Food Standards Agency's departmental report spring 2004, Cm 6205 was laid before Parliament today.

  Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Department of Health: Annual Report 2004
  Lord Warner
  The department's annual report for 2004, Cm 6204, was laid before Parliament today.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  United Kingdom Hydrographic Office: Key Targets 2004–05
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  WS 41
  Key targets have been set for the chief executive of the UK Hydrographic Office for the financial year 2004–05. The targets are designed to drive further improvements to the agency's performance and are as follows:

  KEY TARGET 1 Safety. While aiming for 100 per cent, to achieve a safety index exceeding 95 per cent. All radio navigational warnings issued to timescale.

  KEY TARGET 2. Defence. To achieve an index rating of more than 95 for the defence programme as set out in the tasking authorisation forms.

  KEY TARGET 3. Customer Satisfaction. Customer and end user satisfaction to exceed a scale rating of 87 by the end of the financial year 2004–05.

  KEY TARGET 4. Wider Markets. To earn revenue of £2.4 million from markets other than SOLAS navigational products and services.

  KEY TARGET 5. Finance. To break even taking one year with another, and to achieve a return on capital employed of 9 per cent averaged over the period 2004–05 to 2008–09.

  KEY TARGET 6. Finance. Mark-up to be reduced to 200 per cent by end 2004–05.

  Air Combat Service Support Units
  Lord Bach
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Ministry of Defence is continually examining ways of improving military capability and value for money for the taxpayer, including by keeping the size and location of our bases under review.

  On 14 August 2003, I announced a review of the future basing requirement for the RAF's air combat service support units (ACSSUs), elements of the air surveillance and control system (ASACS) and some other minor units and the potential impact on the future requirement for RAF Boulmer, RAF Neatishead, RAF Sealand and RAF Stafford, should relocation of units currently based there be recommended.

  The primary objective of this particular review was to meet the department's basing needs in the light of the move towards expeditionary operations. A number of options were identified on which my officials have consulted widely. A number of honourable Members have made representations. The review has now concluded.

  I am now able to inform the House that I am inclined, subject to formal consultation with the trade unions, to accept the option which creates an ACSSU communications hub and a base for ASACS units at RAF Scampton and an ACSSU logistics hub at RAF Wittering. Implementation of this option as a whole would be over an extended period, beginning later this year and not complete until about 2012.

  This option offers the greatest operational flexibility to our Armed Forces by collocating support units on
  WS 42
  main operating bases. It is also the most cost-effective solution. It would mean that communications personnel would relocate to Scampton from RAF Sealand (from 2005) and RAF Brize Norton (from 2005), together with ASACS units currently based at RAF Neatishead (from 2004–05) and RAF Boulmer (from 2009), bringing the total number of people at the station up to around 2,400 by 2012. In the case of RAF Wittering, logistics personnel would relocate from RAF Stafford (from 2005). This would increase the number of personnel at the station to around 2,130 by 2006.

  The Ministry of Defence has written to the trade unions to ask for their formal response to this option by 7 June 2004.

  I will make my decision when I have received trade unions' comments and will inform the House at that time.

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport: Annual Report 2004
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement:

  I am today arranging for my department's annual report [Cm 6220] to be laid before Parliament in advance of publication on 30 April.

  Copies will be deposited in the House Libraries and the text made available on the department's website at http://www.culture.gov.uk.

  Devolved Powers: Scottish Legislative Proposals
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  I am today publishing a protocol on Scottish legislative proposals giving devolved powers and functions to UK bodies. This has been agreed by the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. It will be published as one of our series of devolution guidance notes and copies will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and on the following website:http:// www.dca.gov.uk/.

  Cabinet Office: Departmental Report 2004
  Lord Bassam of Brighton
  Yesterday my honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office along, with my right honourable friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, laid before Parliament the Cabinet Office departmental report 2004 [Cm 6226].
  WS 43
  The report describes the work of the Cabinet Office and includes a performance report for each of our public service agreement targets. It explains how significant changes to the Cabinet Office's leadership and internal structure over the past year have
  WS 44
  enhanced our ability to deliver our objectives. The report also includes a set of tables showing past outturn and future expenditure plans.

  Copies are available in the Printed Paper Office and in the Library.