Sitting of 30 April 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Orders of the Day
  Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill
    New Clause 1

      BUILDINGS OF SPECIAL HISTORICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST
      'After section 1 of the Building Act 1984 (c. 55) insert—
      "1A Buildings of special historical or architectural interest
      (1) In making building regulations the Secretary of State shall have regard, in particular, to the desirability of preserving the character of protected buildings that are of special historical or architectural interest.
      (2) In this section 'protected buildings' means—

      listed buildings within the meaning of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (see section 1(5) of that Act); and

      buildings situated in areas designated as conservation areas under section 69 of that Act.".'.—[Mr. Stunell.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.34 am
      Mr. Andrew Stunell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Bill spent two days in Committee. There was a broad consensus on its aims. Perhaps the consensus on its contents was not quite so complete, and one or two of my proposals that went into Committee bit the dust on the way through. The liveliest debate was on the subject of how my Bill might affect historic buildings. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) moved an amendment in Committee that secured support from all sides, but after debate she helpfully withdrew it, which allowed further consideration of how we might proceed to deal with the concerns that were raised.
      New clause 1 is the outcome of that further consideration. It follows a round of meetings with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North and English Heritage, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and other organisations interested in heritage matters. Earlier this week I attended a meeting with representatives of English Heritage, who tell me that they strongly support the new clause and the Bill as a
      1112
      whole, with its general intentions of improving the security of the building stock, its crime resistance and its environmental sustainability.
      The clause requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to preserve the character of protected buildings when making regulations. Of course, he already does. In part L of the building regulations there are already specific solutions to some of the issues presented by the need to preserve the character of buildings while still allowing them to be fit for purpose, safe to use and, in the context of the Bill, sustainable. In any case, before any regulations came into force, there would be a round of consultations, and organisations and bodies with concerns about heritage buildings would be in a good position to make their concerns known. The clause gives a statutory basis for organisations such as English Heritage and others with a legitimate concern to have their views heard.
      The clause requires the Minister to have regard to protected buildings, which it defines as those that are listed, in what one might call the anorak's jargon, and those that are in conservation areas. I have been told that there are about 370,000 listed buildings in England and Wales, although that includes some rather odd animals such as telephone kiosks and grottos in ornamental parks. However, as we discussed on Second Reading, there is considerable difficulty in this country in knowing what a building is and how many we have. That was also the subject of discussion in Committee.
      The figure of 370,000 is at the top end. In reality, there are probably about 350,000 listed buildings, as might be commonly understood in the Chamber. Of those, about 9,000 are listed as grade I—that is, of the very highest quality both inside and outside. About 20,000 are listed as grade II*, which means they are of good quality outside, with some interesting features inside. More than 300,000 others are listed as grade II, which is what the man in the street would recognise as a listed building—one which, looked at from the outside, has a bit of character and history. That is one category that would be included in the clause.
      Secondly, the clause covers buildings in conservation areas. There are about 9,000 conservation areas in this country, though interestingly enough, there is no requirement for local authorities to notify anybody when they designate conservation areas. That is probably a good thing, but it makes it hard to be sure how many there are and what is inside them.
      Many of the listed buildings in the first category are, of course, in conservation areas, and the overlap between the two categories is large.
      By definition, listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas form a unique part of our country's environment, and in many cases they are cultural cornerstones—one has only to examine parts of London to see their impact on our national identity and sense of Britishness, or maybe Englishness.
      Historic buildings also produce economic benefits because they generate tourism and travel. There were 63 million visits to historic visitor attractions last year, plus many more visits to picturesque villages and ancient town centres, so buildings have a significant employment and economic value.
      My Bill properly takes account of the special needs and concerns of those who manage historic buildings. I want to make it clear that the new clause will not exempt

      1113
      such buildings from building regulations, but it will ensure that when the building regulations emerge, they must take account of special needs and characteristics. That might be in the form of approved documents, of which there are already examples, containing standard solutions that can be taken off the shelf and adapted so that they work unobtrusively, even on sensitive historic buildings. Alternatively, regulations might be drawn up to permit flexibility, perhaps taking a whole building approach to compliance rather than requiring specific elements of the building to comply. The objective that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) sought in Committee can clearly be achieved and in a straightforward and simple way, and the new clause provides the foundations for that.
      Dr. Nick Palmer: I apologise for missing the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. Will regulations produced under the new clause exempt specific buildings, or will the procedure be more flexible than that? Will buildings such as telephone kiosks be ignored because they cannot be brought into line?
      Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman's question is on the second or third tier of decision taking. I appreciate that he was not privy to our discussions on Second Reading and in Committee. My Bill enables regulations to be made in the future, but it does not prescribe them. The new clause does not prescribe regulations, but it states that the Secretary of State shall have regard to the particular needs of historic buildings when he considers regulations. The example raised by the hon. Gentleman is precisely the kind of issue that must be weighed up when a specific regulation is considered.
      Approved documents are one of the two routes on regulations. They are on-the-shelf solutions that somebody can take down and use, and they might need to include one or two models that are suitable for historic buildings. The other route is to say, "You do not have to comply with any specific set of proposals as long as at the end of it you have got a building that does not leak heat, that stands up and from which people can escape in the case of fire." I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), but if not, I am sure that he will come back to me.
      The new clause is a useful safeguard, although I have seen little evidence that it will be needed, because all the signs are that that point is taken into account when regulations are drawn up, regardless of the Government or the individual Minister. I have responded to the points made in Committee, and I hope that the new clause will reassure not only hon. Members, but organisations such as English Heritage, which were keen to see it. Bearing in mind the all-party support in Committee, I hope that the new clause is an uncontroversial addition to my Bill, which is now in a form approved by parliamentary counsel, and I hope that the House will agree it rapidly today.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. John Hayes: I do not intend to detain the House for long, because we have a lot of business, all of which is of great significance. It is worth having a word, however, given
      1114
      that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) properly said that the Bill received all-party support in Committee, where I was able to wax lyrical at considerable length about the Bill's importance in relation to the marvellous work done by the Prince of Wales on this subject.
      I shall make three points. First, I shall amplify the point about enabling legislation. The new clause enables and does not oblige, and in that sense it is a helpful and measured addition to the Bill, given that it does not necessarily create a great deal more regulation, which is always an issue with this kind of private Member's Bill. There has ever beer a certain tension between the desire to protect and the problem of over-regulation, and I must say that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has recognised that tension in much of what he has said and written about his Bill.
      Secondly, the new clause is consistent with the rest of the Bill. Sustainability is about having proper concern for the desirability of preserving the character of protected buildings that are of special or architectural interest. It would be quite wrong to see the thrust of the rest of Bill outside the context, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has set out today, of the footprint that buildings make upon the landscape; of their relationship with the history of the communities in which they sit; and of their balance with other structures around them. It is important that we use this opportunity to reinforce the significance of buildings of historical importance.
      Thirdly, the objective is achievable. The Bill is in line with best practice, which, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove properly we often enjoy owing to the good work of organisations such as English Heritage. However, I shall sound a warning note: he was, as ever, measured, but concerns have been raised in my constituency and elsewhere that the prospective changes to how buildings are identified, which he did not mention, may put more buildings at risk. I am not making a judgment on that point, but that view has been expressed.
      I ought to have declared this interest at the beginning of my contribution I live in a listed building. I must say that it is not one of the first 9,000 listed buildings, and it is not even one of the next 20,000 listed buildings—I may be a star, but my home is not starred—but it is one of the 300,0000 ordinary listed buildings. I have a personal interest in the matter, which I care about for that reason and for many others. There is concern that our system of listing might be diluted by some of the changes that have been mentioned. As in Committee, I draw the attention of the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to the at-risk registers, and to the large number of buildings that have sadly been added to those registers and which remain of considerable concern. The hon. Gentleman will have watched assiduously—because he is the sort of man who would—the programme "Restoration", which highlighted many interesting buildings that were at risk. I understand that there is to be a new series. That exercise provided a small illustration of a much bigger problem. In most of our constituencies, there will be an interesting building that is of architectural significance and adds to the landscape, but is at risk. I mention that as a caveat to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

      1115
      I am glad to associate myself with the new clause, and I am confident that this particular Minister will take it on board with relish.
      Sue Doughty: I, too, strongly support the new clause, which is intended to remove a potential barrier in the Bill in relation to environmental issues such as fuel poverty and climate change.
      Historical properties and conservation areas account for an enormous amount of domestic tourism, and it is important that they be allowed to thrive. Guildford has a conservation area in its centre. Other cities, such as Bath and York, are able to offer tourism to people with a wide variety of interests. For example, one family member may want to look at the architecture while another wants to go shopping. Such dual-purpose visits bring money into the economy of an area and the UK as a whole. It is important that those high-quality buildings attract investment when renovation is needed. There are a plethora of small properties in conservation areas such as the Cotswolds and the Yorkshire moors. Together, they contribute a great deal to the cultural wealth of the area, as well as to its economy.
      I hope that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) suggested, we will be able to find a range of standard solutions. For example, if the roof of a building is being renovated, that offers an opportunity to increase insulation. Businesses could specialise in solutions that consider the building its a whole, to ensure that it plays its part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
      That is particularly applicable to smaller buildings. I am thinking about a row of shops in Guildford—delightful buildings. If one shop needs renovating, those on either side are also hidden by bulky scaffolding and often passers-by cannot see whether they are in business. They are not chain stores, but individual craftspeople. There is a hat shop next door to an absolutely delightful cake-decorating shop—that is where the bride's mother goes when she is planning a wedding. Lengthy renovations with scaffolding everywhere can detract from the vibrancy of the area.
      That is why I am keen to have standard solutions to ensure that when renovations take place, people know what work they will be doing before the scaffolding goes up. Then, the work can be done quickly and effectively while retaining the character and charm of such areas, which we all want to enjoy.
      I will be delighted if this thoughtful and sensible new clause goes forward with the rest of the Bill to become a helpful change in the building regulations.
      Dr. Palmer: I, too, support the Bill and the principle of the new clause. I am particularly enticed by the vision of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) living in his historical grotto: we would not wish to disturb his lair.
      My only reservation is that, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, listed buildings are a very varied collection of animals. Often, the owner of a listed building finds himself in a catch-22 situation whereby he is forbidden to make the changes that are needed to make it economical to run, or to knock it down, but unable to maintain it in its present state. I hope that the new regulations are not applied in such a way as to make that dilemma worse.
      1116
      Conversely, though, we need to ensure that we do not create a large loophole in the Bill by having a vast category of buildings for which it becomes the normal practice that we do not bother to try to improve insulation and take the other desirable measures mentioned in the Bill.
      The new clause strikes a reasonable balance by allowing for special considerations for such buildings. but not insisting on their application in every case. Despite the hon. Gentleman's clarification, I think that he would agree that cases will arise in which a local authority would, as with other buildings, feel it open to it not to press for any particular modifications. The whole Bill is about giving an authority the option to do so, rather than requiring it to do so. For some buildings—and perhaps grottoes—the necessary modifications will not be practical.
      With that qualification, I warmly support the new clause.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): It is good to be here to debate the Bill on Report, and I hope that it will be successful in receiving its Third Reading. I will say more about the Bill overall when we reach that stage, but for now I shall address my remarks specifically to the new clause.
      An amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) in Committee regarding the desirability of preserving the historic or architectural interest of certain buildings was withdrawn for further consideration because it was felt that its scope was too wide, although the principle behind it received general support. That is reflected in what hon. Members have said this morning. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) for tabling the new clause, which the Government consider honours the principle that received cross-party support in Committee.
      The new clause says that the special character of listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas should be taken into account by the Secretary of State in making building regulations. The difficulty that we had with the amendment in Committee was that its definition of protected buildings included those in national parks and in areas of outstanding beauty. That remit was regarded as too wide, as it took no account of the character of the buildings themselves, only of their location.
      The new clause recognises current practice in proposing new or amended building regulations. In doing so, we do not consider general exemptions for historic buildings. I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) that a general exemption is precisely the kind of loophole that we do not want. That is why the enabling power is worded as it is; the regulations resulting from it will deal with the matter.
      10 am
      Where appropriate, the approved documents that support the regulations, which will be drawn up and published at the same time as the draft regulations, will give guidance on how the requirements should be applied to such buildings. For example, the current

      1117
      documents for part L, which deals with conservation of fuel and power, and part M, which covers access to and use of buildings, both contain guidance on how the requirements in those parts should be applied to historic buildings or those in conservation areas. As I said in Committee, in relation to individual buildings, local authority conservation officers and local authority building control officers will discuss how best the requirements might be applied to historic buildings or those in conservation areas.
      It is widely felt that this pragmatic approach works well both in achieving compliance with the building regulations and in preserving the historic or architectural interest of protected buildings. The new clause will not disturb those arrangements. I am delighted that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), living in whatever folly or grotto he lives in, is able to support the Bill. He reminded us in Committee of his concern for beauty, saying:
      "I, too, am sympathetic to the amendment. It is vital that we strike the balance that my hon. Friend described, but I err towards that balance being struck in favour of beauty."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 3 March 2004; c. 21.]
      He then gave us a very good description of what he meant by beauty, which impressed us all, even though it was slightly irrelevant to the Bill. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) also served on the Committee, and she made an important point today about tourism in conservation areas. The detailed points that she made about the regulations are obviously not a matter for the Bill at this stage, but will be a matter for consideration under the building regulations. No doubt when we go out to consultation on any new regulations resulting from the Bill, those points will be taken into account.
      Mr. Hayes: I had not been aware until this morning that the Minister had become such an aficionado of my Tory aestheticism. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) made a good point about tourism, but we must never assume that purely utilitarian justifications have to be made for aesthetic value. It is for the love of beauty, and perhaps for the beauty of art, that we should endorse the desire of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) to put this clause into the Bill.
      Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I think that we both have a similar vision of the kind of beauty that we wish to see retained in our historic buildings and conservation areas.
      Concern has been expressed that the new clause might affect compliance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That was not raised in Committee, but I want to put on record that that is certainly not the Government's view of the intention of the new clause, and I can assure the House that we would not propose regulations that had that affect. As the Minister responsible for building regulations, one of the interesting requirements of the job is the need to reach a balance between various dilemmas. Later clauses in the Bill cover secure buildings, and on Second Reading we discussed how that security needed to be reconciled with ensuring that people could get out of a
      1118
      building easily if it were to catch fire. We have to reconcile different kinds of regulations for different purposes.
      We certainly do not want the regulations that we would be empowered to make under the Bill to have a negative effect in regard to the Disability Discrimination Act. Building regulations are goal-based and, within the goals, there will be sufficient flexibility both to ensure that the requirements of the Act are satisfied and to preserve the historic character of buildings.
      I am happy to say that the Government welcome the new clause, and support its standing part of the Bill.
      Mr. Stunell: I should like to the thank hon. Members who have supported the new clause for the kind words that they have uttered on its behalf. I do not want to waste the time of the House this morning.
      I very much enjoyed what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) had to say in Committee. I did point out to him that the Prince of Wales actually did not like some of the buildings now being listed, but there we go. That is how it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) made an important point about the value of our historic heritage in many different dimensions. She then put her finger on another problem, which was also raised by the hon. Member for south Holland and The Deepings, which I would describe as that of regeneration. Practically everyone knows examples of buildings that are falling into disuse or decay because of a lack of investment possibilities. The new clause will minimise the number of occasions on which that problem might arise. It will not generate any funds, but it represents an improvement on the current situation, which I hope will give some reassurance to those two hon. Members.
      The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) made an interesting point about the way in which the regulations might inhibit investment in listed buildings. I believe that planning regulations will be the more likely barrier than building regulations. I honestly cannot see that this is likely to be an issue in relation to building regulations.
      A point that has not been raised in the debate so far, but which is nevertheless relevant, relates to what is called embedded energy. Demolishing and rebuilding might seem an easy option for a dilapidated and decaying historic building, but it represents a very poor deal in terms of carbon emissions. It is possible to spend quite a lot on refurbishment to produce a building with very respectable qualities of sustainability, and still to have spent less than it would have cost to demolish and rebuild. That would also produce a more sustainable outcome than building something brand new, whatever its standard. So a proper understanding of sustainability, which is now beginning to grow, suggests that refurbishment and regeneration often represent a better way of improving sustainability than demolition and rebuilding to a completely new standard.
      The Minister was reassuring when he confirmed that this measure does not provide a loophole; it does not exempt any building from any building regulation. It only requires those regulations to heed the circumstances of listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas. At present, building regulations apply to approximately 1 per cent. of the building stock

      1119
      that is built or significantly altered each year. They do not touch the other 99 per cent. My Bill makes it possible, in certain circumstances, for the other 99 per cent. to come within the remit of building regulations, in terms of sustainability. The new clause gives special consideration to 5 per cent. of that 99 per cent., so the Bill will still capture, with full force, more than 90 per cent. of this country's building stock. It will give some limited special consideration to buildings of historic and architectural interest, amounting to bout 5 per cent. of our building stock, and I strongly commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 6

      REGISTERS OF INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS TO BE KEPT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
      Mr. Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 30, at end insert—
      '(4A) The registers shall contain such information and documents that relate to the requirements placed on local authorities under the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, outlining any achievements beyond the statutory minimum in pursuit of warm homes and energy conservation.'.
      This amendment will add to the Bill. I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), and you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, from you assiduous reading of these matters, that he expressed a similar kind of sentiment in Committee. I think that it is fair to say that he was enthusiastic for the energy conservation issues associated with the Bill to be in line with existing legislative requirements, and that he was seeking to press the Government a little on that issue. We on the Conservative Benches are passionate in our opposition to fuel poverty and in our defence of warm homes. The hon. Gentleman's Bill provides once again the opportunity to tweak tile Government's performance a little.
      Members on both sides of the House who are associated with warm homes campaigns are doubtful whether the Government will reach their targets. I mentioned that in Committee at greater length and I do not intend to take the House's time by repeating myself. Suffice it to say that the ambitious targets that have been set are unlikely to be achieved unless we make real and significant changes to the way in which we deal with new buildings and with existing ones. Beat practice allows buildings to become highly energy efficient, but, sadly, best practice is by no means the norm, even in the case of the most modern buildings. Through improved insulation, improved ventilation, and the whole energy conservation culture, which can be embedded in design, we can, through the Bill, press the Government towards a position in which those targets might be realisable.
      I know that there was a certain resistance from the Government when the hon. Gentleman adopted that kind of tone in the earlier stages of the Bill, and I understand that: it is much easier in opposition to make these bold claims than in government and much easier when one is not answerable for missed targets. There is no point in us not facing up to that truth. It is the role
      1120
      of the good Opposition. however, and even of a minor party—I say this to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove—to force the Government's hand, to put appropriate pressure on them, and to articulate the concerns of the House and of people outside this place who specialise in these matters, and who share the passion for the fight against fuel poverty, which is almost intrinsic in Tory thinking and relates to Liberal thinking, too, at least to some degree.
      It is therefore important that we once again challenge the Minister, through the amendment, on why he will not go that one step further on the road towards achieving warm, secure homes, fit for the purpose, for all our people. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Brian White: As the amendment refers to the Act that I put through as a private Member's Bill last year. I concur with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. As one of the roles of Government Back Benchers is to push our Front-Bench team to go that bit further than the permanent government of the civil service would like, I ask the Minister to take on board the sentiments of this amendment, as there are a number of concerns in relation to the way that the Government are tackling fuel poverty, which I know that he shares. I accept, however, that the Government are doing good work, such as that announced this week in the energy efficiency review, all of which is to their credit, and about which we should be talking much more.
      As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) pointed out, there are a number of concerns that the targets set by the Government will not be met. To those of us who believe that one of the Government's achievements is taking people out of fuel poverty, and taking children out of poverty, this kind of measure is important. The amendment is not necessarily the right way forward, but certainly, the sentiments behind it are. I seek assurances from the Minister that the issues raised in my Act last year, such as linking the work of local authorities with that of the Government, and backing up the work of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and that of the warm homes programme, and getting the balance and synergies between those right, are recognised as important. When the Government supported my Act last year, they recognised that, and when the Minister replies, I hope that he will also recognise that that work needs to be taken forward urgently, as was recognised earlier in the week in the energy statement.
      10.15 am
      Dr. Palmer: I must admit to being slightly puzzled by the amendment. Most of us would not rank the introduction of annual reports on progress, which came soon after the election, among the magnificent achievements of the Labour Government. I do not remember the Conservative party being at the forefront of those welcoming the publication of such documents. I see that the amendment would require local authorities to identify
      "any achievements beyond the statutory minimum in pursuit of warm homes and energy conservation."

      1121
      That appears to be an invitation to local authorities to wax lyrical about their splendid achievements in the area at the expense of the people who pay for their time.
      Brian White: One of the reasons that the provision to make sure that local authorities report was included in my Sustainable Energy Act 2003 is that a number of local authorities are lagging behind. Although the best local authorities are doing an excellent job, a number need to be dragged into the arena to deliver some of the programmes that we all want.
      Dr. Palmer: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We must strike a balance between central direction, which will achieve the necessary progress, including in areas in which local authorities might think that they have other priorities, and allowing a degree of local flexibility. What worries me about the amendment is that basically it does not raise the minimum standards, and nor does it apply any standard reporting function that would enable us to collect statistics or assessments nationally. It is simply an invitation to local authorities to chat about their achievements. Given the intention of the Bill, I honestly do not think that anything will be achieved by that.
      I accept fully that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) who moved the amendment is motivated entirely by wanting to stimulate the best possible practice in local authorities and to encourage them to take an opportunity to boast about their achievements. My experience of local authorities—except mine, of course—is that they are only too keen to boast about their achievements at great length, which is perhaps a general characteristic of political organisations. We do not therefore need statutory encouragement for them to do so.
      Mr. Hayes: In order that the hon. Gentleman might abbreviate his remarks, may I make absolutely clear what I thought that I had made sufficiently clear by inference earlier—that this is a probing amendment? It is designed to press the Government to move closer to the standards that are absolutely necessary if they are to meet their 2010 targets. In the hope that the hon. Gentleman might recognise that, and be brief, I say to him that 1.4 million social sector homes in England are failing to meet the decent home standards, and the vast majority of those—about 80 per cent., or 1.1 million—fail on thermal insulation grounds. On that basis, the Government will not meet the 2010 targets, and we are pressing the Minister, in an extraordinarily moderate way, a little further towards his own target.
      Dr. Palmer: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's wish to get away early or deal with whatever other pressing business he may have, but I feel that we should look at the amendments as they stand. Although he has hinted that he may be thinking of withdrawing amendment No. 1, which he would be wise to do, if he tables an amendment, we must be able to discuss it on its own terms.
      We recognise the need to make progress with objectives to which we all at least pay lip service and that I hope we would wholeheartedly support, but what is
      1122
      required is a steady increase in minimum standards, accompanied by the flexibility that we discussed on new clause 1. We should not encourage local authorities simply to make statements that are not viable in cash terms.
      In a previous life, I worked in statistics. I remember attempting to assess the progress of projects, and I remember that each of those reporting reported in a different way. That is a statistical nightmare with which everyone in Government is familiar, and I would not like to contribute to it now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whose objectives I respect and support, will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Stunell: Some tempting bait has been dangled in the water with mention of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, which began as a private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). The amendment is clearly a good thing in the sense that motherhood and apple pie is a good thing, and I approve of the idea of a report on progress, but there are one or two problems with it. For one thing, it would amend clause 6, not clause 5. Clause 5 deals with reports; clause 6 concerns the lodging of documents for inspection.
      I wish the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) had had an opportunity to try out the idea in Committee, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) did with her proposals. That would have enabled us to deal with a provision that worked and was appropriately placed. The Minister might still be shaking his head, but at least the amendment would relate to the right part of the Bill. If it had referred to clause 5, I might have felt able to be rather more vigorous in my defence of the hon. Gentleman's defence of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East.
      There is no doubt that we need more progress in the implementation of the 2003 Act. Along with other Members in all political parties, I have criticised the Government for not setting proper targets under the Act and for all the shortfalls in performance, but sadly the amendment is not a viable means of dealing with that.
      I hope that we have made useful points. I hope that the Minister will go back and say, "They gave me hell over this—what are we doing?" The Government need a good nudge. They need to be reminded that Members throughout the House are concerned about the issue, and feel that the Government have been somewhat lethargic. I also hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment, which I fear might jeopardise the wider project represented by the Bill.
      Phil Hope: For reasons given by various Members today and for others that I will explain shortly, the Government will oppose the amendment because we think it unnecessary. That does not mean that we are not keen to pursue our targets relating to fuel poverty and warm homes. I realise that this is a probing amendment, and I will respond to it in those terms. As for my being given hell this morning, I prefer to say that Members have given me a good push forward, while supporting my enthusiasm for better fuel and energy efficiency and attacking fuel poverty on behalf of the Government.
      The amendment is unnecessary because the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 already provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that compliance takes

      1123
      place clearly and openly. That was the aim of all who were involved with the Act during its passage through the House. Section 4 gives the Government in England and the Welsh Assembly Government discretionary power to direct energy conservation authorities to improve energy efficiency in residential accommodation. It also requires those authorities to take action to implement cost-effective and practicable measures to achieve such improvement, while having regard to the eradication of fuel poverty. The Act gives the Secretary of State power to provide local authorities with guidance on their duties, and the authorities have a duty to have regard to it.
      Brian White: When is the guidance likely to be produced?
      Phil Hope: Regrettably, I am not responsible for the decision making of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, so I cannot give my hon. Friend that information; but I will convey his enthusiasm for such guidance to my colleagues in that Department.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), I find it hard to believe that a local authority that had not only managed to meet its obligations under the 2003 Act but exceeded them would be reluctant to publicise its achievement. Surely it would be singing its own praises loud and clear. I imagine that it would take great pleasure in including all the details of its achievement through whatever monitoring or reporting system it had eventually agreed to.
      An important part of the Act provides that any use of the powers it confers should be considered carefully, and that use of the powers and final implementation of the Act should involve consultation with representatives of local government. That approach is consistent with our policy on freedoms and flexibilities for local authorities. The Government would not issue such directions—thus placing a new burden on the authorities—without providing the funds needed to meet the new requirements.
      As the Government have said on many occasions, we consider the powers potentially useful, in that they could help us to meet our energy efficiency and fuel poverty objectives. That was clearly demonstrated by the Government's wholehearted support for the legislation during its passage.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that the placing of the amendment is odd. The registers established by clause 6 will contain information relating to the Building Act 1984 on individual buildings, whereas the amendment would require general, local authority-wide information to be placed somewhere in a register that was not designed to receive it. Even if we supported the amendment, we would feel that it was in the wrong place in the Bill.
      I should explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, who was not on the Standing Committee, that clause 5 obliges the Government to produce a biennial report to Parliament on progress in the sustainability of building stock. He asked about the value of that, and the extent to which it would create pressure and momentum for improvement.
      I shall not go into all the details that we discussed in Committee of other efforts that the Government are making to improve building stock, but we have PPS1
      1124
      and PPS22, the sustainability of buildings task group—which is about to publish a report—and many other initiatives showing our enthusiasm for the direction in which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has pushed me. A great deal is going on and we are making progress. The amendment is unnecessary to our achievement of our aims.
      Mr. Hayes: The Minister, as I anticipated, has responded by acknowledging that this is indeed a probing amendment, designed to drive him towards ever greater efforts to achieve the targets set. He has given us an undertaking today that he is re-energised by the pressure from his Back Benchers—so admirably represented by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White)—and from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) has not been following these matters closely until today, perhaps because he has been out buying shoes—although I resisted the temptation of drawing him into the earlier debate about aesthetics, because I thought that he would be less than a frontrunner in that department, judging by today's footwear. However, although he is less certain on these matters, I am satisfied that the Minister has got the message, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 6, page 7, line 3, at end insert—
      '91B Accessible housing registers for the disabled

      (1) Each local housing authority must maintain an "accessible housing register"

      (2) The accessible housing register must outline—

      (a) current and proposed accessible residential properties in the local authority area (whether purpose-built or adapted) with details of the access features relating to each property; and

      (b) the provisions available for disabled people who require accessible housing,

      (3) For the purpose of this section "accessible residential properties" means dwellings, flats and HMOs which provide a reasonable means of access and ease of use for disabled people, or which may be easily adapted to provide such access and ease of use.'.

      Amendment No. 2 relates to registers of accessible housing for disabled people. That is not a new idea, and it is widely supported by disabled organisations and charities, as well as by many Members. I raised the matter in the Committee on the Housing Bill; the amendment is almost a repetition of the new clause that we then tabled.
      Briefly, the argument for such registers is as follows. There is no doubt that all Members want to ensure that adequate housing is available for people with disabilities. That housing, often by necessity, must be adapted so that a person's needs can be properly catered for. Adaptations that take place in the cause of providing good housing for disabled people are varied. Someone with a spinal injury who is a wheelchair user will require very different adaptations from someone with partial sight. A range of disabilities requires a range of approaches.

      1125
      Such adaptations can be expensive, and the current problem is that local authorities often adapt a house to satisfy a tenant who subsequently dies or moves on, and the new tenant might not necessarily be able to access the same property. The match between disability and suitable adapted housing is often poor, which leads to houses being re-adapted for a person with a different disability, or de-adapted—if such a word exists—for someone with no disability at all, or only a minor one. That is a costly process, which wastes many millions of pounds for local authorities up and down the country.
      Dr. Palmer rose—
      Mr. Hayes: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is about to offer a riposte to my earlier rebuke.
      Dr. Palmer: Not at all. I would hesitate to compete with the hon. Gentleman's sartorial elegance, but I am less certain about his drafting elegance. There are 41,000 homes in my constituency. Is he seriously suggesting that the local authority should assess and maintain a register of each one, including "dwellings, flats and HMOs", to see whether it is accessible—whether purpose-built or adapted—and what provisions are made for disabled people to access it? How many hundreds of additional local civil servants does he think that Broxtowe council would require to implement that proposal?
      Mr. Hayes: I can see that despite the hon. Gentleman's good will, he has not made a close study of the matter. I am not surprised at that: he is a busy man and cannot always take as much time as he would like to advance the interests of disabled people. If he had made a close study of the matter, he would know that in those parts of the country where such schemes have been adopted, there have been substantial savings to local authorities. The cost of setting up and running a register has been found, for example in Bradford, to be considerably less than the savings made by not having to re-adapt homes. I am not simply advancing my proposal in the interests of disabled people because of a proper concern for them; I advance it because it is highly cost-effective for local authorities to ensure a better match between tenants and available properties.
      Mr. Hugo Swire: I agree with my hon. Friend's proposal. In my local authority in East Devon there is increasing pressure to comply with Government regulations on providing housing for disabled people, although there is not necessarily the financial wherewithal. If we moved towards a local register, it would not only save money in the long term but make it much easier to move people who need that sort of housing around in the constituency, without having to spend vast amounts of money each and every time they have to be housed.
      Mr. Hayes: Yes, as my hon. Friend implies, the figures for the possible savings are impressive. It is certainly true that moving people around, as he puts it, is costly and painful to those concerned, and the savings themselves make a case for my proposal. Local
      1126
      authority estimates. from Bradford suggest that savings may be in the range of £200,000 to £400,000, and some estimate that those savings may in fact be of more than £500,000. Of course, that will vary from place to place depending on the nature of the local available accommodation.
      This idea was supported by Members on both sides of the Housing Bill Committee—I draw particular attention to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who is an advocate of a similar proposal—and at the very least, the Government must consider the matter further. The Minister for Housing and Planning, who is sitting in his place because he takes these matters seriously, and who saw my name on the screen and rushed into the Chamber, acknowledged when I made my proposal in Committee that it was something that any Government would want to consider seriously.
      My argument, therefore, is not partisan; nor is it trivial. It is born of a desire to do what is right, but it is also to do something that can be implemented cost-effectively, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) properly suggested.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman will know that when a similar amendment was tabled to the Housing Bill it had our broad support. However, I hope that he rabidly describes this as a probing amendment because, if my reading of it is right, it applies to all houses, not just local authority and social housing. I think that the latter is what he means, but the amendment in fact seems to apply to all houses, including privately owned ones. I am sure that he would not particularly want his local authority to maintain a register of whether his property, which we have discovered is listed, has been adapted for disabled purposes.
      Mr. Hayes: It is fair to say that this amendment, as the tone of my comments suggests, is, like my previous amendment, designed to probe. Given that the debate in Committee was received well by Members on both sides, and given that the Minister for Housing and Planning dealt with it with his characteristic generosity. we are once again looking to press the Government to examine the matter more carefully and perhaps to come back with their own proposals, which we could then consider with equal generosity. My proposal comes from a real demand from disabled organisations, and the cause is driven by a proper concern for vulnerable people, so the matter should be taken up with alacrity throughout the House.
      A pilot study in conjunction with local authorities might be a way forward. Far be it from me to suggest how the Government should run their affairs, but such a study could be done reasonably quickly and inexpensively, and with the co-operation of local authorities—of varying party political persuasions—that are already leading the way in this regard. If the Minister says today that that is already his intention—that he had plotted such a scheme before today's debate—my regard for him, which is already high, would reach proportions to which even he would be too modest to aspire.

      1127
      The Minister will doubtless reply in the spirit offered, and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will know that the amendment is meant to be a helpful addition to his Bill. Neither he nor the Minister has anything to fear from it, and they have the opportunity to show that in some measure they can match the Conservative commitment, rooted in our party's proud history, to the most vulnerable in our society.
      Dr. Palmer: I am thinking of introducing a private Member's Bill to make it illegal to introduce probing amendments that do not make sense, but in the absence of such legislation, we have to deal with amendments as they stand. I note that in his response to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) evaded the question of whether his amendment is intended to cover all private housing. As it stands, it does, so we would have to investigate not only whether my house has disabled access, but whether his grotto does. Does any sensible party aspiring to government really wish to impose such a burden on local authorities?
      I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point that disabled organisations and sensible people everywhere want local authorities to keep track of the modifications made to local authority housing and social housing so that a match of the kind that he described can be encouraged. That would be entirely sensible and I should be surprised to discover that any local authority wanted to lose track of the improvements that it has made.
      I can also see that there is a case for encouraging private owners to register improvements of this kind; doing so might well help them to sell the property in due course. However, I cannot see the point in maintaining a vast local bureaucracy that pursues every modification to every house and flat in the local authority area to try in vain to keep track of whether Flat 17, Gregoria Mansions, for example, has been modified in a way that would be helpful to people with a particular problem.
      Mr. Hayes: I do not want to delay our proceedings, but the hon. Gentleman needs to acquaint himself with the Housing Act 1996, parts VI and VII of which already encourage housing authorities to maintain lists of properties suitable for disabled people and other special needs groups. More especially, in 1999. the National Disabled Persons Housing Service and the Housing Corporation described the benefits of such registers. The need now is for some statutory teeth to back up that good practice.
      The hon. Gentleman is not, I hope, making a fundamental criticism of my proposal. I have made it clear that this is a probing amendment. We are simply looking to the Government to give teeth to the good practice that has already been established by a range of organisations and in legislation.
      Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman points to other legislation that encourages a register of suitable housing. However, as I understand it, his amendment would require local authorities to inspect every dwelling, flat and other building in the area to see whether it was purpose-built or adapted and what access features were available. He is a sensible man and I feel sure that, on reflection, he will agree that his amendment
      1128
      goes further than the provisions in existing Acts. Even probing amendments should be sensible in their own terms.
      10.45 am
      Mr. Hayes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I repeat that the 1996 Act makes it absolutely clear that housing authorities are encouraged to maintain lists of properties suitable for disabled people and other special needs groups. It is true that such properties will be spread throughout a range of housing types. What we need to do is to achieve a better match, which requires that authorities take a lateral approach. The issue is not the extent of what they should do, but whether it can be done cost-effectively. That is why the current cost of not getting a good match needs to be properly measured against the cost of implementing a scheme. I do not say that the amendment is perfect—it is a probing amendment—but surely the hon. Gentleman will briefly acknowledge that the Government should at least look at this issue.
      Dr. Palmer: I entirely agree that it is sensible for local authorities to try to promote the availability of accessible housing and to keep track of the accessible housing of which they are aware. However, as it stands, the amendment would require local authorities to list current and proposed accessible residential properties and give details of the access features relating to each property.
      The amendment reflects a general pattern of behaviour in Her Majesty's Opposition. In general terms, they are in favour of fewer bureaucrats, less local expenditure and lower council tax. But in respect of any given issue, they want more bureaucrats and greater local authority expenditure, the inevitable consequence of which is higher council tax. Even in this relatively cosy environment of a Friday morning discussion of a Bill, we should not lose track of the fact that there is a fundamental inconsistency there. Let us promote the good practice of local authorities keeping track of accessible housing, but let us not impose on them the requirement to send an inspector round to every building to maintain a vast register that will be out of date the moment that it is printed.
      I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. We all accept its spirit—we need to promote disabled-friendly housing—but its means are unachievable. He suggested a pilot scheme and I suggest that he try to persuade his own local authority to run one. If he is successful, we look forward to his authority's announcement of next year's council tax and we will see whether we have to cap it.
      Mr. Stunell: I thank the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) for introducing this amendment, which has obviously generated some interest. It is certainly worthy and full of the best intentions, but it suffers from a couple of serious flaws. In its original form, it related to the Housing Act 1996, which refers to local authority and registered social landlord housing and does not automatically apply to the private sector. By transposing the amendment to the Building Act 1984, which does apply to all buildings, he has created a problem for himself that he perhaps did not recognise at the time.

      1129
      There is also a problem with the drafting in that the provision applies to all houses in the private and the public sector and to all future houses as well as present ones. The amendment refers to
      "current and proposed accessible residential properties",
      so presumably a scan of the planning list and applications would be needed. Overall, there are all sorts of technical problems with the amendment.
      From my perspective of promoter of the Bill, the amendment adds a completely new dimension. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that his colleague, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), took up a considerable amount of the House's time on Second Reading to criticise my Bill, as it was then drafted, for the burdens that it imposed on local authorities. After that criticism, I find it a little hard to be faced with a proposal to put back into the Bill a provision that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman specifically condemned. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) also commented on the lack of precision in the amendment.
      The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that the amendment would be cost-effective. If so, I should have thought that we needed a code of practice to explain to local authorities the benefits that would accrue if they adopted it. They should then be queuing up for a cost saving, which they are always searching for.
      I repeat that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge heavily criticised me on Second Reading for doing exactly what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is seeking to achieve through the amendment. The hon. Gentleman will not therefore be surprised if I do all that I can to resist the amendment on this occasion.
      Phil Hope: The amendment would require local housing authorities to maintain a register of all housing, including private sector housing, that is accessible to people with disabilities. The Government recognise that it is enormously important that disabled people can access accommodation that meets their needs. In replying to this probing amendment, I shall say a few words about increasing the supply of accessible homes and the importance of being able to match disabled people with them. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning was in his place to hear our debate.
      We are taking action to increase the supply of housing accessible to people with disabilities. All newly built homes are required to comply with part M of the building regulations. The Government revised part M in 1999 to improve the visitability and convenience of new housing. The revised regulations include requirements to ensure that entrances, lifts, corridors, doorways and WCs are accessible, including to wheelchair users. Those provisions are expected to enable occupants to cope better with reducing mobility and to live longer in their own homes.
      We announced earlier this year that we will carry out a further review of part M, with the aim of incorporating lifetime home standards for accessibility into the
      1130
      building regulations. Furthermore, in relation to new social housing, the Government require that all schemes funded through the Housing Corporation comply not only with the building regulations, but with additional criteria for accessibility and internal environments set out in the Housing Corporation's scheme development standards.
      Our reform of the planning system is also designed to address issues of access and inclusion. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill includes requirements for access statements o be drawn up to support planning applications in appropriate circumstances. The Bill will also introduce a statutory requirement for those responsible for preparing regional spatial strategies and local development documents in England to undertake those functions with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. That will be defined in planning policy statement 1. PPS1 will make it clear that development plans should contain clear and comprehensive inclusive access policies.
      We are not only taking action to improve accessibility in relation to new developments; we have also substantially increased resources to fund adaptations to existing housing stock. The disabled facilities grants programme provides funding for local authorities to help disabled home owners and tenants to pay for essential adaptations to their homes. Since 1997, Government funding for disabled facilities grants has nearly doubled, rising to £100 million a year. This year, more than 33,000 homes will be adapted to meet the needs of disabled people through the programme—a 50 per cent. increase on 1997–98. That deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) about the resources available to help disabled people secure accessible homes. We have also given local authorities new and wide-ranging discretionary powers to provide help for home owners for repairing and improving their properties, in addition to the support provided through the mandatory disabled facilities grants programme.
      Through our revisions to the building regulations, through the standards we set for new social housing, through our reforms to the planning system and through our funding for adaptations, we are seeking to increase the availability of accessible homes that meet the needs of disabled people. However, the point of the amendment is about how to match those homes to disabled people. Increasing the supply of accessible housing to disabled people is only the first task. We also need to ensure that people with disabilities are matched with the most suitable accommodation available. The amendment is designed to press the Government to make improvements in that respect. That, of course, is why the Government encourage local housing authorities to maintain disability housing registers, an issue that was debated during the passage of the Housing Bill.
      The code of guidance on the allocation of accommodation that we issued to local housing authorities in November 2002 makes it clear that
      "the Secretary of State recommends housing authorities to maintain lists of properties which are suitable for disabled people and other special needs groups … Such lists might include all accessible or significantly adapted local authority stock, RSL properties and private sector properties to which authorities nominate tenants."

      1131
      In addition to that statutory guidance, good practice guidance on disabled housing registers is also available to social landlords. "A Perfect Match?", published jointly by the Housing Corporation and the National Disabled Persons Housing Service in 1999—currently being updated—is designed to help spread best practice and to support the creation of matching services.
      Choice-based lettings schemes, under which properties are openly advertised and appropriately labelled as to the level of adaptation, also make it easier to match people with disabilities to appropriate available accommodation. Those schemes help to provide people with disabilities with the information that they need to choose a home appropriate to their diverse needs. More than 20 per cent. of local authorities are now pursuing some form of choice-based lettings system and we have set a target that all local authorities will have adopted choice-based lettings schemes by 2010.
      Although I am fully in favour of measures that make it easier to match the housing needs of disabled people with available accommodation, in view of all that I have said, I am not persuaded that the amendment is the appropriate way forward. I hope that I have demonstrated our enthusiasm for making change and progress, but not necessarily through the amendment. There were good intentions behind it, but it also has unfortunate consequences. The Government repealed the duty to maintain a housing, register in the Homelessness Act 2002, and I am not convinced that there is sufficient justification to reintroduce that duty for one category of applicant only.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) pointed out, the amendment would require local authorities to maintain detailed registers of all current and future accessible housing in their area. To meet that requirement, local authorities would need to collect information on the access features of not only social housing and private sector housing to which the authority has nomination rights. but of all housing—including owner-occupied housing and homes for private let. The amendment would also require local authorities to provide information relating not only to existing homes, but, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) pointed out, to all homes proposed to be built or adapted to meet accessibility standards in the future.
      The exceptionally broad scope of the requirement would clearly place enormous demands on the resources of local authority housing services. For local authorities to collect detailed information on all properties within their boundaries—whether owned by them or by private individuals, and whether existing or yet to be built—would he onerous indeed.
      The question of cost was mentioned. I am aware that some local authorities that operate disabled housing registers have reported savings from this scheme. Following debates in Committee on the Housing Bill, the Minister for Housing and Planning asked Office of the Deputy Prime Minister officials to look into the operation of such registers across the country. That was the commitment that we made in Committee. The emerging findings show enormous variation in the declared savings of such schemes. Information was limited, variable and lacking in consistency. For
      1132
      instance, some estimates were based on the whole disabled persons housing service, rather than specifically on the disabled housing register.
      11 am
      Because of those serious data reliability issues, we cannot be certain that registers would produce any savings for authorities in the long term. What is certain is that all registers incurred significant start-up costs, which would be a significant new burden on local authorities if registers were to be required in legislation. There are also practical issues around how local authorities could gather information about the access features of privately owned properties in their area in practice, unless the owner volunteered such information. Our view remains that making registers a legislative requirement would place a disproportionate burden upon local authorities and take up resources that could be better used to improve the provision of housing for disabled people through the disabled facilities grants programme.
      We are committed to taking action to ensure that people with disabilities have access to housing that meets their needs. Our announcement of an expedited review of part M to incorporate the lifetime home standard into the building regulations illustrates that commitment. But we believe that the best way forward is through non-legislative measures, such as increased funding for the delivery of a first-class adaptations service and continuing to encourage and promote best practice in local lettings policies to help match people with the most appropriate housing available. With those words of explanation, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw this amendment.
      Mr. Hayes: The Minister has given a useful and interesting response to our short debate and I have two or three further points to make. First, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) appropriately raised the question about the extent of the responsibility to maintain information to match disabled people with appropriate housing. We should not be naive about that, because much adapted housing exists outside the local authority sector. For instance, housing associations, such as the John Grooms housing association, do good work in that area, and the private sector also contains some adapted housing. It is not good enough to exclude such housing from a sensible consideration of how to move forward on the issue. Indeed, Governments have not done so in the past.
      I mentioned the Housing Act 1996 and it is worth drawing particular attention to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, annexe 1 to circular 17/96, entitled "Private Sector Renewal: a Strategic Approach". That guidance, issued under the Act, states that local authorities should consider
      "the development of registers of adapted homes and of people looking for such properties."
      Given that that guidance was aimed at taking a lateral view of the availability of accommodation, and that it also mentions matching people with properties, it is clear that the Government recognised a problem that had to be dealt with. The Minister acknowledged that issue in his remarks, but we should not take too narrow an approach. The balance between cost and efficacy is

      1133
      an issue, and all sensible people would wish to take that into account, but I hope that a sufficiently lateral approach will be taken.
      Secondly, we must take account of existing good practice. I was interested in what the Minister said about the research that was done after my original comments on the issue in Committee on the Housing Bill. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for having commissioned that work by the Department. The Minister said that it produced varying results, but we should consider best practice as found in those authorities that report good results on matching and on cost-effectiveness, in terms of needing to adapt fewer homes, and see how that best practice could be spread to other areas. Local authorities may take different approaches—electronic databases, information distribution, process management, interaction between departments are all relevant. For example, a social services input would be needed as well as a housing input, and possibly a health input. A multi-agency approach is required to achieve the best results. Therefore, I reasonably ask the Minister to consider what the most effective local authorities do and seek to export it to others.
      Thirdly, I wonder whether further discussion might take place with those who represent disabled people, such as the housing associations that specialise in the issue. I mentioned John Grooms housing association, which produced a very good report last year, in conjunction with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, on housing availability for wheelchair users. The results that it found were disappointing, even in respect of new build. Substantial numbers of newly built properties did not meet statutory requirements for access. The Minister said that progress had been made, but there is an issue of compliance. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet people from the sector to discuss the matter further, so that we might make some progress.
      Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hayes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I move on. I am usually generous in giving way.
      With those comments and caveats, I can say that the Minister has approached the issue in a helpful and positive way. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      11.7 am
      Mr. Stunell: I wish to thank all those colleagues who have participated in discussions on the Bill, on Second Reading, in Committee and today. I also wish to thank organisations outside the House that have contributed to the Bill in its present form, especially the Greater Manchester police, who gave me practical assistance on the crime reduction aspect of the Bill, and the WWF which, with its 1 million sustainable homes campaign, has been an important supporter of the Bill.
      The Bill comes at an important time in the development of policy by the United Kingdom on sustainability. Only last week, the Government
      1134
      published their plan of action for energy efficiency, and next week the House will consider the Energy Bill. I like to think that my Bill will play a part in helping the Government out of a hole. They signed up to Kyoto, acknowledged the royal commission report, produced a performance and innovation report and then published a White Paper. They now need some legislation to deliver on some of those promises, and I hope that my Bill will help to do so.
      I am delighted that the Bill has got so far and I am keen to finish the job, so I will not delay the House for long. I brought before the House a Bill that I described as modest, and it has emerged from Committee a little more modest, which I regret. It was never the answer to everything, and it certainly is not now. The Bill is a useful building block that can help to cut crime; I gave practical examples of that at Second Reading.
      The Bill can help to cut carbon emissions and can promote the sustainability of buildings and of homes. Buildings collectively are currently responsible for more than 30 per cent. of this country's carbon emissions, with homes alone accounting for about 27 per cent. Also, clause 5 contains a useful provision that holds the Government to account, requiring them to report every two years on the progress they are making and are planning to make.
      I could easily wax lyrical. On checking Hansard, I was amazed to find that I had talked on Second Reading for 70 minutes. I hope to keep it well under seven minutes this time and simply say that I commend the Bill to the House. I hope it is brought to the Lords quickly and is subsequently put on the statute book as quickly as possible.
      11.10 am
      Brian White: Today I should have been chairing a meeting between the Milton Keynes energy agency and the local authority about the energy needs of local authority buildings, so it is appropriate that I am here to support the hon Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). The Bill is useful and builds on the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, which the hon. Gentleman strongly supported. He ought to be congratulated, not just on the Bill but on galvanising support from the public and from the organisations about which he talked.
      The Bill is a step forward and a building block, and makes a number of key advances. I regret that two of the clauses on energy that were in the Bill when it went into Committee have been removed. However, that does not mean that the Government will not need to discuss and make progress on the issues. I am confident that they will, and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's assurances in Committee will be taken forward. We are to discuss the Energy Bill next week, when we will return to the issue of renewables. There are a number of key issues that we need to take forward and this Bill gives us an opportunity to do that.
      I am sure that the Under-Secretary will assure the House that the Government are on target to achieve their energy objectives. In welcoming the Bill and wishing it well in the Lords, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the Bill, the progress that he has made and the difference that the Bill will make to the country.
      11.13 am
      Sue Doughty: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on the work that he has done. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) have concerns that the Bill does not go as far as we would like. We must continue to work on previous and future energy legislation to see its impact on climate change and other problems. I am however delighted that the Bill is being taken forward.
      I thank the Under-Secretary for his help. The other day, I chaired a meeting at which he gave a most interesting address on sustainable buildings. His personal comments about the Bill are helpful.
      The housing stock is desperately important, but the scourge of fuel poverty is still with us. We have made progress, but there is a long way to As energy costs increase, the problem becomes more argent, particularly among the lowest income groups. I look forward to the Energy Bill, which we hope will deal with that matter.
      Public buildings, town centre developments and out of town shopping centres can contribute to the excess use of energy and resources, as well as to greenhouse gas problems. In future, such developments must use fewer resources and must be less demanding and more sustainable. This is where the Bill starts to make progress.
      I met the developers of a proposed development in central Guildford, and at last they are starting to talk about combined heat and power and recycling. Big companies are much better on recycling because the reuse of materials can reduce their costs, but small law firms, for example, that generate lot of paper often do not have recycling facilities. We hope that the Bill will start to help such organisations. We need to know how large buildings can generate renewables, which is possible. These are cheap wins if we can move the market forward. We also need more sustainable construction.
      Public thinking is changing. A few weeks ago, I was canvassing for a by-election in an area of Guildford that has an area of land that is up for development. It is to be used for properties, but people were asking where the recycling facilities would be. They wanted composting facilities and the easy collection of recyclables. We also need to examine the conversion of large buildings into flats. My flat in London is in a large building, the former headquarters of the NAAFI. When it was converted, opportunities for combined heat and power were not taken, although the building would have been an ideal candidate. There is no recycling facility. It is gated and secure, but an opportunity has been lost.
      I strongly welcome the Bill, which will be paving legislation. It does not change things as such but gives the Government more opportunity, through building regulations, to say what they want and how they can work on climate change and fuel poverty and cut waste. I am delighted that the Bill is proceeding, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove.
      11.18 am
      Mr. Hayes: We are coming to the conclusion of a good debate that has cut across the party divide, largely thanks to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove
      1136
      (Mr. Stunell). Exploring the important issues of the security and sustainability of buildings has done the House a power of good.
      I had a lovely day on Monday; I went to Birmingham. I do not often go there and it was exciting. I went to the master builder of the year gala awards lunch, attended by hundreds of builders. I was the only politician there, which was disappointing. No doubt others were invited, but we have busy diaries. I was pleased to see the very best of what builders can do. The awards involve the exploration by judges of projects throughout the country and show what builders—typically small firms—can achieve when they take on board the things we discussed during our debates.
      We can do good work. There is great skill throughout the building professions and we have many good architects. We have people who are committed to producing the very best, and they must be encouraged. The House will forgive me for noting that one of those nominated for a prize—indeed, the winner of a local award—was Fensom Builders, for a project in Deeping St. James in my glorious constituency. I met Dave Fensom and his family; better people one could not wish to know. They are typical of small builders in this country who are taking on board many of the considerations embodied in the Bill.
      In broadly supporting the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove throughout consideration of the Bill, I wish to discuss three matters that emerged from that consideration: power, learning and knowledge. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) mentioned the difficult balance between, on the one hand, the power that the legislation will provide and the resulting issues of cost and effectiveness—whether the good intentions can be delivered—and, on the other, the desirability of the intentions that lie behind the Bill. That balance will be the test of whether the proposals make legislation that is indeed as good as we hope it will be. When speaking of power, the whole House turns first to Edmund Burke, who said:
      "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
      It seems to me that when they consider the Bill, their lordships will be aware of that balance, which has properly been discussed here and been accepted as the key to whether the Bill makes good law.
      Hilaire Belloc, who is another of the Minister's heroes and one of mine, too, said that pride—not a fault of which we can accuse those present here today—
      "causes those who suffer from this disease to regard whatever they think they have learned … as absolute and sufficient."
      Although many of the things said during our deliberations, and much of the Bill, are good, they are neither absolute nor sufficient. That is why I moved my probing amendments today and why I have tried, in my humble contributions, to highlight some of the areas that are not yet sufficient and the ways in which the Bill could act as a catalyst for discussion of further issues, such as those affecting disabled people, warm homes and energy efficiency.
      On progress, I turn to my hero G. K. Chesterton, who said:
      "My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday."

      1137
      Progress must be more than an ambition, but to be realisable it must be routed in a certain sense of where we want to get to. Today, we have discussed aesthetics and our determination to ensure that our historic built environment is respected to an even greater degree than it has been thus far, and that we take proper account of the relationship between new buildings and existing settlements, and understand buildings' impact on the landscape. All are vital to ensuring that progress represents genuine improvement rather than change for change's sake.
      The hon. Member for Hazel Grove will agree with me that every Briton should have the opportunity to live in a home that is secure, warm and fit for its purpose. Let that be our mission. It is certainly the Conservatives' mission, and I think that we are gradually converting other parties, including the Government.
      11.25 am
      Dr. Palmer: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). Each of us would like, before we leave this place after many scores of years, to be able to attach our name to a law. I have a nasty feeling that my epitaph will be, "He got bells on bicycles", but I think that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to have his name attached to this substantial piece of legislation when, as we anticipate it will, it has completed its passage through both Houses and receives Royal Assent.
      There is broad consensus on the building regulations being the right way in which to deal with the general issues in the Bill. Any individual developer may pay lip service to the principles of sustainable development—indeed, his support may be genuine—but the financial, planning and other pressures attached to any development will tend to overwhelm such good intentions unless we secure a general raising of standards across the country. Everyone who has canvassed in his own and other constituencies will know that standards must be raised.
      I shall focus on an aspect that has been little discussed today: the design of buildings to discourage crime. Our constituents would no doubt be pleased to hear that their building was environmentally sustainable, but the issue that comes up more in daily canvassing is whether a building is designed to discourage hooligans and the entry and escape of people with inappropriate intentions—whether, when consideration was being given to developing a property, especially a block of flats, attention was paid to whether the design would discourage crime. That gets far too little attention at that stage, and we tend to fix the problem later, often at disproportionate expense.
      Brian White: In my area, the local planning inspector has just thrown such key issues out of the local plan. My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I hope that the Minister will ensure that during inquiries planning inspectors take account of the need to design out crime.
      Dr. Palmer: Crime is one of the areas in which an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I think
      1138
      that we all have estates in our constituencies where, if more thought had been given to the problem, the risk of crime could have been greatly reduced.
      Clause 2(8) amends section 44 of the Building Act 1984, which deals with Crown properties. Building legislation passed in 1944 has not yet taken effect. Although I am all in favour of not rushing legislation, I ask the Minister to consider whether 60 years is sufficient time to implement the provision in respect of Crown properties.
      We had a partly playful but also partly serious discussion on the registration of properties with good disabled access. Leaving the banter aside, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), whom I count as a personal friend despite his criticisms of my sartorial excellence, is on to a serious point here. I suggest that local authorities be encouraged to register the disabled access of buildings in their control, and in respect of housing associations, and that they maintain a voluntary register so that owners of private property who wish to record the fact that they have improved the it properties to allow for people with disabilities are able to do so with some local authority imprimatur or a verification to show that that has happened. People trying to sell their property would find that beneficial and helpful, as opposed to an imposition, which is how the proposal would be considered if there was a blanket requirement to register the situation for every property in the borough.
      I urge those implementing the Bill to examine best international practice. As has been said in the debate, Britain has a great tradition of architecture, but I am not sure that we have a great tradition of sustainable development. There are countries that are significantly in advance of us on that. We should consider examples from Scandinavia and countries such as Switzerland and Holland. which is no doubt of special interest to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, as we would see that there are lessons to be learned, which we do not have to reinvent. If we could achieve the best international standards, that would be an enormous step forward.
      We obviously must consider the cost of any such improvements. When we have what is generally accepted to be a shortage of housing, especially affordable housing, we must be careful that we do not gold-plate the regulations to the extent that affordable housing becomes unaffordable.
      I think the hen. Member for Hazel Grove, who introduced the legislation, would agree that many of the improvements that we can envisage in building regulations are not terribly expensive, but merely ones that people have to decide to make. It is not necessary to have amazingly luxurious building with all modern conveniences for every conceivable situation; it is merely necessary to bear in mind as one develops a new construction that we need to cover the aspect of crime prevention and that of environmental sustainability.
      Mr. Stunell: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. The building legislation and the building regulations are some of the best preventive health

      1139
      measures there are. I have made the point before that building inspectors have saved more lives than doctors in the past 150 years, and long may it continue.
      Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We tend to overlook the health aspect of the issue. We consider the environmental side, which is a social good, and the crime side, which is a social and individual good, but it is easy to forget that good building regulations mean healthy buildings, and healthy buildings reduce the burden on the health service.
      It is Friday morning and, as usual, the turnout is not overwhelming, but we must acknowledge that such legislation—for example, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—has a significance and an impact well beyond that of more glamorous and high-profile legislation. I would be surprised to see any reference in any of tomorrow's newspapers to the passing of the Bill, but it will probably benefit people right across the country for decades to come. As has been said, we are busy people, so we should all feel a little proud that we spent some time on a Friday morning giving the legislation a fair wind.
      11.35 am
      Matthew Green: The House will be relieved to hear that I intend to be brief and that I do not intend to quote from a Burke.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on this excellent Bill and the manner in which he has taken it forward. I would add my congratulations to the Minister and to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who speaks from the Conservative Front Bench, on approaching the Bill sensibly and meaningfully. That shows their intention to take the Bill seriously.
      I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee—I have probably served on too many Committees involving the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in recent months, so my absence was probably a relief—so I rise briefly now to offer the support of Liberal Democrat Front Benchers for the Bill. I am not saying that just because my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove is the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip.
      I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a shame that the Bill lost some elements in Committee, but he still has a Bill of which he can be very proud. It will make step changes and improve sustainability and security of buildings. The public will appreciate that he has done a great service in introducing it.
      The Bill is based on firm principles, but those principles have not prevented it from being coherent and, most importantly, effective. I hope that the other place also approaches it pragmatically and sensibly, and approves it so that it can reach the statute book, which it deserves to do.
      11.37 am
      Phil Hope: Here we are on Third Reading and the Bill, like me earlier, has arrived at its crunch point. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and congratulate him on introducing it and taking it forward. The Government offer it their strong support.
      1140
      Modestly, the hon. Gentleman described the Bill as modest, but I beg to differ. I believe that it will be of enormous help in supporting Government policies and aspirations on sustainable development and security. I also thank other hon. Members who—in the Chamber today, in Committee and on Second Reading—have played an active part in its consideration. We have had contributions from the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), who has a well-known track record of championing this cause.
      During consideration of the Bill, my hon. Friend has pressed the Government and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to take things further. Where we have been able to do so, we have responded positively; where we have been unable to do so, our intent has none the less been similar to his. I hope he acknowledges that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who is not present, lost her amendment in Committee, but, through the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, we have managed to put it in the Bill, which is very pleasing. Indeed, it has been a pleasure for me to serve for the first time during consideration of a Bill with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who brought eloquence and flair to our proceedings, quoting Belloc, Chesterton and Burke.
      I remind the hon. Gentleman that when we discussed city states and their evolution during the passage of the Local Government Bill, I managed to get Marx, Hegel, Machiavelli and Rousseau into our proceedings. I suggest that my panoply of champions is at least a match for his.
      Mr. Hayes: I think that the whole House will know that, whereas the Minister is Machiavellian, I aim merely to be Chestertonian.
      Phil Hope: I can put that on my tombstone in the long and distant future—not too soon, I trust. To be known as the Machiavelli of modern British politics would be—
      Joan Ryan: The prince.
      Phil Hope: The prince of modern British politics would be a fine epitaph for a junior Minister.
      I would like to mention the main provisions of the Bill and remind everyone about what we have achieved and are achieving through it. It will allow building regulations to be made for new purposes of furthering the protection or enhancement of the environment, facilitating sustainable development and furthering the prevention or detection of crime. It extends the circumstances in which building regulations apply to existing buildings and allows building regulations to impose continuing requirements where needed to conserve fuel or power or to reduce greenhouse emissions.
      The Bill requires a register of information to be kept by local authorities about their building control functions. It allows regulations to require that building control compliance is certified to the local authority and regulations to require a person to be appointed to manage compliance with the building regulations throughout the period of building work. It also requires

      1141
      a biennial report to Parliament on the progress of sustainability in the building stock in England and Wales and, as a result of today's decisions, it requires the Secretary of State to take into account the historic character of buildings when making building regulations.
      I do not think that it is a modest Bill. We in the House and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove can be proud of it. The Government are delighted to support it. I hope that it will receive fair wind in the other place and that it will become an Act in due course.
      The Bill is in line with Government policy on sustainability and the environment. It will help us to apply our wider policy objectives to building regulations. I want to say a few more words about why we support the introduction of the measures that I have described and about how the Bill will help us to promote security and crime reduction.
      It is interesting that, both on Second Reading and in Committee, the sustainable development aspects of the Bill attracted most attention and interest, yet its security and crime-reduction measures are hugely significant, too. The powers will enable us to do something to try to reduce crime and to decrease people's fear of crime in the years ahead.
      Sustainability is an important part of the Government's programme. We are committed to promoting economic growth but, crucially, we are keen to do so in a way that promotes quality of life and does not diminish it. That has been too often forgotten by previous Governments.
      One of the most common definitions of sustainability is
      "development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
      Hon. Members will know that the ODPM launched the sustainable communities plan, which is about regenerating communities and about growth that includes the infrastructure that is required to ensure that we do not build soulless housing estates and make the errors of the past that bedevil rather too many of us in our constituencies. We want growth that is genuinely sustainable, not only in the economic and social senses but, crucially, in the environmental sense. It will be a triple win, if we can do it: creating, building and growing sustainable communities that combine economic, social and environmental progress.
      I spoke to the all-party group on sustainable waste only the other day. The hon. Member for Guildford was kind enough to thank me for that. There is huge interest in the House and great support for measures concerning sustainability that recognise—this applies not just to waste management but to many other sectors—the importance of being able to embrace all three aims. Understanding how to achieve economic progress, sustainable environmental progress and social progress is the real story of the 21st century, so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.
      The Bill will allow us to use building regulations to make buildings more sustainable. It aims to improve the quality of life of people in their homes and workplaces
      1142
      in a cost-effective way to avoid imposing burdens on business. There are three specific ways in which it will move policy forward.
      First, it aims to promote the sustainable use and reuse of building materials. Secondly, it aims to raise performance standards for energy efficiency and so reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and vapours. Thirdly, it aims to increase the level of compliance with building regulations through measures relating to appointed persons and certification. Those are three specific, concrete, identifiable action points that will achieve specific and agreeable outcomes. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove championed those measures throughout proceedings in Committee. He was right to do so. They will achieve real progress.
      In addition, the biennial report to Parliament on the progress of those activities and of sustainability by the Secretary of State will act as a spur to continuing good practice. We should not underestimate the challenge presented to us by the Bill, the fact that the Government are prepared to support it, and the report. There is a small cost involved in that. We debated issues around cost; I do not think Burke really got into the difference between power and regulation. This is an enabling Bill that allows us to take those powers forward. Therefore, costs associated with the Bill are small because they relate only to reporting to Parliament.
      Later, when the building regulations are discussed, consultation is held and the regulatory impact assessment is made, there will be a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the various measures. Members raised those concerns, particularly on Second Reading. It is important that hon. Members understand what the Bill will do and the regulations that will flow from it.
      Sue Doughty: I add my appreciation of the fact that there will be reporting. I have regularly lamented the Government's refusal to report on progress and I have highlighted the importance of reporting. I am grateful for the Government's movement on that and for the Minister's understanding of the importance of progress reports.
      Phil Hope: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comment. We were not able to accept some of the amendments tabled in Committee because they went further than we were able to go at the time, but in this case we have responded positively—in the production of the Bill, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading—to put on record our commitment and to implement it through the reporting process.
      The imposition of a requirement on local authorities to keep information about their building control function will help them to meet the needs of the home information pack, and better enable them and the general public to track the progress of sustainability in their areas. We will thus be able to see the progress locally, as well as nationally and in Parliament.
      On energy efficiency, the building regulations that the Bill directly affects play a crucial part in our climate change programme. As hon. Members know, that sets targets for reducing national carbon emissions in 2010 to 20 per cent. below that in 1990. Almost half of our national carbon emissions are from buildings. Understanding that a building is responsible for carbon

      1143
      emissions is an interesting idea, to which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove alluded. Most people believe that carbon emissions are generated by cars, aeroplanes and so on—things that move around. The idea that carbon emissions are generated by buildings is understood by scientists and. I hope by children in their lessons at school, but I am not sure the general public fully understand it. It is true to say that about half of our national carbon emissions are from buildings.
      Mr. Stunell: The Minister makes in important point. It continues to fascinate me that this place spends so much time and so much political energy on measures that will affect traffic and vehicles, whereas my house and the Minister's house emit more carbon than my car or the Minister's car. I welcome his recognition of that, and I hope that that means that in future a larger part of Government policy will be directed at reducing carbon emissions from buildings, with less attention focused on traffic.
      Phil Hope: I am interested to hear the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip announce new Liberal Democrat policy from the Back Benches, and that the Liberal Democrats are no longer in favour of reducing carbon emissions from traffic. No doubt that will find its way into various leaflets—
      Mr. Stunell rose—
      Phil Hope: Perhaps I am about to be corrected.
      Mr. Stunell: Occasionally, misapprehensions can be picked up by Labour Ministers when they are not paying sufficient attention. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not authorised to change Liberal Democrat transport policy this morning.
      Phil Hope: And neither am I.
      Mr. Richard Bacon: Does anybody care?
      Phil Hope: I believe that more people are beginning to care about carbon emissions. They understand the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change and global warming. [Interruption.] I stand corrected—the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) was asking whether people care about Liberal Democrat policy. I fully share his cynicism in that regard.
      The Bill will allow the application of regulations to a greater number of existing buildings, not just new ones. Improving standards in the existing building stock is vital to meet the targets. We all look forward to the report—it is due to reach the Government soon—from the sustainable buildings task group chaired by Victor Benjamin and Sir John Harman. It was commissioned by no fewer than three Departments—the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—to recommend steps that we can take immediately to improve buildings in this country.
      I shall deal briefly with an aspect of the Bill that has received less attention than the energy efficiency and sustainability provisions that we have been discussing:
      1144
      security and crime reduction. Those are particularly important in view of the debate that may take place later today. The provision in the Bill paves the way for the Government to introduce building regulations that will facilitate the prevention and detection of crime. That is very welcome. In addition to being an inclusive, well designed environment, a sustainable community must strive to be free from crime and free from the fear of crime. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that implementing even basic security measures can reduce the risk of an individual becoming the victim of burglary.
      According to the 2002–03 British crime survey, some 974,000 domestic burglaries were committed in that year. I am pleased to say that that is 25 per cent. fewer than in 1999, which is good news for our communities, but it is still far too many. The evidence from that survey is that security measures are strongly associated with a reduced risk of becoming a victim of burglary. Households with basic security measures, such as deadlocks on outside doors and locks that need keys to open them on all accessible windows, are at less risk of being burgled. That is why the Bill will have a significant and valuable impact.
      We can do a lot more to encourage people to improve the security of their homes and businesses by taking straightforward measures, such as ensuring that the door and its frame are solid and that the doors and windows have effective locks. Too many people fit security only after they have been burgled. On Second Reading, a number of hon. Members said that they had had their house burgled and that the police had come round, inspected their windows and doors, and said, "Why don't you just put a different kind of lock on your front door? With that, this burglary would not have happened."
      I have had that precise experience. I came downstairs one morning, not realising that I had been burgled during the night. My video and television had been stolen, which was a shock when I walked into my front room. The police who came round to take fingerprints rightly chastised me for not fitting standard locks, which are easily affordable, on doors and windows. I went straight to the DIY shop to buy window and door locks, which I fitted myself, but if I had known about this debate, I would have fitted locks before being burgled rather than afterwards.
      We can learn that lesson through these regulations. It would be best if people fitted locks voluntarily, but the Bill will enable building regulations to be made on fitting such locks to all new buildings and, when the circumstances change, to the existing building stock. That will reduce burglaries, because statistical analysis shows that homes with such locks on their doors and windows are less likely to be burgled.
      Brian White: Further to my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), will the Minister make sure that the whole planning system, and not just the building regulations, takes that issue seriously, because crime can be designed out when housing estates are constructed? If planning inspectors do not recognise that point, they are doing our constituents a disservice.
      Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I was going to refer to that point. The Bill is about building regulations, not the planning system, but measures on estate planning and building design can help to reduce crime considerably. My hon. Friends in the Home Office and other Departments are working together across the Government to examine ways to promote the idea of designing out crime, which requires Departments to work together. Other Ministers and I sit on Cabinet Sub-Committees to examine how we can work together on issues such as designing out crime to ensure that we take that agenda forward. PPS10 is particularly interesting, and it provides a way to move forward.
      In time, we will be able to make regulations so that all new or refurbished buildings have basic security measures from the outset. We do not expect to use the provisions in the Bill to impose onerous or prescriptive measures, because the precise nature of the security needed in any place depends on the nature and location of the property, the type of use envisaged for it and who will occupy or visit it. However, we are taking a stride forward this morning with this Bill.
      Finally, I remind the House that this is an enabling Bill to allow us at a future date to pass regulations based on such powers, and that before the introduction of the regulations, there will be a full regulatory impact assessment and a consultation process. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for introducing the Bill and ably piloting it through the sometimes choppy waters of its passage through the House. We have inevitably had to deal with the vagaries of procedure, which we have done successfully. I also thank all other hon. Members, some of whom I have not managed to mention specifically, who have contributed to a Bill that will, in time, make a difference to promoting sustainable development and improving security in our country's buildings.
      Mr. Stunell: I very much appreciate the remarks—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to ask the leave of the House.
      Mr. Stunell: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to thank all hon. Members who spoke in support of the Bill on Third Reading.
      I see the Bill as the start, not the end, of a process. The Minister was kind enough to suggest that it is a substantial part of the jigsaw, but it is certainly not the complete picture. I have already given notice to him and his officials that if the Bill proceeds successfully I will haunt him by coming back to ensure that we get the results that we want. I therefore hope that it completes its passage now.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Criminal Justice (Justifiable Conduct) Bill
Order for Second reading read.
12 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As you would expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the main body of my remarks will be addressed to the content and structure of the Bill, but it might help the House if, before I embark upon that fairly detailed analysis, I spend a few moments dealing with its pedigree.
I shall start by quoting from The Times of 2 January this year. At the beginning of the year of our Lord 2004, "The Thunderer" announced, in measured terms, "Radio 4 listeners want right to kill intruders". Under the byline of one Mr. Greg Hurst, it continued:
"It began as a quirky idea to pad out the Today programme over the quiet Christmas holiday period: ask listeners to nominate a change in the law and then vote for it. Stephen Pound, a pliant Labour MP with an appetite for publicity, stood by ready to introduce a Bill in the Commons.
By yesterday morning, however, the Radio 4 programme had a potential disaster on its hands. The winning Bill, it announced, would allow homeowners to use any means to defend their property. Any means? Not reasonable force, as the law currently allows? Using deadly force? Shooting people? Apparently so."
The "Today" programme had auditioned its listeners to come forward with ideas for legislation. The "Today" editorial team of which I was a minor member some years ago would probably have listened to the suggestion of a no doubt bright, able and creative researcher, congratulated the author of the concept on a most valuable contribution to broadcasting, then put the matter quietly on the spike. The current team appears to be rather different. The wheels were set in motion and there was, I suppose, an awful predictability about the outcome Having taken the "Pop Idol" approach to politics, Radio 4 trailed the fact with the words, "Our friendly MP is going to introduce your Bill."
As you know better than most, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is the courtesy in this House that, if one Member intends to attack another, it is customary to give him notice beforehand I have not found it necessary to give such notice to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) because I do not intend to attack him at all. I will now damage his reputation still further: he is a personal friend. He would say that, if The Times describes him as having an appetite for publicity, it is only equal and commensurate with my appetite for the same. I can say that in all fairness because he and I used to share a Sunday morning broadcast programme together. It was so successful that we decided that we would be better off staying in bed and ringing up the listeners. I believe that that was the point at which we made the right decision. However, he appears to have gone one step further and sought the fame of the Radio 4 "Today" programme.
In The Times on 2 January, Mr. Simon Jenkins wrote:
"Where would we be without the BBC? Not content with usurping the scrutiny function of the House of Commons, it now purports to legislate. Yesterday, it presented Parliament with a Bill to allow homeowners to shoot all burglars on sight. This was justified by something called a 'listeners' poll' which a tame Labour MP … had agreed to present to the House of Commons, sight unseen."

1147
Mr. Jenkins is known to this House as a capable journalist, but I fear that he was profoundly wrong on many counts in his opening paragraph. However, he was right in one specific regard, namely his attack on the public service broadcaster for its endeavour to interfere in the course of legislation in a manner that many of us on both sides of the House regard as wholly unacceptable.
Mr. Eric Forth: I give notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. that if I catch your eye, I would like to say a few uncongenial words about the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr Pound). Does my hon. Friend agree that many Bills that arise in the House, particularly on Fridays, are originated by unpleasant single-interest pressure groups? The distinction between an unpleasant single-interest pressure group and the mighty BBC is a difficult one to make.
Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend will no doubt go further down that road if he catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the moment, however, it is not my intention to do so.
I took the matter of this process up with the editor of the "Today" programme on Radio 4, Mr. Kevin Marsh. Mr. Marsh took exception to my criticism of his vehicle and wrote to me to say that even
"as we speak, we are working on drafting a piece of legislation."
Now, the BBC has many admirable qualities. It produces hours and hours of fine televisual and radio broadcasting, but I do not believe that it is the business of the public service broadcaster of this country to engage in the drafting of a piece of legislation. I took this up in a letter to the then editor-in-chief and director-general of the BBC on 13 January. Mr. Dyke and I did not agree—as we have not on other occasions—on this issue.
Let the House not misunderstand me. I believe that the purpose behind the BBC's exercise was founded in good faith. It is a sadness to us all that the public take far too little interest in our proceedings and in the democratic process, and that they believe that they have no voice and no effect. That is demonstrated much too frequently in local and national polls at election time.
Had the BBC wanted to pursue the process of following a private Member's Bill through both Houses of Parliament, it would have been remarkably easy for it so to do. It could have taken the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill, which had its Report stage and Third Reading here this morning, and traced it right the way through Second Reading, Committee, this morning's proceedings and onwards into the House of Lords. That would probably have served the useful purpose of telling people outside this place how vulnerable private Members' Bills are, and how difficult it is to get something on to the statute book even if the cause is of the most just. However, the BBC chose not to do that. It went down the route of finding the "listeners' law", and the result was inevitable. It came up with a shortlist of many worthy subjects, but the overwhelming vote of the listeners to the programme that describes itself as the nation's flagship current affairs programme was for a
1148
subject dear to the listeners' heart. It was a subject trailed widely in the popular press—the householder's Bill, as it was called.
Dr. Nick Palmer: To clarify the matter, as the hon. Gentleman describes the vote as overwhelming, is he aware that it was in fact 37 per cent.?
Mr. Gale: It was 37 per cent. of a vote in which there were about another eight candidate subjects, if I remember rightly; the hon. Gentleman probably remembers precisely. That was an overwhelming vote. Tens of thousands of listeners apparently voted for this subject.
The reaction of the production team was equally predictable—sheer horror. The friendly MP regarded the subject as too reactionary and the listeners' law hit the buffers. I have made it plain that I do not believe in that manner of approaching the process. The BBC made a profound mistake, and I hope and believe, and think that I know, that at least behind the scenes it has been agreed that that kind of stunt will not be tried again. To take the point made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), given that many thousands of people voted in the belief that their view was going to be brought before Parliament, my hon. Friends and I decided that we would have a go at wiping a little of the egg off Auntie's face, and see whether we could achieve something in the direction of the change to the criminal justice law that was required.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, there were reports that the gun lobby rigged the vote. If that is false, it demonstrates a desire on the part of the public service broadcasters to ignore the voice of their listeners, and if it is true—I have no way of knowing—it must demonstrate the dangers, and highly undesirable vulnerability, of phone-in polls of this kind.
Why are we here today and why did so many people vote for this subject? The bottom line is that they did. Their motivation, and the motivation of many represented by those who are here today and those who are not, lies in widely reported and possibly sensationalised descriptions of high-profile cases. One in particular, many people believe, represented a gross miscarriage of justice. I am not here to present that case. This is not, as it has been described in shorthand terms by the popular press, the Tony Martin Bill, any more than it is the listeners' law. What my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have done is to seek to construct an amendment to the criminal justice legislation that reflects the concerns of the people. Our approach is not a knee-jerk reaction to one hard case out of which we are seeking to extrapolate bad law, because hard cases do make bad law. We are seeking to address the underlying perception that the criminal justice system has moved towards the criminal as the victim and away from the interests of the real victim of the crime—in this case, the householder, be that person tenant or house owner. I will return to that point later.
Let me now turn, perhaps not before time, to the substance of the Bill. If the Bill's pedigree could be described as part thoroughbred and part mongrel, its provenance is sound. It was drafted by an expert parliamentary draftsman. Members on both sides of the

1149
House may quarrel with some of the content, but I defy them to say that the Bill is technically unsound. Sadly, that cannot be said of some private Members' Bills. For that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the draftsman, Francis Bennion.
The Bill's provisions are confined to dwellings because it concentrates on defence of the home. Article 8.1 of the European convention on human rights, which is enforced by the Human Rights Act 1998, states that every person has a right to respect for his or her home and that that requires the state to give special protection to people in their homes, in addition to the protection given to individual citizens by the law generally.
The sanctity of the home has long been recognised by common law. Justifying the strict laws against burglary, which was designated by law as a crime committed by breaking and entering a dwelling house during the hours of darkness at the time, Sir William Blackstone said famously, "An Englishman's home is his castle". What is less famous but equally relevant is the rest of that statement:
"Burglary is done at the dead of night, when all the creation, except beasts of prey, are at rest; when sleep has disarmed the owner, and rendered his castle defenceless".
That goes to the heart of the Bill.
In relation to criminal offences, the Bill provides a special defence for the householder in clause 1, and requires Crown prosecutors to pause and consider before prosecuting that householder. In relation to civil liability, clause 3 repeats much of what is said in clause 1. That is necessary simply because of the different standards of proof applying in civil and criminal cases.
Mr. Forth: Notwithstanding his moving quotation about burglary, can my hon. Friend make it clear that his Bill makes no distinction between the hours of light and the hours of darkness? Will not anyone entering someone else's home be subject to its provisions, regardless of the hour?
Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend is of course right. The quotation is historic and applies to a time when law-abiding burglars only committed their crimes at night.
The heading "Home defence (criminal liability)" in clause 1 indicates that the clause concentrates—as, indeed, does the whole Bill—on the defence of the home. It provides that the person being protected, person A, is protected when he or she is in a dwelling. "Dwelling" is defined later in the Bill. That person must be either the occupier of the dwelling, or present with the licence—the permission—of the occupier. That is standard statutory language. The occupier is the person currently in occupation, who may or may not be the owner. With respect to Mr. Jenkins, his article in The Times was palpably wrong, at least in regard to this Bill. The Bill does not differentiate between owner and tenant; it deals with the occupier.
When the circumstances specified in terms of the occupier exist, the occupier is given special protection in respect of action that he takes against an intruder—person B. The person qualifies as B if he is trespassing in the dwelling. Again, that is a well understood legal term, covering anyone who is in the dwelling without consent.
1150
I shall come back to the nature of "dwelling", which is defined later in the Bill. Clause 1(2) also treats as an intruder—as B—a person who is attempting to gain unlawful entry, but has not yet succeeded in doing so. The person outside the window endeavouring to force the locks is as vulnerable to this defence as the person who has already broken in.
Clause 1(2) protects the occupier against the person or property of person B, the intruder, for one of five listed reasons, which are self-explanatory. The wording of the last of them, that person A is acting "in prevention of crime", might cause some consternation, so I shall clarify it. It is taken from paragraph 9.10 of the Law Commission consultation paper No. 173, "Partial Defences to Murder". Under the clause, a person must genuinely believe that he or she is acting for one of the five reasons, but it does not matter if that person is mistaken in his or her belief.
The clause has been subjected to some criticism by barristers because, curiously, they do not believe that it goes far enough. There is a legal concern, which may have to be addressed in Committee, that in dealing with the householder in this way, those of us who are promoting the Bill have sought to protect too narrow a special interest group. That is even though the context of the dwelling and the occupier is very broad. Another concern is that the circumstances as described in clause 1 may be too narrow. I am perfectly prepared to concede this morning that we will need to address that when the Bill enters Committee, as I hope that it will.
The Law Commission paper that I have cited goes on to say that a person should not be convicted where the
"acts in question were undertaken in self-defence and may have been an instinctive response to the perceived level of risk",
and comments:
"It is hard to see why the law affords greater protection to those who kill in response to insults"—
under the existing defence of provocation—
"than to those who do so while protecting their homes."
The criminal standard of proof, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt, applies to clause 1, so to defeat the defence in clause 1, the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the householder did not genuinely believe at the time, in the circumstances then prevailing, that he or she was acting as stated in clause 1.
The title of clause 2, "Home defence (restriction of prosecutions)", suggests that it is intended to restrict the number of prosecutions of householders and others engaged in the defence of the home. The Crown prosecutor arrives at the point of considering public interest only where the facts indicate that the evidence exists to give a strong prospect of obtaining conviction. Even where that is the case, the prosecution must not be instigated unless the public interest requires it. Clause 2 adds a further factor: that the public interest requires householders to be fully protected by the law against intruders into their home.
Dr. Palmer: Just on a technical point, I am puzzled by clause 2. In what circumstances does the hon. Gentleman believe that a Crown prosecutor would think that a potential prosecution was valid under clause 1, or despite clause 1, but nevertheless should not be pursued because of clause 2? In other words, is not clause 2 superfluous if we have clause 1?
Mr. Gale: I freely concede that there may be an element of belt and braces in the two clauses. The hon. Gentleman is right: clause 2 merely seeks to underscore the provisions established very clearly in clause 1. It is the carrying out of an act in the belief that it is necessary that is the defence.
Given the issue that the hon. Member for Broxtowe has just raised, I shall intervene on myself, as it were, by pointing out one of the criticisms that is made of the Bill. It is made by those who clearly have not studied the law as it stands—as, indeed, I had not until I began this process. The popular perception is that it is currently in order to use reasonable force, without any change to the law. The difficulty with that is that the Crown Prosecution Service—the system—decides what is reasonable force. The public Perception is that, increasingly, that pendulum has swung in favour of the criminal and away from the victim.
I shall come back to that issue, on which I was given some very interesting information this morning by someone who clearly knows what he is talking about. But the difference between the law as it stands and this proposal is that the householder—we need to remember that the householder is the innocent party; the burglar has not been made to burgle—would decide what is reasonable force, not the CPS. If that answer satisfies the hon. Member for Broxtowe, I shall move on.
The title of clause 3—"Home defence (civil liability)"—makes it clear that the clause concentrates on the defence of the home, as indeed does the Bill as a whole. But it is necessary to restate some parts of clause 1 because as I have said, there is a difference in the standards of proof required for civil and for criminal cases.
Clause 4—the Bill's final clause—defines what is meant by "dwelling". The definition is taken from section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996, and makes it clear that "dwelling" covers not only a house or flat, but a caravan, houseboat, yard, garden, garage or any part of the curtilage of what most people would describe as—however humble—their home. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 4 contain the usual transitional provisions, which ensure that the legislation cannot be applied retrospectively. This House has a sad recent history of embarking on retrospective legislation. It is not the intention of the Bill's promoter and sponsors that any of its provisions apply retrospectively. It is not the intention to permit redress to anybody who feels that they were wrongfully convicted in the past.
I have dwelt on the issue of public perception quite deliberately. I defy any Member of this House who is in touch with their constituents—that is most of us—to say, hand on heart, that people do not feel that these days the criminal gets a much better deal than the real victim of the crime. There is a perception that one's home is no longer one's castle. In fact, in some circumstances even the law is not ready to say that one's home is one's castle. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) recall at the tail-end of the previous debate how he and his wife had been burgled. Their home was ransacked and violated, and those of us to whom that has happened—again, sadly, that is probably most of us—know how dirty and genuinely violated that makes one feel. The police told him that in some way he was culpable because he had not locked his house up securely enough. He felt
1152
compelled to visit the hardware shop to buy new locks and new catches for his windows; and he fitted them to make his home more secure.
I am not for one moment suggesting that it is not the duty of householders to seek to ensure the security of their property. The days when people living in a village could leave the back door and the front door open all day and probably all night are long gone. However, the suggestion that it is the fault of the householder when someone breaks in tells me that the world has largely gone mad.
This is not, as the press has sought to describe it, a Bill to allow anyone to shoot a burglar. Let me put before the House the case not of Tony Martin, but of Robin Baker-White, a former high sheriff of Kent. He has had intruders on his property a number of times, and he and his wife have felt violated by having their possessions stolen. On one occasion—he has a licensed shotgun—he fired over the heads of the people retreating from his home with his goods, but the police confiscated his gun.
This Bill is not about blasting to eternity with the family blunderbuss the 12-year-old who kicks a football into a garden and climbs over the fence to retrieve it. It is about sending a message to the courts, to the judicial system and to the criminal fraternity that now goes out armed—as an aside, since the abolition of capital punishment for murder—as a matter of course. Nowadays if there is any redress, it tends to be on the side of the criminal rather than the householder.
Dr. Palmer: In that example, if a 12-year-old kicked a football into his garden and the hon. Gentleman thought that he was trespasser, does he believe that he should be immune from prosecution if he shot him?
Mr. Gale: The Crown would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the action was malicious. It is just possible that someone intruding in the garden at night could be there for a reason other than seeking to cause harm to the household, but with respect, in asking his question, the hon. Gentleman is going down the road about which the public are complaining, where the emphasis is on the side of the intruder—of whatever age and for whatever purpose.
It may not be at the dead of night, and it could even happen at midday, but if I am upstairs and hear someone break into my home—I hear the crash of breaking glass and people moving around—and I feel threatened, I believe that I have the right to protect myself, my wife and others dear to me, my animals and my property by whatever means comes to hand. That is right so long as I believe at the time that I am doing what is necessary. That is my belief: a court cannot determine it. A court does not know the fear that is in my belly or my concern for my wife at that time.
A broadcaster put it to me recently that an intruder could be mentally ill or on drugs. I said, "Well, forgive me, that's all right, then". The fact that the man is perhaps mentally ill, perhaps on drugs, might be a defence for killing me and raping my wife. I am sorry, but I do not buy that argument. An Englishman's home is his castle, however humble it may be, and I believe that he has the right to defend it.

1153
Why the support for the Bill? Before hon. Members ask, "Where are they?", I point out that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), one of the supporters of the Bill, is in his place and hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as is my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon). To our colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), for Congleton (Ann Winterton) and for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), I have indicated that I was prepared to take the House step by step through the Bill—as I hope that I have done—in the knowledge that those who had constituency duties to fulfil should be able to do so. Many of those I have mentioned will however be available, if required, to serve in Committee.
Does the Bill deserve a Second Reading? I believe that it does. I am indebted to Mr. Andrew Hawkins of Communicate Research. Hon. Members may have seen the results of his poll, which were published at 1 o'clock this morning. Mr. Hawkins conducted a survey of 201 Members of Parliament—or almost a third, which is a fair sample. I take no particular satisfaction from the poll, because 56 per cent. of Members on both sides of the House believe that the law should stay as it is. A mere 4 per cent. believe that the law should be changed so that householders are permitted to use any means—as the Bill states—to defend their homes in the case of burglary. However, 40 per cent.—so a total of 44 per cent.—believe that the law should be changed so that householders are permitted to use greater force, but not any means whatsoever, to defend their homes in the case of burglary.
The public, in radio and press polls, have made their view abundantly plain. The House has a clear duty to listen to that public voice, as well as to the honourably expressed views of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The balance at the moment is a fine one. A significant minority of hon. Members, without having heard the arguments that I have made today, believe that the prevailing circumstances warrant change.
I received this morning a letter containing a copy of an article written by Mr. Robert Henderson. I wish to place parts of it on the record, because they are relevant. The article defines the right to self-defence in English law and it states:
"The law on reasonable force as it is presently interpreted goes something like this: if you are attacked with a knife you may defend yourself with a knife: if you are attacked with bare fists you may defend yourself likewise. Do more in either instance and you will be in danger of being charged with an offence against the person, anything from common assault to murder. Pedantic proportionality is all. If you carry on assaulting your assailant after he is disabled, you will most likely face charges. If you have the opportunity to run away but do not, that may count against you in any assessment of whether you should be prosecuted."
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) that only Ministers may approach the officials in the Box. He should resume his seat.
Mr. Gale: I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Ealing, North had been promoted to Parliamentary Private Secretary.
Mr. Henderson calls the present law
"demonstrably absurd. It assumes that people under attack can reasonably be expected to make judgments in the heat of the moment which in reality require calm consideration."
That is the thrust of the argument. At the moment, the law assesses reasonable force, but it is not the law under threat, whether in broad daylight or at dead of night. The person under such threat is the only person who can reasonably assess reasonable force in the circumstances. The Under-Secretary may oppose the Bill in principle, but I ask her to recognise that this measure, or something like it, has considerable support inside this House and very considerable support—probably a significant majority—outside it. I believe the technical structure of the Bill to be largely perfect, but it is the job of the Committee to address any imperfection.
I should like to think that this House will allow the Bill to receive its Second Reading unopposed and that it will let us do our job in Committee to address the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House. If we fail to satisfy their legitimate demands, there will be future opportunities on Third Reading or Report to kill the Bill. But to do so now would be a slap in the face of a very concerned British public.
12.41 pm
Mr. Stephen Pound: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise for my unwitting solecism earlier. I meant no disrespect to you or to the House.
I thank the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) for the generosity of his introduction, particularly where it strayed into the personal. He said that the Bill was part pedigree, part mongrel. We heard a thoroughly pedigree speech from the hon. Gentleman. Now the House will hear from me. [Laughter.]
With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond specifically to the question of pedigree that was raised by the hon. Gentleman, a man more familiar with the by ways of the BBC than I ever will be. I remember with great affection the time when we were co-presenters on a Sunday morning on LBC. He may not have enjoyed it, but our listeners did. I know that because I spoke to both of them. [Laughter.] I enjoyed it immensely.
I would suggest that the listeners' law—which later became the householder's law, or the Tony Martin law—was a genuine attempt to connect the people of this country to the process of legislation passed by this House. The idea was not some populist attempt to increase ratings, but a genuine attempt by a responsible broadcaster—the best public service broadcaster in the world, the BBC—to connect the two; the people of this country and the process of legislation.
The impression might have been given that I was some publicity-hungry jackanapes seeking to lend his name to any passing fad or fancy.

1155
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I deny that. In November 2002, following the private Member's Bill ballot—and by a combination of extreme good luck and the able assistance of Baroness Gardner of Parkes—I was able to bring a private Members Bill to this House.
I applied again and was asked whether, if I were lucky enough to be drawn again, I would take soundings from the nation. What parliamentarian could resist the temptation to take the pulse of the nation and then respond to it? We asked the people What legislation they wanted and came up with a shortlist of 20. They were whittled down to five by a group of three people, overseen by a fine, capable and generous journalist of great standing, Kevin Marsh. The others were myself, a journalist—one Julia Hartley -Brewer—and a tradesman from this parish who, at the time, ran a bookshop up the road and is now, oddly enough, the Conservative candidate for North Norfolk, lain Dale.
I make no secret of the fact that the Bill that I wished to propose was the Organ Donation (Presumed Consent and Safeguards) Bill, which seemed to me a sensible piece of legislation, very much in keeping with the public mood, relevant and necessary. There were other proposals, including a measure to ban Christmas music being played in shops in October—a sound, sane and sensible piece of legislation that commended itself to many. Another would perhaps not have been so popular in certain quarters of this building—a Bill on term limits for Prime Ministers. Another was on overtaking on the left on motorways. Mr. Iain Dale, the Conservative candidate for North Norfolk, was particularly anxious to push what was referred to at the time as "Tony Martin's law." Despite that, when the shortlist of five was drawn up, the overwhelming majority of votes was in favour of the organ transplants Bill.
However, as Christmas approached and, no doubt, many Radio 4 listeners headed for the ski slopes, the airwaves and e-mail ether were filled with a sudden flurry of messages that had been stimulated in particular by two organisations that I, in a fairly sheltered life, had never previously encountered: Cybershooters and Firearms News. The two websites—I believe that that is the proper technical term—advised people from Alabama to South Africa to e-mail quickly in support of what they described as "a Tony Martin law." By Christmas eve, my worst fears had been realised. Not for the first time, I was to be lonely at Christmas, disappointed when the reasonable and decent proposal disappeared beneath the wintry blizzrd of e-mails.
Yes, I admit it, I can do no other for I cannot lie—well, I can, but shall not on this occasion—that when on new year's day, having just climbed a mountain in the lake district and paused for a refreshing cigarette and pull on my hip flask, I was asked by the BBC for my reaction, I might have used language that veered toward the unparliamentary. It was an honest reaction, and honesty in a politician is to be treasured. The fact remains that a large number of people—some 37 or 38 per cent. of those who voted—supported the idea of the present Bill. The hon. Member for North Thanet is absolutely right in one aspect alone of his speech: there is genuine public concern, an issue of perception and fear. However, the worst possible way to respond to that is to introduce a piece of legislation such as the one before the
1156
House today, because that will do nothing to allay people's fears or to resolve the problem, but everything to terrify people.
Mr. Forth: I am interested in this part of the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Like me, he will recall such measures as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and, even worse, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and preceding firearms legislation, which were knee-jerk reactions to a public perception or public fear at the time. I am sure that he agrees that since most firearms were banned in this country, the number of crimes committed using firearms has rocketed. In some ways, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we should never legislate in haste, simply in reaction to a perceived problem at the time.
Mr. Pound: There are certain sentences that I would not wish to see on my tombstone: one is, "I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst." However, those who remember species called something like "the Doggo Argentino" and "the Japanese giant mastiff" being introduced into the Dangerous Dogs Bill are only too well aware of the problems of that type of legislation. I was counselling precisely against that. I suggest that the Bill before us would not only fail to resolve a problem, but make matters worse. That is what deeply concerns me.
May I respond to two specific points before I come to the meat and substance—fairly thin substance, but substance it is for all that—of the Bill? I certainly will not attack the hon. Member for North Thanet. He and I once spent St. Patrick's day in Ottawa. While I remember little of the detail of that day, a general warm feeling of happiness remains with me. I hope the same remains with him. He mentioned Robin Baker-White. I have written to the former lord-lieutenant, whom I consider a good, decent and honourable gentleman. I have also discussed the matter with his Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
Mr. Baker-White's shotgun was not confiscated. It was taken away for standard analysis, as happens in every single case in this country where a firearm is discharged, except on a rifle range. The shotgun was tested and test-fired. The bore and the rifling were checked against the cartridge, and the shotgun was returned to him—end of story. That is an example in which the perception is far, far worse than the reality.
A few weeks ago, the trial took place of a man in the north-west who stabbed an intruder to death with a bread knife. That man was found innocent; the case was dismissed. What happened was considered to be justifiable and the defence within common law was heard and agreed to.
The second name to be mentioned is that of Mr. Tony Martin. I have to say that building a case on the foundations provided by Mr. Martin is doomed to failure. I have met Mr. Martin on a number of occasions and I say quite frankly that, for all his eccentricities and all his fairly bizarre behaviour, there are certain aspects of his self-justification that no Member of the House would in any way support. To a certain extent, that taints the thrust and content of the Bill.
Mr. Gale: First, the hon. Gentleman must be aware—I am sure he was listening—that I specifically said that

1157
my colleagues and I have carefully not founded the Bill on that ground for precisely those reasons. If he were to speak to Robin Baker-White, former high sheriff of Kent, he would find that considerable distress and concern were caused by what happened at the time and afterwards in terms of the legal process. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that under the Bill the person who was acquitted of stabbing somebody with a bread knife would have been in court at all and subject to that further distress?
Mr. Pound: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that and I also note for the record the correction that Robin Baker-White was high sheriff of Kent, not a lord-lieutenant. I am not greatly familiar with the hierarchy of the shires. When a person is killed, there has to be an inquest, a hearing and some legal procedure. That happened in this case. Common law applied and the accused was acquitted. I do not think that that is a problem.
Mr. Richard Bacon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pound: In a moment. I can understand the reluctance of the hon. Member for North Thanet to have the matter associated with the name of Mr. Tony Martin. While I appreciate and understand that, and would wish to accommodate him, I must tell him that there is no way in which the Bill can be divorced from the name of Tony Martin. That is impossible. Before I explain why in detail, I give way to a Member who represents somewhere else in Norfolk.
Mr. Bacon: South Norfolk. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there has to be an inquiry of some kind if there is a death. He used the word "inquest", and of course he is right about that as well, but there does not have to be a prosecution. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet is making. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
Mr. Pound: The hon. Gentleman displays the nimbleness of wit that I admired so much when we were at university together, although I should say that I was a mature student at the time. If one is using the common law defence, one has to offer that defence in some forum. Clearly, the Crown Prosecution Service could decide not to prosecute but, in the interests of transparency and precedent, it is far more logical and sensible for there to be an examination and an exoneration. Exoneration in court is far more significant and telling than the bureaucratic tick of a box that says that there will not be a Crown Prosecution Service action. That is far more important. I give way to another rural Member of Parliament.
Matthew Green: I fully concur with virtually everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. There is a problem if things do not go to trial, which can be for reasons other than to establish guilt or innocence. There may be a lack of evidence, so there could be uncertainty in people's minds as to whether someone was guilty or innocent of a crime. It is far more
1158
satisfactory to find people not guilty in court. After all, British law works on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Mr. Pound: Th hon. Gentleman makes a telling point. I grew to admire his intellect when we shared a cabin in the Royal Navy, although I was a mature entrant. It is precisely that. Had this particular case not gone to trial, there would have been any number of possible interpretations as to why it did not. That decision is crucial from the point of view of the exoneration of the individual and the creation of a precedent. The process must be seen as it is. The hon. Member for North Thanet talked about perceptions. We must realise how important this issue is. Whereas a perception may be an intangible thing that one cannot get a grip on. we can influence its drift and direction.
As I said, I have met Mr. Martin on a couple of occasions and I found him at the time perfectly amiable. He was, as I say, a tad eccentric. I cannot blame him for having an uncle who founded the National Front. I have some doubt about the fact that he drew £87,000 out of a bank in Swadlincote and failed to declare it when he made an application for legal aid. He has certainly made a number of utterly bizarre statements, including
"I can assure you; most people who have had an association with me are never quite the same again".
Following a visit to the Cubana restaurant, which may be known to certain right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, he said:
"I have never heard such a racket in all my life. I wouldn't be so rude as to say anything at the time but if I had a bloody shotgun I'd soon quieten that place down".
He also said that
"Women are a dish to be savoured … a bit like peas"
and that
"People used to say I talked a load of rubbish but personally I think they just don't understand me."
That may give the impression of a slightly eccentric farmer living fairly far in the country, but what I would like to say now has to be said on the Floor of the House at some stage today, because it has not often been said before. We have talked about Tony Martin and the law. We have not talked about Fred Barras. He was 16 when he was shot in the back with an illegally held pump-action shotgun. He died without the last rites, with his back to his murderer. He will always be 16 because he will never see another birthday.
Do we think, for all the sins of Fred Barras, for all the crimes that he committed, that that boy was so beyond redemption, was so incapable of being saved, of ever turning over a new leaf and becoming a responsible member of society. that he deserved the fate that he met in that lonely farm house in Norfolk in the middle of the night, as he turned to flee and a second blast of the shotgun caught him in the back and ended his life there and then, where he died lonely, without benefit of the clergy? Do we honestly believe that any 16-year-old cannot be redeemed? Do we believe that the whole criminal justice system of this country is so mired in failure that no person can ever, ever take another path in life? Do we believe that at the age of 16, one has cast one's life so much in stone that one will never, ever see another way of living? In the case of Fred Barras that, sadly, will never be known. Fred Barras is dead.

1159
Fred Barras was killed by a man who served a few years in prison and became a national hero for it. Fred Barras was killed by a man who influences debate and discussion not just in the House, but throughout the country to this day and will continue to do so. Those people who wish to prop up a political career with the bones of a 16-year-old boy are nothing but despicable. I mean nobody in the House today when I say that. We may talk about such marvellous concepts as an English person's home being his or her castle—yes, theoretically, let us do so—but let us never forget that behind the theory, behind the parliamentary draftsmanship, behind the fine words, we can still see the dead body of a 16-year-old boy. As far as I am concerned, nothing can ever justify that.
If somebody broke into my house or attacked my 16-year-old daughter, yes I would use a baseball bat. I would use whatever came to hand, but it would be proportionate and on the basis of the facts at the time. I would not have prepared it. I do not prop a bat behind the front door. I would not illegally obtain a pump-action shotgun, I would not remove the treads from the stairwell. I would not re-arrange the room to create a trap, and most of all, I do not think that any hon. Member would ever do as Mr. Martin did: shoot someone in the back as they ran away. I would not do that.
I am not some whingeing, Milquetoast, bed-wetting, muesli-scoffing, sandal-wearing liberal. I do not believe in any nonsense about inviting the burglars in to talk them through their unhappy childhood and say, "It's all society's fault, isn't it? It's not really yours." If somebody breaks into my gaff, they get a slap—no two ways about it. What they do not get is a cartridge in the back; nor should they. So I am not prepared to support any piece of legislation that, wittingly or unwittingly, opens the door to the murder of 16-year-olds.
I may have been described as "pliant" in the excellent John McVicars book about the Martin case. I am insulted even more grievously that I am referred to as a "leftie". I can accept those accusations, but even I have my limits. Even I have a point below which I will not sink, and I will not join the inchoate howl of populism that has built up around the ludicrous case of a sadly eccentric man, which ignores the death of a 16-year-old boy.
The Bill has the great advantage of brevity, which is much to be commended. If it achieves nothing else, it will have achieved a further measure of public debate. The hon. Member for North Thanet has been extraordinary in the dedication and devotion that he gives to certain causes. His work in the field of animal welfare has a national and an international reputation. He is a man who has stood on the ice floes of northern Canada to stop people clubbing baby seals to death. Whereas that may not find favour with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), it finds favour with many of us.
However, the Bill that the hon. Gentleman has brought before us today is not just fundamentally flawed in intent. The content also needs re-examination. Clause 1(1) refers to the occupier of a dwelling? There is no legal
1160
definition of an occupier. The Bill does not refer to "the legal occupier" or "the authorised occupier". If a group of squatters break into a house, they are then the occupiers of the dwelling. They happen to be tooled up with a few shotguns. Somebody comes round who is a friend of the rightful owner. Lo and behold, they get their head shot off. According to clause 1(1), that is entirely acceptable, and even more so in the case of anyone who is in the dwelling with the licence of the occupier. So if the squatter brings half a dozen friends round for a rave, or whatever they get up to, that is also covered.
Dr. Palmer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Pound: Yes, because I am probably wrong.
Dr. Palmer: I fully agree with the commitment of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) to animal welfare and other issues. He made the point that it would be no excuse if the person breaking in were on drugs or mentally ill, but he does not appear to have considered the possibility that the occupier could be on drugs or mentally ill. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a serious consideration?
Mr. Pound: If one opens the door to hell, one cannot define what comes out of it. The state of mind of someone breaking into a property should be taken into consideration, but it is not a justification—it is something that we should consider after the act. When a person is killed, they lose the right to consideration of their state of mind, which is the danger with this Bill.
Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being generous with his time. May I suggest another example of how odd the Bill is? If members of the intelligence services entered a house, which is legitimately occupied by people engaged in drug dealing, organised crime or terrorism, in order to place devices to obtain intelligence, and they were shot in the process, the Bill would apparently let the occupiers of the property off, because a person had entered and they felt afraid. The occupiers could legitimately shoot a police officer or member of the security services in those circumstances.
Mr. Pound: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The nomenclature for the Bill should be the Kenneth Noye Bill, not the Tony Martin Bill. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not need reminding that Kenneth Noye is a convicted gangster and road-rage killer who was involved with some extremely serious criminals. He shot and killed a person in the garden of his house, and the man whom he shot and killed was a police officer. Kenneth Noye's defence was that an Englishman's home is his castle, that he saw someone skulking in the shrubbery in the middle of the night, and that he killed them. I am sorry, but if we are to come down on anybody's side, I am on the side of the police, not Kenneth Noye. The minute that we open this Pandora's box, we will get those sorts of problems.
I genuinely find it difficult to understand why the hon. Member for North Thanet is promoting the Bill, but I respect the sincerity of his emotions. Clause 1(2) states:
"not guilty of an offence by reason of any act",

1161
and I cannot go down that road. This is not permissive legislation; this is blank cheque legislation. One could boil someone in a basement—that is an act. One could cut someone's throat—that is an act. Under the Bill, any act is permissible.
I cannot believe that any hon. Member can support in their heart or in their head a Bill that says that anyone can do anything to anyone if they feel that that person is entering the premises that they currently occupy, whether they are dealing crack cocaine, keeping an eye out for plain clothes policemen, running a racket or simply squatting in a property. The reference to "any act" is simply not on.
The fundamental point, which I alluded to twice, concerns perception. The hon. Member for North Thanet said that people perceive that the balance has shifted in favour of the criminal and away from the householder. If that is so, we have a duty to do something about it, but we are not obliged to give a knee-jerk response, which is what this Bill represents.
Let us think through the logic. In response to the idea that it is not merely permissible but desirable for us to defend our homes with shotguns, I would have to say that 98 per cent. of people should not be let anywhere near a shotgun. I think that most people would share that view. It may be all very well for people such as Robin Baker-White, who is a man of exemplary background and good character, but if we authorise the shotgun defence for one or two people, be they former high sheriffs or not, we are turning our backs on the truly weak and vulnerable people—the elderly pensioners who are shivering behind their doors in fear in my constituency and in many others. It is not good enough to say to an elderly pensioner, "You may be terrified of crime, but don't worry—get yourself a shotgun, and if anything happens, use it." That is reprehensible and despicable.
The defence of everybody in this country—high sheriffs and pensioners alike—requires a proper, efficient, responsive police force backed by the Crown Prosecution Service and supported in Parliament: a mechanism that in its totality punishes the malefactor and defends the innocent. We should be working towards better, stronger and more efficient policing to defend everybody. The shotgun defence will not work for my weak pensioner constituents. They cannot defend themselves with knives, cudgels or knuckledusters—they need the police.
Were we eventually to agree to the Bill. we would immediately send out one signal above all: the rule of law no longer runs and confidence in the police has disappeared. That would be not just a return to the politics of the caveman era, but a move towards the law enforcement of Texas, Tombstone and Dodge City. I cannot believe that we really want a nation in which the standards of Texas are applied; I would find that appalling, as, I hope, would many others. We need a public defence force—a police force—to defend and represent us. We should be directing our efforts towards further supporting and enhancing their role, not towards vigilantism and defending a man—Mr. Martin—who is at best eccentric and at worst a murderer.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman knows how much I respect him, but he is wrong to try to defeat the arguments by constantly referring to Mr. Martin. If he reads the Bill carefully, he will see, as I do as a lawyer, that it would not have protected Mr. Martin, because it makes it clear that one has to be acting in self-defence or in defence of one's property, and the intruder was running away at the time. The hon. Gentleman should forget about Mr. Martin and deal with the contents of the Bill.
Mr. Pound: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I would not have mentioned Mr. Martin had he not been mentioned by the promoter of the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Pound: I shall just finish replying to the hon. Gentleman. I agree that the Bill probably would not have applied to Mr. Martin. That makes it all the more imperative that we recognise that the existing common law defence applies. We would do that no favours were we to enact the Bill. because it would not only muddy the waters but corrupt a stream of jurisprudence that has flowed for thousands of years. It may not be perfect, but it is probably the least imperfect way of resolving such situations.
Dr. Palmer: I believe that Mr. Martin would have a defence under clause 1(2)(b), whereby he does not have to show that he is acting in self-defence, merely that the person against whom he has acted "is, or … would be" a trespasser, as Mr. Barras was.
Mr. Pound: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but as I am one of the few Members of Parliament who is neither a barrister nor a solicitor—in fact, my only acquaintance with the law has been from the defendant's perspective—I am simply unqualified to comment further on that point.
Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pound: I will certainly give way to someone who knows far more than I do.
Mr. Leigh: I very much hope that we can clear this matter up during this debate. It is clear that, in order to be protected by the Bill, one of the people concerned would have to be a trespasser and the other would have to be acting in self-defence or to protect their property.
Mr. Pound: I thank the hon. Gentleman not just on my behalf but on behalf of the House. That was extremely interesting and a very good piece of advice. I am a little worried that I might now get a bill for 200 guineas—[HON. MEMBERS: "More!"] I am reminded by those who know more than I do that it should be 2,000 guineas.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: It is being argued that the Bill does not deal with the Tony Martin defence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should direct himself to the provisions in clause 1(2)(a)(iv) and (v),

1163
which state that one has only to believe, reasonably or not, that one is apprehending B or otherwise preventing crime to be justified in going ahead and shooting.
Mr. Pound: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I am conscious that other hon. and particularly right hon. Gentlemen wish to speak, so I do not want to detain the House for too long. However, the use of the words "to apprehend" in clause 1(2)(a)(iv) gave me considerable pause; I wonder what precisely they mean. In all honesty, "to apprehend" could mean to say "Stand fast!", which would be a reasonable instruction. Alternatively, it could mean physically to apprehend someone.
We have a problem, and even Dr. Pangloss could not deny that it is a real and genuine one. I would suggest that it is one of the fear of crime and the horror that certain very dramatic high-profile cases engender in the people of this nation. We have to address that problem, and I said earlier that the more mature and responsible way to do that is through the existing structures of criminal law, jurisprudence and the police force, rather than through the lawless, shotgun, wild west vigilantism that—for all the decency, humanity and generosity of spirit of the hon. Member for North Thanet—runs through the Bill. The shadow of the six-shooter lies across the Bill, and I would not normally associate that with a man of such sensitivities.
I genuinely hope that the Bill does not become law. I do not think that it can, because it is unworkable. More importantly. I hope that everyone in the House and outside it will unite around the real problem of lawlessness. We need to defend Tony Martin; he deserves that, and he has the right to a defence. Equally, however, we need to remember that no 16-year-old deserves to die in circumstances such as those.
1.18 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I want to pick up one of the key phrases that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) has just rather usefully given us. That is, "We have a problem." That is the essence of the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) is making in the Bill. The difficulty with what the hon. Member for Ealing, North has just said—in what I can only describe as an uncharacteristic rant—is that, in pretending to recognise the problem, he then went on to deny any recognition of it. We must give the Bill much more serious consideration than he suggested.
I was going to indulge in an analysis of the role of the BBC in this matter. I felt that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet was unduly generous to the BBC. I will not allow myself to do so, however, because other Members want to speak, and as one of the Bill's sponsors, I do not want to be party to denying the Bill time. I was also going to pull the leg of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, but I will not do that either. I want to restrict myself to the Bill and to why it is important and relevant.
I want to return to the phrase, "We have a problem." The problem is twofold. There is a problem of perception, which has been mentioned both by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet and the hon. Member for Ealing, North. We should be very worried
1164
about that perception. To the extent that people have come to believe that the law, both judicial and police, no longer adequately protects them, we in the House, and the Government of the day, are letting them down. That is a very serious matter.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North wanted to suggest that, if we had a sufficient number of police officers, little old ladies would feel secure in their houses. Sadly, I do not think that that could ever be so. My party has a marvellous policy of employing 40,000 more police officers, paid for, incidentally, by an even more radical policy on asylum. Even were we to implement that policy, it would not necessarily give householders the security that we want to give them. It might go some way in that direction, but I do not see that any number of police officers would necessarily give people a sense of security in their homes. Something else must therefore be done. His argument, admirable though that part of it may have been, does not therefore even begin to address the problem of people's increasing feeling of insecurity in their own homes.
We must make a distinction between the unease that people may feel on the street and the phenomenon of social misbehaviour and related issues, which the Government, in fairness, are trying to tackle—I am sure that we will support them when it is appropriate—and what we are talking about now. We are talking about people in a dwelling in which they should feel secure, and someone entering that dwelling, either in pursuit of burglary or something worse, such as assault on a person. Let us not forget that that is the phenomenon with which we are dealing. What we are saying is that the presumption should be that the person in the dwelling is entitled to security, protection and, if necessary, self-protection, and that the person who enters the dwelling is doing something that is illegal and wicked.
Dr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill, as drafted, kicks in from the moment that such a person touches the garden gate in the approach to my house, because the person will then be seeking to gain entry to my garden, which is covered by the Bill? At that point, if I consider that person to be a potential intruder, I will be entitled to take any action without the force of law applying.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is a matter for proper consideration. At this point, procedurally, those of us who are present in the House must decide whether we are prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading, because we are content with the principle of the Bill, and then perfectly rightly, we may pick up such points in Committee. I will be happy to debate that matter with him in Committee should the Bill reach that stage, as it is a point that should be considered. If someone is acting in a threatening manner at the border of the curtilage of my property, there is a case that I may even then be able to take necessary action. If not—turning the argument briefly on its head—surely we will not say that, if someone at my garden gate or at my hedge is acting in a threatening manner, perhaps threatening my young children, my wife or other members of my family, even then I cannot take any reasonable action. That would again put me at a disadvantage against the person who threatens my property and my family.

1165
There is a real debate to be had—I accept that. For the moment, I would be content to go along with the words in my hon. Friend's Bill—it is my Bill as well, if I may say so, because I am proud to be a sponsor of it—but that could well be a matter for detailed debate. At this stage, however, we are considering the principle.
What worries me, and many others, takes us back to the argument presented so eloquently by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. On whose side do we make the presumption? Notwithstanding his eloquence, I concluded that he was arguing that the intruder should be given the benefit of the doubt and even the protection of the law, because to do otherwise would somehow be wicked, while the home owner should be constrained in every possible way when responding to intrusion or invasion.
That is the case whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not. It makes no odds if he is not wearing his sandals today. Even if he is not a leftie, that does not matter either. When he reads Hansard, as I know that he will—for we all look at Hansard to see what we said the previous day: it is one of our little privileges and eccentricities—I think that he will acknowledge, in his generous way, that that is the only interpretation that can be placed on his interpretation.
Our own view is that surely, in any reasonable, civilised, law-abiding society, the presumption should be in favour of the innocent occupier of a dwelling, not the person who is breaking the law and entering that dwelling with intent to do we know not what.
Mr. Pound: Let me say, for the record—although I speak as one who genuinely does not read his words in Hansard, as I find it embarrassing enough to hear them as I utter them—that I intended to give no such impression. If I did, it was wholly unwitting. I am on record as having consistently said that cases in which an intruder sues a householder because the miscreant tripped over a carpet and bruised his knee are ludicrous and that the presumption should be entirely in favour of the home owner. If I gave a different impression it was erroneous and unintended. and I apologise.
Mr. Forth: I am more than happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's reinterpretation of what he said, or what I thought he said, but let me present him with a challenge.
My hon. Friend's Bill constitutes a serious attempt to recognise the problem—the hon. Gentleman said that there was a problem; at least we agree on that—to respond to public unease and to correct something that is increasingly thought to have gone badly wrong in our judicial system and in the relationship between the occupier of a dwelling and the violator of that dwelling. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that, in the absence of the Bill, there would seem to be no other solution on offer. It appears that we are content to drift along, accepting the weaknesses of the law and the Crown Prosecution Service, the constraints that are increasingly imposed on the police—not just in terms of their numbers, but in terms of what they can effectively do on the ground—and the helplessness of occupiers who feel that they are being besieged by law-breakers and are increasingly unable to do anything about it.
1166
The importance of the Bill lies in the fact that it seeks to give hope to people who find themselves in that position. We should bear it in mind that occupiers, whether owners or tenants, represent the vast majority in our society. They are the silent majority; they are the law-abiding majority. Wicked people who break the law and invade other people's property still constitute a relatively small number, although some would think it a growing number; it depends on how we interpret the latest statistics. In a sense, it does not matter how many or how few of them there are. They are breaking the law and causing extreme upset and distress. An hour or two ago, in this very Chamber, we were told by a Minister, no less, that his property had been violated and told of the sense of outrage that he felt.
What we are discussing is not a rare occurrence but all too frequent. We are saying with the Bill that it is our duty as custodians of the law to respond to people's feelings of unease and to the natural demand of owners and occupiers to have the proper protection of the law—not just the protection of the police, although of course that is important. I hope that we all share a desire that that should be improved. But the law of this land should be framed in such a way as to give maximum protection to law-abiding occupiers of premises, rather than seeming to lean over backwards to favour the people who are breaking and violating the law, entering premises and causing such upset.
Perhaps uncharacteristically, I shall today keep my comments brief, because I want to give the Bill a fair wind. I am, after all, a sponsor of it. There is much more that I should like to say, but I hope that on this occasion I have given a sense of why I support the Bill, and am proud and happy to do so, and why I think that the hon. Member for Ealing, North, in spite of his eloquence, has not caught the mood of the voters—perhaps not even of his voters. I hope that the Bill can make progress today and that I and other hon. Members will be able to go into some of its details in Committee.
1.31 pm
Dr. Nick Palmer: I do not criticise the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) for introducing the Bill, even though I disagree with it. That is for two reasons. First, I do not criticise him anyway because he is a fellow officer of the all-party animal welfare group. Secondly, by introducing the Bill he is reflecting a genuine area of public concern. From some of the things that the hon. Gentleman and his cosponsor the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have said, I cannot help feeling that, whereas in the previous debate we had some probing amendments that were not designed to be taken completely at face value, we have here something of a probing Bill, and that they are not entirely convinced that the Bill as it stands is to be taken completely seriously.
Mr. Gale: I am delighted to clarify the position for the hon. Gentleman. We are determined that the Bill will be taken very seriously indeed, although that does not mean that we necessarily believe that it is perfect as it stands.
Dr. Palmer: As with a probing amendment, all that we can do is discuss the Bill as it stands. I am sure that the

1167
hon. Gentleman would not wish us to do otherwise and we cannot discuss hypothetical Bills that might have been presented.
I accept, as I think will all hon. Members who speak, that there is a serious concern among the general public about what they perceive as a lack of clarity over how far householders may go to protect their property. One of my hon. Friends recently had a pub landlord, a very powerful figure—although I appreciate that his was not a domestic property—who felt unable to prevent a group of youths from taking away a case of champagne because they said to him, "If you lay a finger on us, we'll have you for assault." The landlord felt unsure about whether it would be proportionate if he prevented them from taking away his property and did not know what he could or could not do. While he was thinking about it, they disappeared up the road. Many people feel that such examples are all too common. People are not sure where they stand, so they feel that they have to err on the side of caution in case they are prosecuted. I accept, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman is reflecting a legitimate concern.
The ultimate protection in this matter is the system of jury trial. There are cases that we have discussed in other contexts, such as complicated fraud cases, in which there is a case for saying that jury trial is not the best way of reaching justice. But in cases such as those under discussion, jury trial is absolutely essential, because in deciding whether the householder has responded proportionately, it is very important that 12 ordinary men and women make that judgment. I have discussed this issue with my constituents and the hon. Gentleman has doubtless discussed it with his. Most people seem to agree that 12 randomly selected members of the public are likely to have a fair sense of what is a reasonable and proportionate reaction, and what is not.
Mr. Bacon: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. Does he not understand that the law-abiding householder's fear that if he acts, he will be had up in court, is a deterrent to his acting at all? As a result, the presumption is in favour of the burglar and against the householder, which is part of the problem.
Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman is echoing the point that I made a couple of minutes ago. The problem is that people are uncertain, and they therefore feel inhibited in taking action that a jury would in fact consider reasonable and proportionate conduct. We cannot dismiss this issue.
There are two basic problems with the proposal, which achieves clarity at the expense of common sense: proportionality, and the people whom it affects. On proportionality, as the hon. Gentleman has stressed, the Bill suspends the entire criminal code if the householder—according to their own judgment, and with no other opinion involved—believes that they are threatened by trespass. As has been emphasised, in such circumstances any act is then explicitly authorised. Let us suppose that the householder believes that the person who has walked into his garden is an intruder. If the householder is of a somewhat paranoid persuasion, he might think that there is a second intruder. Under the Bill, he would be entitled not only to detain the supposed intruder, but to torture him in order to establish whether he had accomplices.
Mr. Bacon: The hon. Gentleman says that the householder would be entitled to torture an intruder. Where in the Bill is reference made to torture?
Dr. Palmer: I shall read the relevant passage. Clause 1(2) states:
"Where this section applies, A is not guilty of an offence by reason of any act"—
any act, such as torture—
"done by him in relation to the person … who is attempting to gain entry to the dwelling, if A believes"
that he is acting, among other things, "in prevention of crime", and if he believes that the person concerned
"is, or … would be, a trespasser."
In the example that I gave, the householder believes that he is trying to prevent crime by apprehending a second suspected intruder, and that the person he is torturing is a trespasser. Under the terms of the proposal, he would be immune from the process of law. That seems to me, and would seem to most people, disproportionate.
We have talked about an Englishman's home being his castle. An ancestor of mine called Black Douglas had a castle on the borders of Scotland. A neighbouring Laird sent an emissary to discuss a particular feature of their border. When the emissary did not return, the Laird sent a further emissary to ask what had happened to the first one. Black Douglas sent the second emissary back with the message, "You can pick up the first emissary any time—he doth but lack his head." In principle, such a process would be legal under the Bill, so long as my ancestor Black Douglas believed that the first emissary was a trespasser, and that by cutting off his head he was preventing crime.
We have discussed whether Tony Martin would have been protected by the legislation.
Mr. Leigh: Was the hon. Gentleman's ancestor acting in self-defence or to protect his property at the time?
Dr. Palmer: We can only speculate, but my ancestor would undoubtedly have felt that he was preventing crime, which is covered by clause 1(2)(a)(v).
Let us move on to Tony Martin. I do not want the public to feel that we are treating the Bill frivolously. We all indulge in slightly wilder excursions at some time, but I want to treat the Bill seriously. Tony Martin would, under clause 1(2)(a)(v), be entitled to believe that by shooting Fred Barras he was preventing crime. Indeed, he probably was preventing crime by shooting him, because Fred Barras had a long record of criminal convictions and would likely have gone on to commit some more. Tony Martin could also reasonably say that Fred Barras was a trespasser—no one disputes that. There is no doubt—the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) may disagree—that the Bill would have provided Tony Martin with a defence for his action.
Mr. Leigh: We could have an argument about this matter in the courts, whenever the hon. Gentleman wishes, but the fact that the intruder was running away

1169
at the time was a crucial consideration for the court and suggests that the Bill would not apply to those circumstances. It would have been very different if the intruder had been running towards Mr. Martin. There, however, he may well have had a defence under existing legislation.
Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. He says that it would have been difficult, given that Fred Barras was running away, to persuade the courts that Tony Martin could reasonably have thought that he was preventing crime. However, at the very core of the Bill is the assumption that he would not have to show that he was being reasonable. Tony Martin could unreasonably believe that he was preventing crime. It is current law that refers to being "reasonably" of such a belief and proportionate action follows from that, but under the Bill, anyone is entitled to act "unreasonably" without any limit whatever. That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill. Tony Martin is one example, but it is possible to consider more extreme ones. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) mentioned intelligence agents intruding on the property of a suspected terrorist.
That brings me to my second major objection, which is about who the Bill may affect. As I said earlier, one is potentially exposed to the Bill the moment one puts one's hand on the garden gate of a property. That is seen explicitly in clause 4(1), which covers "any yard" or "garden" of a property
"belonging to it and occupied with it."
A postman, a Jehovah's witness or anyone else calling on the home and touching the garden gate could—if the occupier believes, reasonably or unreasonably, that the person is an intruder and will be a trespasser when he walks through the gate, or that a crime may be prevented—lawfully be shot. Indeed, the householder would be entitled to do anything. That is clearly indefensible and I do not believe that that can be seriously intended. I appreciate that Bills can always be improved in Committee, but they need a fundamental connection with common sense and reality.
Let me take another concrete example from real life. A British tourist was visiting the United States—Florida, I believe—and on a rainy night, he went a little astray and walked up a garden path to ask the householder the way. The householder saw a figure approaching his house, in the late evening on a rainy night, took out a gun and shot him dead.
That was an innocent British tourist who had done nothing wrong. He was not behaving in a threatening manner, and no reasonable person would say that his behaviour could be interpreted as threatening. However, the Bill would not require that the householder be a reasonable person or reasonably interpret such behaviour. Indeed, as I said in an intervention in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), if the householder is mentally deranged or under the influence of drugs, it is still not a problem because he would not have to prove that he had acted reasonably. He would merely have to say that in his state of mind at the time he believed that he was preventing crime and that the person approaching his home was a potential trespasser.
1170
The hon. Member for North Thanet said that the Bill was not about the 12-year-old who kicks a football into a garden and is shot by a blunderbuss. However, under the Bill, if a 12-year-old kicked a ball into a stranger's garden and entered it, the householder would be immune from prosecution if he shot the child, as long as he believed that he was protecting his property and that the child was a trespasser. The child would undoubtedly be a trespasser if he had entered a garden to retrieve a ball. If the householder believed that the child might break his greenhouse by kicking the ball around, he could argue that he was protecting his property by shooting him. One might say that the householder was being unreasonable, but the Bill specifies that the householder does not have to be reasonable. He is entitled to take any action against that 12-year-old child, as long as he believes that he is thereby protecting his property.
The basic difficulty of the Bill is that it moves away from the time-honoured principle in British law of the reasonable man. In jury trials we are accustomed to the idea that juries are able to assess the circumstances, listen to both sides of the case. and weigh up whether the behaviour of the accused was reasonable or unreasonable.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is making a good case for detailed examination of the Bill in Committee. But how would he solve the problem that people are increasingly coming to believe that the benefit of the doubt is given by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to the perpetrators of crime, not the victims? Is he prepared to concede that that is a problem and that something should be done to address it, even if he does not believe that the Bill does so?
Dr. Palmer: Yes, I am. That is the point with which I started my speech. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, at the Government's request the Law Commission is examining the partial defences to murder, which can reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter. Its remit is to consider the partial defences, with particular reference to domestic violence. Part of the Law Commission's study, the results of which are expected this summer, will include the examination of a possible new partial defence of "excessive force in self-defence". It is a complete defence to show that one has used reasonable force in self-defence as judged by a jury. In order to address the uncertainty that we all recognise exists, there is a possibility that the law could encompass excessive force under constrained circumstances. It would not be a total defence but a mitigating factor and would depend on the degree of excessive force applied.
When the Law Commission comes back with recommendations, we can reasonably discuss where the borderline should be drawn. I concur with the view that it would be better to give greater certainty to householders about where they stand, what they can reasonably do and what they cannot reasonably do. Anyone is entitled to know what is legal and what is not. That is fair. The problem with the Bill is that it starts from the completely ludicrous position that one is allowed to do anything if one believes, no matter how unreasonably, that one is under threat.
Mr. Gale: Hard cases make bad law, which is why my right hon. and hon. Friends have studiously avoided the

1171
case of Tony Martin. But if hard cases make bad law, extreme examples make bad argument and the hon. Gentleman has been deploying those. The hon. Member for Ealing, North said in terms—it is on the record—that if someone attacked his wife, he would pick up a baseball bat and let him have it. If that blow to the head of the man attacking his wife is legal, is that reasonable force? If not, the hon. Member for Ealing, North will be before the courts. We are saying that the presumption must be on the side of the householder and not the criminal: the intruder.
Dr. Palmer: With respect. what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are saying is not that the presumption should be on the side of the householder, but the certainty. The Bill offers a complete, 100 per cent. indemnity for any crime committed under certain circumstances, which seems completely disproportionate.
With respect the hon. Gentleman is missing an opportunity with the Bill. If he had proposed a Bill that, in a more proportionate fashion, had attempted to address the issue of uncertainty, he would have had a more attentive and respectful hearing than has been the case today. I am not calling his motives into question in any way, and he has done us a service in raising an issue of concern to the public. It is important to discuss the subject, but the Bill is not a sensible vehicle on which to respond to that concern.
The hon. Gentleman accused me of giving extreme examples, so let me give an everyday one. Every weekend, I go out for four hours to visit constituents and go to different parts of the borough each time. The overwhelming majority of my constituents are reasonable people who simulate pleasure at my arrival. They may not really feel it, but they say, "It's a long time since we have seen our MP. It is good to see you."
I would not claim in the most passionate moments of my devotion to the borough that every resident of my constituency is reasonable. or even sane. I do not want to give a constituent who is not reasonable or sane a licence to kill me because he sees me approaching his house and gets it into his mind that I might be a burglar. I would be a trespasser because I would not yet have his permission to be on his turf. He might get it into his head that I was trying to get at his property and break in.
As we know, people all too commonly leave doors open or unlocked. It strikes me that, were I a burglar rather than a politician, I would find it easy to break into perhaps one house in 10. However, that fact should not lead people to feel that they are at risk from me.
Mr. Pound: Before my hon. Friend is tempted to change career path, may I ask him whether he recalls in the previous exchange a personalisation of circumstances pertaining to myself? Were the hypothetical situation described by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) to occur, I would want my day in court. I would not want to be exonerated by a rubber-stamp piece of legislation. Does he accept that that would be the reaction of many people who are robust both in defence of their homes, and in defence of the liberty of the nation?
Dr. Palmer: Yes, I do. I admire my hon. Friend in many ways and think that he made one of his best speeches today.
1172
I am reminded of the doomed presidential candidacy of Michael Dukakis. He was against the death penalty, and when he was asked whether he would want to shoot someone who attacked his wife, he replied, "Yeah, I would, but I don't think my instinctive reaction should be the basis for law." That was an honourable reply; it might not have done him much good politically, but it was correct none the less. As the hon. Member for North Thanet said, we should base the law neither on hard cases nor on extreme emotions. However, the Bill would legalise unreasonable conduct on the part of constituents who unreasonably believe themselves to be threatened. It is a licence for madmen, and we should not pass it.
1.57 pm
Mr. Richard Bacon: I am a sponsor of the Bill. The hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) both referred repeatedly to jury trials, but I think they miss the point. People feel that, in many cases, the actions of a householder should not result in their ending up in court, which is what often happens now. In addition, the fear that that might happen is what restrains householders from acting when they ought to do so and ought to be able to do so knowing that they are safe in the eyes the law.
Part of the problem is that the law at present is unclear. I refer to an article from The Daily Telegraph of 2 December 2002 by Mr. Alan Judd. It refers to three cases. In the first, a man was convicted for repeatedly stabbing a burglar who had broken into the flat in which he believed his children were sleeping. In the second, a man who felled a violent schizophrenic who was strangling someone, then kicked him when he tried to get up and resume, was arrested by the police—unlike the schizophrenic—and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service for kicking. In the third—the hon. Member for Ealing. North may have been referring to this case—a man stabbed to death one intruder and seriously wounded another, and the CPS found his use of force to be reasonable.
Mr. Judd quotes an article in The Sunday Telegraph by Mr. Alasdair Palmer, who wrote that what such cases indicate is that the CPS
"clearly can't decide where the boundary between the reasonable and unreasonable use of force lies, and thus what the law actually is".
Mr. Judd asks:
"How can it be right to prosecute people when the law itself is confused and contradictory? If the lawyers, safe in their offices, can't say what is right, how can we be expected to weigh up the pros and cons during some desperate struggle in the dark? Unclear law is unfair law."
The hon. Member for Broxtowe referred to certainty, and he is right: the Bill does provide a much higher degree of certainty. If he wants to argue about that in more detail, I should have thought that the place to do so is in Committee.
I want to raise one other issue, which involves the impact on rural areas. I represent a very rural constituency of 350 square miles. To give the House some idea of its size, the whole of Greater London has 74 constituencies in 650 square miles. Overnight in my constituency there are only two police vehicles with four

1173
police officers on patrol. If someone is apprehended, they have to be taken to Norwich or, worse, to King's Lynn to be locked up as there are no custodial facilities elsewhere. It requires only one call on the services of police officers to go into Norwich and the whole southern sector of my constituency—an area of 270 square miles, which is equivalent to nearly half of Greater London—is completely without police protection.
In Dickleburgh in my constituency, just last Thursday a store was ram raided in the middle of the night. The person who rented the flat above it alerted the police, because he could hear what was going on, but he was told by the police not to go downstairs and intervene in case he came under threat. However, one reason that caused that person not to intervene was fear that if he were to do so, he would be the one to be had up.
We need a shift in the presumption away from the burglar or law-breaker and towards the householder. There should be a strong presumption against prosecuting any occupant who injures an assailant in some way while resisting the intrusion into his or her home. That is essentially the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) is making in the Bill.
I have no doubt—my hon. Friend admitted it—that the Bill could be improved. The place to do that is in Committee, and I very much hope that the House will give the Bill a chance to be considered there in more detail. The hon. Members for Broxtowe and for Ealing, North, who have opposed the Bill, have not said what they would do instead. They have both acknowledged that there is a problem and that members of the public out there—
Mr. Pound rose—
Mr. Bacon: I will not give way as other Members wish to speak. Both hon. Members have acknowledged that there is a problem, but they have not suggested what they would do to combat it. I believe that it is for the House of Commons to acknowledge the public concern, which is out there, and respond to that by considering the Bill in detail in Committee. That is what the public want.
2.2 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: We have had a lively debate in which some strong and deeply-held views have been expressed. I thank the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) for bringing the matter to the House, because there is no doubt that the difficult and challenging cases that have been referred to have produced a deep unease among the public. That led to the "Today" programme's ill-fated exercise, much to the embarrassment of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). That embarrassment takes some generating.
The key issue, which we all understand, is how the principle of reasonable force and proportionality applies in such difficult cases. I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the deep problems in basing particular legislation on one or two hard cases, whether
1174
that means the Tony Martin case or not. The hon. Gentleman properly drew attention to the Kenneth Noye case, which most of us consider outrageous in the opposite sense.
It is not only the question of the hard cases that makes it difficult to legislate. I am thinking of soft cases, such as a drunk old man staggering across my open-plan garden and knocking over a gnome. If I opened my door and he said, "Sorry mate, it's the wrong house," whether I was reasonable or not, I would be entitled under the Bill to go out there and stab, strangle, shoot, maim or kill him, because it covers "any act done". I suppose if a drunk young woman were involved in such an incident, I would be entitled to carry out an indecent assault on her. Perhaps the milkman might wake me with a start one morning, and I mistakenly assumed that it was an intruder.
While the issue is one of great importance. we must recognise that the Bill's framework is seriously and dangerously flawed. I was a bit disappointed in the speech from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It was flexible, as it contradicted absolutely the speeches he has made in numerous Friday debates on private Members' Bills about the need to be careful, proportionate and considered in respect of any proposed legislation. That reminded me that he was a member of the Government when the dangerous dogs legislation was passed.
There is a kernel of real usefulness in clause 3, although not in its present form. There must surely be a complete defence open to any householder or owner against a claim by an intruder who injures himself penetrating someone's property. Perhaps the Minister may like to comment on how that may be dealt with.
I want to move on quickly. We have had a worthwhile debate. Some key issues have been raised. Some fundamental matters affecting the basis of our society are at the root of those issues: the sanctity of our homes and property, the rights of the innocent and of the guilty, too, because we live in a civilised society that recognises both.
Having said all that, I think that the Bill should not be supported by the House. It does not even protect owners because, as one hon. Member pointed out, if one happens to be squatting in the house, one would have all the powers of an owner. It certainly has not got the rest right either. Therefore, with great regret, I say that I believe that it should not receive its Second Reading today.
2.5 pm
Mr. John Hayes: I will be brief because we need to hear from the Minister and to vote before 2.30. I know that the whole House will wish to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has done the House a great service in bringing the Bill before us and in offering the House a full and articulate explanation of its purposes and motives. He described the Bill as essentially about the home. The home is deeply evocative. It is where we return at the end of the day and at the end of all our days, for it is often where the dying choose to go in their last hours.

1175
The home is the place that Robert Browning considered when abroad: "Oh to be in England now that April's there".
Mr. Pound: "Whoever wakes in England sees, some morning, unaware"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is not merely intervening from a sedentary position—he is reciting poetry from a sedentary position.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure that either hon. Gentleman is quoting it correctly.
Mr. Hayes: Your advice is always welcome, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said that he sought to defend the home and he is right to do so, for our home has a sanctity, a special place in our hearts. Indeed, Dr. Johnson said
"To be happy at home is the ultimate result of all ambition".
G.K. Chesterton said:
"It is when we pass our own private gate, and open our own secret door, that we step into the land of the giants."
Therefore, it is right and proper that we should defend the home.
I wish to say in the plainest possible terms that the good people of our nation are tired of a criminal justice system that appears, at least, to favour the lawless at the expense of the lawful and that, at the same time, has done untold damage to popular faith in the rule of law. The truth is that many of Tony Martin's neighbours, many of the people of Norfolk and of neighbouring Lincolnshire, many of the people of this country were essentially sympathetic to him, but they dare not express that sympathy because of a fear of a politically correct establishment. Because of that establishment, their passion dare not speak its name. Their passion is a Christian sense of right and wrong and a recognition of the malevolence of evil men and evil deeds.
The Bill seeks to some degree to rebalance the scales in favour of the lawful and to some degree to allow people to do what I suspect every hon. Member present in the Chamber today and those observing our proceedings would do if they were genuinely fearful for their home or their family, and that is to take whatever action they deem to be necessary to defend those special and sacred things.
Mr. Pound: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept what he is proposing is a counsel of despair? Would not it be better for us as a House to support the police and not seek to bypass them?
Mr. Hayes: The rule of law depends on proper authority. The hon. Gentleman, who is a great student of these things, knows that. I do not make a case from the Dispatch Box for people taking the law into their own hands as a matter of course, but if the hon. Gentleman were faced with an imminent danger in his own home, he would not first turn to the telephone to dial the police. He would take action, and that is true of
1176
any reasonable person. The Bill takes account of the burden of proof to mitigate the excesses that might result from an over-zealous pursuit of the defence of the innocent under attack.
The Bill, which seeks to amend the law so that people acting in defence of persons or property would, in specified circumstances, be exempted from both criminal and civil liability, strikes an important chord. We wait to hear the Government's response. They will understand that the Bill represents immense popular pressure for change. It is important that we once again re-affirm people's faith in the fairness, decency and justice of our system of law, for if we do not do so, that system will gradually be diluted and damaged by that lack of faith. It relies on the Government listening to what has been said today and to the people of England.
I hope we will not hear a cry about civil liberty—liberty was used as a justification for "the terror" in France and as an excuse for slave traders in England. It is a matter not of civil liberties, but of people taking liberties. There is no freedom worth having if one does not have the freedom from fear, and there is no worse fear than fear of invasion of one's special place, one's own home, and the resultant danger to one's family. I wait to hear the Minister's comments. I hope she will understand the passion with which the Bill has been brought, and the very strong feeling of the many people of all parties that lay behind it.
2.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): We have had an interesting debate on the Bill and we have ranged widely. I thank the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) for introducing the Bill.
We all recognise the legitimate concerns of householders, particularly those who might be isolated or vulnerable and far from help. They might at any time find themselves called upon to defend themselves or their property against intruders. That concern is real, and we take such concerns seriously. As has been said, it is a commonplace that an Englishman's home is his castle, as is a woman's, and we all have a legitimate right and expectation that we should be able to feel safe in our own homes. But there have been recent cases that have led people to ask themselves, "If I come across an intruder and try to defend myself, could I find myself on the wrong side of the law?" We recognise the public concern about that.
That is why, in what the hon. Member for North Thanet described as a pop-idol approach to politics, such a substantial proportion of the respondents to the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme poll supported the Bill. We, too, have received a sizeable number of representations on the subject, so we know how concerned the public are and we need to address those concerns. However, the Bill is not the answer.
Some of those who have written to the Home Office do not suggest changing the law or allowing householders the freedoms that the Bill would allow them. Rather, they called for more detailed guidance or rules on how they might lawfully react when defending themselves or their property. The example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) of the pub landlord who was worried about whether he

1177
could properly prevent a crime illustrates that. Clearly, some of the public concern stems from the fact that people are uncertain about the state of the law, rather than from the belief that the law is not enough to protect them.
We have issued a booklet entitled "Be Safe, Be Secure", which is a practical guide to crime prevention. It was updated last year and covers all aspects of personal safety at home, including how to deal with intruders. It covers the law of self-defence, including the underlying principles, and it is available from crime reduction officers and neighbourhood watch schemes and on the internet. I understand, of course, that faced with a burglar, the householder is not going to flip to the right page in his booklet. Nevertheless, we need to inform people better about the present state of the law. The present state of the law differs from both the popular perception and from what some hon. Members have implied today. We must bear it in mind that each case is different and that guidelines are needed to set out general principles, and we will see whether we can offer further help.
Mr. Leigh: Let us say that an intruder enters my house, I seek to defend my house with a baseball bat and I hit him across the head. He falls to the ground, but tries to rise up again, so I hit him again and he dies. Would I be liable to prosecution?
Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman may or may not be liable to prosecution, but he would have the defence of self-defence, and I shall come to exactly what that means and implies. The issue is important, and we must be clear about it, because this debate has not clarified it.
The best thing is proper protection against crime. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) returning to his place, because he discussed the Conservative party's proposals to employ 40,000 additional police officers through its fantasy island programme on asylum seekers. The Labour party has introduced record numbers of police officers, which has been part of our substantial success in reducing crime—burglary is down 39 per cent. since the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary.
Mr. Hayes: This is about policing, and no party supports the police more than the Conservative party. I fully endorse the Minister's remarks about the importance of providing the police with adequate resources—which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we intend to do—and giving them special powers. However, that policy cannot be successful unless it is backed up by a criminal justice system that allows the police to do their job, raises their morale and restores public faith in them and the law.
Fiona Mactaggart: Precisely. That is one of the reasons for our series of developments to increase public confidence in our criminal justice system, but the first port of call is to stop people becoming victims in the first place. I expect the House to expect me to make clear the Government's commitment and record of success.
1178
Under the law at present, a person is entitled to use reasonable force in self-defence or to protect another person or property. What constitutes reasonable force depends on the circumstances of each case, and it is a matter for the courts to decide. Clearly, the force that it is reasonable to use in any given situation depends on the circumstances, the nature of the threat and what it takes to counter that threat; the reaction must be proportionate.
The hon. Member for North Thanet suggested a pedantic definition of reasonable force. which is not defined in law and is rightly a question for a jury of 12 citizens making up their minds on the basis of the facts of a particular case. The judge will direct the jury, and the circumstances include the situation as the defendant honestly believed it to be.
Lord Justice Woolf said this about the Martin case:
"it was for the jury, as the representative of the public, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable and the amount of force which it would be unreasonable to use in the circumstances in which they found that Mr Martin believed himself to be in."
When a defence of self-defence is raised, the prosecution has the burden of satisfying the jury. The jury is entitled to find a defendant guilty only if it is sure that the force used was unreasonable. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), in querying whether prosecution should take place, implied that the reasonableness test was in the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service, but it is not—it is in the hands of the jury.
The law recognises that in the heat of the moment and in a panic, it may be hard for a householder to assess exactly what level of force is necessary and proportionate. The courts have held that if a person does only what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary to prevent a crime, that would be potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken. However, the law does not permit an act of retaliation. The punishment of criminals is rightly a matter for the courts: it is not for victims, vigilantes or anyone else to take the law into their own hands. They should not seek to punish an offender for a crime or trespass committed against them, their friends or their family. Prevention and defence is one thing; retaliation is quite another. We think that the law as it stands represents a fair balance between the need for householders to defend themselves and their property and the need for society at large to have confidence in the rule of law.
The proposals in the Bill have something of the wild west about them—attractive at first sight, but designed for an era of anarchy, "might is right", and everyone for himself. That is why it is important to stress the work that we have done to ensure that the law is enforced effectively by a more substantial police force.
Mr. Hayes: Retaliation implies time. thought, and that someone who has suffered an ill will seek by deliberate intent to inflict an ill on someone else. We are not talking about that, but about someone responding as any citizen would—with immediacy, to defend themselves. Defence and retaliation are two very different things, as the hon. Lady must know. Not

1179
everyone is able to escape such situations—many people live on the front line. I appreciate that she has a noble lineage, but most people do not.
Fiona Mactaggart: Those are cheap points, frankly. In fact, I will sign up with those hon. Members who put themselves in the lineage of the retaliators. Only two and a half weeks ago, I was subject to an attempted indecent assault on Clapham common, and it was only because the attempted assailant was the fleeter of foot that he survived without a very substantial thump. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill with care, he will see that it would permit retaliation. That is neither necessary nor appropriate in a modern society.
Hon. Members asked whether Mr. Martin would have been protected by the Bill. He probably would, because he needed only to have shown that he believed, whether reasonably or not, that he was acting in self-defence or in the protection of his property, and that the intruder was a trespasser.
Following the Martin case, there has been a cloud of confusion about the current state of the law, and some issues remain properly to be remedied. One of those, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and is addressed in clause 3, is that of civil liability where a householder damages the property of an intruder or kills him. That provision is unnecessary, because we made amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to ensure that householders and other victims of crime are not subjected to unjustified claims for damages where they have acted reasonably and proportionately in self-defence against a perceived or actual threat. That means that any claim can proceed only in strictly defined circumstances with the express permission of the court, and would not succeed unless the court was satisfied that the householder's actions had been grossly disproportionate.
Those provisions were carefully considered and accepted by Parliament, and they came into force on 20 January. We believe that they represent a sensible and proportionate response to concerns in this area, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In addition, the Lord Chancellor has directed the Legal Services Commission to consult on tightening up the rules to ensure that offenders would not be entitled to legal aid to pursue their victims in such circumstances. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that that aspect of the Bill is not required.
The proposed Bill would give a person virtual immunity from prosecution for any act done by him if he believed, "whether reasonably or not", that he was acting in self-defence or that he was acting to preserve property, to apprehend a wrongdoer or to prevent a crime, and believed—again, "whether reasonably or not"—that the other person was a trespasser. That is certainly a step too far. We must all be responsible for our actions, and be prepared to answer for those actions if necessary. That is justice. When there was a clearly disproportionate response to an incident, where someone was seriously injured or killed, no responsible person would want to find that the perpetrator did not have to answer for those actions before a jury.
It is for a jury to decide whether someone is acting reasonably or unreasonably and whether their actions are proportionate and justifiable or not. To allow
1180
someone to use any means to defend themselves could include, for example, being able to use weapons to kill an intruder. That would clearly be a disproportionate and unreasonable response to an unarmed burglar. It would grant someone a licence to kill with impunity. We do not hang burglars in this day and age, and we certainly would not be happy to suggest that prospective burglars could or should be shot with impunity. They should be pursued with the full force of the law.
I know that in some cases people feel that the law is not protecting them, and that is what has led to this proposal. We need to make sure that the law is operating as it should, but putting householders beyond its reach would not help the law to protect them. Rather, it would create an acceptance of lawlessness and a spiral of violence and retaliation that would make the situation worse. It would create a situation in which people felt that they had to go armed in order to protect themselves. That cannot be what we want to achieve.
We would rather pursue an approach that depends on more robust policing and more effective support for the victims of crime. The sense that there is nothing that victims can do is in many ways disabling, and it is one of the things that has led to the introduction of the Bill. As the hon. Member for North Thanet suggested, we need to address the underlying perception—which we do not believe to be well founded—that the criminal justice system has shifted so that the criminal, rather than the real victim, is seen as the victim.
That is why we have taken so many substantial steps to support victims. A conference for victims was held for the first time this week, and we have introduced legislation that puts victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, including the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the new Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. They are all designed to protect victims more effectively.
We also need to remember too that not everyone who enters private property does so with criminal intent. This law could allow a householder to take action against small boys who are looking for a lost football, against an unsuspecting and unrecognised deliveryman, or against anyone rash enough to set foot on their property, even for a completely legitimate purpose. Members of the House would need to take care when they were next on the campaign trail. The hon. Member for Broxtowe suggested that all of us who spend time in our constituents' gardens could face violent action from a constituent. I do not believe that the constituents of Slough are of the type to which he referred, but we could face that risk if they thought that we were trespassing.
This Bill would give them complete impunity and thus represent a step backwards for democracy. It goes too far. The law already enables people to act reasonably in self-defence, or in defence of their property. However, such a provision—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 May.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  ORGAN DONATION (PRESUMED CONSENT AND SAFEGUARDS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 14 May.

  WILD MAMMALS (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 21 May.

  LOCAL LAND CHARGES (FEES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 18 June.

Asperger's Syndrome
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
2.31 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the case of Piers Bolduc, the son of my constituents, Eugene and Cris Bolduc, and to press the Government about Mr. Bolduc's case and about some of the wider lessons that we may learn as regards the treatment of people with Asperger's syndrome within our secure mental hospitals.
It is now 10 years since Eugene and Cris Bolduc first came to see me. The case of their son, Piers, is tragic. He is now 28 years old, and he has been detained in secure mental institutions for a decade. His childhood, family and school life seemed normal, although with hindsight, it can be recognised that he showed some of the characteristics typical of Asperger's syndrome, such as finding it hard to socialise with other people.
The real problems for Piers started at about the age of 16, while he was studying for his GCSE examinations. At the age of 17, Piers was first prescribed neuroleptic drugs, which as the Minister will well know, are intended for the treatment of schizophrenia and other comparable mental conditions, and not for the treatment of Asperger's. By this stage, Piers was showing increasing symptoms of confusion and an inability to cope with normal society—classic features of Asperger's syndrome. His ability to cope with life was being made worse by the inappropriate drug treatment that he was being given.
While on a course of this drug treatment, Piers travelled alone to High Wycombe and a violent incident took place in which Piers slashed a young man with a penknife. I do not for one moment, and nor would the family, wish to minimise the importance of this event, and particularly the impact on the victim. It also needs to be recorded that the victim's life was not in danger, although he did need stitches in his back.
Piers was later charged with grievous bodily harm with intent. At a hearing at Reading Crown court, he pleaded not guilty on grounds of insanity. That defence was accepted by the jury and Piers was acquitted and then sectioned under section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
The history thereafter is an unhappy one. Initially, Piers was held on remand at Reading prison. After lobbying from his family, in which they enlisted my support, he was transferred to a private psychiatric unit at Stockton Hall in Yorkshire. There, he was wrongly diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and once again injected with drugs that were completely inappropriate to his condition.
According to his parents, Piers was locked in a room for eight months while at Stockton Hall, with only a mattress on the floor rather than a bed. No activities or recreations were provided for him and he had no access to radio or television.
The following year, in June 1995, Piers was transferred to Broadmoor. There, in 1996–97, Dr. Lorna Wing finally diagnosed Asperger's syndrome. Few people would claim that a secure mental hospital is the best environment for the treatment of people with

1183
Asperger's. By 2001, Piers's then doctor, Dr. Vermeulen, had told his parents that the hospital wished to transfer Piers to a more appropriate environment where he could finally receive the treatment that would help his condition. In November 2001, Broadmoor began to assess his suitability for transfer to the Eric Shepherd unit in Watford. That transfer proved not to be possible but by 2003 attention was centring on the Hayes unit in Gloucestershire.
It is important to make it clear that the Hayes unit would not, as a matter of principle, have accepted Piers Bolduc as a patient if he had still been considered to be a danger to other people. The fact that the transfer has been in preparation for a number of years indicates a recognition on the part of the NHS, which is responsible for Piers's care, that he no longer appears to pose the threat that he may once have posed.
On 15 December last year, Dr. Julie Hollyman, chief executive of the West London Mental Health NHS Trust—responsible for Broadmoor hospital—wrote to me about the case, saying:
"I can confirm that it is the clinical opinion that Mr. Bolduc is now ready to move from Broadmoor High Secure Hospital to the Hayes Unit."
On 19 December last year, Mr. Shaun Brogan, chief executive of the Vale of Aylesbury primary care trust, wrote to me that
"the PCT have committed to Piers' future care after discharge from Broadmoor".
So there would appear to be no clinical or financial obstacle to that long overdue transfer, but still the family wait.
My understanding is that the transfer needs to be authorised by the Home Office. The family have been pressing both Broadmoor and the Home Office for that to happen, but it seems that, despite all previous correspondence, Broadmoor did not formally contact the Home Office until March 2004, after considerable pressure from Piers's family. It is known that, as of today, no reply has been received from the Home Secretary's office.
If Piers Bolduc had been convicted of a crime and been disposed of through the criminal justice system, perhaps by way of a custodial sentence, it would have been over years ago and he would rightly have been rehabilitated by now. It is an indication of something seriously amiss with the way in which our country deals with people like Piers Bolduc that, after more than a decade, we should still be talking about this young man, incarcerated in an institution like Broadmoor, having had a history of misdiagnosis and mistreatment. He has been let down badly by the system.
May I ask the Minister a couple of direct questions about Piers's case? Can he confirm that there is no clinical or financial obstacle to Piers's transfer to the Hayes unit? Can he say what progress his Department and the relevant trust have made with the Home Office towards authorising that transfer? Will he undertake to press his colleagues in the Home Office, in view of the history that I have recounted, to deal with the case as swiftly as humanly possible?
This case raises wider questions about the treatment in secure mental hospitals of people with Asperger's syndrome. Piers Bolduc's detention in Broadmoor has probably cost taxpayers in the region of £2 million so far
1184
for that 10 years, in part for the wrong sort of treatment in the wrong sort of institution. I therefore have several issues to put to the Minister, to which I hope that he will be able to respond during this short debate or, if time does not permit, take advice on so that he can write to me later in greater detail.
First, will the Minister comment on the legality of holding people with Asperger's syndrome under the Mental Health Act 1983? My understanding is that a report by the National Autistic Society back in 1996, instigated by the three special hospitals, suggested that Asperger's syndrome was not actually a mental disorder under the meaning of that term as laid down in the 1983 Act. If that is so, it raises serious issues about the detention of not only Piers Bolduc, but a fair number of other people. I hope that the Government will make their view on that clear.
Secondly, can the Government say how many people with Asperger's syndrome are being detained under the provisions of the 1983 Act? In a written answer to me of 10 November 2003, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) told me that the Government did not have that information. The Government should have had that information and, if they did not have it then, they ought to have found it out by now. The Government should inquire into the number of patients with Asperger's syndrome who have been misdiagnosed, as was the case with Piers Bolduc, and given the wrong treatment.
I should make it clear that my aim, and that of Piers's family, is not to point fingers at people who may have taken incorrect decisions in the past. Rather, we want to establish the truth about what is happening in our secure mental hospitals now, and about the scale of the problem, so that we can understand what steps need to be taken to put matters right.
Thirdly, what action are the Government taking to improve the quality of training in the management of Asperger's for the staff at secure mental hospitals? It was two or three years after Piers's arrest before he was diagnosed as having Asperger's at all. despite the fact that his parents had raised that possibility at an earlier stage. Even after that diagnosis, the family expressed to me serious concerns that not all the staff responsible for Piers's care really knew how to deal with a case of Asperger's syndrome. They also commented to me that internal communications between staff from different disciplines often appeared to be lacking.
Fourthly, are the Government reviewing the quality of care available at secure hospitals for people with Asperger's? In a letter to me of 8 February, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central stated:
"The normal practice is to allow increasing freedom within the grounds of the hospital followed by escorted visits into the community and to a possible placement."
However, on the information given to me by the family, despite the fact that Piers was approved as ready for transfer three years ago, none of that happened in their son's case until November last year. Coincidentally, that was after critical reports of Piers's treatment were published in The Sunday Telegraph and broadcast on Radio 4's "Woman's Hour". All that has apparently happened since then is that Piers was allowed to prepare

1185
and cook a pizza for himself in the Broadmoor kitchen and has been on two day visits to the Hayes unit. That seems to fall a long way short of what that Minister suggested to me should be the normal regime for a patient being prepared for transfer.
Finally, will the Minister and the Government accept the principle that families ought to be part of a process of healing and readjustment to life outside mental institutions? For me, the most distressing aspect of this case is Mr. and Mrs. Bolduc's feeling of exclusion from their son's life. In fairness, Broadmoor hospital says that such exclusion is at Piers's request, but that, in turn, is based on the hospital's insistence that he is capable of taking that decision himself and is not influenced by the staff. Of course, the people who have assessed him as competent to take that decision are the staff of the very hospital that is the subject of the complaint.
As the Minister will recall, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) raised this issue, among others, with him in an Adjournment debate on 10 September last year. It is utterly wrong if families feel that they are being pushed out and excluded from contact with relatives detained under mental health legislation, rather than being engaged in and involved with a programme of healing and rehabilitation.
I hope that the Minister can tell me that, after 10 years, a new life is at last ready for Piers Bolduc to start. But I hope, too, that his tragic case will serve as a lesson—not just to the Government but to us all—that we need to do far more to ensure that people with Asperger's syndrome in our secure mental institutions are given the standard of care and treatment that they are entitled to.
2.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for securing this debate and for discussing a subject that, as he doubtless knows, is very close to my heart. I also thank him for raising the specific case of Mr. Piers Bolduc. who, as he says, has Asperger's syndrome and is currently in Broadmoor hospital. The hon. Gentleman has raised some interesting issues that we will certainly need to explore further if the House introduces new mental health legislation, for example, as is intended. If I fail to address any of the issues that he has asked me about, they will certainly be dealt with in a letter.
The parents of Piers Bolduc have been unstinting in trying to secure a placement for him in a centre that cares specifically for people with Asperger's syndrome, and in which they believe his particular needs can be better addressed. I should say at the outset that it is very sad if they feel excluded from the process in any way. We should learn lessons from that, and it should not happen. That said, Mr. Bolduc has rights as an adult, and I shall talk about them and what they prevent me from saying a little later. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that we need to do more to square the circle and to make sure that parents feel that they have
1186
an input and are being listened to, even if we cannot always act on their wishes because we have to act on those of another party.
I care greatly about improving the experience of people with Asperger's syndrome and of everyone on the autistic spectrum, the vast majority of whom, of course, do not need such highly specialised help as Mr. Bolduc. I shall talk about Mr. Bolduc's case, which involves a person affected by Asperger's syndrome being detained in a secure mental hospital, in a moment or two. First, I want to say a few words about the recognition of Asperger's syndrome in the criminal justice system, and about high secure hospitals.
I must stress that people affected by autistic spectrum disorders, including Asperger's syndrome, do not normally pose any risk to society at large. I am aware of no evidence of any significant association between autism and criminal offending. In fact, because of the nature of autism and the very rigid way in which many people with autistic spectrum disorders tend to keep to "rules and regulations", they are often more law abiding than the general population. It would be a tragedy, and grossly unfair, if anyone inferred from my comments any suggestion that people on the autistic spectrum are a threat or are routinely dangerous. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless join me in that sentiment. Indeed, people with learning disabilities, including autism, are over-represented among the victims rather than perpetrators or crime. In 1999, Mencap reported that 21 per cent. of the people with learning disabilities that they surveyed had been subject to physical attacks in the previous year. Although research in this field is limited, naivety and a lack of social understanding are likely to increase the vulnerability to crime of people with autistic spectrum disorders.
However, some people with autism—in common with some people from every other group in society—sometimes either break the law or are suspected of or accused of breaking the law. When that happens, fair treatment for them is often dependent on the involvement of people—in the police force, the courts or the prisons—who understand autistic spectrum disorders. Before I became a Minister, I was the chairman of the all-party group on autism, and I have long been keen to see steps taken to improve autism awareness in the criminal justice system. I remain keen and I am pleased to say that some progress is being made.
The Youth Justice Board and the Magistrates Association have arranged a joint conference in July this year to raise awareness of mental health issues and autistic spectrum disorders among magistrates and judges. That conference will also give youth panel chairs and justices' clerks an opportunity to hear about policy developments and learn about the roles and responsibilities of agencies involved in providing services for young people.
Progress is also being made to improve autism awareness among police officers. Probationary police officers receive autism awareness training and are taught to recognise the condition as part of their two-year training programme. In addition, when they receive training in investigative interviewing they are given a detailed briefing on conditions, including autism, that could affect communication or that might mean witnesses being easily intimidated. Throughout their

1187
training they are reminded that the skills that they have learned may also be needed when dealing not only with witnesses but with criminals and members of the public.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, responsibility for prison health was transferred from the Home Office to the Department of Health from 1 April 2003 and I am the Minister responsible for prison health. I certainly appreciate, and the prison health team also appreciates, that autistic spectrum disorders and learning disabilities may well be under-diagnosed in the prison population.
The Prison Service, Prison Health and the Youth Justice Board share a commitment to the provision of better specialist health and mental health services for offenders. To give practical effect to that, they have jointly appointed a programme manager for juvenile health. Among the benefits expected from the creation of the post is a greater understanding of the nature and prevalence of all conditions, including autism. That should, in turn, lead to an increased emphasis on the diagnosis and assessment of such conditions at establishment level and the commissioning, by primary care trusts, of appropriate services to meet the needs identified.
One of the first projects being undertaken by the new programme manager for juvenile health is the development of a health strategy for juveniles. The extent to which autism may be a significant problem in individual prison establishments would be expected to emerge from the regular health needs assessments undertaken jointly by prisons and their NHS partners.
I fully acknowledge that people on the autistic spectrum, at all ages, are at above-average risk of developing mental health problems. That makes it particularly important to consider what steps should be taken for people with autism to ensure early intervention when mental health problems arise.
Making an accurate psychiatric diagnosis of people with Asperger's syndrome is a complex process. Features of the syndrome, such as disturbances of communication, obsessionality and preoccupations, can be mistaken for—or, indeed, merge into—mental ill health. That is exactly what happened with Mr. Bolduc. Secure psychiatric hospitals provide care and treatment for people detained under mental health legislation and who are considered to require such care and treatment in secure conditions. That could, for example, be because they are considered to present a potential threat to themselves or others or might abscond if detained in open conditions. They will include mentally disordered offenders and patients who have proved unmanageable in non-secure conditions. If an individual with Asperger's syndrome is considered sufficiently dangerous, he or she will be admitted to a high security hospital until their condition improves enough for them to be managed in a lower level of security.
I know that many hon. Members are concerned about how many current residents at secure mental hospitals have been assessed as having Asperger's syndrome. It is one of the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked me. A few years ago, the Department of Health funded the National Autistic Society to undertake a specific piece of work in this area. Entitled "A Preliminary Study of Individuals with Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Three Special Hospitals in England", it was published in 1999.
1188
The report arose from concern among professionals in special—now called high secure—hospitals in England to establish the number of people with an autistic spectrum disorder who were detained in their care under mental health legislation and whether such settings were appropriate. It is available on the National Autistic Society website.
The report identified that there were then 31 individuals with autistic spectrum disorders, of whom 21 were thought to have Asperger's syndrome. Mr. Bolduc would have been a resident in Broadmoor at the time that survey was done. It concluded that
"individuals with autistic spectrum disorders form only a small proportion of all those in the special hospitals".
It is worth noting that the report's conclusions also stated that the
"possibility of the presence of an autistic spectrum disorder should always be considered when assessing offenders in special hospitals."
I am sure we all agree that the relatively small proportion of people affected does not make it any less important to get it right for the people concerned. The important thing is to do all we can to improve services.
The transition from high secure care to conditions of lesser security can be a difficult one for many individuals and needs careful handling. A patient may move out of a high security hospital either on transfer to a less secure hospital or on discharge into the community. The first step would usually be for the patient's responsible medical officer, in consultation with his clinical team, to decide that the patient no longer needs to be detained for care and treatment in conditions of high security.
If the decision is that the patient nevertheless still requires care and treatment in a hospital setting for their mental disorder but that it can safely be provided at a lower level of security, the responsible medical officer or clinical team will seek to identify a suitable alternative placement. The doctor or clinical team at the receiving hospital will need to agree that transfer is appropriate. and the relevant PCT commissioner's agreement to fund the placement will need to be obtained. If the necessary agreements are obtained but a vacancy in the receiving facility is not immediately available, the patient may be placed on a waiting list for admission.
I come to Mr. Piers Bolduc's present situation. I must say at this point that I am limited in what I feel I can say about the specific case. Mr. Bolduc has advised, through his clinicians at Broadmoor hospital, that he does not wish personal details of his case to be discussed publicly. Mr. Bolduc is an adult and has the capacity and right to make such decisions, and there is no reason why that request should not be respected in full. I make no criticism of the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he represents the views of Mr. Bolduc's parents and has their permission to put in the public domain the information that he gave. However, that does not mean to say that I may do so, given that I have Mr. Bolduc's instructions.
I can tell the House, however, that it was following Mr. Bolduc's transfer from Stockton Hall hospital to Broadmoor hospital in 1995 that a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome was confirmed. A programme of

1189
therapy and rehabilitation was put in place and has progressed to the point that the clinical team and Mr. Bolduc himself now feel that he is ready for transfer to an alternative. specialist unit. A unit run by an organisation with specialist expertise has been identified, which offers assessment and treatment for people with Asperger's syndrome. In respect of Mr. Bolduc's request for privacy, it is not appropriate to confirm the name of the unit or its location. This unit is well equipped to support Mr. Bolduc with the level of support, safety and security that he both requires and seeks.
All necessary clinical assessments have been undertaken as part of the referral process and Mr. Bolduc has been accepted for transfer to the unit, as soon as a place becomes available. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be somewhat reassured by that. The necessary transfer agreements are also being pursued by Broadmoor hospital with the Home Office. My understanding is that all involved parties, including Mr. Bolduc's parents, are in agreement that it is in fact the most appropriate placement. Unfortunately it is not possible to say precisely when the transfer can take
1190
place, as that is dependent on availability of a bed, although it is anticipated that this should be in the coming months. As the hon. Gentleman requested, I am happy to liaise with colleagues at the Home Office to ensure that there are no undue delays. While Mr. Bolduc remains at Broadmoor hospital, his current therapeutic programme will continue with the aim of developing the skills required both for his next placement and beyond.
Finally, I should like to stress again that the vast majority of people with autism or Asperger's syndrome do not present a risk to society because of their condition. We have been discussing very rare cases. However, when people with ASD, such as Mr. Bolduc, do come in contact with the criminal justice system, they are entitled to interact with people who understand their condition and act appropriately. That is what we are trying to put in place across the board, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that progress is being made and that I am committed to keeping up the pace of reform and to improving services for people with Asperger's. I will do all I can to ensure that Mr. Bolduc's transfer takes place as expeditiously as possible and that the matter is dealt with quickly.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many instances of gold plating have been brought to the attention of the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit, with particular reference to the Cabinet Office Transposition Guide, 2003, page 17 [168646]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government's policy is to transpose Directives so as to achieve the objects of the European measure, on time and in accordance with other UK policy goals, including minimising the burden on business. It is Government policy not to over-implement ("gold-plate") directives unless there are exceptional reasons for doing so.

  The Regulatory Impact Unit has regular discussions with departments concerning policy development, including, on occasion, possible over-implementation. Records of the number of times such discussions have taken place are not available. Since November 2001, Transposition Notes have normally accompanied all legislation laid before Parliament that transposes any European directive. These show how all the main elements of the directive have been or will be transposed into UK law.

  In accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, Departments discuss with the Regulatory Impact Unit the range of options that might be included in regulatory impact assessments. These include options that could go beyond the minimum necessary to comply with a European directive, bearing in mind that, particularly where the original directive is unclear, it is not always straightforward to know in advance whether a proposed method of implementation might represent over-or under-implementation.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Consultants
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what sum has been expended on consultants by(a) the Department and (b) its predecessors since May 1997. [169848]

  Mr. Lammy
  From April 1997 until March 2003, my Department's net expenditure with consultants was as follows:

  £million

  1997–98

  0.7

  1998–99

  1.2

  1999–2000

  1.9

  1320W

  2000–01

  2.6

  2001–02

  6.5

  2002–03

  5.7

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

  Delivering such a programme in the most effective and efficient way has necessitated the use of external expertise and skills to supplement the Department's own resources.

  Expenditure details for the financial year 2003–04 are not yet available.

  Immigration
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the Immigration Appeals Authority has received from the Home Office the papers relating to the case of Mr. S. M., husband of Mrs. S. K. of Aylesbury (GV100/86120; decision maker's reference: 643686; Gerrys/Fedex no: 90083389; appeal reference: 90063159); and if he will make a statement. [167245]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) took receipt of the appeal papers of Mr. S. M. on the 14 April 2004. The appeal has been listed by the IAA for a substantive hearing before an Immigration Adjudicator on 3 June 2004. Notice to this effect was promulgated to the relevant parties to the appeal on 19 April 2004.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will set a time limit on the maximum length of time between an appeal against the withdrawal of United Kingdom nationality being lodged with the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the appeal being heard. [169811]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is important that appeals before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) are dealt with quickly and efficiently and the Government are keeping the position under very close review. But there are risks to setting rigid time limits that stipulate appeals must be heard within a defined period. The complexities of a case, and the need to ensure that SIAC has the full facts at its disposal, mean there are always instances where it would not be possible. We are committed to decide each appeal on its individual merits and give that appeal the necessary time for a fair decision to be given.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action he proposes to take to reduce delays in hearings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in cases of appeals against withdrawal of UK nationality; and if he will make a statement. [169813]
  1321W
  Mr. Lammy
  The administrative processes for appeals against Deprivation of Citizenship proceedings are subject to on-going review to ensure compatibility with both the public interest and the independence of the judicial process.

  Interlocutory decisions in relation to individual proceedings are the preserve of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will name all hon. Members who, since 1 August 2003, have been sent a standard departmental reply concerning the 1911 Census returns in which the Department has advised them that the period of closure in Great Britain is normally 100 years; and if he will list the decennial population Census for(a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland and >(c) the whole of Ireland which have been released after less than 100 years of closure to public inspection. [167310]

  Mr. Lammy
  Between 1 August 2003 and 31 March 2004 the following hon. Members have received letters explaining why the 1911 Census returns for England and Wales are subject to a closure period of 100 years:Andrew Smith, John Baron, Ann Winterton, Andrew MacKay, Judy Mallaber, Paul Burstow, Claire Ward, Nick Hawkins, Kevin Barron, Steven Webb, Andrew Tyrie, Sandra Gidley, Gerald Kaufman, Andrew Rosindell, Joe Benton, Nick Harvey, Mark Oaten, Helen Jackson, Robert Jackson, Andrew Murrison, John Grogan, David Borrow, David Taylor, Doug Naysmith, Roger Williams, Richard Ottaway, Alan Howarth, Philip Sawford, Vernon Coaker, Tim Yeo, Patricia Hewitt, Stephen Pound, Michael Mates, Michael Portillo, Jeff Ennis, Robert Key, Michael Wills, Siobhain McDonagh, Nick Gibb, Martin Caton, Ian Taylor, James Arbuthnot, Norman Lamb, Candy Atherton, Nicholas Winterton, John Hutton, Kenneth Clarke, Tim Loughton, Linda Gilroy, Hilary Benn, Michael Foster, David Drew, George Young, Paul Truswell, John Randall, Ian Stewart, Teddy Taylor, Wayne David, Ashok Kumar, Richard Burden, Andrew Turner, Mike O'Brien, Andrew Miller, Hazel Blears, John Horam, Edward Leigh, David Blunkett, Gwyneth Dunwoody, David Lidington, William Cash, Jim Cunningham, Robert Ainsworth, Shona McIsaac, John Taylor, David Winnick, Michael Wills, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Gregory Campbell, Martin Salter, Andrew Hunter, and Paul Clark.

  (a) The censuses for 1841 and 1851 in England and Wales, which contained less detailed information than 20th century censuses, were opened to public inspection in 1912. The 1861 to 1901 censuses were all released after 100 years.

  (b)> The opening of census returns in Scotland is a matter for the General Register Office for Scotland, an associated Department of the Scottish Executive. However, I can refer the right hon. Member to the answer of 24 February 2004, Official Report, column 347W which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Constitutional Affairs with responsibility for Scotland gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on this subject.

  (c) The returns for the all-Ireland censuses conducted in 1901 and 1911 can be consulted at the National Archives in Dublin, in accordance with decisions taken by the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC (Commercial Advertising)
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 31 March 2004,Official Report, column 1454W, on BBC (commercial advertising), how much the BBC spent in each of the last five years on (a) billboard advertising and (b) other commercial advertising. [168817]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 26 April 2004]: The cost of promoting BBC services is a matter for the BBC. However, the figures show the BBC's media spend over the last five years.

  The BBC's total bought media spend for the last five years has been as follows:

  £ million

  Of which: billboard advertising

  2000

  8.6

  negligible

  2001

  9.6

  negligible

  2002

  14.7

  10.85

  2003

  13.8

  11.7

  2004

  112.0

  111.5

  1Estimate

  I understand that the BBC made a significant change to its strategy in 2002 by developing a permanent holding of poster sites and switching much of its spending from other media, such as Press.

  The BBC's spend has also of course risen significantly since 2002 in order to support the launches of its new digital TV and radio services and to promote digital take up in accordance with its commitments to the Secretary of State.

  Departmental Communications
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total expenditure on communications for her Department has been in 2003–04, broken down by expenditure on(a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others. [158208]

  Mr. Caborn
  The total expenditure on communications in my Department in 2003–04 was £927,744. This figure includes staff costs for the Group Head, the Press Office, the Promotions and Publicity Unit and administrative support staff. A break down of this figure between competencies, or by membership of the Government Information and Communication Service could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The totals, do not include costs for special advisers, figures for which are given on an annual basis. Information for the year 2003–04 will be published in due course.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff were employed in the Department to work in the communications field, and what the total expenditure on communications for the Department was, broken
  1323W
  down by (a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others, in (a) 1994–95 (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (D) 2001–02. [168683]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many press officers were employed in her Department in each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04; what the total cost was in each year; and if she will make a statement. [162854]

  Mr. Caborn
  Numbers of press officers employed in each year from 1992–93 when the Department came into existence are as follows. Total cost for each year is available only for 2002–03 and 2003–04 as the information requested for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Number

  Total cost (£)

  1992–93

  7

  —

  1993–94

  7

  —

  1994–95

  7

  —

  1995–96

  7

  —

  1996–97

  7

  —

  1997–98

  7

  —

  1998–99

  9

  —

  1999–2000

  8

  —

  2000–01

  9

  —

  2001–02

  8

  —

  2002–03

  9

  459,952

  2003–04

  10

  552,677

DEFENCE

  Civil Servants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Defence if he will list for each civil service grade within his(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies, the total number of staff employed, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) ethnic group and (iii) age group; and how many are registered disabled. [166394]

  Mr. Caplin
  Information on Ministry of Defence civilian staff is given in United Kingdom Defence Statistics 2003 a copy of which is available in the House

  Number of civilian staff in Ministry of Defence by age and grade (excludes trading funds and agencies): As at 1 March 2004

  Grade

  16–24

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  SCS

  —

  —

  —

  10

  20

  40

  Band B

  —

  20

  70

  180

  220

  300

  Band C

  60

  360

  730

  1,220

  1,490

  1,450

  Band D

  380

  570

  870

  1,120

  1,220

  1,080

  Band E

  1,540

  1,220

  1,950

  2,520

  2,560

  2,260

  Industrial4

  380

  300

  660

  1,070

  1,480

  1,430

  Other5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1324W
  of Commons Library. Summary data for the civil service as a whole are published in the Civil Service Statistics 2002 publication. The 2003 edition will be published in summer 2004. The further information requested for the Ministry of Defence is given in the following tables:

  Number of civilian staff in Ministry of Defence by gender, ethnic origin and disability (excludes trading funds and agencies

  Ministry of Defence

  1 March 2004

  Male

  Female

  Ethnic minorities1

  Disabled2

  SCS

  200

  20

  —

  —

  Band B

  1,160

  250

  30

  30

  Band C

  6,810

  2,170

  160

  360

  Band D

  4,450

  3,020

  190

  300

  Band E

  6,860

  11,010

  540

  680

  Industrial4

  6,910

  2,220

  120

  460

  Others5

  30

  10

  —

  30

  Grand total

  26,410

  18,690

  1,040

  1,870

  Number of civilian staff in Ministry of Defence agencies and trading funds by gender, ethnic origin and disability

  Agencies and trading funds

  1 March 2004

  Male

  Female

  Ethnic minorities1

  Disabled2

  SCS

  70

  10

  —

  —

  Band B

  970

  160

  20

  20

  Band C

  5,890

  2,000

  150

  320

  Band D

  4,610

  2,260

  140

  300

  Band E

  5,340

  6,890

  320

  460

  Industrial4

  4,120

  870

  80

  340

  Other5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  21,000

  12,200

  710

  1,440

  Trading

  Funds3,4

  9,400

  2,010

  110

  400

  Grand total

  30,400

  14,210

  820

  1,850

  1Figures for ethnic minorities represent those who have declared themselves to be a member of an ethnic minority group. A total of 14,340 staff in the agencies and trading funds, and 12,550 in the remainder of the Ministry of Defence had not declared their ethnicity.

  2Figures for disabled staff represent those who have declared themselves to be disabled. A total of 14,830 civilian staff in the agencies and trading Hinds, and 16,320 in the remainder of the Ministry of Defence had not declared their disability status.

  3A breakdown by Grade is not available for Trading Funds.

  4Industrial and Trading Funds data are based on estimates from November 2003.

  5Other grade includes industrials on temporary promotion, and unknowns.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are headcount and have been rounded to the nearest 10 to preserve confidentiality.

  2. Dashes represent numbers between 0 and 5.

  1325W

  Grade

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65+

  Unknown

  Grand total

  SCS

  80

  50

  10

  —

  —

  220

  Band B

  330

  260

  30

  —

  —

  1,420

  Band C

  1,460

  1750

  330

  20

  —

  8,980

  Band D

  1,050

  980

  170

  10

  —

  7,460

  Band E

  2,240

  2420

  1100

  30

  10

  17,870

  Industrial1

  1,400

  1410

  970

  20

  —

  9,120

  Other5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  30

  Grand total

  6,570

  6,870

  2,730

  80

  30

  45,100

  Number of civilian staff in Ministry of Defence agencies and trading funds age by grade: As at 1 March 2004

  Grade

  16,24

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  SCS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  20

  Band B

  —

  —

  30

  120

  220

  230

  Band C

  40

  320

  690

  1,080

  1,360

  1,390

  Band D

  290

  440

  670

  960

  1,190

  1,200

  Band E

  1,310

  870

  1,160

  1,810

  1,840

  1,610

  Industrial4

  350

  210

  360

  510

  710

  730

  Other5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1,990

  1,840

  2,910

  4,470

  5,320

  5,180

  Trading funds3,4

  980

  1,100

  1,390

  1,000

  1,720

  1,550

  Grand total

  2,970

  2,940

  4,300

  6,070

  7,040

  6,730

  Grade

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65+

  Unknown

  Grand total

  SCS

  20

  20

  —

  —

  —

  80

  Band B

  290

  210

  30

  —

  —

  1,130

  Band C

  1,370

  1,290

  310

  10

  10

  7,890

  Band D

  990

  900

  230

  —

  —

  6,870

  Band E

  1,490

  1,530

  600

  10

  10

  12,230

  Industrial4

  700

  850

  580

  10

  —

  4,990

  Other5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Total

  4,870

  4,800

  1,740

  30

  20

  33,190

  Trading funds4,3

  1,380

  1,260

  430

  10

  —

  11,420

  Grand total

  6,250

  6,060

  2,180

  40

  20

  44,610

  1Figures for ethnic minorities represent those who have declared themselves to be a member of an ethnic minority group.

  A total of 14,340 staff in the agencies and trading funds, and 12,550 in the remainder of the Ministry of Defence had not declared their ethnicity.

  2Figures for disabled staff represent those who have declared themselves to be disabled.

  A total of 14,830 civilian staff in the agencies and trading funds, and 16,320 in the remainder o the Ministry of Defence had not declared their disability status.

  3A breakdown by Grade is not available for Trading Funds.

  4Industrial and Trading Funds data are based on estimates from November 2003.

  5Other grade includes industrials on temporary promotion, and unknowns.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are headcount and have been rounded to the nearest 10 to preserve confidentiality.

  2. Dashes represent numbers between 0 and 5.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent changes have been made regarding the use of free postage for military personnel serving in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [170106]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to my Written Ministerial Statement of 27 February 2004,Official Report, column 7OWS, and subsequent answers of 5 March 2004, Official Report, column 1155W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr. Hancock), and 1 April 2004, Official Report, column 1605W, to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (Mr. Simpson).

  Manning Control
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers subject to manning control in the last 1326W
  10 years are (a) still serving on an S-type contract and (b) have been discharged, and under what careers regulations; and if he will make a statement. [169171]

  Mr. Caplin
  [hoping answer 29 April 2004]: The number of soldiers discharged under Queen's Regulations 9.413 'Not required for a full Army career' following manning control review in the last 15 calendar years to 2002 was given in the answer on 27 November 2002, Official Report, columns 332-34W, as updated by the answers given on 16 September 2003, Official Report, columns 705-06W, and 13 March 2004, Official Report, column 386W.

  Of these, 319 soldiers are currently serving on an S-Type engagement.
  1327W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers who were subject to manning control and were discharged or signed on to S-type contracts and subsequently discharged since 1994 have been called up for service in UK operational deployment(a) in each of the last eight years and (b) on Operation Telic; and if he will make a statement. [169172]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]:I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Defence Statistics
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the contribution his Department makes to the West Midlands economy. [168466]

  Mr. Caplin
  Publication of this information in the annual Defence Statistics report was suspended in 2002 because of concerns about its quality. Work is in place to improve the quality of these statistics with a view to their inclusion in the future.

  Defence makes an important contribution to the West Midlands economy through the presence of service and civilian personnel in their local communities, and through expenditure with companies based in the West Midlands and payments by the Department to local authorities. The Department's Dc fence Bills Agency database records that in 2002–03 the Ministry of Defence spent some £300 million of equipment and non-equipment expenditure to firms based in the West Midlands.

  The Department also conducts regional impact assessments to inform decisions affecting Defence estate and personnel.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many evictions by housing authorities for antisocial behaviour took place in(a) the last three months of 2003 and (b) the first three months of 2004. [169807]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not request that local authorities supply information on the number of evictions they have carried out due to the antisocial behaviour of tenants.

  Betting Shops
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he gives to local authorities in consideration of an application for planning permission to open a betting shop from someone who has already successfully applied for a licence to run that business. [170138]

  Keith Hill
  There is no specific guidance on applying for planning permission for a betting shop, although we 1328W
  published "Planning Permission: A Guide for Business" in 1998 which informs applicants that betting offices are in the A2 (Financial and Professional Services) Use Class as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. The Use Classes Order makes clear that planning permission is needed to change the use of premises to a betting office. The Order is currently being revised, but the announcement on 27 November 2003 on proposed changes does not include any proposal to change the position of betting offices.

  Even if an applicant has a bookmaker's permit to run a betting office in a particular location, he will still require permission to change the use of premises under the Town and Country Planning Act. We have no proposals to issue any guidance.

  Planning (Flag Poles)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what planning restrictions apply to(a) the erection of flag poles and (b) the flying of national flags; and if he will make a statement; [169752]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to issue planning guidance to remove the need for planning permission for flag poles up to 18 feet in height in or on domestic properties. [169751]

  Keith Hill
  Under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 ("the regulations"), prior local planning authority consent is not required, in respect of a site where planning permission has been granted for residential development, so long as the flagstaff is vertical, does not exceed 4.6 metres in height, and is not within a conservation area, area of outstanding natural beauty, National Park, the Broads area or an area of special control under the regulations. The flag advertisement can only be displayed for the period of one year. Otherwise express consent from the local planning authority is required.

  National flags are exempt from control under the regulations provided each flag is flown from a single vertical flagstaff and it does not have anything else added to the design of the flag or any advertising material added to the flagstaff. We shall be amending the Regulations to exempt from control national flags however they are flown from a flagstaff.

  Land Use Change
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much land changing to residential use was within 1997-designated Green Belt in each year since 1997, broken down by region. [169495]
  1329W
  Keith Hill
  The available estimates are from Land Use Change Statistics for 1997, 1998 and 2000, are in the following table. Much of the development was on land

  Land changing to residential use within 1997 designated Green Belt

  Region

  1997

  1998 Hectares

  2000

  All on Greenbelt land

  North East

  5

  10

  0

  North West

  75

  90

  65

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  60

  50

  30

  East Midlands

  10

  10

  20

  West Midlands

  45

  35

  55

  East of England

  40

  60

  50

  London

  10

  20

  25

  South East

  135

  85

  145

  South West

  25

  30

  40

  England

  405

  395

  430

  On greenfield (not previously developed) Land

  North East

  5

  10

  0

  North West

  50

  65

  30

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  40

  35

  25

  East Midlands

  5

  5

  5

  West Midlands

  30

  20

  35

  East of England

  15

  20

  25

  London

  0

  10

  10

  South East

  90

  50

  100

  South West

  20

  25

  35

  England

  255

  230

  265

  Mrs Spelman
  To ask Deputy Prime Minister how many new dwellings were built within 1997-designated Green Belt in each year since 1997, broken down by region. [169496]

  New dwellings built within 1997 designated Green Belt

  Region

  1997

  Dwellings 1998

  2000

  All on Green Belt land

  North East

  50

  140

  20

  North West

  930

  855

  945

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  630

  675

  505

  East Midlands

  225

  145

  270

  West Midlands

  660

  600

  705

  East of England

  470

  845

  625

  London

  180

  655

  590

  South East

  855

  800

  890

  South West

  155

  310

  160

  England

  4,155

  5,015

  4,710

  On greenfield (not previously developed)Land

  North East

  35

  130

  15

  NorthWest

  495

  410

  330

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  335

  360

  370

  East Midlands

  95

  75

  35

  West Midlands

  335

  220

  335

  East of England

  105

  135

  280

  London

  5

  240

  205

  South East

  300

  300

  220

  SouthWest

  90

  195

  70

  England

  1,790

  1,985

  1,895

  1330W
  that was already developed and the second part of the table shows the amounts of greenfield land used for residential development.

  Keith Hill
  The available estimates are from Land Use Change Statistics for 1997, 1998 and 2000, in the following table. Many of the dwellings were built on land that was already developed and the second part of the table shows the numbers just on greenfield land.
  1331W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much land within 1997-designated Green Belt changed to developed use each year since 1997, broken down by region. [169545]

  Land changing to developed use within 1997 designated Green Belt

  Region

  1997

  1998

  hectares 2000

  On green field (not previously developed) land

  North East

  110

  10

  45

  North West

  335

  295

  110

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  295

  290

  60

  East Midlands

  60

  75

  70

  West Midlands

  85

  65

  75

  East of England

  155

  85

  50

  London

  50

  20

  15

  South East

  270

  100

  430

  South West

  55

  70

  115

  England

  1,410

  1,005

  965

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the locations of each development on(a) Green Belt land and (b) non-Green Belt green field land for which he or his predecessors have given planning permission since 1 May 1997. [169546]

  Keith Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister or his predecessors have granted planning permission on 162 sites on Green Belt land between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 2004. A table of the locations of these sites has been made available in the Libraries of the House.

  Information on non-Green Belt green field land is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on how the change in the level of council funding for housing has affected the residents of Preston since 1997. [169692]

  Keith Hill
  Since 1997 allocations of capital funding to local authorities for housing purposes have risen consistently by about 15 per cent. per annum on average. This includes the Major Repairs Allowance we introduced in 2001–02 specifically 1 or the improvement of local authority stock alongside the Decent Homes standard which sets out minimum standards to be met by 2010. Preston's allocations in the period 1997 to 2003–04 have risen by over 35 per cent. In addition to this welcome increase there is support through the Community Housing Task Force and Government Office for the North West to help the local authority and its tenants to choose the best strategy for long-term improvement.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the change in the level of council funding for housing has affected the residents of Bootle since 1997. [170076]

  Keith Hill
  Since 1997 allocations of capital funding to local authorities for housing purposes have risen consistently by about 15 per cent. per annum on average. This includes the Major Repairs Allowance we
  1332W
  Keith Hill
  The available estimates are from Land Use Change Statistics for 1997, 1998 and 2000, tabled as follows:

  introduced in 2001–02 specifically for the improvement of local authority stock alongside the Decent Homes standard which sets out minimum standards to be met by 2010. Sefton's allocations in the period 1997 to 2003–04 have risen by over 200 per cent. and have been supplemented by the announcement of £86 million to be made available to the Merseyside Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder, NewHeartlands, between 2003–04 and 2005–06. In addition to this, there is support through the Community Housing Task Force and Government Office for the North West to help the local authority and its tenants to choose the best strategy for long-term improvement.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will reply to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold on 25 March, ref 163886, on Coverage Care (Gloucestershire) Ltd. [169894]

  Yvette Cooper
  I replied to the hon. Member on 29 April 2004.

  Roadside Advertising
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice his Department offers local authorities regarding planning for roadside and roundabout advertising. [169247]

  Keith Hill
  Advice to local planning authorities is contained in Circular 5/92: The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. The Circular advises local planning authorities that particular consideration should be given to proposals to site advertisements at points where drivers need to take particular care, such as junctions, roundabouts or other places where local conditions present special traffic hazards. Local planning authorities are advised to consult the local highways authority (or the Highways Agency in the case of a motorway or trunk roads).

  Site Development
  Mr. Mark Hoban
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when the sites owned by the Department of Health

  1333W
  will be sold to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in accordance with the announcement made by him and the Secretary of State for Health on 7 April; [168327]

  (2)what local consultation there will be on the development of NHS sites to be sold to his Department; [168328]

  (3)when he will announce the programme for the development of the sites to be sold to his Department by the Department of Health; [168329]

  (4)what mechanism he will put in place to prevent a conflict of interest when the Department is seeking either directly or indirectly to develop sites it owns; [168330]

  (5)whether the sites to be sold to the Department by the Department of Health will be sold on to developers to enable them to be developed; [168331]

  (6)whether the sites to be acquired from the Department of Health will be (a) sold on a site by site basis to developers and (b) sub-divided and sold individually to developers; [168332]

  (7)what the timetable is for the development of sites in Hampshire to be acquired by his Department from the Department of Health; [168333]

  (8)when an assessment will be carried out of the infrastructure needed to develop the sites to be acquired from the Department of Health; [168334]

  (9)what period the sites to be acquired from the Department of Health will be developed; [168335]

  (10)what basis the sites to be acquired from the Department of Health have been valued for the purpose of this acquisition; [168336]

  (11)if he will list the value of each of the sites to be acquired from the Department of Health; [168337]

  (12)how many houses will be built on each of the sites it will acquire from the Department of Health; and what proportion of these will be (a) affordable and (b) available for rent through registered social landlords; [168338]

  (13)whether the Department intends to secure outline planning permission on each site to be acquired from the Department of Health prior to the sale of these sites to developers; [168339]

  (14)what planning procedure is followed when a Government Department seeks planning permission for residential housing development; [168340]

  (15)what measures will be taken to ensure the Department's target for the number of affordable housing units will be met on the sites to be acquired from the Department of Health; [168341]

  (16)who will own the sites to be acquired by the Department from the Department of Health; [168342]
  1334W
  (17)whether the number of houses to be built on the sites to be acquired from the Department of Health will (a) be counted towards regional house building targets and (b) be in addition to those targets; [168343]

  (18)when the Department commenced discussion with the Department of Health on the acquisition of surplus NHS sites; [168344]

  (19)what discussions he or his officials had with the Department of Health concerning the plans by HBOS/Miller to develop the surplus NHS sites; and when they commenced. [168345]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health announced on 7 April 2004 an agreement in principle to transfer over 100 surplus NHS sites to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The announcement follows an earlier decision by the Department of Health not to pursue a public/private partnership with Miller Homes/HBOS but instead to open discussions with to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the contribution the sites might make to delivering the action set out in the Sustainable Communities Plan (February 2003). Discussions commenced between ODPM and DoH officials after a decision by DoH to reconsider pursuing the proposed Miller/HBOS deal.

  Following the in-principle agreement to transfer the sites, there will now be an intensive process to establish the terms of the transfer and the implications for individual sites. It is not possible at this stage to say when individual sites, including sites in Hampshire, will be brought forward for development. Those sites which are currently vacant are likely to transfer from the Department of Health later this financial year. The terms of the transfer will be informed by the market value of the sites. An independent valuation is under way to determine an overall value for the portfolio.

  While many of the sites are already vacant, others remain occupied—if only in part. The timing of individual sites becoming available for development will vary from site to site. Each site will be considered separately in its local planning context before decisions are taken on future development options. The role that English Partnerships (EP), the national regeneration agency, will play in this process has still to be determined but we would expect it o be significant. There will also be a role for other public sector bodies such as the Regional Development Agencies.

  It is likely that EP will be asked to undertake a master-planning exercise of some of the key sites to maximise their potential to deliver high quality developments. These will be exemplar projects to demonstrate best practice in creating sustainable communities. We would expect EP to engage with the local authorities concerned at an early stage and to involve the wider community and other stakeholders in pre-application discussions. This will help to determine issues such as the number of houses to be developed on each site and the appropriate proportion that should be affordable, as well as the

  1335W
  infrastructure required to ensure development is sustainable. Appropriate arrangements will be put in place to ensure that there is no conflict between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's role in bringing these sites forward for development and its role in the planning process.

  The public sector will prepare sites for development and ensure their potential to contribute to the establishment of sustainable communities is realised. Development opportunities will then be marketed to the private sector. How individual sites are marketed will be determined through the master planning process and is likely to vary from site to site. The private sector will therefore have a major role in the development of these sites.

  Rent Arrears
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Deputy Prime to Minister how many evictions there were from local authority housing stock for rent arrears during each of the last three years. [169734]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the latest figures for rent arrears in council housing stock are, broken down by region; and what the figures were for(a) 2003 and (b) 2002. [169735]

  Keith Hill
  Estimates of total rent arrears due to local authorities as at 31 March for each of the years 2002–04, and aggregated to regional level, ace tabled as follows:

  £million

  Region

  2002

  2003

  2004

  North East

  32.8

  34.1

  32.5

  North West

  77.5

  64.3

  65.2

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  53.8

  61.1

  53.0

  East Midlands

  37.5

  37.3

  36.5

  West Midlands

  47.8

  44.7

  40.7

  East

  32.7

  30.4

  28.3

  London

  215.6

  185.4

  181.7

  Country

  Location

  Date received

  Generating capacity

  Date approved

  Wales

  Cefn Croes Ceredigion

  24 July 2000

  60 MW

  23 May 2002

  Scotland

  Caim Uish, Moray

  27 September 2001

  56 MW

  21 January 2003

  Pauls Hill, Moray

  27 September 2001

  56 MW

  31 March 2003

  Hadyard Hill, South Ayrshire

  31 July 2002

  130MW

  24 December 2003

  Black Law, North and South Lanarkshire

  9 August 2001

  142.6 MW

  13 February 2004

  English and Scottish S 36 Applications submitted 2001–02

  There are no outstanding applications in respect of Wales.

  Date of application

  Project title/type

  Location, including grid ref (Easting and Northing) if available

  Maximum output

  14 December 2001

  Windy Standard Windfarm Extension

  Dumfries and Galloway E 252 500/N 604 500

  90 MW

  South Lanarkshire, East Ayrshire, East

  23 January 2002

  Whitelee Windfarm

  Renfrewshire E 256 800/N 645 435

  322 MW

  11 September 2002 (14 March 2002)

  Farr Windfarm

  Highland Council NH 731 292

  112.5 MW

  31 October 2002 (5 April 2002)

  Braes of Doune Windfarm

  Stirling Council E 269500/N 705500

  100 MW

  15 November 2002

  Little Cheyne Court

  Walland Marsh Kent

  75 MW

  1336W

  £ million

  Region

  2002

  2003

  2004

  South East

  33.5

  32.9

  31.5

  South West

  20.5

  21.7

  23.3

  England

  556.8

  512.0

  492.8

  Notes:

  1. The above estimates are based on unaudited figures supplied by local authorities in response to a regular survey called "Entitlement to Housing Subsidies and Grants" and, in particular, the First/Second Advance Claim forms.

  2. The total arrears reflect arrears due from both former tenants and current tenants.

  3. The change in cumulative rent arrears from one year to the next can be affected both by the success of a local authority in chasing up rent arrears and by the fact that local authorities can simply write-off outstanding arrears at any time.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the installed capacity and location of wind turbines granted planning permission was in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland in each year since 1990; how many wind farms were awaiting planning permission at 31 March; and what the generating capacity is in each case. [168830]

  Keith Hill
  Apart from Northern Ireland, where all applications are dealt with centrally, Government do not hold records of proposals for on-shore wind farms below 50 megawatts (MW) as these fall to be determined by the local planning authority under the normal planning regime. However, proposals to construct and operate generating stations with a capacity greater than 50 MW in England and Wales require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. This information is also collated by the devolved Administrations in Scotland. For all such applications, the information requested is in the tables.

  Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989—applications approved

  There have been no applications approved in England.
  1337W

  English and Scottish S 36 Applications submitted 2003

  Date of application

  Project title/type

  Location, including grid ref (Easting and Northing) if available

  Maximum output

  21 January 2003 (N/A)

  Crystal Rig Windfarm Extension

  Scottish Borders Council E 372 847 N 660 603

  62.5 MW

  9 May 2003 (N/A)

  Greenock Windfarm

  Inverclyde Council

  59 MW

  14 May 2003 (N/A)

  Paul's Hill Extension

  Moray Council E 311 050 N 840 050

  77 MW (additional 21 MW)

  18 June 2003 (12 July 2002)

  Gordonbush Windfarm

  Highland Council NC 2860 9150

  100 MW

  4 July 2003

  Scout Moor

  Lancashire

  Approximately 65 MW

  11 July 2003 (15 August 2002)

  Clashindarroch Windfarm

  Aberdeenshire Council E 348 500 N 831 500

  129 MW

  29 September 2003

  Whinash

  Tebay, Cumbria

  67.5 MW

  24 October 2003

  Keadby

  North Lincolnshire

  78 MW

  27 October 2003 (15 August 2002)

  Aultmore Windfarm

  Moray Council E 345 000 N 860 000

  62 MW

  5 December 2003 (N/A)

  Kilpatrick Hills Windfarm

  West Dunbartonshire

  60 MW

  English and Scottish S 36 Applications submitted 2004

  Date of application

  Project title/type

  Location, Including grid ref (Easting and Northing) if available

  Maximum output

  5 January 2004

  Tween Bridge

  Thorne

  Approximately 84 MW

  9 January 2004 (6 August 2003)

  Abercairny Windfarm

  Perth and Kinross Councl NN 890 270

  66 MW

  16 February 2004 (7 August 2003)

  Calliacher Windfarm

  Perth and Kinross Council E 285 000 N 750 000

  93 MW

  15 March 2004

  Causeymire Wind Farm

  Highland Council

  55.2 MW

  (7 March 2003)

  Harestanes Windfarm

  Dumfries and Galloway E 301 (00 N 595 000

  282 MW

  (24 April 2003)

  Lochelbank Windfarm

  Perth and Kinross Council E 311, 40 N 713 477

  51 MW

  (31 July 2003)

  Ewehill Windfarm

  Dumfries and Galloway E 265 01) N 600 500

  80 MW

  For Northern Ireland

  All applications approved

  Location

  Generating capacity

  Approved

  Slieve Rushen

  5MW

  1992

  Corkey

  5MW

  1994

  Rigged Hill

  5MW

  1994

  Eliot's Hill

  5MW

  1994

  Bessy Bell

  5MW

  1994

  Owenreagh

  5MW

  1996

  Lendrum's Bridge, Fivemiletown

  13.2 MW

  2002

  Altahullion, Londonderry

  26 MW

  2002

  Lough Hill

  12.25 MW

  2003

  Tappaghan, Co. Fermanagh

  19.5 MW

  2004

  Callagheen

  22.75 MW

  2004

  All applications submitted as at 31 March 2004

  Location

  Generating capacity

  Dunloy

  16 MW

  Beltany

  11.7 MW

  Rosslea

  17.5 MW

  Clogher

  30 MW

  Binnawoods

  9 MW

  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he issues on the minimum acceptable distance between sizes of proposed windfarms and the nearest dwelling. [169489]

  Keith Hill
  Paragraph 47 of the annex on Wind Energy in Policy Planning Guidance Note 22 (PPG22) contains guidelines about turbine separation distances from residential dwellings, specifically in relation to noise. This matter was also covered in paragraph 18 of our revision to PPG22, which was issued as a draft for consultation last November.
  1338W
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to(a) amend and (b) relax the planning guidance in respect of planning permission for windfarms. [169490]

  Keith Hill
  The Government's proposals for amending the current planning policy guidance note 22: renewable energy (PPG22) were set out in draft Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) published for public consultation on 5 November 2003. This document covered the handling of all types of renewable energy projects through the planning system. Copies have been made available in the Libraries of the House. The consultation period ended on 30 January. The final version of PPS22 will be published later this year following careful consideration of the consultation responses received.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Children (Residential Care)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skin; how many children were placed in residential care by each local authority in the last year for which figures arc available. [167135]

  Margaret Hodge
  The number of children in residential care in ea Ai local authority at 31 March 2003 is shown in the following
  table.

  Children looked after at 31 March 2003 in residential care1,2,3

  Number

  England

  8,400

  North East Shire Counties

  Durham

  55

  Northumberland

  50

  1339W

  Children looked after at 31 March 2003 in residential care1,2,3

  Number

  Unitary Authorities

  Darlington

  20

  Hartlepool

  10

  Middlesbrough

  35

  Redcar and Cleveland

  20

  Stockton on Tees

  35

  Metropolitan Districts

  Gateshead

  30

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  40

  North Tyneside

  35

  South Tyneside

  30

  Sunderland

  70

  North West Shire Counties

  Cheshire

  50

  Cumbria

  45

  Lancashire

  220

  Unitary Authorities

  Blackburn and Darwen

  30

  Blackpool

  30

  Halton

  20

  Warrington

  15

  Metropolitan Districts

  Bolton

  40

  Bury

  20

  Knowsley

  30

  Liverpool

  175

  Manchester

  185

  Oldham

  45

  Rochdale

  35

  Salford

  105

  Sefton

  100

  St. Helens

  45

  Stockport

  55

  Tameside

  45

  Trafford

  45

  Wigan

  55

  Wirral

  75

  Yorkshire and The Humber Shire Counties

  North Yorkshire

  45

  Unitary Authorities

  East Riding Yorkshire

  35

  Kingston Upon Hull

  85

  North East Lincolnshire

  30

  North Lincolnshire

  35

  York

  20

  Metropolitan Districts

  Barnsley

  45

  Bradford

  110

  Calderdale

  30

  Doncaster

  45

  Kirklees

  55

  Leeds

  165

  Rotherham

  35

  Sheffield

  100

  Wakefield

  50

  East Midlands Shire Counties

  Derbyshire

  65

  Leicestershire

  40

  Lincolnshire

  50

  Northamptonshire

  75

  Nottinghamshire

  35

  Unitary Authorities

  Derby

  50

  Leicester

  40

  Nottingham

  60

  Rutland

  —

  1340W

  West Midlands Shire Counties

  Shropshire

  30

  Staffordshire

  90

  Warwickshire

  35

  Worcestershire

  50

  Unitary Authorities

  Herefordshire

  15

  Stoke-on-Trent

  65

  Telford and Wrekin

  30

  Metropolitan Districts

  Birmingham

  295

  Coventry

  50

  Dudley

  45

  Sandwell

  50

  Solihull

  30

  Walsall

  60

  Wolverhampton

  35

  East of England Shire Counties

  Bedfordshire

  75

  Cambridgeshire

  45

  Essex

  185

  Hertfordshire

  125

  Norfolk

  135

  Suffolk

  85

  Unitary Authorities

  Luton

  35

  Peterborough

  25

  Southend

  30

  Thurrock

  30

  London Inner London

  Camden

  65

  City of London

  —

  Greenwich

  80

  Hackney

  60

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  60

  Islington

  115

  Kensington and Chelsea

  50

  Lambeth

  140

  Lewisham

  135

  Southwark

  90

  Tower Hamlets

  65

  Wandsworth

  40

  Westminster

  45

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  95

  Barnet

  60

  Bexley

  20

  Brent

  70

  Bromley

  70

  Croydon

  90

  Ealing

  80

  Enfield

  60

  Haringey

  120

  Harrow

  30

  Havering

  40

  Hillingdon

  65

  Hounslow

  45

  Kingston Upon Thames

  20

  Merton

  20

  Newham

  80

  Redbridge

  25

  Richmond Upon Thames

  25

  Sutton

  20

  Waltham Forest

  95

  South East Shire Counties

  Buckinghamshire

  40

  1341W

  Children looked after at 31 March 2003 in residential care1,2,3

  Number

  East Sussex

  45

  Hampshire

  125

  Kent

  120

  Oxfordshire

  65

  Surrey

  135

  West Sussex

  85

  Unitary Authorities

  Bracknell Forest

  15

  B"right"on and Hove

  35

  Isle of Wight

  10

  Medway Towns

  25

  Milton Keynes

  35

  Portsmouth

  35

  Reading

  25

  Slough

  20

  Southampton

  25

  West Berkshire

  20

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  15

  Wokingham

  10

  South West Shire Counties

  Cornwall

  65

  Devon

  75

  Dorset

  40

  Gloucestershire

  55

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Somerset

  60

  Wiltshire

  40

  Unitary Authorities

  Bath and North East Somerset

  20

  Bournemouth

  30

  Bristol

  75

  North Somerset

  10

  Plymouth

  35

  Poole

  15

  South Gloucestershire

  20

  Swindon

  20

  Torbay

  25

  1Residential care includes secure units, homes and hostels, residential schools, and other residential settings.

  2Figures in this table exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short-term placements.

  3Figures over 1,000 are rounded to the nearest 100. Figures between 1 and 5 have been suppressed. All other figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  Source:

  Children Looked After by Local Authorities, Year Ending 31 March 2003.

  Pre-school Places
  Mr. Pike
  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 Burnley in each of the last seven years. [167918]

  Mr. Hendrick
  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 Preston in each of the last seven years. [168135]

  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 Lancashire local education authority area are shown in the table.
  1342W
  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 three and four-year-old children in maintained nursery and primary schools and private, voluntary and independent providers—Lancashire local education authority area—1997 to 2003

  Position in January each year

  Three-year-olds

  Four-year-olds

  1997

  4,400

  12,400

  1998

  4,400

  13,500

  1999

  4,400

  16,000

  2000

  4,300

  15,900

  2001

  9,400

  15,700

  2002

  9,400

  13,000

  2003

  10,100

  12,600

  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.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what estimate she has made of the amount of meat illegally imported into the UK in each of the last 10 years; [160630]

  (2) what estimates she has made of the quantity of meat illegally imported into the UK in the last 12 months. [165199]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Estimates of the amount of illegal meat imports may be made on the basis of the amount of such meat detected. However prior to 2001 information on seizures of illegal meat imports by enforcement authorities was not collected centrally. In August 2001, Defra set up the first national database to capture data on seizures of illegally imported products of animal origin ((POAO).

  The Veterinary Laboratories Agency's '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', published in-March 2003, used the seizure database to estimate that the total amount of illegal meat entering GB each year is 7,431 tonnes on average, with 90 per cent. certainty that this is between 2,771 and 14,484 tonnes per year.

  Information on seizures of illegal imports continues to be collected centrally and will be published in Defra's annual review of controls on imports of animal products.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 16 March 2004,Official Report, column 156W, on abattoirs, how many individual case files there are in which are recorded the details of charges which are brought against abattoirs that ware withdrawn before they come to court; and where they are kept. [166078]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Details of all charges laid against abattoirs for meat hygiene and animal welfare offences are recorded on individual case files. There are 49 case files relating to prosecutions brought against abattoirs in 2002 and 2003. Details of any charges withdrawn before cases came to court are recorded on the individual files, which are either retained by the Food Standards Agency at their headquarters in London or held in storage in Derbyshire.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average cost was to the Department in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 of a charge successfully brought against an abattoir for breach of meat hygiene and animal welfare regulations. [166080]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The average legal cost incurred by this Department and the Food Standards Agency in pursuit of a charge successfully brought against an abattoir for a breach of meat hygiene or animal welfare regulations was:

  Per charge (£)

  2002–03

  1,190.04

  2003–04

  975.79

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average cost was to the Department in financial years(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 of a charge brought against an abattoir for breach of the meat hygiene and animal welfare regulations but which it dropped before it came to court. [166091]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The average legal cost incurred by both this Department and the Food Standards Agency in pursuit of charges brought against abattoirs for a breach of the meat hygiene or animal welfare regulations, which were dropped before coming to court was:

  Per charge (£)

  2002–03

  1,426.54

  2003–04

  390.26

  Animal Welfare Bill
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce an Animal Welfare Bill. [166478]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department is proposing to introduce an Animal Welfare Bill that will update and consolidate legislation relating to the welfare of captive 1344W
  and domestic animals. The earliest the Bill could be introduced into Parliament is the session beginning November 2004.

  Sea Bass
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her Department's policy to source sea bass used in catering outlets for which her Department is responsible from hand-line fishermen rather than pair trawlers. [167539]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra supports the sourcing of sea bass from sustainable fisheries and handlining, as a relatively low impact method of fishing, can play a part in ensuring fisheries remain sustainable. However, the last report in 2003 by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas on sea bass advised that the level of exploitation of the stock at that time was sustainable and did not recommend closure of the offshore pair trawl fishery. There are currently no restrictions at a UK or Community level on the method of fishing that can be used to target bass. In addition, to address the dolphin bycatch problem associated with the pair trawl fishery, Defra-funded trials of a separate grid device to reduce dolphin bycatch are currently taking place, with the cooperation of the fishing industry.

  In these circumstances, I do not believe that recommending a specific source of supply for bass could be justified at this stage.

  Blue Tongue Virus
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risks of a blue tongue virus outbreak in the United Kingdom. [168949]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: Defra have prepared a technical review which describes the virus, its hosts and vectors, and a control strategy for the various scenarios whereby the bluetongue virus could be introduced to the United Kingdom. These documents can be found online at the Defra website at the following locations:
  Technical Review
  http://defraweb/animalh/diseases/notifiable/disease/bluetongue_technical.PDF
  Control Strategy
  http://defraweb/animalh/diseases/notifiable/disease/bluetongue_control_strategy.pdf

  Whenever there is a serious disease outbreak in another country that could affect the UK via trade in animals and animal products, we prepare a risk assessment and post it on the Defra website The most recent one in respect of blue tongue was prepared in October last year following an outbreak of the disease in the Balearics.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what lessons can be learned in respect of UK TB control measures from the New Zealand experiences of possum clearance. [158291]
  1345W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are two main lessons to be learned from the New Zealand experience of possum clearance. Firstly, in a situation where a wild mammal acts as a maintenance host of TB, a successful eradication scheme must include a strategy to limit the infective contacts between the wildlife reservoir and cattle. This must be in addition to a programme of frequent tuberculin testing of cattle herds, removal of reactors, slaughterhouse surveillance and controls of cattle movements from infected herds. The second lesson is that this multi-pronged approach is an effort that must be maintained over time.

  Cotswold Conservation Board
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the(a) proposed role and (b) level of funding planned for the Cotswold Conservation Board; whether it will be liable for VAT; and if she will make a statement. [166895]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 states that the two purposes of a Conservation Board are:

  (i) conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty, and

  (ii) increasing the understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities of the area of outstanding natural beauty.

  Additionally, a Conservation Board, while having regard to these purposes, should seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the area, but without incurring significant expenditure.

  (b) If created, the Cotswolds AONB Conservation Board would receive Countryside Agency funding to meet 80 per cent. of its core costs. This compares to a 75 per cent. contribution in AONBs managed by local authorities, which can reclaim their VAT payments. The increased contribution is to offset the Boards not being able to reclaim their VAT payments.

  EU Rural Development Regulation
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the new requirements which will be imposed by the 2007 EU Rural Development Regulation. [168036]

  Alun Michael
  The European Commission is expected to publish legislative proposals on EU rural development spending later this year. The United Kingdom's position on the draft regulation will be developed in discussion with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, and with the Northern Ireland Administration, and following consultation with stakeholders. We hope to see a significant simplification in comparison with the current rural development regulation and a greater focus on rural development in general.
  1346W

  Fisheries
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the lease of sea bed for fish farming. [167201]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government's policy on marine fish farming is to encourage the development of viable, competitive and sustainable fish farming enterprises providing this can be done within a framework which protects the health and welfare of farmed and wild stocks. Central to that policy is the sustainable use of the marine environment and the prosperity of the economies and communities in associated areas.

  Policy responsibility on the lease of sea bed for fish farming is a matter for the Crown Estate.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will request that the European Commission conduct as a matter of urgency a study to establish for each EU member state, under the provisions of the new Regulation concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries; and on the basis of current fishing data, the number of vessels that will be(a) required to use pingers and (b) required to carry observers; and what proportion of national fishing effort in relevant fleets will be exempt from each of the above requirements as a result of the exclusions of vessels (i) smaller than 12 metres, (ii) smaller than 15 metres and (iii) using pingers. [168241]

  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 and 23 March. The UK would have preferred the Regulation to have been stricter in certain areas but the agreed Regulation represented a package that was acceptable to the majority of member states, in the light of available scientific data. The review clause in the Regulation provides the opportunity to press for further action to refine and target measures at other sectors of the fleet if justified. In these circumstances, I do not believe a request at this stage to the Commission to conduct a further study in relation to cetacean bycatch would be justified or successful.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what proportion of UK fishing effort in fisheries under the provisions of the new Regulation agreed at the Fisheries Council on 22 and 23 March will be exempt from the observer requirement on the basis of the exclusion of(a) vessels smaller than 15 metres and (b) vessels that are using pingers; [168242]

  (2) how many UK fishing vessels will be required to use pingers in gillnet fisheries in areas IV and VII under the provisions of the new regulation agreed at the Fisheries Council on 22 and 23 M arch, on the basis of current fishing effort. [168244]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Council Regulation laying down measures concerning the incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries will require member states to design and
  1347W
  implement monitoring schemes to observe bycatch on vessels of 15 metres or over. Such schemes need to provide representative data for bycatch in a range of fisheries. For vessels under 15 metres, members states need of take steps to collect data on incidental catches by means of appropriate scientific studies or pilot projects. The Regulation is not expected to enter into force until 1 July 2004 and the start date for the monitoring requirements will be 1 January 2005. The UK monitoring scheme will be designed in the coming months and I am therefore not in a position at present to provide detailed data on the coverage or otherwise of the scheme.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government will(a) publish and (b) implement their Cetacean Bycatch Response Strategy. [168245]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I shall be assessing the best way in which to take forward the UK Small Cetacean Bycatch Response Strategy in light of the agreement reached at the March meeting of the EC Agriculture and Fisheries Council to proposals for a new EC Regulation on bycatch.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many UK vessels were fishing in the pelagic trawl fishery in area VII for bass during(a) March and (b) April on the latest date for which figures are available; how many of these vessels are being monitored for cetacean bycatch by onboard observers; how many are engaged in trialling bycatch mitigation measures; and if she will introduce emergency restrictions on this fishery unless and until effective measures to prevent cetacean bycatch can be put in place. [168247]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A maximum of seven pairs of UK vessels were in the pelagic trawl fishery in area VII fishing for bass in March and early April. This has since dropped to one pair of vessels. Defra-funded observers have been onboard two pairs of vessels to monitor bycatch and one pair of vessels has been engaged in trialling mitigation measures sine December 2003 as part of Defra-funded research.

  I do not rule out action to restrict this fishery but, given the involvement of other member states, Community action would be most effective means of addressing bycatch in this fishery. Consideration of emergency restrictions would be premature before this season's trials of mitigation measures have been completed and the results considered.

  Growth Promoters (Animal Feeds)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the EU ban on the use of antimicrobial growth promoters in animal feeds; and if she will make a statement. [167071]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The EU-wide ban on the use of antimicrobial growth promoters comes into effect on 1348W
  1 January 2006. The VMD collects and publishes annual figures of sales of all veterinary therapeutic and growth promoting antimicrobials to monitor changes in sales of these products. The latest figures available show that sales of antimicrobial growth promoters had reduced to 27 tonnes of active ingredients in 2002.

  Officials from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) have held a number of discussions with colleagues from Denmark and other countries that have already voluntarily banned the use of antimicrobial growth promoters. They have considered their experiences and the success of the measures put into place to minimise any adverse effects from the loss of these products. In the period following the ban an increase in animal illness had been noticed that lead to an increase in use of therapeutic antimicrobials.

  This information is being shared with industry through VMD's regular meetings with the Responsible Use of Medicines In Agriculture (RUMA) alliance. A representative from RUMA also recently attended a meeting of the Defra Antimicrobial Resistance Coordination (DARC) group to discuss this issue. Further such meetings are planned.

  Another part of the Government's efforts to help farmers prepare for the ban was to fund a research and development project to look at the potential effects of the withdrawal of antimicrobial growth promoters on the pig industry. The results have shown ways farmers can adapt their herd management to cope with the ban on antimicrobial growth promoters without increasing the risk of disease and therefore the need to treat with therapeutic antimicrobials. Two meetings have been held with pig farmers to inform them of the results. Details of the project can be found at www.vmd.defra.gov.uk.

  Japanese Knotweed
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for a coordinated and strategic approach to the problem of Japanese knotweed. [167851]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I am aware of the problems caused by the spread of the introduced non-native plant, Japanese knotweed. Current legislative controls exist under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) to prevent its deliberate planting or growing in the wild. The Department is also collaborating with a consortium led by Cornwall County Council to undertake a four-year project researching the natural control of Japanese knotweed. The study began last year and will undertake the necessary research to establish whether natural control is a feasible method for the long-term, sustainable management of Japanese knotweed in the UK.

  Recognising the importance of a strategic approach for non-native species policy, the Department recently consulted on the development of a strategy, and officials are currently analysing the responses. It is essential that limited resources are targeted to the most problematic species, and the outcome of the consultation will assist my Department and the Devolved Administrations in developing a strategy that will help prioritise action.
  1349W
  The hon. Member may be interested to learn that in the meantime, my Department has commissioned research to develop a standardised risk assessment system enabling species to be routinely assessed. Following the development and introduction of risk assessment procedures, the aim would be to identify those species constituting the highest risk(s). The risk assessment procedure may also be of use in identifying those established invasive non-native species where action may be appropriate.

  Litter (Fines)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to allow local councils to keep income from on the spot fines for dropping litter. [169982]

  Alun Michael
  Section 119 of the Local Government Act 2003, which allows local authorities to keep receipts from litter fixed penalty notices, came into force on 18 November 2003.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why English Nature did not inform the hon. Member for Totnes of its wish to extend, under section 28C of the Wildlife Countryside Act 1981, the site boundaries of Slapton Ley site of Special Scientific Interest. [167491]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 26 April 2004]: Notification of the boundary extension and addition of interest features, to Slapton Ley Site of Special Scientific Interest was made on 11 February 2004 and in accordance with the requirements specified in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Also according to those requirements, a public notice appeared in the Western Morning News on 17 February 2004. The consultation period on this notification ends on the 11 June 2004. English Nature must decide whether to confirm the notification within nine months. Any unresolved objections will be considered by English Nature's Council at its meeting in September 2004.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many changes to the geographical boundaries of sites of Special Scientific Interest have been made in each of the last three years; and which have(a) increased and (b) decreased in area. [167492]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 26 April 2004]: In the last three years there have been 15 geographical changes to SSSIs boundaries made under section 28B and section 28C of the Wildlife And Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Those that have had their areas increased are shown in the list. None of the changes resulted in decreases to a SSSI area.

  2001–02

  Porlock Ridge and Saltmarsh

  River Dee

  Thatcham Reed Beds

  Dabble Bank

  Ravenhead Brickworks

  Total: 5

  1350W

  2002–03

  Compton Chine to Steephill Cove

  Purfleet Chalk Pit

  Crookhill Brick Pit1

  Ebernoe Common1

  Eversden and Wimpole Woods

  Stour Estuary

  Orwell Estuary

  Total: 7

  2003–04 (to present)

  Humber Estuary1

  Orton Pit1

  Slapton Ley1

  Total: 3

  1 Changes to these SSSIs have been notified but not yet confirmed, as the nine month period for doing so is on-going.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes have been proposed by English Nature to the rules and regulations affecting sites of Special Scientific Interest; and whether the changes as proposed in relation to the Slapton Ley site are part of a national change. [167493]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 26 April 2004]: Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are notified and protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000. No changes to this regime have been proposed by English Nature. Under this regime, English Nature has a duty to notify land as a SSSI, and may amend existing SSSIs, where it is of the opinion that land is of special interest by reason of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features. The changes at Slapton Ley SSSI have been notified under section 28C of the WCA 1981.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sites of special scientific interest there are, broken down by region; and if she will list the additional sites declared in each of the last three years. [167494]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 26 April 2004]: There are a total of 4,111 sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) in England. Some SSSIs cross regional boundaries, and will therefore have been double counted in the table bellow.

  Government region

  Number of SSSIs

  Eastern

  569

  East Midlands

  391

  London

  34

  North East

  256

  North West

  442

  South East

  703

  South West

  978

  West Midlands

  446

  Yorks

  375

  1351W

  19 new SSSIs have been confirmed in the last three years. They are:

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  2003–2004

  Birklands West and 011erton Corner

  Chapel Point to Walla Bank

  Slade Brook

  Roecliffe Manor Lawns

  Caen Valley Bats

  Mattishall Moor

  Withcall and South Willingham Tunnels

  Lower Coombe and Ferne Brook Meadow

  Normanby Meadows

  Barn Elms Wetland Centre

  Stiffkey Valley

  Long Lye Meadows

  Briddlesford Copses

  Cranmore Common

  Holehaven Creek

  Sutton and Lound Gravel Pits

  Harries Ground, Rodbourne

  Beck Dale Meadows

  Mottisfont Bats

  Total: 9

  Total: 9

  Total: 1

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the reasons were for the Standard Types of Operation 19 and 21, in Annex 3 of English Nature's notification under section 28C of the Wildlife arid Countryside Act 1981 issued on 11 February 2004 relating to Slapton Ley Site of Special Scientific Interest. [167868]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 26 April 2004]: English Nature is required under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, to notify any operations which appear to it to be likely to damage the special interest of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). English Nature must consent before any such operations are carried out. I Understand from English Nature that Operation 19 and Operation 21 were specified as likely to damage the special interest of Slapton Ley SSSI when the site was re-notified in 1984. They remain applicable to Slapton Ley SSSI because it is considered that such operations would have the potential to cause damage to the site. The legislation requires English Nature to notify any such operations anew when exercising its powers under section 28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended.

  Civil Servants
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many officials in(a) her Department and (b) executive agencies reporting to her Department are employed in the Vale of York. [170011]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has one office located in the Vale of the York. It is the Thirsk office of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, where 28 officials are employed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Human Rights
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to sign and ratify the First Optional Protocol to the International Council on Civil and Political Rights on behalf of the United Kingdom. [170185]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are currently reviewing the United Kingdom's position in relation to a number of international human rights instruments. This review includes the First Op ional Protocol to the 1352W
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which allows the right of individual petition. We will announce the outcomes of the Review to Parliament as soon as is reasonably possible.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is towards(a) Cyprus and (b) Turkey in the light of the outcome of the referendums in Cyprus on 24 April. [R] [169809]

  Mr. MacShane
  I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Foreign Secretary's written statement of 28 April 2004,Official Report, columns 44-46WS. The statement contained the Government's response to the outcome of the voting on 24 April and referred to the conclusions on Cyprus from the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 26 April 2004. UK policy is fully reflected in these decisions of the European Union, which I very much welcome.

  I very much value our close relationship with the Republic of Cyprus. I look forward to this continuing, enhanced by the new dimension of EU membership after 1 May.

  Like our EU partners, the UK is keen to see an end to the international isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. This does not mean a change in the government's policy of not recognising the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". But the situation in the north of the island has changed—the Turkish Cypriots have expressed a clear desire for a future within the EU, and on the basis of a reunified island. That is our objective too. As we work to achieve it, the EU is committed to addressing the economic disparity between the north and south.

  The EU has also welcomed Turkey's constructive approach to the settlement negotiations. The lack of a Cyprus settlement should not impede the opening of accession negotiations on the basis of the Copenhagen criteria. We will continue to work with Turkey to encourage the implementation of the necessary reforms, so that the European Council can take a positive decision in December 2004.

  Managed Migration
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long embassies will retain the passports of citizens of(a) Romania and

  1353W
  (b) Bulgaria seeking managed migration employment visas as a result of the conduct of the Ken Sutton inquiry. [170021]

  Mr. Mullin
  Applications by Romanian and Bulgarian citizens for managed migration visas have been suspended pending the completion of Ken Sutton's inquiry. Passports that are retained by our Embassies in connection with managed migration applications will be held until the application can be resolved, or until the applicant requests the return of their passport in person at the embassy. Applications can be held open despite the return of the passport, if the request is made in person.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the National Islamic Front Government of the Sudan over the continuing use of Hudud. [168794]

  Mr. Mullin
  Amputations and flogging are incompatible with international human rights law. We regularly raise the matter with the Sudanese Government, both bilaterally and as part of the EU-Sudan dialogue. Indeed, I discussed the application of hudud punishments with the Sudanese ambassador on 2 December 2003, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn), discussed the human rights situation generally with the President of Sudan in Khartoum on 10 December.

  Departmental Wine Cellars
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many bottles of wine are held by his Department. [162012]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not hold central records of the wines held by UK missions overseas. In the UK, the principal holding is the Government Wine Cellar, managed by Government Hospitality on behalf of all Government Departments. The stock of approximately 37,000 bottles is a mixture of fine wines, less expensive beverage wines and spirits. The cellar is generally stocked by purchasing when they are young and relatively inexpensive and then allowing them to mature. This allows the government to use fully mature wines of considerable value for its hospitality requirements, while representing a considerable saving to the taxpayer compared to the cost of buying mature wines in the open market.

HEALTH

  "Winning Ways"
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made in setting up a rapid review process for new procedures and products claiming to prevent or control healthcare-associated infection as announced in Winning Ways; [167461]
  1354W
  (2) when he expects the first procedures and products to be reviewed under Winning Ways; and how recommendations will be implemented. [167462]

  Mr. Hutton
  Action is being taken jointly between officials in the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the national health service health technology assessment programme and the Health Protection Agency. We are still exploring the options for this new rapid review process but hope that evaluations will start later this year.

  Agency Nurses (Weston Area)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 7 April 2004, refs 163515 to 163518 on public bodies, what he estimates the staff and administration costs have been to his Department of those bodies referred to which are still in existence. [167547]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As the previous reply explained, information on the Department's task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews is given in the annual publication, "Public Bodies". This publication explains that such groups have a short-term focus and when their work comes to an end they are disbanded. These groups are usually created to give expert advice to the Government on a specific issue and are usually expected to remain in operation for less than two years. They are not separate statutory bodies. As such, they have no capacity to employ staff or hold assets in their own right and rely on secretariat and other support from the Department and, sometimes, other interested bodies. They will not normally have any formal separate budget allocated to them, and accountability for expenditure will remain with the body to whom any funding is allocated.

  Anaesthesia
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation he has made of international trials to examine awareness devices that monitor the depth of anaesthesia. [166882]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The New Scientist published on 14 April a research paper from the Alfred hospital in Melbourne, Australia, which reported that the BIS (Bispectral Index) monitor can aid evaluation of the depth of anaesthesia in a patient undergoing surgery. The research recommended that the BIS monitor be used in the small number of operations where there is a high risk of the patient becoming aware during the operation. A different system has been developed at the University of Glasgow. The Auditory Evoked Potential System measures the depth of anaesthesia in a different way to that of the BIS monitor. As further trials are carried out, our understanding of the safety and efficacy of these systems will increase.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many kidney transplants have been carried out by the NHS in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [168604]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows kidney transplants in the United Kingdom, since April 1997 by financial year.
  1355W

  Transplant type

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Cadaveric kidney

  1,426

  1,309

  1,359

  1,308

  1,264

  1,337

  1,330

  Living donor kidney

  197

  241

  302

  341

  372

  379

  450

  All kidney only

  1,623

  1,550

  1,661

  1,649

  1,636

  1,716

  1,780

  Kidney-pancreas

  25

  21

  25

  41

  41

  48

  45

  Kidney-liver

  18

  5

  8

  9

  5

  13

  10

  Kidney/heart

  3

  3

  1

  1

  3

  1

  1

  Kidney-liver-pancreas

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total kidney

  1,669

  1,580

  1,695

  1,700

  1,685

  1,778

  1,836

  In the UK we have invested in a number of initiatives to boost organ donation. Between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 there were 2,854 transplants—the highest number of organ transplants in seven years. The highest number of patients for fourteen years received a kidney-only transplant with living donation now representing one in four of all kidney-only transplants. We saw a 20 per cent. increase in non-heartbeating donation and more than 800,000 people added their names to the NHS organ donor register.

  Knee/Hip Operations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many replacement(a) knee and (b) hip joint operations have been carried out in each year since 1980. [168603]

  Mr. Hutton
  The following table shows the counts of finished consultant episodes for knee and hip replacement operations carried out in national health service hospitals in England for the years 1989-1990 to 2002-03. The Department is unable to provide data before 1989-1990, as the data collected before that year is not directly comparable to the hospital episode statistics currently collected.

  Count of hip replacement operations

  Count of knee replacement operations

  1989–90

  51,732

  12,817

  1990–91

  51,276

  14,464

  1991–92

  56,973

  17,688

  1992–93

  59,033

  20,404

  1993–94

  60,363

  23,052

  1994–95

  65,158

  26,125

  1995–96

  66,436

  29,750

  1996–97

  64,507

  27,150

  1997–98

  63,033

  27,592

  1998–99

  70,101

  32,761

  1999–2000

  70,672

  33,750

  2000–01

  73,444

  37,412

  2001–02

  72,788

  39,132

  2002–03

  77,902

  46,036

  Source:

  Hospital episode statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Medication Review Curriculum
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards developing a medication review curriculum for(a) providers of education and (b) those seeking training on medication reviews; and if he will make a statement. [168708]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is not responsible for setting curricula for health professional training; that is rightly the responsibility of the statutory and professional bodies. However, we do share a1356W
  commitment with those bodies that all health professionals are trained so that they have the skills and knowledge to deliver a high quality health service to all groups of the population with whom they deal.

  National Service Frameworks
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific funding has been allocated for the implementation of each of the national service frameworks in each of the last three years. [168805]

  Mr. Hutton
  For 2002–03, there was limited earmarking of funds within health authorities' revenue allocations. The following sums formed part of the allocations with the intention that they were spent on the purpose for which they were included:

  £76 million for cancer;

  £60 million for CHD; and

  £75 million for mental health.

  For 2003–04 to 2005–06 there has been no earmarking of funds within primary care trust revenue allocations. None of the growth money has been identified for specific purposes.

  Neurosurgical Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many neurosurgical consultants are expected to retire in each of the next five years. [167060]

  Mr. Hutton
  Analysis of recent past data suggests that if we take account of those leaving for career breaks and other reasons, as well as those leaving for retirement, a total of around 11 or 12 neurosurgical consultants leave each year. This is more than offset by the number of new joiners, rejoiners and those recruited through various recruitment and retention initiatives. We would not expect the number of leavers to change very much over time.

  North Bristol NHS Trust
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been lent by the NHS Bank to North Bristol NHS Trust in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; and how much is expected to be lent in (c) 2004–05 and (d) 2005–06 and beyond; how much of this is expected to be repaid, and over what timescale; and if he will make a statement. [169014]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: Applications for NHS Bank assistance are made on behalf of national health service trusts by the managing strategic health authority (SHA). The North Bristol

  1357W
  trust received the following sums from the overall sums made available to Avon Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA area.

  £ million

  2002–2003

  0

  2003–2004

  18.1

  Final decisions have not been made on the level of special assistance for the SHA, but they expect the North Bristol trust to receive £20 million in 2004–05. No decision has been made on funding for 2005–06.

  Decisions on recovery of funds will be determined at a later stage and may well involve reductions to capital resources as well as or instead of revenue.

  Patient Experience
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 7 April 2004, ref 162425, on Patient Experience, if he will set out how the money for the Patient Experience project was spent. [167398]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The project sought the views of patients, the public and national health service staff to understand the key components of a positive patient experience.

  The total cost of the patient experience project was £39,722.60. This figure can be broken down into the project fee and miscellaneous expenses, as shown in the tables.

  £

  Project fee

  36,190.00

  Miscellaneous expenses

  3,532.60

  Total cost of project

  39,722.60

  These figures can be further broken down as follows:

  £

  Project fee

  2x1 day workshops with patients (@ £8,000 each)

  16,000

  2x groups with the public (@ £2,000 each)

  4,000

  2x mini-groups with young people (@ £1,600 each)

  3,200

  3x depth interviews with people with mental health problems (@ £600 each)

  1,800

  2x groups with health practitioners (@ £2,500 each)

  5,000

  30x on—street interviews with public

  800

  VAT (17.5 per cent. of £30,800)

  5,390

  Total Project Fee (excluding miscellaneous expenses)

  36,190

  Miscellaneous expenses

  Technical costs

  1035.10

  Accommodation and venue hire

  1145.64

  Travel expenses

  825.58

  VAT (17.5 per cent. of £3,007.32)

  526.28

  Total Miscellaneous Expenses (including VAT)

  3532.60

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 2 March 2004,Official Report, column 865W, on pension schemes, how many people have (a) transferred their pensions into
  1358W
  the NHS scheme and (b) been refused such transfers in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [168047]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of transfer payments accepted by the National Health Service Pension Scheme in England and Wales for each of the last five years is shown in the table. The NHS Pensions Agency does not record information about transfer applications that are rejected.

  1 April to 31 March

  Transfer payments accepted

  2003–04

  8,129

  2002–03

  8,223

  2001–02

  7,781

  2000–01

  7,591

  1999–2000

  8,382

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Operation Artemis
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under (1) what authority police officers on Operation Artemis ask gamekeepers to sign a pledge supporting the Operation; and what penalty applies to any gamekeeper who refuses to do so; [167194]

  (2) what precedent there is for members of the public being asked to sign a pledge in support of a police operation; [167195]

  (3) what statutory basis there is for police officers on Operation Artemis to demand access to private land without a search warrant; [167196]

  (4) what the cost is of Operation Artemis. [167198]

  Ms Blears
  Police officers have no legal authority to ask gamekeepers to sign a pledge supporting Operation Artemis. Police officers request that pledge but nobody is compelled to make it impracticable to visit each person to ask them to sign a pledge. Operation Artemis is innovative in that it has identified and seeks to raise awareness specifically amongst those who may have a motive for committing offences against Hen Harriers. Given the numbers of breeding birds the Police service considered it possible to visit many of those persons who may have a motive for criminal action. The purpose of such visits is to make people aware of the importance of complying with the criminal law and advising them individually that the Police would be embarking upon enforcement action against those who choose not to comply with the law and commit criminal offences. The request to sign up to Operation Artemis amounts to confirmation that such advice has been received. Police officers have no power to demand access to private land. They have powers to enter such land without search warrants if they have reasonable suspicion that certain offences may have taken place or under other authorities to carry out operations such as surveillance.

  The statutory basis allowing police officers on Operation Artemis in England and Wales to enter any land without a search warrant is Section 19 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
  1359W
  The costs of Operation Artemis cannot be quantified as in the main they have been met from existing Police budgets utilising officers whose duties are to address wildlife crime. Costs relating to the production of literature and other media have been met from contributions made by the Home Office, Defra and the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisations. The Home Office has provided 3,500 for CCTV cameras at nesting sites.

  International Terrorism
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra funding has been directed to individual constabularies to make contingency preparations, including training and extra manpower, for the possibility of terrorist attack; and to which constabularies such funding has been directed. [168046]

  Ms Blears
  We are unable to provide details of the allocation of counter terrorist funding for individual forces for security reasons. However the Police Service in England and Wales will receiver total of £84 million in 2004–05 for the purposes of countering the increased threat from international terrorism since September 2001.

  Animal Experiments
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is made to alleviate the suffering of animals in xenotransplantation experiments. [165852]

  Caroline Flint
  Xenotransplantation is the grafting, or transplantation, of cells, tissues or organs between species. It encompasses a wide range of techniques from the injection of cells to solid organ transplantation. As with all research licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, suffering in xenotransplantation experiments is minimised by removing causes of pain and distress and implementing measures to detect and alleviate any suffering that is caused. In the case of surgical procedures this would include the use of appropriate analgesic and anaesthetic regimens and other forms of post-operative care.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to commission an evaluation of the efficacy of animal experimentation. [167249]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government have no plans to do so.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment the Government have made of the level of harassment of suppliers and customers of businesses regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [167399]

  Caroline Flint
  From correspondence and meetings with victims of intimidation, we are well aware of the seriousness of animal rights extremism for the bioscience sector and for companies doing business with the sector. The Government have made it clear that intimidation and harassment of those going about their lawful business is totally unacceptable.
  1360W

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the asylum appeals of(a) Fariborz Gravindi, (h) Mokhtar Haydary and (c) Faroq Haidari were dismissed; under what circumstances they would be allowed to remain in the UK; and what representations he has received on their cases. [163129]

  Mr. Browne
  All Home Office records relating to individuals are confidential. I am therefore not able to comment on individual cases. I have however written to the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of failed asylum seekers absconded in the last 12 months. [165835]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number or proportion of asylum applicants who have absconded is not available except by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Some asylum seekers who have absconded may have left the UK voluntarily; others may remain in the UK illegally. Applicants do not always inform the Immigration Service prior to leaving the UK. We are making improvements in the area of contact management as detailed in the White Paper: Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain, paragraph 4.42.

  CCTV
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public funding has been spent on CCTV security cameras in Heywood and Middleton since 1997. [168536]

  Ms Blears
  Since 1997, the Home Office has provided £209,536 to Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, which includes the Heywood and Middleton constituency.

  Allocation of that funding locally is a matter for Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and the Greater Manchester police. The information is not held centrally.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public funding has been spent on CCTV cameras in Stalybridge and Hyde since 1997. [168735]

  Ms Blears
  Since 1997, the Home Office has provided £337,000 to Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, which includes the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency.

  Allocation of that funding locally, is a matter for Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council and the Greater Manchester police. The information is not held centrally.

  Drugs Misuse
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public funds were spent on tackling drugs misuse in Burnley in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2003–04. [168318]
  1361W
  Caroline Flint
  The amount spent on tackling drug misuse in Burnley in 1997–98 was £670,000. This was prior to the formation of the National Drugs Strategy, and this figure has been provided from locally held information.

  Figures are not available for Burnley alone in 2003–04. The figures for Lancashire as a whole were:

  £

  Pooled Treatment Budget

  3,980,000

  Young People

  735,000

  Building Safer Communities

  1,147,000

  DAT CAD

  48,000

  DAT Development

  70,000

  Through Care and Aftercare

  35,000

  Total

  6,015,000

  Please note that the Building Safer Communities figure is only partly spent on tackling drugs.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public funds were spent on tackling drugs misuse in Heywood and Middleton in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2003–04. [168537]

  Caroline Flint
  Breakdown of financial allocation to local constituencies is not available in the form requested as funding is allocated to Drug Action Team (DAT) area (Rochdale DAT).

  The period for 1997–98 is prior to the formation of the National Drug Strategy and there is no locally held information on funding available for that financial year.

  The figures for Rochdale as a whole for 2003–04 are as follows:

  £

  Pooled Treatment:

  1,023,000

  Young People (including CJIP)

  241,000

  Building Safer Communities

  297,000

  DAT CAD

  31,000

  DAT Development

  37,000

  CJIP Capacity Building

  178,000

  Throughcare and Aftercare

  62,000

  Total

  1,869,000

  Please note that the Building Safer Communities Fund is only partly spent on tackling drugs.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent by the Government on crime reduction, protection and security in the London Borough of Redbridge since 1997. [164879]

  Ms Blears
  Money allocated to the London Borough of Redbridge for crime reduction through a number of funding streams and for a range of projects totals £2,267,311 over the period 2000–2004. Figures before 2000 are not readily available.

  For protection and security, this information is not available in the form requested. However, the Metropolitan police did receive £47 million in 2003–04 for the purposes of enhancing its ability to respond to the threat posed by international terrorism.
  1362W

  Dangerous Driving
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase penalties for drivels who cause accidents(a) while banned from driving and (b) who do not have the required (i) insurance and (ii) MOT cover. [169068]

  Caroline Flint
  Where an accident appears to be the result of an offence, the driver will be prosecuted for the appropriate offence or offences committed. We have recently increased the maximum penalty for causing death offences to 14 years.

  Charges in respect of driving while disqualified, with no insurance or with no MOT cover can be brought whether or not a driver has been involved in an accident. The maximum penalties are respectively six months' imprisonment or a fine at Level 5 on the standard scale, a fine at Level 5 and a fine at either Level 3 or Level 4 according to the number of passengers a vehicle is adapted to carry. We have no current plans to increase these maxima.

  Mobile Phones
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources he has devoted to enforcing new laws to combat driving while using mobile phones. [169027]

  Caroline Flint
  The new, specific, offence of using a hand-held phone while driving is intended to provide a simple, objective offence the enforcement and prosecution of which does not depend on judgments of degree of control or carelessness. The Association of Chief Police Officers have welcomed it as a straightforward method of dealing with this dangerous behaviour. The allocation of resources is a matter for individual chief officers and the police will enforce the offence as operationally appropriate.

  NCIS
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he or his Department have had from(a) Greater Manchester police, (b)) South Wales police and (c) the UK Immigration Service regarding their future working relationship with the National Criminal Intelligence Service or the Serious and Organised Crime Agency. [166601]

  Ms Blears
  None.

  Serious Organised Crime Agency
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the likely effects of the proposed new powers of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency on client confidentiality in relation to the work of tax advisers and accountants. [167513]

  Ms Blears
  We have invited comments on the proposals in the White Paper, One Step Ahead, A 21st Century Strategy to Defeat Organised Crime, by 30 July. We will consider those comments carefully before introducing any new powers.
  1363W

  Substance Abuse
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answers of 19 April,Official Report, column 116W, on substance abuse, what mechanisms he uses to gauge the level of misuse of volatile substances by young people. [168597]

  Caroline Flint
  Information on the use of volatile substances among young people aged 11-15 years is collected in an annual national survey of secondary schoolchildren commissioned by the Department of Health. "Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England in 2003" was based on 10,000 completed questionnaires from 321 schools in England. The survey showed eight per cent reported taking volatile substances in 2003, compared with six per cent in 2002 and seven per cent in 2001. The Home Office also produces its own statistics on general drug usage through its British Crime Survey. The last figures published were for the year 2002–2003.

  Under-12s Concession
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision was made to withdraw the concession for under-12s to join a parent in the UK; and when the information was posted on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website. [167969]

  Mr. Browne
  Following careful consideration, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), decided on 13 March 2003 to withdraw the Under 12 Concession with effect from 29 March 2003.

  The section of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website relating to children was updated on 12 August 2003. However, a different section of the website relating to spouses and maintenance and accommodation was found to contain a reference to the concession only recently and was amended on 13 April 2004.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Water Services
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what change in water consumption was achieved by the rationalisation of water services undertaken in 1999–2000 in(a) actual and (b) percentage terms. [169858]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The rationalisation of water services was designed to improve water quality and meet required legal standards. It was not a consumption saving measure. There was therefore no change in water consumption as a result of this rationalisation.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Official Photographs
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will place in the Library the most recent set of official photographs taken in the House while it was sitting. [168878]
  1364W
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that Mr. Speaker will be considering this matter shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mobile Telephone Industry (Hacking)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the mobile telephone industry to reduce the vulnerability to hacking of Bluetooth-enabled telephones and wireless headsets. [169237]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI officials are in regular contact with mobile industry bodies and have raised this issue with them.

  All Bluetooth devices adhere to the Bluetooth technical specification in order to ensure worldwide compatibility. Action to address the vulnerability of Bluetooth enabled devices to hacking would therefore need to be taken at the international level to be effective across all devices. However, not all Bluetooth devices are vulnerable to this security threat.

  I understand that the industry is working both to address the vulnerability of all new devices (of the type affected) to hacking, and to tackle the present threat.

  Civil Partnerships
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 24 March 2004,Official Report, column 861W, on civil partnerships, whether legal rights and benefits to which married couples are entitled have not been included in the Civil Partnership Bill. [169142]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 April 2004]: The purpose of the Civil Partnership Bill is to establish a new legal relationship for same-sex couples and to enable those couples who register as civil partners of each other to access many of the legal rights and responsibilities to which married couples are entitled. The Government have therefore aimed to provide parity of treatment for civil partners.

  Departmental Entertainment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her latest estimate is of the amount spent by her Department on official entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [168998]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following table shows the expenditure on entertainment by the Department of Trade and Industry in each year between 1999–2000 and 2003–04.

  £000

  1999–2000

  887

  2000–01

  1,089

  2001–02

  1,165

  2002–03

  1,311

  2003–04

  1,110

  Notes

  1. The expenditure represents less than 0.016 per cent. of the Department's total gross expenditure.

  1365W

  2. The Department expects expenditure for 2004–05 to be of a similar order.

  3. Figures for earlier periods are not available on a consistent basis.

  Post Office Closures
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions a decision to close a post office in Scotland as part of the urban reinvention programme was reversed following the six week consultation in the last five years. [169902]

  Mr. Timms
  Decisions on post office closures are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make electronically accessible the Royal Mail's estimates of delivery times for the Isle of Wight under the single delivery reforms, broken down by postcode. [169730]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]: Delivery times are the operational concern of Royal Mail Group and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Renewable Energy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent meetings(a) she and (b) the Minister for Energy have had with organisations concerned with development of the renewable energy industries. [167370]

  Mr. Timms
  Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I regularly meet with groups and organisations concerned with the development of the renewable energy industry. I have attended numerous events outside the Department for discussions about renewable energy. For example, on Monday I addressed the Investing in Renewable Energy Conference in the City of London.

  Science Strategy
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to enhance science in her Department since the publication of the Government's science strategy, Investing in Innovation. [162244]

  Ms Hewitt
  DTI is responsible for the bulk of the public expenditure on science and technology research in UK universities, promotes the exploitation of science and engineering in business innovation and uses science to inform its own policies.

  The Department will invest over £2.7 billion on university research and business innovation in 2004–2005. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced the Government's intention to establish a 10-year framework for science and innovation, which will be informed by a consultation document as part of the 2004 spending review. Our aim is to grow public investment in the science base faster than the trend rate of GDP growth over the next spending review period.
  1366W
  The Innovation Report, published in December 2003, sets out our strategy for refocusing DTI's support for business innovation by targeting our innovation investment into a limited number of fields of research, but ensuring that our intervention brings coherence to other support from the public and private sectors and makes a positive difference to outcomes in terms of business productivity and competitiveness.

TRANSPORT

  Battersea Park Station
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with Network Rail about improvements to Battersea Park Station. [168859]

  Mr. McNulty
  Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority continue to hold discussions on this issue and to update my officials on progress. I understand that Network Rail and Parkview International are currently in negotiations over a proposal that both parties hope will conclude in the near future, enabling the scheme to take place.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the conferences and seminars that his Department organised between 1 September 2003 and 28 February 2004, detailing the cost of each. [166463]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department communicates where appropriate with organisations through conferences and holds internal conferences and seminars in the course of normal management. The following table lists conferences and seminars organised by the central Department during the period.

  Conference purpose

  Cost (£)

  Social inclusion issues

  Funding issues for community transport

  900

  Transport needs of minority ethnic and faith communities

  30,000

  Research into transport needs of disabled people

  3,200

  Road safety

  Kerbcraft child road safety seminar

  2,500

  Urban safety management

  12,600

  Railways

  Rail matters rail industry conference

  14,300

  Modernising customer services for drivers and vehicle operators

  Four commercial operator workshops

  30,000

  Three one-stop service planning workshops

  14,000

  Financial management

  Internal audit seminar

  12,000

  Audit annual conference

  9,500

  Workshop on improving financial management

  5,400

  Regional transport

  Policy seminar

  1,500

  Communication

  Workshop on improving communication

  12,500

  1367W

  Conference purpose

  Cost (£)

  Departmental management

  Two senior management group workshops

  10,125

  Information technology

  IT User Group seminar

  5,230

  Transport security

  Six roadshows on ship and port security

  995

  Science

  Two chief scientists' seminars

  2,300

  Hydrogen and biofuels seminar

  1,230

  Logistics and Maritime Transport

  Norduck Conference (Scandinavian and UK Transport Ministers and Trade Associations)

  3,035

  Ports and the Environment Conference

  5,000

  Railway Improvements (Burnley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the likely effects of investment in railway improvements over the next 10 years upon residents of Burnley. [167885]

  Mr. McNulty
  Residents of Burnley 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 Burnley, is out for tender. Work continues on the West Coast Main Line upgrade, which will see a reduction in journey times on services to and from Manchester and Preston and an increase in service frequency.

  Transport Infrastructure
  Jim Dobbin
  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 Heywood and Middleton. [168550]

  Mr. McNulty
  A new northern franchise, which will include local and regional services directly serving Heywood and Middleton, is out for tender. Residents of Heywood and Middleton will benefit from the new TransPennine Express franchise, which commenced in February, serving the main towns and cities across the north. 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. Work continues on the West Coast Main Line upgrade, which will see a reduction in journey times on services to and from Manchester and Preston and an increase in service frequency.

  James Purnell
  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 Stalybridge and Hyde. [168732]
  1368W
  Mr. McNulty
  Residents of Stalybridge and Hyde 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 the constituency, is out for tender. Work continues on the West Coast Main Line upgrade, which will see a reduction in journey times on services to and from Manchester and Preston and an increase in service frequency.

TREASURY

  Connexions
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) what(a) discussions and (b) correspondence he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills concerning the written encouragement issued by the Department for Education and Skills to Connexions partnerships to improve their tax efficiency; [169976]

  (2) whether Connexions Service private contractors are able to reclaim VAT. [169980]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise have clarified the VAT rules with DfES and Connexions. It is a matter for the DfES how funding for the Connexions programme is allocated, and a matter for individual connexions partnerships how they organise their VAT affairs.

  Private contractors subcontracted to provide services to a Connexions partnership must charge VAT, and this means that under the normal rules they are also entitled to recover the VAT, they pay on the items they purchase.

  Limited companies established by Connexions partnerships to deliver Connexions services are not carrying out any business activity and therefore do not charge VAT and are unable to recover any VAT they incur.

  Local authorities tasked with delivering Connexions services will normally be able to recover any VAT they incur under section 33 of the VAT Act 1994, as they do for other services they deliver.

  Council Tax (Pensioners)
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanism will be used to deliver the £100 council tax payment to pensioners aged over 70 years announced in the 2004 Budget; and when it will be paid. [168992]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.
  1369W
  The intention is for the payments to be made automatically with the 2004–05 winter fuel payment, to those who are eligible and who do not need to claim it, before the end of the year. People who do not get a winter fuel payment will need to claim the one-off payment from the Department for Work and Pensions before 31 March 2005.

  Gender Equality Directive
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the(a) financial and (b) regulatory impact to (i) consumers and (ii) business of the Gender Equality Directive with regard to risk-based pricing in relation to gender; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on this issue. [169808]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have welcomed the development of European sex discrimination legislation through an Equal Treatment Directive but are concerned about the impacts, both on consumers and on the insurance industry, of the measures aimed at actuarial pricing of insurance and related financial services. The UK will continue to negotiate constructively to achieve a final agreement that reflects UK priorities and concerns.

  VAT (Learning and Skills Council)
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on which transactions and activities relating to the provision of services the Learning and Skills Council is entitled to reclaim VAT costs. [169974]

  John Healey
  Under the normal VAT rules, VAT registered organisations can recover any tax they incur on purchases which relate to their taxable business activities.

  HM Customs and Excise is debarred by statute from disclosing information about the affairs of individual taxpayers. Exemption 15 (Statutory and other restrictions) of the Open Government Code applies.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Age-Related Payments Bill
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under what circumstances he expects to use the powers in the Age-Related Payments Bill to make payments to pensioners under the age of 70. [169241]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The affirmative regulation making power allows for ad-hoc payments to pensioners and the circumstances for the making of such payments will be determined at the time. If such regulations are made they will be debated in Parliament and subject to the approval of both Houses.

  Council Tax
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people aged over 70 years are in receipt of council tax benefit in Scotland, broken down by(a) local authority area and (b) parliamentary constituency. [167821]
  1370W
  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  The number of council tax benefit recipients aged over 70 in Scotland at May 2002 is 179,000.
  Notes:

  1. The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or couple.

  2. The figure is rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Council tax benefit data excludes second adult rebate cases.

  4. The figure refers to cases where the claimant and/or partner are aged over 70.

  5. The figure is based on a 1 per cent. sample and therefore subject to a degree of sampling Variation.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 2002.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 22 April 2004,Official Report, column 666W, on external consultants, what the cost of the external consultants for each of the projects listed was. [170105]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  National Insurance Rebates
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of expenditure on national insurance rebates for those who are contracted out of the state second pension(a) in 2006-07 and (b) for each of the next 10 financial years. [167280]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table:

  Tax year

  Estimated rebate cost (£ billion)

  2006–07

  12.7

  2007–08

  12.2

  2008–09

  12.5

  2009–10

  12.8

  2010–11

  13.1

  2011–12

  13.5

  2012–13

  13.5

  2013–14

  13.8

  2014–15

  14.2

  2015–16

  14.6

  2016–17

  15.0

  Note:

  Figures are based on the assumptions used to determine the current national insurance rebates and those for the long-term Public Expenditure Surrey undertaken in February 2004.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Nursing Home Residents (Benefits)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants for winter fuel payments were disallowed because of late application in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [167298]
  1371W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of winter fuel payment claims disallowed because of a late application is in the table.

  Year

  Late claim disallowances made

  2001–02

  10,308 in respect of winter 2000–01

  2002–03

  1,745 in respect of winter 2000–01

  4,564 in respect of winter 2001–02

  2003–04

  1,760 in respect of winter 2000–01

  2,204 in respect of winter 2001–02

  3,948 in respect of winter 2002–03

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons Mr. G. Mack of Bradenstoke, Chippenham, Wiltshire had his winter fuel payment disallowed in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [167299]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I will write privately to the hon. Member clarifying matters in respect of Mr. Mack. This is in line with paragraph 12, part 2, of the code of practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by what mechanism a pensioner is informed of eligibility for winter fuel payment where, through clerical error, their details do not appear on the Electoral Register. [167300]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Most payments are made automatically without the need to claim. Every effort is made to try and contact those who are newly eligible, however there will be some where sufficient details are not held. For those people who do need to make a claim an extensive publicity campaign s carried out. This begins three months before the qualifying week in September and continues to the end of March. The campaign includes: advertisements in national and local press; a leaflet and poster made available in a variety of venues, a dedicated winter fuel payment helpline and information on the internet.

  Where a person needs to claim it is up to them whether they do so. They have until 30 March to make a claim.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many senior citizens in Manchester, Gorton have benefited from the winter fuel allowance since 1997. 167343]

  Table 1: Income support recipients aged 60 and over in nursing homes and residential care, November 1997 to November 2001

  Thousand

  Preserved rights

  As at November

  All

  Residential allowance

  Residential care

  Nursing home

  Part III accommodation

  1997

  239.5

  152.7

  44.8

  35.3

  6.7

  1998

  230.6

  160.9

  36.0

  27.3

  6.4

  1999

  225.9

  169.5

  30.1

  20.3

  6.1

  2000

  218.4

  171.8

  25.3

  16.0

  5.3

  2001

  214.8

  175.2

  21.7

  12.8

  5.1

  1372W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of senior citizens in the Manchester, Gorton constituency who have received a winter fuel payment in each year since 1999–2000 (including provisional figures for 2003–04) is in the table. Information relating to the 1997–98 and 1998–99 winters is not available.

  Payments made

  1999–2000

  10,370

  2000–01

  11,000

  2001–02

  10,870

  2002–03

  10,820

  2003–04

  10,625

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Please note that the figures for 2003–04 refer only to the main payment run, i.e. they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent. of all payments). However, since late payment runs are mainly in respect of non-system cases whose claims had not been received by Qualifying Week, they are heavily skewed towards men aged 60.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. samples.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in a residential or nursing home have been ineligible for the winter fuel payment in each year since its introduction. [168160]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We estimate in the year 2002–03 about 16,450 people in residential or nursing homes in Great Britain were ineligible for a Winter Fuel Payment because they were receiving Income Support or income based Jobseekers Allowance. The figures for winter 2003–04 are not yet available but we would expect the numbers to be similar. Figures are not available for earlier years.
  Note:Any residence where there are four or more residents aged 60 or over is assumed to be a Registered Care and Nursing Home.
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in a residential nursing home have been in receipt of the minimum income guarantee and pension credit in each year since 1997. [168161]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of pensioners in a nursing home and residential care who were or are in receipt of minimum income guarantee (MIG) or pension credit from November 1997 to November 2003 is shown in tables 1,2 and 3. The figures are affected by changes made to Residential Care/Nursing Home funding arrangements in 2002 and 2003.
  1373W

  Table 2: Income support recipients aged 60 and over in nursing homes and residential care, November 2002

  Thousand

  All

  Residential allowance

  Part III accommodation

  Others in nursing homes and residential care

  November 2002

  186.8

  132.8

  3.9

  40.1

  Table 3: Pension credit recipients in nursing homes and residential care, November 2003

  Thousand

  November 2003

  157.4

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. Recipients aged 60 and over are defined as where the recipient and/or partner is aged 60 or over. Figures therefore include a number of recipients aged under 60 where there is a partner aged 60 or over.

  4. Part III accommodation' was accommodation provided by the local authority under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948.

  5. There are no separate counts available for Residential Care and Nursing Homes after the abolition of preserved rights in April 2002.

  6. Pension Credit was introduced on 6 October 2003 and replaced Minimum Income Guarantee for Income Support pensioners.

  Comparison of rate of increase between rural and not rural MIG and pension credit household levels as at 31 March 2004

  Total

  Number local authorities

  M1G households October

  Pension credit households March

  Household increase

  Percentage increase

  National

  Not rural

  240

  1,352,355

  1,769,397

  417,042

  31

  Rural

  168

  443,485

  632,453

  188,968

  43

  Total

  408

  1,795,840

  2,401,850

  606,010

  34

  East of England

  Not rural

  26

  77,490

  104,996

  27,506

  35

  Rural

  22

  59,165

  85,118

  25,953

  44

  Total

  48

  136,655

  190,114

  53,459

  39

  East Midlands

  Not rural

  20

  79,345

  106,000

  26,655

  34

  Rural

  20

  43,905

  62,859

  18,954

  43

  Total

  40

  123,250

  168,859

  45,609

  37

  London

  Not rural

  33

  214,170

  255,698

  41,528

  19

  Rural

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  Not rural

  17

  97,175

  131,812

  34,637

  36

  Rural

  6

  8,895

  12,761

  3,866

  43

  Total

  23

  106,070

  144,573

  38,503

  36

  North West

  Not rural

  30

  214,545

  278,010

  63,465

  30

  Rural

  13

  33,190

  46,895

  13,705

  41

  Total

  43

  247,735

  324,905

  77,170

  31

  Scotland

  Not rural

  18

  139,025

  179,752

  40,727

  29

  Rural

  14

  50,030

  68,852

  18,822

  38

  Total

  32

  189,055

  248,604

  59,549

  31

  South East

  Not rural

  36

  91,560

  127,830

  36,270

  40

  Rural

  31

  80,685

  117,001

  36,316

  45

  Total

  67

  172,245

  244,831

  72,586

  42

  South West

  Not rural

  14

  66,165

  93,827

  27,662

  42

  Rural

  31

  74,255

  109,087

  34,832

  47

  1374W
  7. The number of Pension Credit recipients in November 2003 excludes a small number of cases still receiving Income Support.

  Pension Credit
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what comparison has been made in take up rates for pension credit between rural and urban areas; and what causes he ascribes to the lower rate of increase in claims for pension credit in inner city areas in comparison to other areas. [166884]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not possible to provide detailed comparisons of levels of pension credit take-up between rural and urban areas, since estimates of numbers of households eligible for pension credit are not available at any level below that of Government office region. However, the information in the table shows the level of increase in numbers of households receiving pension credit as at 31 March 2004 over numbers receiving the minimum income guarantee (MIG) as at 3 October 2003, for local authorities classified as either 'rural' or `not rural'. This suggests that overall rates of increase in `not rural' areas are in general lower than in their rural counterparts. Overall, there has been an increase of 31 per cent. in the number of households receiving pension credit over those receiving MIG and an increase of 37 per cent. in the area including Newport, West.

  More detailed analysis of pension credit take-up levels is being carried out.
  1375W

  Comparison of rate of increase between rural and not rural MIG and pension credit household levels as at 31 March 2004

  Total

  Number local authorities

  M1G households October

  Pension credit households March

  Household increase

  Percentage increase

  Total

  45

  140,420

  202,914

  62,494

  45

  Wales

  Not rural

  13

  70,470

  94,385

  23,915

  34

  Rural

  9

  34,865

  47,141

  12,276

  35

  Total

  22

  105,335

  141,526

  36,191

  34

  West Midlands

  Not rural

  21

  159,345

  207,150

  47,805

  30

  Rural

  14

  29,920

  42,182

  12,262

  41

  Total

  34

  189,265

  249,331

  60,066

  32

  Yorks and Humber

  Not rural

  12

  143,065

  189,938

  46,873

  33

  Rural

  9

  28,575

  40,556

  11,981

  42

  Total

  21

  171,640

  230,494

  58,854

  34

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish the results of the pilot exercise for combined pension forecasts carried out with certain employers and pension providers according to "A New Contract for Welfare: Partnership in Pensions", page 90; what steps his Department has taken towards a national roll out of these exercises; and if he will make a statement. [166249]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Combined Pensions Forecasting service, an initiative jointly pursued by the Department for Work and Pensions and the pensions industry with the support of the Association of British Insurers and National Association of Pension Funds, was introduced following a series of pilot exercises with representatives from the private sector.

  The pilot evaluation was carried out on a confidential basis with employers and pension providers. However, a summary of the results was included in "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement" (pages 43-45. Command 5677) published in December 2002.

  We are currently conducting further research into the combined pension forecast service with results due to be published in the summer of this year.

  Following the pilots, the combined pension forecasting service went live in October 2001. By the end of March 2004, a total of 1.12 million Combined Pension Forecasts had been issued. To date over 700 employers and pension providers have expressed an interest in participating in the service. By the end of 2005–06 we aim to have reached 6.3 million people.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress he has made in identifying pension funds that have gone into wind-up with inadequate funds to meet their liabilities since Royal Assent to the Pensions Act 1996. [168862]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available on all the pension schemes which have gone into wind up with inadequate funds since Royal Assent to the Pensions Act 1995. We are currently exploring with pension scheme trustees and other industry representatives the basis on which we can establish firm estimates of the 1376W
  extent of the problem of defined benefit schemes winding-up under funded, the numbers affected and the potential scale of losses.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether local authorities will be liable for the pension protection fund levy. [168164]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Local authority defined benefit pension schemes will not be liable for the pension protection fund levy as they will never have recourse to PPF assistance. This is because the sponsoring employers of local government pension schemes can never become insolvent.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many full-time equivalent Pension Protection Fund staff he expects to employ; and if he will make a statement. [168987]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The way in which the PPF is organised and the staffing requirements which will flow from that organisational design will ultimately be a decision for the PPF Board. However we are having to make a number of planning assumptions in order to ensure that the PPF is operational by Spring next year. Our current working assumption is to have a core staff of between 100 and 150 full time equivalent people in place for spring 2005.

  The PPF is a major new reform, and we will ensure that we continue to engage thoroughly with all our partners to get it right.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on the rights of individuals to continue to work(a) part-time and (b) full-time after retirement; and what rules apply to pension provision in such circumstances. [166885]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Giving people the choice to work up to and beyond State Pension age is critical to ensure the economic prosperity of our society in terms of both work and pensions. Individuals must have the choice and opportunity to work, either full or part time, and save longer towards a financially secure retirement. Flexible working and retirement options can be
  1377W
  especially important for individuals who have had interrupted working lives, or have on-going caring responsibilities to balance alongside their work.

  In 'Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement' (December 2002) we set out our proposals to help individuals continue in full time or part time work longer. These included extra back to work help for those over 50, more generous incentives for deferring state pensions, tax rule changes to allow people to draw their occupational pension while continuing to work for the same employer and encouraging occupational pensions to support flexible retirement.

  The Finance Bill will introduce a simplified pension regime which increases choice and flexibility for both companies operating pension schemes and individuals saving in such schemes. The Finance Bill will mean that it will no longer be necessary for an individual to leave employment in order to access an employer's occupational pension. The tax rules will no longer dictate that an individual cannot receive their pension and continue to work for that same employer. This increased flexibility will enable people to move from full-time to part-time work and help to make the transition from work to retirement a more smooth and gradual process.

  In this year's Budget we also announced a new high profile national guidance campaign to raise employers' awareness of, and ability to adopt, flexible employment and retirement opportunities in order to increase the recruitment, training and retention of older workers.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 25 March 2004,Official Report, column 1030W, on pensions, if he will list the gross costs of the proposal referred to in footnote two and each of the offsets identified in footnotes three to six. [168170]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table:

  £ billion

  Gross cost

  Income-related benefits saving

  State second pension saving

  Savings credit saving

  2004–05

  17.1

  2.9

  0.0

  0.4

  2005–06

  17.8

  3.0

  0.0

  0.4

  2006–07

  18.8

  3.1

  0.1

  0.5

  2007–08

  20.0

  3.2

  0.1

  0.6

  2008–09

  21.3

  3.4

  0.7

  0.6

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for Great Britain in 2003-04 price terms rounded to the nearest 100 million. It is assumed the change comes into effect from April 2004 and basic State Pension is uprated in line with earnings thereafter.

  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. Income-related benefit offsets are calculated using the DWP policy simulation model and April 2004 benefit rates.

  4. Additional income tax revenue is estimated by the Inland Revenue using 2004 tax rates. We are unable to publish any income tax forecast estimates for years beyond that which is
  1378W
  published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report (currently 2006–07). The income tax estimates for 2004–05 to 2006–07 are based on the 2001–02 Survey of Personal Incomes and are projected in line with March 2004 Budget assumptions. The income tax revenue in 2004–05 is £4.6 billion, for 2005–06 is £4.9 billion and for 2006–07 is £5.2 billion, for illustrative purposes, it is assumed income tax revenue will be a fixed percentage of the gross cost for this of option in 2007–08 and 2008–09 although estimates for later years would be subject to a greater degree of uncertainty.

  5. The savings from abolishing the State Second Pension are calculated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with the long term Public Expenditure Survey forecasts. No allowance has been made for changes to contracting out rules.

  6. The savings credit is assumed to be frozen, payments uprated by prices, with no new recipients after 2004. Figures for 2004 and 2005 are based on published medium term forecasts, while those for 2006–07 and beyond are based on the illustrative long-term projections of benefit expenditure underlying Annex A of the Budget report. This is a separate saving from the offsets in income related benefits outline I in note 3.

  7. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people under 30 have taken out a stakeholder pension. [167878]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information for the 2001–02 tax year is shown in the table.

  Information for the 2002–03 tax year will be available from autumn 2004.

  Tax year

  Number of people aged under 30 with a stakeholder pension

  2001–02

  230,000

  Notes:

  1. Information is derived from a sample of annual returns of information submitted to the Inland Revenue by stakeholder pension providers.

  2. Figure rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Sure Start
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many mothers in Stalybridge and Hyde have made use of the Sure Start maternity grant. [168739]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested. The available information is in the tables.

  Sure Start Maternity Grants

  Applications

  Awards

  Tameside Social Fund District

  2000–01

  1,122

  855

  2001–02

  1,306

  1,063

  20021 to December

  1,069

  867

  Sure Start Maternity Grants in Stockport and Tameside Jobcentre Plus District

  20032

  674

  502

  2003–04

  2,840

  2,071

  1 To December.

  2 January to March.

  Notes:

  1. Data is not available by Parliamentary Constituency. Stalybridge and Hyde Parliamentary Constituency used to be part of Tameside Social Fund District. This District was involved in a very complex interlocking set of boundary changes affecting an area from North Cumbria to Norfolk, which took place from

  1379W

  September 2002 to June 2003. Tameside District was combined with part of Stockport interim District in January 2003 to form Stockport and Tameside Jobcentre Plus District. The two areas for which data is given above are thus different, so the data is not comparable

  2. Sure Start Maternity Grants were introduced on 27 March 2000. The very small number of cases for 1999–2000 has been excluded for data protection reasons.

  3. Data is given for all applications and awards, irrespective of whether the application was made by the mother or her partner.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many senior citizens in Burnley have benefited from the winter fuel allowance since 1997. [167887]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of senior citizens in the Burnley constituency who have benefited from a winter fuel payment in each year since 1999–2000 (including provisional figures for 2003–04) is in the table. Information relating to the 1997–98 and 1998–99 winters is not available.

  Payments made

  1999–2000

  14,985

  2000–01

  16,490

  2001–02

  16,620

  2002–03

  16,745

  2003–04

  16,800

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  3. Please note that the figures for 2003-04 refer only to the main payment run, i.e. they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent of all payments). However, since late payment runs are manly in respect of non-system cases whose claim had not been received by Qualifying Week, they are heavily skewed towards men aged 60.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. samples.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many senior citizens in Heywood and Middleton have benefited from the winter fuel allowance since 1997. [168545]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of senior citizens in the Heywood and Middleton constituency who benefited from a winter fuel payment in each year since 1999–2000 1380W
  (including provisional figures for 2003–2004) is in the table. Information relating to the 1997–98 and 1998–99 winters is not available.

  Payments made

  1999–2000

  16,630

  2000–01

  18,255

  2001–02

  18,275

  2002–03

  18,375

  2003–04

  18,400

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Please note that the figures for 2003-2004 refer only to the main payment run i.e. they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent. of all payments). However, since late payment runs are mainly in respect of non-system cases whose claim had not been received by Qualifying Week, they are heavily skewed towards men aged 60.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. samples.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners received the winter fuel allowance in Liverpool, Walton in each year between 1997 and 2003. [166974]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of pensioners in the Liverpool Walton constituency who received a winter fuel payment in each year since 1999–2000 (including provisional figures for 2003–04) is in the table. Information relating to the 1997–98 and 1998–99 winters is not available.

  Payments made

  1999–2000

  14,420

  2000–01

  15,495

  2001–02

  15,300

  2002–03

  15,370

  2003–04

  15,160

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest five.

  2. Please note that the figures for 2003–04 refer only to the main payment run i.e. they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent. of all payments). However, since late payment runs are mainly in respect of non-system cases whose claim had not been received by Qualifying Week, they are heavily skewed towards men aged 60.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. samples.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prison Service
  (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I have placed copies of the "Northern Ireland Prison Service's Corporate and Business Plan for 2004–2007" in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Corporate and Business Plan contains key performance targets I have set for the service for 2004–05. These are:

  No escape for top and high-risk prisoners.

  No more than three escapes per 1,000 medium and low risk prisoners.

  The number of staff assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of five per 100 prisoners.

  The number of prisoners assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of six per 100 prisoners.

  An average of at least 18 hours constructive activity per week for each sentenced prisoner.

  An average of at least nine hours constructive activity per week for each remand prisoner.

  To ensure 82.5 per cent. of prisoners serving six months or more are working to a resettlement plan and that 95 per cent. of lifers work to a resettlement plan, including preparation of the plan, in the first six months from sentence.

  Deliver at least 85 per cent. of the planned training days associated with the agreed corporate training priorities.

  Reduce the rate of absenteeism to an annual average of no more than 19 days per head.

  Lay the annual report and audited accounts before Parliament prior to the summer recess.

  Ensure the average cost per prisoner place does not exceed the target to be agreed with HM Treasury.

  The Government have committed substantial resources to implementing the Steele report, so that staff remains in full control. This does not mean any reduction in the need to tackle the other costs that make for an excessively high cost per prisoner place.

  Also, in light of developments following the Steele report, and to support the development of partnerships with a wider range of statutory and voluntary agencies beyond the criminal justice system, I have agreed some adjustments to the service's statement of purpose, which now reads as follows:
  "The Northern Ireland Prison Service, through our staff, serves the community by keeping in secure, safe and humane custody those committed by the courts; by working with prisoners and with other organisations seeks to reduce the risk of re-offending; and in so doing aims to protect the public and to contribute to peace and stability in Northern Ireland."

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Annual Report
  (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  The Secretary of State for Transport I have today published my Department's Annual Report for 2004. Copies have been laid before Parliament and placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report sets out the Department's work over the last year and it shows that progress has been made. It also describes the Department's future expenditure plans for the period of the spending review 2002.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs I have set the veterinary medicines directorate the following performance objectives for 2004–05.

  Objective 1: Authorise veterinary medicines efficiently, using good science, thus ensuring their safety, quality and efficacy.

  Objective 2: Ensure the field-use of veterinary medicines is safe and effective, principally through the use of best practice in pharmacovigilance.

  Objective 3: Ensure the safe use of veterinary medicines authorised in the UK through surveillance of residues and follow-up action where misuse is detected.

  Objective 4: Develop policy to ensure that veterinary medicines can be used effectively and safely, offering protection to human health, animal health and welfare and the environment.

  Objective 5: Seek to encourage the proper use of veterinary medicines and actively discourage improper use.

  Objective 6: Develop the VMD to ensure it is fit for purpose and its vision, aim and objectives are contributing to DEFRA's PSA VI as well as the Department's overall vision and values.

TREASURY

  Valuation Office Agency
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  I have today set the following key performance indicators for the Valuation Office Agency for 2004–05:

  Valuation Accuracy
  Contain reductions in 2,000 local rating lists to less than 7.5 per cent. in respect of compiled list appeals settled in 2004–05, and to a maximum of 4.7 per cent. of the total compiled list rateable value over the entire life of the 2,000 rating lists.

  Rating Revaluation
  Prepare for the forthcoming revaluation of non-domestic properties in England and Wales by producing draft rating lists by 30 September 2004 and compiled rating lists by 31 March 2005.

  Council Tax Revaluations
  Prepare for the forthcoming revaluation of domestic properties in Wales by producing draft valuation lists by 1 September 2004 and compiled valuation lists by 31 March 2005.
  Prepare for the forthcoming revaluation of domestic properties in England by digitising data for 97.5 per cent. of properties by 31 March 2005 and, by 31 July 2004, evaluating

  63WS
  whether the automated valuation model can be utilised effectively for the banding of a minimum of 60 per cent. of dwellings.

  customer satisfaction
  Maintain customer satisfaction, based on annual surveys, at 86 per cent.

  Value for money
  Improve productivity by 2.5 per cent. in 2004–05 and achieve improvements of at least 15 per cent. by 2007–08.

  Land Services
  Achieve an increased fee income of £19.2 million ensuring that its share of VOA costs is covered.

  People satisfaction
  Improve staff satisfaction in working for the VOA in comparison with other places of work, based on annual surveys, by 1 per cent.

  Financial "break even"
  Recover full resource costs within Parliamentary approved estimates, including a return on capital of 3.5 per cent., from fees and charges.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Annual Report and Corporate Plan
  (Mr. David Blunkett)
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department We have today published the Home Office's 2004 Annual Report and 2004–05 Corporate Plan. Copies are available in the House Library and on the Home Office website. Both describe how the Home Office builds trust and security, by promoting cohesive communities and active citizenship; and through the effective enforcement of law, order and our borders. Both the report and the plan describe how these themes provide the context for all that we do, and contribute towards civil renewal. The report is primarily focused on 2003–04, setting out our performance against key targets and describing how our activities contributed towards them. The plan is focused on the present financial year, explaining how we will deliver better public services and how the Department is organising itself to deliver these.

  Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal center
  (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration The Government have today published the report of Stephen Shaw, the prisons and probation ombudsman, into the allegations of racism and abuse at Yarl's Wood immigration removal center, which were reported by the Daily Mirror in December. The report is available on the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) website at http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp?pageid = 4903. Copies of the report have been placed in the House Library.

  We are very grateful to Stephen Shaw for the speed and thoroughness of his investigation and for the comprehensive nature of his report.

  The investigation of this matter has revealed a number of disconcerting incidents at Yarl's Wood and confirmed that the principal allegations published by the Daily Mirror were correct. However, Stephen Shaw was able to establish that the remarks reported by the Daily Mirror were made by a small number of people at Yarl's
  64WS
  Wood and that there was no evidence to indicate a general culture of racism or the improper use of force at the center.

  Stephen Shaw's investigation was preceded by an internal investigation by Global Solutions Ltd. (GSL), the company contracted by IND to operate Yarl's Wood. This investigation resulted in the dismissal of one member of staff and the suspension of another, followed by his resignation. Stephen Shaw satisfied himself as to the thoroughness of the GSL investigation and the appropriateness of the action taken by the company thereafter.

  Stephen Shaw's report, which also covers the security implications of the journalist's undercover activity, contains 19 recommendations directed at GSL and ten recommendations directed at IND and the independent monitoring board (IMB) at Yarl's Wood. GSL have responded positively to the recommendations made to them. We have accepted all the recommendations, including that relating to the need to investigate an historical allegation of assault on a detainee, and IND officials will be working closely with GSL and the IMB to implement them.

DEFENCE

  Service Children's Education
  (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence The Chief Executive of Service Children's Education has been set the following Key Targets for 2004–05.

  KEY TARGET 1
  Sustain threshold level performance at each of the Key Stages 1, 2 and 3 by remaining at least 3 per cent. ahead of national (England) achievement.
  Sustain the percentage of pupils obtaining A*-C at GCSE as a three-year rolling average.
  Sustain the percentage of students obtaining A-E at "A" Level as a three-year rolling average.

  KEY TARGET 2
  Sustain SCE's notional position in the English Local Education Authority league tables, within the leading 25 (of 150) LEAs at each of Key Stages 1, 2 and 3.

  KEY TARGET 3
  At the higher levels of attainment (i.e. level 3+ at Key Stage 1, level 5+ at Key Stage 2, level 6+ at Key Stage 3) match national level of performance in 50 per cent. of the 12 subject elements in 2004, rising in equal steps to 66 per cent, in 2006.

  KEY TARGET 4
  For GCSE, show improvement in Average Points' scores by achieving at least the England "capped" upper quartile figure (38.8).

  KEY TARGET 5
  To achieve Grade 4 or above (on the OfSTED seven point scale) in at least 85 per cent. of schools inspected, in each of the following areas:

  Overall effectiveness of the School

  Overall standards achieved

  Pupils' attitudes, values and personal qualities

  The quality of education provided by the school

  The leadership and management of the school

  KEY TARGET 6

  65WS
  To demonstrate customer satisfaction with a survey result of 69 per cent. satisfaction or more from Army Continuous Attitude Surveys.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence During Standing Committee consideration of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill in February, concern was expressed that the Government should provide more independent oversight of the arrangements provided for the armed forces in this area. I made clear to Committee members that I recognised the intent behind these concerns and we have considered how we might respond. We have now decided that we will give the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) a role in externally validating the provisions of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS); we plan that this will be done in the context of their quinquennial valuation of the AFPS, though more frequent examinations of the scheme provisions could be undertaken if wider developments justified this.

  The broad intent is that the AFPRB would compare the scheme provisions with practice elsewhere in the economy and consider the extent to which they meet the recruitment and retention needs of the armed forces. The Review Body's observations would then be made public in a supplement to the following annual report and the Government would also make public their response to these observations. I am pleased to say that the Chairman of the Review Body and his colleagues have agreed to take on this additional responsibility and we are now in discussion on the detail to determine the timing of the first such review. I am confident that this change will provide for more independence in reviewing the terms of the AFPS while equally helping us to ensure coherence across the broader remuneration package, comprising both pay and pensions. It should also provide additional reassurance for service personnel by ensuring effective independent validation of the appropriateness of the pension provisions for our armed forces.

  Freedom of Information
  (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence The first duty under the Freedom of Information Act to be implemented by Government Departments was the requirement to prepare publication schemes. MOD's publication scheme is accessible via the internet at www.foi.mod.uk. Since the scheme was published in November 2002, we have continued to look for opportunities to extend the commitment to make information available proactively. To date, a further five classes of information have been added to the original publication scheme and a process for identifying and adding more is in place. The new classes cover information provided by the Army Historical Branch, the Naval Historical Branch, Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) Corporate Documents, Defence Data Definitions, and Defence Statistics.
  66WS
  As a further step in this process, I am announcing today that a new class of information will be included to require publication of the consolidated results of corporate level quantitative opinion surveys carried out to gauge the attitude of members of the public to the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces. The results of similar surveys undertaken internally with a random cross-section of the Department's own staff will also be published. The results of the external corporate level surveys undertaken since 1999 are also being placed in the Library of the House.

  From October 2004, we also plan to release the results of the continuous attitude surveys that are undertaken by each of the three services to measure the morale and understand the concerns of their personnel across a spectrum of issues. These surveys are sent out annually to a random sample of around 8,000 military personnel at all ranks. This commitment to publish the results of these surveys will also be reflected through a class of information in MOD's publication scheme.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC New Services Review
  (Tessa Jowell)
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport I have today announced the start of the independent reviews of the BBC's new digital radio and television services along with the names of the two individuals who will conduct these studies.

  The services concerned are: BBC Three; BBC Four; Cbeebies; CBBC; 1Xtra; BBC Asian Network; BBC Five Live Sports Extra; BBC 6 Music; and BBC 7. I have also published today the BBC's submission on these services, an electronic copy of which is available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I have announced previously my intention to appoint one reviewer for the digital television channels and one for the digital radio channels. I am pleased to be able to confirm the appointment of Patrick Barwise to the former position and Tim Gardam to the latter.

  The reviews will begin immediately and will run concurrently. In accordance with the conditions that I laid down when giving my approval for the BBC to develop these new digital services, both reviews will include both a period of public consultation and a market impact study. I have asked both reviewers to submit their reports to me by the end of August 2004.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Annual Report
  (Mr. John Prescott)
  The Deputy Prime Minister The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I are pleased to present the Annual Report of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for 2004 to Parliament. It sets out the achievements of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  The aim of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is to create sustainable communities—places where people want to live. It is about revitalising communities,

  67WS
  delivering sustainable economic growth, revitalising areas of neglect, improving the quality of local environment and protecting the countryside.

  This, our second annual report, details an impressive array of achievements in every area of our work. We are driving up the quality and supply of housing, speeding up the planning system, reducing the incidence of rough sleeping and the number of homeless families in B&B accommodation, improving our public spaces and giving people a bigger say in what happens in their regions. We are delivering strong, effective local government services and devolving power to local neighbourhoods. We are also renewing and regenerating neighbourhoods particularly in our most deprived areas and reducing social exclusion.
  68WS
  But we must not be complacent and we know more remains to be done. We will therefore continue to work hard to deliver our aim of creating sustainable communities that provide a better quality of life, now and in future generations.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Annual Report
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has made the following Ministerial Statement: "The learned Law Officer's Departments Departmental Report 2004" has today been published and laid before Parliament. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.