Sitting of 5 February 2004

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

    Bovine TB
    Mr. George Osborne: What steps her Department is taking to stop the spread of bovine tuberculosis in Cheshire. [152864]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): In view of the relatively low incidence of TB in Cheshire, not just herds neighbouring TB incidents but all herds within a 1 km radius of any incidents are tested, with a further extension of testing to a 2 km radius if the case is confirmed by post-mortem examination or laboratory culture. Cheshire is also included in the gamma interferon policy pilot. We will announce new proposals to help tackle TB soon.
    Mr. Osborne: My local farmers, and many others, feel that the Department has done too little, too late. I understand that it is publishing a draft strategy next week. Will the strategy include proposals to require pretesting of cattle moving from highly infected to less infected areas such as Cheshire, so that such areas can remain relatively disease free and there is a source for restocking in future?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect me to pre-empt what we might say next week. I think it is right for Parliament to know what the proposals are first, in full. His argument in favour of pre-movement testing is persuasive, but I do not think that what he says about the general policy on TB is fair. There are no quick fixes when it comes to animal diseases. For many years, cattle herds suffered from brucellosis. It affected a far bigger proportion of the herds than TB does now, and it took decades to eradicate. We are doing what we can, and I think that the strategy we will launch next week will show the way forward.
    Mr. David Drew: I look forward to the release of the strategy, but given the deluge of written questions to my hon. Friend from Conservative Members, would it not be useful for
    882
    Members to be briefed properly on the science behind TB so that we can really understand all the difficulties? Will my hon. Friend treat that as a matter of urgency? We need to have a proper discussion.
    Mr. Bradshaw: That is a good point. It had not escaped my notice that I had been deluged with written questions on the issue. I have offered my opposite number a technical briefing along the lines described by my hon. Friend, but so far he has not taken up the offer.
    Mr. Adrian Flook: On 8 January the Minister said in an Adjournment debate:
    "It may be a good idea to allow lay testing for the simple procedure of the skin test."—[Official Report, 8 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 504.]
    Can the Minister say when he will make that decision, and whether he thinks that lay testing could undermine excellent rural practices such as those of the Fieldhouses in Dulverton, which rely on such testing for valuable income that enables them to stay in rural areas?
    Mr. Bradshaw: In principle, we still believe that there is a strong argument in favour of lay testing, not least to help us deal with the backlog, but also to relieve practices that are under pressure. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the future of rural practices. Lay testing would not be forced on anyone; it would only be done if practices themselves chose to do it. We will make an announcement in due course.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Stopping the spread of TB in Cheshire and every other part of the United Kingdom is important to all of us. Has the Minister or his Department seen recently published claims that selenium and iodine used on farms have prevented TB from occurring on some farms?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I do not know of those findings, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has just pointed out from a sedentary position that he has been making that point for some time in regard to trace elements. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the findings.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: I thank the Minister and his officials for the way in which they have, so far, replied to the questions about TB that I have tabled. The Minister kindly invited me to go and see him. There is a big difference between questions being answered on the record and an informal chat. I may take up his offer at a later date, but I will continue to question him.
    I am sure that the Minister agrees that accurate diagnostics are vital to the control of any disease. I am sure that he also agrees that while the tuberculin test is a good herd test, in individual animals, sensitivity is only 60 to 65 per cent.—as opposed to 98.4 per cent., which has been achieved with gamma interferon in Australia. Why, then, has he not taken up the Independent Scientific Group's proposal to establish three groups of 50 herds in a major trial of the efficiency of gamma interferon? At present only a small number of field trials are being conducted, which is not satisfactory.
    Mr. Bradshaw: The gamma interferon test could not be taken in isolation; it would accompany the current

    883
    test. Although we have some sympathy with the ISG's wish to increase the science return, what it proposes would not only add to the logistical difficulties involved in the pilot, but raise ethical and legal issues. It would mean identifying disease but not acting on the information or informing herd owners.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Michael Jack: If she will make a statement on the proposals to implement the revised common agricultural policy. [152865]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I hope to make an announcement on the model for allocating entitlements under the new single payment scheme in England in the near future.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer, but she will realise that since 26 June—when she announced to the House the outcome of the Agriculture Council, detailing the largest single change to the CAP since it was envisaged—Parliament has remained silent on this issue. Can she explain why no debate has been afforded to this House, in Government time, to inform her thinking on this matter? As an announcement from her is imminent, could she draw to the House's attention her reaction to the letter that she received from Herr Fischler? It clearly indicated his wish that member states use the historical basis to determine the allocation of single payments, which goes against the line floated by Lord Whitty at the Oxford farming conference on 6 January.
    Margaret Beckett: First, the right hon. Gentleman correctly points out that the reform deal was agreed in June, and I am glad that he has at least recognised that it constitutes a very substantial reform. Of course, we then initiated a consultation process, and responses were received until—if I remember correctly—October or November. The responses were varied, a range of different views was expressed, and analysis of those views is being undertaken. I believe that I have reported that to the House on occasions such as this, and I know that I have made clear in exchanges across the Floor of the House the two biggest decisions: the full decoupling of subsidy from production; and the introduction of that change at the earliest possible date, in 2005.
    On the letter that I received from Herr Fischler—he has written to all member states—I have read it with care and discussed these issues with him. His concern is that an attempt should not be made artificially to redistribute support on other criteria. He is of course also concerned that in every member state we establish sound principles for future schemes that will be of benefit to the farming community as a whole.
    As for my noble Friend Lord Whitty's remarks at the Oxford conference, he made it clear that a range of issues has to be considered and weighed carefully. Indeed, such analysis and thinking is currently going on in the Department.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could assist in ensuring that the wealthiest of farmers, such as the Duke of
    884
    Westminster, do not benefit from CAP reform, and that support continues to be given to low-income farms and to tenant farmers, who struggle to make a living?
    Margaret Beckett: As I said a moment ago, the Commission has advised against seeking redistribution for its own sake; on the other hand, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of low-income farmers and those who are currently beset by difficulties. The impact of potential change on the various participants in the world of farming, particularly the most vulnerable, is precisely one of the factors that we are seeking to weigh very carefully.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: But is it not the case that even a reformed common agricultural policy will perpetuate grotesquely high food prices for consumers in the United Kingdom and maintain the distortion of international trade, which consciously, by means of protectionism and subsidies, ensures the impoverishment of primary agricultural producer countries in Latin America and elsewhere?
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right to suggest that the reform deal will not have a major impact on food prices. However, he is doubtless conscious of the fact that if the British Government are able to achieve the reforms that we are seeking through the World Trade Organisation—to be fair, the rest of the European Union is also seeking them—that could have an impact on food prices in the longer term. But I accept part of the point that he makes, in that the impact on consumers will not be as great as some had hoped.
    Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend's earlier answer to the substantive question will be welcomed in my part of the world. However, has her Department thought through the communications strategy, so that farmers, particularly those in the more remote areas such as the North York Moors national park, can fully understand the implications for their incomes, bearing in mind their particular status within the subsidy regime?
    Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My Department is giving careful consideration to how we can best communicate the implications of any proposals for farmers and farming communities. He and other hon. Members will know that we are slightly handicapped at the moment because some of the detailed regulations have not yet been produced. We are talking to the Commission and pressing it to come forward, which may help to shape the outcome.
    Mr. John Whittingdale:While it is clearly important to have widespread consultation on the matter, does the Secretary of State accept that the delay in announcing the decision is causing widespread uncertainty across the whole industry, and that it is also giving the Rural Payments Agency very little time to prepare for such an enormous change? Will she recognise that the vast majority of farmers have supported the case for decoupling, but on the basis of a historically based method of allocation? Whatever model is finally chosen,

    885
    the one thing that we must avoid is substituting one bureaucratic, complicated and costly system with another.
    Margaret Beckett: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's last remarks: we do want to avoid replacing one complicated and costly system with another, but we all recognise that there will be transitional issues. I am mindful of the impact on the Rural Payments Agency of the timing of any decisions, and we are constantly in touch with it. I accept that if the issue continued to drag on, it could become a cause of uncertainty, but farmers know the two most important points—that we intend to abandon the link between production and subsidy, and that we wish to do so as early as possible—and all our economic analysis suggests that that is what will have the greatest impact on our economy and the decisions that farmers take. Other factors are important, but less so in the scale of things. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we in no sense wish to delay the decision for any longer than is needed to assess all the implications of the decisions that we have to take for the farming community as a whole.

    GM Crops
    Tony Lloyd: If she will make a statement on her review of the scientific evidence on GM crops. [152866]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): We warmly welcome the final report of the GM science review and advice on the results of the farm-scale evaluations. We are now considering all the evidence and will set out our conclusions shortly.
    Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her response. I put it to her that the public are still sceptical about the value of GM crops, and that such scepticism is based on the view that it is not unscientific to hold to the proposition that the contamination of conventional or organic crops from GM plantings would have a long-term impact, which might be irretrievable and cause permanent damage to our economy and agricultural system. Will she take those views into account and ensure that she lays out the scientific evidence clearly if she wants to convince the doubting public that there is some benefit in GM crop plantings?
    Margaret Beckett: I assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing I would like more than to feel that the scientific evidence is fully in the public domain and for people to weigh it. I entirely accept his point that the public are sceptical about the value of some GM crops at the present time. Indeed, he will recall that the economic study carried out by the Prime Minister's strategy unit made the point that the present generation of crops that are available have only limited relevance, worth or impact in UK circumstances. It might perhaps be different in other parts of the world. Of course we take those concerns seriously, but my hon. Friend would accept, since we are talking about scientific evidence, that in a world where GM is extensively grown and
    886
    extensively available, we have to deal with the reality of its existence and not hope that somehow it can be totally wished away.
    Andrew George: In a written answer to me on 17 December, the Minister for the Environment confirmed that the relevant Government Departments had agreed to authorise the use of Bt11 GM maize, even though surveys show that less than 2 per cent. of the public support the use of GM in all circumstances. Does the Secretary of State understand that there is widespread unease about that, and about the other incremental steps that are being taken towards a momentous and irreversible decision on GM crops? Will she confirm that the Government will bring forward a clear policy on the matter before any other decisions are made, and that time will be made available for a debate on the Floor of the House, on a substantive motion?
    Margaret Beckett: We are not trying to pre-empt the outcome of the debate or to make major decisions before the appropriate policy statement can be laid before the public or the House. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman—as I have told the House in the past— that ongoing procedures for handling these matters exist in the EU. I am sure that he will recall that, not so long ago, the Government were being pressed by groups outside the House to make no response at all to requests for input or information about matters put before the EU as a whole by other member states. My advice to hon. Members was that, if we made no input, the assumption would be that we approved and that we had no queries or questions to raise. We have always continued to raise queries and concerns, where we felt that that was necessary. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no one is trying to pre-empt anything by stealth.
    Alan Simpson: The Secretary of State and her Ministers have assured the House constantly that the UK would not support GM crop plantings that were separate from a liabilities regime, irrespective of approval decisions made in this place or in Europe as a whole. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the question of liability for contamination will be cleared up before any plantings are approved or allowed in this country?
    Margaret Beckett: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is correct about what Ministers have said in the past, but he will know that we received the independent advisory committee report on contamination and co-existence under the liability only very recently. We are considering it at the moment. We are of course anxious to weigh these difficult and major issues properly, and I hope that we will be able to comment on them in the not too distant future. However. I assure him that we are mindful of the interaction of these issues, both in the minds of the public and in reality.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The Secretary of State talks about dealing with the reality of GM crops, but I draw her attention to a report published this week by the University of Glamorgan, which found that a large amount of supermarket-bought organic food contained traces of GM. The traces were large enough

    887
    to be detected, but below the 0.9 per cent. level at which labelling for GM is required. Does that not imply that, before there are any further developments in the UK in connection with GM, we need a proper regime for labelling GM crops? Should not that regime also provide for the labelling of organic foods, and the preservation of the organic sector? Does she agree that procedures for liability and compensation must be in place before any further steps are taken?
    Margaret Beckett: I was not aware of the study to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I look forward with interest to hearing about it, assuming that it has been peer reviewed and is considered to be valid. He will know, I am sure, that a strong regime already exists in EU and British law for traceability and labelling. As he appreciates, that regime has a threshold trigger of 0.9 per cent. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman meant to, but in a sense he has emphasized—in spades—the point that I made some moments ago. If the results that he reports are correct, GM presence in the UK is an issue, even though no GM crops are being grown here at present. That confirms my view that we cannot simply wish away this technology.
    Chris Bryant: Does my right hon. Friend worry that many people's objections to GM crops contain an element of Luddism, and that some people deliberately hype up the fears about GM? Does she feel that, in addition to ensuring that there is a good labelling regime, the best way forward is to make sure that people understand fully the scientific benefits, as well as the economic ones, that GM crops could bring to the UK and to many developing countries? Will she go out and preach the message a little bit more?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend expresses his views with his customary vigour. All the reports from the Prime Minister's strategy unit on the economics of the issues and from the science review indicate that there are concerns and potential problems, which must be addressed by strong and sound scientifically based legislation. In the longer term, however, there may be potential benefits not only in this country but elsewhere across the world. My reading of the response to the public dialogue is that people are conscious of that potential, although their concerns remain and must be addressed.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that one reason for the public disquiet is that only one of the three trialled crops was cleared? Cross-pollination is a particular problem that has not been tackled, and it will affect the highly regarded and lucrative niche market in organics. Will she support the draft Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), which comes before the House on 26 March?
    Margaret Beckett: I have not studied the draft Bill, but I will do so as a matter of great urgency. The public's unease is not a result of one of the crops in our trials showing different results from the other three; it was there before the trials were set up, and we must take it seriously and understand it. Although the hon. Lady
    888
    states that one of the crops in the trials was cleared, the immediate response from some who commented was that none of them should be cleared, so there is clearly resistance in some quarters.
    The hon. Lady made an important point about the potential for cross-pollination. One of my concerns—this is why I told my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) that we must get as much of the science as possible into the public domain—is that sometimes people are given the impression that cross-pollination difficulties will occur irrespectively, but that is not necessarily the case because different questions arise if a crop does not have wild relatives or does not readily cross-pollinate. I do not mean that there are no questions, but there is greater uncertainty and difference than is sometimes conveyed.

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Richard Bacon: How many people are employed by (a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for which her Department is responsible. [152867]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): DEFRA employs around 7,000 people and a further 6,430 are employed in its agencies. 14,450 people are employed by DEFRA's 19 executive non-departmental public bodies and 2,100 people are employed by our two public corporations.
    Mr. Bacon: DEFRA has 12 in-house delivery agents, 15 inspectorates, six executive agencies, 19 executive non-departmental public bodies, 29 non-executive non-departmental bodies, two public corporations and representatives in eight of the nine Government offices for the regions. One of those representatives recently told farmers in my constituency that her role was not to deliver programmes but
    "to provide strategic input into a multiplicity of strategies"—
    whatever that may mean.
    Does the Minister agree with Lord Haskins, who told the Government last October that there is room for streamlining in the Department? If he agrees with Lord Haskins, when will it happen?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated her acceptance of the thrust of Lord Haskins's report immediately after its publication and said that we would work very hard on its implementation, which we are doing. The list that he has just reeled off indicates DEFRA's wide range of responsibilities across the environment, farming, food and general rural affairs. We first had representatives in the Government offices for the regions when DEFRA was set up, and the delivery of specific programmes lies with specific organisations such as the Rural Payments Agency and the Rural Development Service.
    Andrew Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend consider reducing the number of people employed in the Countryside Agency, or encouraging the agency to do so and use of some of the

    889
    money saved to make grants available so that we can make the legislation on access to the countryside a practicality in the summer? If those grants were available to provide stiles and other access to land, it would make a great difference.
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend points to an element that was considered carefully by Lord Haskins and on which we are working. He will be aware that the proposals involved the creation of a single integrated agency for issues such as land management, biodiversity and so on. That would have an impact on the Countryside Agency, and we also intend to move towards greater regional and local delivery of services. The points that he makes are valid and we will consider them as we work through the programme of reform to which the Haskins report has given rise.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: One of the most important agencies of DEFRA is the state veterinary service, which is the greatly overstretched front line for biosecurity in this country. Will the Minister consider the staffing levels of the service and see what can be done to arrest the decline that occurred year on year under the previous Government? I should remind the House that my wife is a practising veterinary surgeon, although in private practice.
    Alun Michael: We keep the numbers in the state veterinary service under review. The figure at the moment is 1,399, which is considerably lower than the numbers at the time of foot and mouth disease, when staffing levels were greatly expanded. As the hon. Gentleman reminds us, there was a reduction under the previous Government. We certainly keep the numbers under review.
    Paddy Tipping: Does my right hon. Friend accept that staff in the Department and its agencies will be affected in one way or another by Lord Haskins's review? As my right hon. Friend said, an initial announcement has been made, but is there not a danger from a lack of strategic planning—a sort of planning blight—unless final decisions are made fairly quickly? Will he confirm that the full implementation of the Haskins recommendations would require primary legislation, of which there is little early chance?
    Alun Michael: When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State initially responded to the Haskins report, she rightly said that primary legislation would be required to change the legal status of agencies or to create a new agency with independent status, but much can be done through co-ordination and co-working. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working with leading people in the Countryside Agency, English Nature and other affected organizations—including the Rural Development Service, which is part of DEFRA at the moment. Lord Haskins recommended that the RDS, as a delivery arm, should be linked to English Nature and the new integrated agency. The Organisations are working well together and I am impressed by the high quality and motivation of staff in DEFRA and its agencies, and by the way in which they seek to improve the quality of the service that they give to their
    890
    customers and the public. After all, that is what we were trying to achieve through the review by Lord Haskins, which should be set in a renewal of rural strategy, to which my right hon. Friend has said she will return in the course of this year.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: It is now nearly three months since Lord Haskins published his report reviewing the work of all the agencies included in the structure of DEFRA. Within a day of it being published, Lord Haskins summarised the findings of his 172-page report in six simple words, when he described DEFRA as a
    "dog's dinner of the highest order".
    When the Minister last answered a written question on headcount, he said that information on staffing numbers at the Environment Agency and the Countryside Agency were not available, and that the information on non-departmental public bodies was not held centrally. Does not the lack of clarity in the staffing numbers at DEFRA show that it is a dog's dinner, the content of which is a mystery?
    Alun Michael: That is a real dog's dinner of a question. The hon. Lady might well have said that it is only three months since Lord Haskins reported and considered the complexity of issues involved in dealing properly with staff and maintaining services to customers and the public. The Countryside Agency employs about 665 people, some of whom will be working in areas that Lord Haskins recommended should go into the integrated agency. The Environment Agency employs more than 10,000 staff, dealing with a wide range of issues—environmental protection, fisheries, navigation and so on. The hon. Lady should consider some of the complexities that we, as a Department, have to address.

    Avian Influenza
    Michael Fabricant: What precautions are in place to prevent the infection of the national flock of chickens with bird influenza virus; and if she will make a statement. [152869]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The Government have banned imports from all the affected countries of all live birds, unprocessed poultry meat, and other bird products capable of transmitting the avian flu virus.
    Michael Fabricant: I thank the Minister for his answer. Of course, he gave a fuller answer when he answered the urgent question last Wednesday. Thankfully, answering that question, he said that
    "the risk of the disease being transmitted to the UK poultry flock is low",
    but that as an additional precaution he would be
    "asking ports to be extra vigilant and to prohibit the importation of consignments that do not fully comply with the rules."—[Official Report, 28 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 313.]
    I hate coming back to the same old subject, but the Minister will have read the Home Office reports on the integrity of British ports. He has said in the House on a

    891
    number of previous occasions that there are now two sniffer dogs to detect the illegal importation of poultry and beef and that eventually there will be six. There are more than 100 ports. When will he stop being complacent—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is far too long.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Not only long, Mr. Speaker, but repetitive. As I have told the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) several times, that is a matter for Customs and Excise, which is doing an excellent job; it is hugely increasing the amount it spends on checking at airports and trebling the number of sniffer dogs. In the next financial year, Customs will hugely increase the amount of money it spends on those things.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to my question to the Minister on his statement last Wednesday, has he had any joy from Professor Ian Maudlin and the Roslin Institute or, indeed, any other leading research department in Britain, in order to help those countries that have a heck of a problem?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, indeed. Immediately after the urgent question last week, I asked my officials to make contact with the institute to which my hon. Friend referred. Those contacts have been made, and I am sure that such help and expertise will help not only us but the whole international community in addressing this serious problem.
    David Burnside: Until the threat of this foreign virus is removed, will the Minister give a commitment to contact personally the chairmen of Tesco, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury and all our major supermarket chains—indeed, he could even write to Colonel Sanders of KFC—to ask that those chains stock only good, healthy, fresh British chickens?
    Mr. Bradshaw:I think it would be very wrong if the House were left with the impression that it is unsafe to eat the chicken products on the shelves of our supermarkets. That is not the case. The Food Standards Agency has made it absolutely clear that there is no risk at all of catching avian flu from consuming chicken products. The products that I outlined have been banned for import anyway. However, I always advise, as I did last week in answer to the urgent question, that consumers should buy British.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend will be aware that avian influenza can be devastating to susceptible birds. In my constituency, there are a number of small poultry farms. Is my hon. Friend sure that the DEFRA information pack has reached those small farmers so that they are aware of what to look out for?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I very much hope so, but after Question Time I shall check that it has. My hon. Friend is right but, as I said last week, it is also the case that the threat to our flocks from avian flu was much more serious last year when there was an outbreak across the
    892
    channel in the Netherlands. It is highly unlikely that there will be any infection in our flocks as a result of an outbreak in south-east Asia, but we are taking all the necessary precautions available to us. However, my hon. Friend is right—any outbreak would be extremely serious.

    GM Crops
    Joan Ruddock: When GM maize will be licensed for commercial growing in the UK. [152871]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Decisions on applications to release particular GM crops for commercial cultivation in the European Union, including the UK, are subject to collective EU agreement under the procedures and timetable set down in EC directive 2001/18 and are made on a case-by-case basis. EU-wide licences for three types of GM maize were granted in 1997–98. However, none can yet be grown commercially in the UK because no variety of those three types of GM maize has been added to either the UK national list of seeds or the EU common catalogue.
    Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. As she indicates, there is a step—listing on the UK national seeds list. Can she tell the House when the meeting will take place; what discussions she has already had with her counterparts in the devolved Assembly and Parliament; and when indeed she expects pesticide approval to be granted? I understand that those would be the only remaining steps necessary for GM maize to be granted approval by this country—even though, as she says, there is an EU dimension.
    Margaret Beckett: I cannot tell my hon. Friend that. All I can say is that she correctly identifies some of the steps that have to be taken. We have had discussions—I anticipate that we will have further discussions—with the devolved bodies about those issues, which, as she says, concern all of us, but I merely remind her that, as I said in my answer, the licensing of those crops was undertaken in 1997–98.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: If scientific evidence shows that organic farms become contaminated by GM maize or other GMOs, thereby losing their price premium, who will compensate those organic farmers?
    Margaret Beckett: That is the nub of the issues that people are discussing and on which we have some advice already from the independent agricultural advisory committee. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that, of course, we have to take account of what are the possibilities of what is described as the contamination of conventional food or organic food by GM crops. Of course procedures are in place to try to protect the purity of organic crops against conventional crops, so we are considering the mechanisms that already exist and what should happen if problems arise.

    Ridgeway
    Mr. David Rendel: If she will make a statement on protection of the Ridgeway. [152872]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael):Over the past year, I have held several meetings—most recently on 28 January—with local MPs, including the hon. Gentleman, Members of the House of Lords and the local highway authorities to address the problems of damage to the surface of the trail by vehicular traffic. The Ridgeway management group, which consists of the Countryside Agency and local highway authorities, has produced an action plan that includes measures to repair and protect the surface of the trail, such as the use of traffic regulation orders by local highway authorities. For example, Wiltshire county council is introducing such an order for Smeathe's ridge.
    Mr. Rendel: I thank the Minister very much for the sterling work that he is doing to try to protect the Ridgeway—I think that all the MPs concerned would agree with that—but may I ask him what is the comparative cost of introducing one TRO for the entire Ridgeway compared with each local authority having to introduce its own TRO?
    Alun Michael: That issue was raised at the meeting last week, and I have asked officials to look at it, but one of the problems is that the controls of activities can succeed only if they are appropriate to the different paths and conditions at various points along the Ridgeway. In some places, the existence of mechanised vehicles on the Ridgeway causes immense problems; in others, it does not. Local support, as well as the support of all the local authorities, is required if any arrangement is to work. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would encourage them, as I have done, to work together locally.
    Mr. Robert Key: The Minister knows that Wiltshire county council has spent a great deal of time and money on the Ridgeway on behalf of our communities, but that the Ridgeway is only one example among many thousands of the extremely delicate heritage routes across our country. Does he agree that we must grasp the problem in a far more determined manner? It is not just about repairing damaged tracks and so on; it is about telling the people who use those tracks that they are as much a part of our heritage as a great building and that it is not appropriate to plough them up with motor vehicles, when we should be looking after them as though they were indeed national monuments.
    Alun Michael: I warmly welcome what the hon. Gentleman says and encourage him and any of his constituents who care about the issues as he does to make their views known in response to the consultation that I recently launched on the use of motorised vehicles. I am receiving a lot of correspondence from Members of the House, but some correspondents suggest that there is no need to tackle the issue. The hon. Gentleman has illustrated why the consultation was necessary. Of course we need to examine carefully every opinion and
    894
    piece of evidence that comes in, and I strongly encourage people to respond because I agree with him about the importance of the matter.
    Mr. James Gray: The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the consultation period has already closed, so it might be too late for people to respond. None the less, does he agree that under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, there is a real risk that thousands of miles of RUPPS—roads used as public paths—are being reclassified as byways open to all traffic, which means that they will become permanently available for those scourges of the quiet enjoyment of the countryside: four-wheel-drive vehicles and motor cycles? Will he take steps to reclassify all byways open to all traffic as restricted byways throughout England, thereby preserving the peace and quiet of our rural lanes for all time?
    Alun Michael: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the issue, and I hope that we will have his assistance and that of Opposition Members when we take forward the outcome of the consultation. Representations are still coming in and will be considered within the consultation—it is important that everyone has the opportunity to contribute. Given that there is something like a month to go on the consultation, I am pleased that the matter has been highlighted in the House today so that everyone, whatever their interest, will know about the consultation and contribute to it.

    Fuel Poverty
    David Taylor: What assessment she has made of the conclusions of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group regarding the funding provided for the warm front programme. [152873]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): We are grateful to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group for its report and recommendations. Funding for the next financial year will be of the order of £150 million. Funding requirements beyond that will be decided as part of the 2004 spending round, taking into account representations by the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group and also the comments of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.
    David Taylor: The Government have a statutory target to eradicate fuel poverty from vulnerable households by 2010, and the 2003 annual report of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, which is published today, recognises that significant progress has been made toward that target. However, it says that expenditure on programmes such as that to which my question refers needs to be upped by 50 per cent. in the coming years, especially to help the integration of Government Departments' activities, to focus on the private rented sector, to supply gas when possible and to give more measurable targets in the spending round. Is the Secretary of State hopeful that that will happen—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Enough.
    Margaret Beckett: I think my hon. Friend's complaint was that it is not enough, Mr. Speaker.

    895
    I simply say to my hon. Friend that we have read, and will study, the report with great interest. I recognise that the concerns that he expresses are contained in the report, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging how much progress has already been made. He knows that some of the concerns that we have identified to which we will need to give careful consideration are criticisms that not all the programme has been directed at the fuel poor. There is a distinction between people who are vulnerable—no one disputes their vulnerability—and those who are specifically fuel poor. We shall have to give careful consideration to all those issues.
    Mr. Eric Forth: When considering this rather peculiar concept of fuel poverty, will the Secretary of State tell us how much consideration is given to the individual lifestyles and spending priorities of those who claim to be in fuel poverty? Does it not seem rather odd that we have a concept of so-called fuel poverty, but that we do not have one of food poverty or any other specific kind of poverty? How on earth can the scheme be made to work in isolation from individuals taking responsibility for their own spending priorities in their own households?
    Margaret Beckett: I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is some 20 or 30 years since people were first able to identify the specific concept of fuel poverty, which is related not only to people's spending priorities but to the condition of their housing and the natural tendency, in a sense, for people who are especially vulnerable, such as the elderly and frail, to be those who live in poor, run-down housing. I assure him not only that a great deal of work has been done to identify the problem of fuel poverty, but that the Government have done much to address it and intend to do more.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that although many elderly people in my constituency and many other parts of the country have benefited from the programme, some of those most in need fear pressure from doorstep salesmen, because they do not distinguish one thing from another and are afraid that they might be conned into getting into debt, whereas the scheme is designed to help them?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, he is right that over 700,000 households have received assistance from the warm front scheme. Secondly, he is right to identify the concerns felt particularly by some elderly people. I shall take his remarks into account when we consider the design and communication of any new scheme.

    Swill Feeders
    Mr. Boris Johnson: If she will compensate previously licensed swill feeders. [152874]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): No.
    Mr. Johnson: Given that feeding scraps to pigs is perfectly safe, environmentally friendly and has been
    896
    going on ever since man domesticated animals; given that the 62 licensed swill feeders were encouraged by DEFRA to invest thousands of pounds in new equipment before the ban; and given that since the ban an extra 1.7 million tonnes of biodegradable stuff is being sent to landfill or washed down the sewers, is it not the Minister's duty, in all logic, to compensate those 62 licensed swill feeders or to lift that ridiculous and hysterical ban?
    Mr. Bradshaw: No. Such an act would be grossly irresponsible, as the cause of the £8 billion foot and mouth epidemic in this country related to exactly the practice that the hon. Gentleman is so keen to support.
    Mr. George Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that the problem was caused by one pig farmer, not all of them? As the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) rightly said, the vast majority of those farmers were operating on the advice of the Department and in a fit and proper manner, have never had any compensation and are being unfairly treated, compared to others. If the current investigation by the ombudsman finds that they have been unfairly treated, will he consider compensating them?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I do not intend to pre-empt what the parliamentary ombudsman may or may not say in response to my hon. Friend's doughty campaign on behalf the pig-swillers in his constituency, but it is not right to say that they have been treated unfairly. There is an enormous risk involved in the practice, which is why it has been banned not just in this country but across the whole of the European Union. It may have been the fault of only one irresponsible owner, but our strong scientific advice is that there is no need for the practice, and that the risk that we would be incurring by continuing with it, given the devastation caused by the foot and mouth outbreak, does not warrant a continuation of the practice.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: How does the Minister account for the fact that the plethora of new food regulations is outpaced only by the number of popular foods that we are almost weekly told it is unsafe for us to eat? Has thought been given to the possibility that the dangers of food poisoning, which are undoubtedly real, derive less from the farm-level producers, such as licensed swill dealers, than from the activities of international big business, such as the great pharmaceutical companies and, to take a recent example, the development of mass production of farmed salmon?
    Mr. Bradshaw: No.

    Biofuels Industry
    Norman Lamb: If she will make a statement on progress in developing a biofuels industry. [152875]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): Following the reduction in the duty rate for biodiesel introduced in

    897
    July 2002, around 2 million litres of biodiesel are currently sold each month in the UK. Half of that comes from U K-sourced recycled vegetable oil. The remainder comes from finished product imported from elsewhere in Europe. The construction of the Argent plant near Motherwell will add a further 50 million litres annually to UK production.
    Norman Lamb: I thank the Minister for his response. In view of the fact that the duty cut on bioethanol that comes into force next January will not give rise to any domestic production of bioethanol, will he support the amendment to the Energy Bill tabled in the House of Lords, as it would introduce a clear road transport fuel obligation?
    Alun Michael: A number of companies are actively considering the production of biodiesel from, for example, UK-grown oilseed rape, and the Department for Transport will shortly consult on the UK's targets for the use of biofuels under the EU biofuels directive.

    Sudden Oak Death
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What progress is being made in preventing the spread of sudden oak death. [152876]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We are continuing to survey and take eradication action against phytophthora ramorum, the cause of sudden oak death. Spending by DEFRA and the Forestry Commission has increased by approximately 50 per cent. on eradication, import control and research into this very worrying disease.
    Mr. Swayne: Notwithstanding that increase in expenditure, the tenor of representations that I have received from nurserymen from the National Farmers Union and the New Forest Committee is that given the catastrophic effects of the disease, the Government's response has been complacent, at least in respect of imports. What can the Minister say to counter that criticism?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I reject it entirely. This Government, as I learned this week on a visit to California, the part of the world most severely affected by the disease, have acted more swiftly than any other Government, not just across the Atlantic but also in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the seriousness of the disease, and we very much appreciate the co-operation we have had from the nursery industry. We are in discussion with it, and have been throughout. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has drawn the disease to the attention of the House, because it is not an exaggeration to say that it has the potential to be at least as devastating to our landscape as Dutch elm disease a generation ago.
    Hugh Robertson: But it is not only oak trees that are under threat. The national orchard—the nation's supply of fruit trees—
    898
    has declined by a staggering 25 per cent. since 1997. Bearing in mind the fact that those trees are good for the environment and that the people who farm them are unsubsidised and produce food that is good for the nation's diet, what steps is the Minister taking to encourage people to plant more fruit trees?
    Mr. Bradshaw: That has nothing to do with sudden oak death. There is no evidence, either here or in the United States, that fruit trees are susceptible to the disease.

    Landfill Sites
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: What steps are being taken to tackle the effects of pollution from landfill sites. [152877]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): There are strict controls on landfill sites aimed at preventing or reducing any negative impact on the environment. In the spring, we will publish a review of the environmental and health effects of waste management, which brings together existing literature and evidence on the health and environmental effects of waste management, and will provide a valuable side-by-side comparison of different waste management options.
    Mrs. Calton: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he consider keeping a register of all sites containing materials harmful to human health, and make it a criminal offence to withhold information, whatever the source, about the tipping of such materials, either now or in the past?
    Alun Michael: I am not sure what examples the hon. Lady is pointing to that are not already covered by controls on tipping. As she will understand, we are doing our best both to get a proper fix on the health impact and reduce the UK's reliance on landfill. If she has specific examples that she would like to draw to my attention one of my ministerial colleagues or I would be happy to respond.
    Norman Baker: The Minister said that there are strict controls on landfill, but is he aware that in 2002 there were 285 major landfill pollution incidents? Only one in 200 incidents resulted in a fine for the operator, averaging just £6,000, which is a pittance to landfill operators. Is not the message from the Government that the polluter does not pay, and what is the Minister going to do about it?
    Alun Michael: I have just suggested that we want a better informed understanding of the environmental effects of waste management and a reduction in the UK's reliance on landfill. The figures that the hon. Gentleman referred to are a matter of concern, and I can assure him that they are kept under review both by DEFRA and the Environment Agency.

    Operation Gangmaster
    Mr. Peter Luff: If she will make a statement on her Department's involvement in Operation Gangmaster. [152879]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): DEFRA staff are involved when required in Operation Gangmaster activities, on which the Department for Work and Pensions takes the lead.
    Mr. Luff: The Minister will know that there is concern that Operation Gangmaster is not an effective mechanism to deal with the activities of rogue gangmasters. Could he tell the House whether the Government intend to support the Gangmasters
    900
    (Licensing) Bill, which is due for its Second Reading on Friday 27 February, or do they prefer more effective enforcement of the current regulatory regime? If it is the latter, they must put more effort into doing so.
    Alun Michael: Results are coming out of the work. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions identified 235 overpayments and 1,023 adjustments to benefit worth £405.000, securing 138 sanctions and prosecutions. Figures show that the Inland Revenue's success in relation to unpaid tax and national insurance is worth £4.3 million. Steps are being taken that are producing results. However, I recognise hon. Members' interest in taking further measures to deal with gangmasters, and we are carefully considering, with colleagues in other Departments, the private Member's Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill.
TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "The State of the Environment" followed by a debate on local taxation. Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
WEDNESDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Motion to approve the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2004 followed by Opposition half-day [5th Allotted Day] (1st Part). There will be half-day debate entitled "Confusion Over the Powers of the Proposed Elected Regional Assemblies" on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill followed by a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The provisional business for the week after the half term week will be:
MONDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of a Bill.
TUESDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Motions relating the Draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2004 and the Draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2004 followed by Opposition half-day [5th Allotted Day] (2nd Part). There will be a half-day-debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Report from the Privy Counsellor Review Committee on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
THURSDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Employment Relations Bill followed by a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
Following is the information:

PAC REPORTS 2002–03

Report No

Title of Report

Publication Date

1st

Collecting the Television Licence Fee

18 Dec. 2002

2nd

Dealing with Pollution from Ships

9 Jan. 2003

3rd

Tobacco Smuggling

10 Jan. 2003

4th

Private Finance Initiative: Redevelopment of MOD main Building

30 Jan. 2003

5th

The 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease

14 March 2003

6th

Ministry of Defence: Exercise Saif Sareea II

12 March 2003

7th

Excess Votes 2001–02

19 March 2003

902

PAC REPORTS 2002–03

Report No

Title of Report

Publication Date

8th

Excess Votes (Northern Ireland) 2001–02

19 March 2003

9th

The Office for National Statistics: Outsourcing the 2001 Census

26 March 2003

10th

Individual Learning Accounts

4 April 2003

11th

Facing the Challenge: NHS Emergency Planning in England

16 April 2003

12th

Tackling Pension Poverty: Encouraging Take-up of Entitlements

9 April 2003

13th

Ministry of Defence: Progress in Reducing Stocks

11 April 2003

14th

Royal Mint Trading Fund 2001–02 Accounts

17 April 2003

15th

OPRA: Tackling the Risks to Pension Scheme Members

2 May 2003

16th

Improving Public Services through Innovation: The Invest to Save Budget

9 May 2003

17th

Helping victims and witnesses: the work of Victim Support

8 May 2003

18th

Reaping the Rewards of Agricultural Research

16 May 2003

19th

The PFI contract for the redevelopment of West Middlesex University Hospital

6 June 2003

20th

Better public services through call centres

5 June 2003

21st

The operations of HM Customs and Excise in 2001–02

12 June 2003

22nd

PFI refinancing update

13 June 2003

23rd

Innovation in the NHS—the acquisition of the Heart Hospital

18 June 2003

24th

Community Legal Service: The Introduction of Contracting

20 June 2003

25th

Protecting the Public from Waste

25 June 2003

26th

Safety, quality, efficacy: regulating medicines in the UK

26 June 2003

27th

The management of substitution cover for teachers

26 June 2003

28th

Delivering better value for money from the Private Finance Initiative

19 June 2003

29th

Inland Revenue: Tax Credits and tax debt management

2 July 2003

30th

Department for International Development: Maximising impact in the Water Sector

3 July 2003

31st

Report Tackling Benefit Fraud

4 July 2003

32nd

The Highways Agency: Maintaining England's Motorways and trunk roads

11 July 2003

33rd

Ensuring the effective discharge of older patients from NHS acute hospitals

17 Sept. 2003

34th

The Office of Fair Trading: progress in protecting consumers' interests

9 July 2003

35th

PFI Construction Performance

16 July 2003

36th

Improving service quality: Action in response to the Inherited SERFS problem

17 July 2003

37th

Ministry of Defence: The Construction of nuclear submarine facilities at Devonport

10 Sept. 2003

38th

Department of Trade and Industry: Regulation of weights and measures

10 July 2003

903

PAC REPORTS 2002–03

Report No

Title of Report

Publication Date

39th

A safer place to work: Protecting NHS hospital and ambulance staff from violence and aggression

23 July 2003

40th

Improving social housing through transfer

24 July 2003

41st

Modernising procurement in the Prison Service

18 Sept. 2003

42nd

A safer work place to work: Improving the management of health and safety risks to staff in NHS Trusts

15 Oct. 2003

43rd

Fisheries enforcement in England

13 Nov. 2003

44th

New IT Systems for Magistrates Courts: The Libra project

11 Nov. 2003

45th

Protecting public health and consumer interests in relation to food: the Food Standards Agency

27 Nov. 2003

46th

Ministry of Defence: Building an air manoeuvre capability: the introduction of the Apache Helicopter

18 Nov. 2003

47th

Film Council: Improving access to, and education about, the moving image through the British Film Institute

4 Dec. 2003

48th

The Public Private Partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd

9 Dec. 2003

49th

The operational performance of PFI prisons

2 Dec. 2003

Mr. Heald: Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the Doorkeepers and Badge Messengers in the Public Gallery for their speedy work in dealing with yesterday's disturbances?
I was a bit surprised to see that on 23 February we are to have the "Second Reading of a Bill", particularly in the light of the Leader of the House's recent comments that the Opposition were not giving him enough notice of our business.
The Leader of the House will be aware of the anxiety faced by the many thousands of people with Equitable Life pensions. Why are we still waiting for the publication of the Penrose report on the Treasury's regulation of that insurer? The Financial Secretary has said that the report is with the Treasury and that it will be published in full. Can the Leader of the House confirm that and tell us when?
In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), a true parliamentarian, told us that although Lord Hutton cross-examined John Scarlett in public, the Foreign Affairs Committee was refused access to him; and that when the Committee requested drafts of the dossier, it was refused them, yet Lord Hutton put them on the world wide web. Is it not time for the Leader of the House to insist to his colleagues, not least the Prime Minister, that our Committees are properly treated?
Lord Birt is an adviser to the Prime Minister. It seems that he has an office in the Cabinet Office, at public expense, that is so imposing that it even has its own staircase—yet he refuses to give evidence to the Public Administration Committee about his job. If his role is to make occasional speeches in support of the Prime Minister, as he did yesterday, should he not come along
904
to the Committee and say so? Why should there be such secrecy and disrespect for Parliament? What will the Leader of the House do to strengthen our Committees?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us that he did not realise, even on the eve of battle, that the 45-minute claim related only to battlefield weapons. On the face of it, he wrongly believed that our bases in Cyprus were at imminent risk of missile attack, just as the newspapers reported. Yet later in the debate, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who is in his place, and the Secretary of State for Defence told us that they knew that that was not true. Why did they not tell the Prime Minister? We need a Prime Minister's statement to clear that up. If he led us to war, falsely believing in an imminent risk that did not exist, and his senior Ministers knew that he was wrong, that is monumental incompetence. We are entitled and need to know what happened so that it never happens again.
Mr. Hain: First, I endorse the thanks of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and add those of the whole House to the Doorkeepers for the speedy way in which they acted, as they always do. I am a great fan of theirs.
On the Second Reading of a Bill, the hon. Gentleman is right that I normally try to give full details of the second week's business. However, we are considering a week after the half-term recess.
Mr. Eric Forth: So?
Mr. Hain: The former shadow Leader of the House asks, "So?" in his normal, mischievous fashion. The answer is clear. If I were in a position to provide the information, I would have done that. As soon as I am in a position to give it—I hope that that will be at business questions next week—I shall do that. There will be an interval when the House is in recess when hon. Members can take the matter forward.
Mr. Forth: Pathetic.
Mr. Hain: It is not pathetic, but a sign of a Government who want to tell the House about the way in which their legislative programme is proceeding. We await news of progress in the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman would do better to start talking to his Tory friends and the hereditaries in the House of the Lords who continually try to delay Government legislation. Their record on scrutiny of Government legislation is pathetic, to use his word. The House of Commons has a much better record of scrutinising legislation than the House of Lords. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Luff, there is something wrong with you. You should not shout like that.
Mr. Hain: On Equitable Life, the Treasury is studying the Penrose report, as I said previously. We will present an account to the House as soon as we can because many hon. Members and constituents are worried about the matter.
Lord Hutton's report did not satisfy the Conservatives demand for blood in the Government. That is why they continue to complain about it.

905
Conservative Front-Bench Members have displayed a certain ambiguity about whether they regard Lord Hutton's report as good and whether they respect his position as an impartial judge. Do they or do they not? We ought to know.
On who was questioned in public for the Hutton report and who was questioned by the House Committees, I strongly agree that those Committees, including the Intelligence and Security Committee, should have access to all the intelligence. That Committee, together with Lord Hutton's inquiry, saw all the intelligence that there was to see. Both reviewed it and neither delivered the verdict that the Conservatives and their supporters in the media wanted, but that is a problem for them, not Lord Hutton or the Intelligence and Security Committee.
As for strengthening Select Committees, the Prime Minister, who leads our Government, has appeared before the Liaison Committee, which comprises all the Chairmen of Select Committees, to answer questions on a range of issues. Our Prime Minister has been more accountable to Select Committees than any Prime Minister in the history of Parliament since Select Committees were established. I shall therefore take no lessons in accountability from the shadow Leader of the House. Indeed, we have strengthened Select Committees' resources and we encourage them to continue their work.
On the question of Lord Birt, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am awaiting the report and any recommendations and representations from the Liaison Committee over the Osmotherly rules and the position of officials—whether civil servants or special advisers—in their accountability or otherwise to Select Committees. I have promised the Liaison Committee that if I receive representations from it, I will look at them. That covers that point, except in this respect—Lord Birt is a former chief executive, a former director-general, of the BBC so it is absolutely right that he should say what he believes, particularly in the wake of the controversy in the BBC. Again, there is persistent mischief making.
On the 45-minute issue, there is an unholy alliance between opponents of the war and the Conservatives and their allies in the media who supported the war. They are using the latest bandwagon to cause mischief and spread confusion on the issue. The truth is that all the intelligence, including on this matter, was available to Lord Hutton; all the intelligence, including on this matter, was available to the ISC. The Conservatives are now, through the prism of Andrew Gilligan's false "Today" programme report, trying to rewrite history. The truth is that Saddam Hussein, as we know from United Nations inspections and our own intelligence, possessed huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction over the years—[Interruption.] Yes he did, and even Leaders of the Conservative party are on record as having said that. The former Leader of the Conservative party is consistently on record as being persuaded of that, as is the party's current leader.
Finally on that matter, the key issue is whether we support the toppling of Saddam Hussein—with the destruction that he imposed on Iraq, including with
906
weapons of mass destruction—or not. We are very clear on that matter; is the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire?
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I urge—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker:Order. Mr Fabricant, your behaviour is intolerable. It is not acceptable.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
May I urge the Leader of the House to consider the need for a full statement of clarification from the Prime Minister on the real remit of the Butler committee? In answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) on Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary quite clearly said that any concern about the mishandling of intelligence
"was dealt with comprehensively by Lord Hutton"—[Official Report, 3 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 631.]
and must therefore be excluded from the remit of the Butler inquiry.
Last night in the other place, several very senior Conservative peers took up that point. For example, Lord King of Bridgwater, who was Secretary of State for Defence during the first Gulf war, said:
"The terms of reference are obviously most important. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the Cabinet: what do the Government intend those terms of reference should be? I hope that in responding…he will have a good, clear government answer to that question. I shall press on my colleagues the question of the continuing participation of the Conservative Party in the inquiry if we cannot be clear about the agreement we have reached."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 2004; Vol. 657, c. 706.]
The Lord Chancellor's answer, which I must give in its totality—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members that these exchanges are on the business for next week. Also, I am expecting brief supplementary questions. Please try to paraphrase.
Mr. Tyler: I shall be as brief as I can, and much briefer than other participants. The Lord Chancellor said that his
"right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear that the terms of reference exclude ground already so thoroughly covered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. I do not think that any of us wants the report to go over the ground that has already been covered. It has been made absolutely clear that it excludes any consideration of whether the Government were justified in taking military action. That conclusion, which has been accepted by the Conservatives, is not a matter for a committee".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 2004; Vol. 657, c. 790.]
There were further exchanges—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should try again next week, just before we have a break.
Mr. Tyler Mr. Tyler rose—
Mr. Speaker: No, this is not good enough. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr. Hain: I am not surprised by the hon. Gentleman's question, because he and his leader have been seeking to

907
distance themselves from the inquiry from the beginning, in contradistinction to the Conservative party, to which I pay credit in that regard. The inquiry's terms of reference are crystal clear. They are to study all the intelligence involved in the background to the decision. That is a separate mandate from that of the Hutton report, and the inquiry under Lord Butler will proceed as everyone has described.
Tony Wright: On days like yesterday, when we are discussing huge issues of public importance and vast numbers of Members across the House want to speak, is it sensible to curtail the debate on an Adjournment motion at 7 o'clock, when most Members would have liked it to continue for longer? If such debates are to be curtailed, surely we could at least have a system whereby people knew whether they had some chance of being called.
Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns on this matter, but I am implementing the rules of the House, in relation, for example, to the time limit on speeches. which the Speaker imposed in order to allow more people to participate. My hon. Friend is saying that we should go past the moment of interruption in certain debates—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Well, the difficulty with that is that there will always be special pleading for all sorts of different Bills—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must give the Leader of the House the courtesy of being allowed to reply. Please bear in mind that I have the power to stop these questions if this goes on. We must allow the Leader of the House to answer the questions put to him.
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to you for that, Mr. Speaker, although frankly, Opposition Members' heckles are easy meat to deal with.
The difficulty for a Leader of the House, as I am sure will be understood more widely, is that there will always be pleas for extensions to debates on this or that issue. Of course I acknowledge that the Hutton report is a very important issue, but exactly the same representations were made to me in respect of the Higher Education Bill—[Interruption.] They were, and lots of people wanted to get in on that debate but were unable to do so. There could be another Bill like that next week. I see the Conservatives nodding vigorously, as they usually do on these issues, but when they were in government they faced exactly the same prospects. Under the new hours—if that is the issue here—we have more time to scrutinise legislation and more time when the House is sitting than we had under the old hours.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Can we have an urgent debate on ministerial accountability to the House? I was fortunate enough to secure a debate on roads in Tiverton and Honiton at 5.30 last Thursday evening, when the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister responsible for roads, in responding to my request for the long overdue south-west area multi-modal study—SWARMMS—report to be produced, said:
908
"The work has taken longer than we expected but it is nearing completion."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 28 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 134WH.]
The very next morning, I was informed by the BBC, who had phoned the Department for Transport, that the Department had given the BBC the answer and the report is now out. However, I have heard absolutely nothing from the Minister. That is outrageous. It is a contempt of hon. Members for a Minister to come to the Floor of the House at 5.30 in the evening and give me, a Member of Parliament, that kind of response when, the very next morning, he was able to tell the BBC that the report would be out the following week, which it was. That is quite disgraceful.
Mr. Hain: The Minister will obviously want to look very carefully indeed at the statement that the hon. Lady has made to the House. I congratulate her on securing that debate last week on this important issue for her constituency, and I understand that there is another debate next week in which these matters could be addressed.
Mr. Robin Cook: May I invite my right hon. Friend to tell me when it might be appropriate for us to explore the exchanges in the winding-up speech last night, which came at the end of the debate? In the light of those exchanges, I want to tell the House that I knew that Iraq had only battlefield weapons because I asked the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. I have the highest respect for his professionalism. Is it not hard to credit that, at no point between the September dossier and the March debate, did he explain to the Prime Minister the crucial distinction between battlefield weapons and medium-range weapons? Is it not equally difficult to believe that the Prime Minister's security adviser, Sir David Manning, never thought to ask? When I was Leader of the House, I sometimes found it necessary after these exchanges to consult a Whitehall Department and advise it that it should clarify a public statement. May I urge my right hon Friend that, today. it might be helpful if he were to give that advice to Downing street?
Mr. Hain: I know—and my right hon. Friend, having occupied my position before me, will know—that Downing street pays particular attention to business questions, and his point will be noted.
Mr. Paul Keetch: The Leader of the House will be aware of the problems caused in Wales by flooding, but is he aware of the chaos that was caused in the city of Hereford last night by the River Wye flooding? It caused gridlock on the roads. Roads had to be closed, a bridge had to be closed, OAP homes had to be evacuated and many homes were flooded. Given that we have been campaigning for a flood defence scheme for the Wye for many years, and that the Government expect a report fairly soon, when may we have a debate in Government time on the Government's flood defence programme generally, and specifically for the city of Hereford?
Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns in respect of his constituency and in particular that city. The devastation wreaked by the flooding has

909
been dreadful. In my own constituency, in Pontardawe in the Swansea valley there has been the same impact, which for local residents has obviously been a nightmare. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is monitoring the situation closely, together with the Environment Agency. All steps necessary are being taken to improve the situation. and lessons will be learned. If the hon. Gentleman has further representations, I know that my right hon. Friend will welcome them.
Mr. Clive Soley: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the proposals I made to hint some weeks ago to continue the reforms in this place and to build on the success of the Westminster Hall forum—a success about which I am particularly pleased? Those proposals include using it in such a way that Members of this House could question Ministers who are in the House of Lords, but in a forum in this part of the House, and also question European Union Commissioners? Those are just two more proposals that we should be considering to improve our procedures.
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the Westminster Hall debates have been a huge success.
Mr. Forth: No.
Mr. Hain: I say to the former shadow Leader of the House, tell that to all the Members—including the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who has just raised such an issue—who have had opportunities to have their constituency issues addressed and to hold Ministers accountable. It has been a big success, notwithstanding the anachronistic comments from the right hon. Gentleman.
The questions of European Union Commissioners and House of Lords Ministers are matters that the Modernisation Committee will look at very carefully. However, precedents could be set by such appearances, which we would have consider very carefully, not just in the Modernisation Committee but doubtless with the Procedure Committee and others involved.
Sir George Young: In a reflective interview with The Times last Saturday, entitled "Perma-tan Hain sees light at end of dark days", the Leader of the House expressed bitter disappointment that No. 10 had scuppered his party's policy on the House of Lords. In relation to the business of the House, he is quoted as saying:
"But I think there is a head of steam on this which will enable us to look forward."
If there is that head of steam, surely we need a debate in order to build on the momentum.
Mr. Hain: As for the perma-tan, I am afraid If cannot do anything about that, but I shall pass on my African roots and see if that helps the right hon. Gentleman.
With regard to No. 10 scuppering policy, that was the spin by The Times on the situation. The truth is that, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, I voted for a 100 per cent. elected second Chamber, and then subsequently down the steps until the whole issue fell.
910
However, the House did not agree on any option. I would like to see—and the Government are consulting upon, as the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has made perfectly clear—a later stage of reform. In the meantime, we have an absolutely crucial job to do, which is to get rid of the hereditary peers from the second Chamber and have an independent system of appointment.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are now in a position in which we have fewer votes in the House of Lords than Cross-Benchers—
Mr. Forth: Good.
Mr. Hain: We also have fewer votes than the Conservatives.
The right hon. Gentleman says "Good", because he wants to use an unelected Chamber to defeat the policies of an elected House of Commons, acting on the mandate of a general election manifesto—and a landslide mandate at that.
What will be interesting in the whole debate is to see where the Conservative party is on this matter. The Conservatives in the Lords voted overwhelmingly for a fully appointed second Chamber, but the Conservative leadership in the Commons appears to support an elected element. There is an element of hypocrisy and opportunism here, but as the debate unfolds we shall find out more.
Mr. John Lyons: My right hon. Friend will know that this year we celebrate 10 years of the Fairtrade Mark, and we have a Fairtrade fortnight coming up, from 1 March to 14 March. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate to let us discuss the very practical and important ways in which the Fairtrade Mark can help the poor countries of the third world?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's work on this issue. It is important now that the House recognises Fairtrade goods. I should like to see them marketed and sold as widely as possible. The Government are strongly behind the whole Fairtrade movement and are pressing for trade justice. We have promoted and supported it in the World Trade Organisation negotiations, and we shall also continue to press within the European Union against protectionism by the EU.
Mr. Alex Salmond: May we have an urgent debate on the question of safety at sea, given that the new fishing regulations mean that for boats caught on 15 days there is no allowance for force majeure, so that if a boat goes to help another boat it loses fishing time and if a boat heaves to in a storm it loses fishing time? Before every fishing debate we pay tribute to those who lose their lives in the most dangerous profession of all. We have never before passed legislation to jeopardise safety at sea. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate? Will be contact the appropriate Minister and have this situation changed?
Mr. Hain: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to fishermen, who, as he says, do a most dangerous job. We depend enormously upon them.

911
The hon. Gentleman has raised some very important issues, which I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to study very carefully before deciding how to proceed in respect of discussion in the House. The hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to apply for a debate in the normal way.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has the Modernisation Committee given any consideration to moving private Members' Bills to Tuesday evenings? That would make them much more accessible for those of us who have fairly active constituency engagements on a Friday.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which has been put to me in the extensive consultations that I am undertaking on the review that the Modernisation Committee will be conducting on the hours. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, are putting quite a strong argument to do precisely as she says, and have all of the Fridays as constituency days and deal with private Members' Bills on Tuesday evenings. That would meet some hon. Members' concerns about the matter.
I hope that over the coming months we can reach a consensus on the hours issue. I do not want to see the clock rolled back. On the other hand, I want the House to be in a position in which it is comfortable with the arrangements, rather than there being a deep division on the hours question. If we can find a way through this, and if people can talk to each other and—dare I say? —even negotiate with each other, I am confident we can deal with the problem.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: At Foreign Office questions, I asked about unrestricted immigration from the EU accession states after 1 May, and whether the Government still stood by their estimate of between 5,000 and 13,000 a year. In reply, the Minister for Europe ignored my question and launched into a rant about rancid hate campaigns—but since then the Prime Minister has announced a change of policy. Will the Leader of the House first, inform the Foreign Office about what No. 10 is now thinking on this matter, and secondly, organise an urgent debate, because it is getting very late in the day to make difficult and sensitive changes about entitlements to benefits before 1 May?
Mr. Hain: I appreciate the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister addressed them very directly yesterday. Our decision on the whole matter must be within an overall policy of managed migration, keeping a firm control on illegal migration, wherever it is from, and illegal workers, while welcoming legal migrants, whom our economy needs, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise.
There are many safeguards in place already, including safeguards on benefit entitlement. We are looking at these matters afresh, to see how we can best protect our national interests, but in a way that allows key workers to be recruited to fill urgent skills gaps in the economy.
Mark Tami: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the recent report on unemployment published by the Library, which shows sharp falls in unemployment since 1997, and in the case of Alyn and Deeside, a fall of more than 36 per cent? Can he arrange for an urgent debate on unemployment, and in particular, contrast our record with the appalling record of the Conservative party?
Mr. Hain: That is an excellent idea. The truth is that not only in my hon. Friend's constituency, which I have had the privilege to visit on a number of occasions, including with him, but in the constituencies of every Member of the House, unemployment has fallen dramatically under this Government. Employment has risen, and the economy is now in a stronger state than it has been in for generations. That is the policy that we will continue to promote, and that is why we are confident of winning an election, whenever it comes.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to explain to the House the policy on vetting overseas workers, particularly those entering the health field, in the light of the arrest this week of one at least in Belfast who has been linked with al-Qaeda?
Mr. Hain: Obviously, this matter is being closely studied and acted on by the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the security authorities. It is a very important issue. Other Members have raised such issues in the past, which is why we are seeking to promote a policy that is tough on such matters, and that ensures that potential terrorists in particular are not taking advantage of our services.
Peter Bradley: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate on the significance in shaping opinion both inside and outside the House of the intelligence about the 45 minutes launch capacity? If so, we will be able to consider why, between the publication of the dossier and the Gilligan broadcast—an eight-month period—it was mentioned only once on the Floor of the House, why in 43,000 oral and written questions it was referred to only twice, and why in the eight-month period it was referred to by the national press only 109 times, since the Gilligan broadcast, whereas it has been mentioned thousands on thousands of times.
Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, the Gilligan broadcast was completely false, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday. He has made a very important point. In all the intelligence that I saw, the much broader picture, which has been repeatedly endorsed not just by successive Foreign Secretaries, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but by the Leader of the Opposition and the former Leader of the Opposition, is that Saddam Hussein, over the years, possessed weapons of mass destruction, posed a threat in terms of his capabilities, and had used those weapons against his own people in the Kurdish north and against the Iranians. In respect of the question of battlefield nuclear weapons and biological and chemical warfare, Members of the House will remember Halabja, where more than 5,000 people died and many more were injured and had their lives disfigured for ever by the use of precisely those kinds of weapons.

913
We should be careful before we say that one form of delivery system is not a problem but others pose an enormous threat. The truth is that Saddam was a menace to his people, a menace to the region and a menace to the world, and the fact that he has gone is good for all of us.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As the Leader of the House has rightly and generously proclaimed his support for the Badge Messengers and Doorkeepers, and as they are even more attached to their traditional uniform than Lord Birt to his new staircase, will he give them an assurance that he will not attempt to strip them?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and I welcome his points. I have many friends among the Doorkeepers, and they are an admirable group of gentlemen and servants of the House.
Hon. Members: And ladies!
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my satisfaction at the attention that the Government have focused on the scourge of antisocial behaviour and the raft of measures introduced to tackle it. What of local authorities and other agencies, however, which do not use the law, which can take more than six weeks to remove an abandoned car, or which seek to hide behind the Data Protection Act 1998 rather than acting to protect poor, downtrodden members of the public? Can we have a debate to monitor the implementation of the legislation and to consider what needs to be done to hold those agencies to account and give proper redress to those members of the public who deserve protection under the law?
Mr. Hain: Before I answer that question, I want to acknowledge that I missed out the fact that there is a lady Doorkeeper, and I hope that there are more.
My hon. Friend raises a concern that all Members share, certainly on the Labour Benches. Our communities are disfigured by antisocial behaviour: graffiti, neighbours from hell, and intimidating yobs on estates and in the streets. The police and other agencies now have the weapons and the methods to deal with that, and often they are not being applied. That is my hon. Friend's point, I strongly support him on it, and I hope that the message goes out loud and clear that the House has passed legislation on this matter—often without the support of the Opposition, I might add—and we expect it to be acted on.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Can we have an early debate in Government time on air and rail transport in the east midlands? This is a matter of considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and me, and to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). East Midlands airport is increasing the number of freight flights at night, which will cause huge disturbance to our collective constituents. I also draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the parlous record of Midland Mainline, the railway company, which has decided to
914
avoid calling at Market Harborough station in order to catch up on its timetable. Can we have a debate at the earliest possible opportunity, so that those two highly important east midlands transport issues can be dealt with?
Mr. Hain: I know that the Secretary of State for Transport will want to look carefully into the hon. and learned Gentleman's points, which are clearly important for his constituency, for those of the other Members whom he mentioned, and for the whole east midlands area. I have been to East Midlands airport; it is a fine airport, and I hope that it continues to go from strength to strength.
Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the television viewing figures for this place are on the increase, particularly during Prime Minister's Question Time. Does he share my concern, however, about the increased number of questions to the Prime Minister, from all sections of the House, that are of a local nature and that are not directly the responsibility of the Prime Minister? Does he believe that that is a good use of Prime Minister's Question Time, a half hour per week, in which the Prime Minister should be asked questions on a national and international level and not on local matters?
Mr. Hain: I agree that the House is increasingly being viewed as more and more people get access to the broadcasting of Parliament. That is good for democracy.
Chris Bryant: It is the hours.
Mr. Hain: It may well be the hours that are responsible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) says. Very few people will want to watch the House at 2 am, when the former shadow Leader of the House wants us to be sitting. I welcome that, because it is good for democracy. I must disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan), however, because Members have the right to raise any question that they like with the Prime Minister, whether it is local, international or national. I must protect that right.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 553, on the future of the police reserve in Northern Ireland?
[That this House notes the contribution made by members of the full-time Police Reserve to the security of people in Northern Ireland; calls upon the Government to end immediately the speculation over the future of the Reserve; and further calls for embers of the Reserve to be granted the right to lateral entry into the ranks of the Police Service in Northern Ireland.]
As he knows, this is not a devolved matter but a matter reserved to this place. Knowing the tremendous contribution of the full-time reserve to policing in Northern Ireland, can he arrange for an early debate or a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern

915
Ireland to end the speculation about the future of the police reserve and to ensure that it continues for the benefit of the entire community in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Northern Ireland questions are next Wednesday, so he can put exactly that point to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he catches the Speaker's eye.
Mr. John Smith: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 267, on the Montreal convention?
[That this House notes with regret that the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, which replaces the Warsaw Convention (1929) and came into force in 32 countries on 4th November 2003, fails to provide air travellers with the same basic rights and protection in law as any other transport users by restating the unique legal exemption given to airlines in Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention which removes any responsibility whatsoever for the health or psychological well-being of their passengers; recognises that this will do nothing to discourage the unsafe and unhealthy practice of cramming passengers into ever smaller aircraft seats with reduced leg room; and calls on her Majesty's Government to seek through the European Union to amend the Montreal Convention by replacing the term 'accident' with 'incident' and 'bodily injury' with 'personal injury' before ratification, thus placing the same duty of care on airlines as all other passenger carriers and almost certainly reducing the incidence of deep vein thrombosis amongst air travellers.
If this convention is ratified by all the member states of the European Union, it will renew the unique and absurd exemption that airlines enjoy in having no liability whatever or duty of care for the health or psychological well-being of their passengers. Given that the vast majority of the travelling public are completely unaware of the uninsured risk when they board an airplane, may we have an early debate to increase public awareness of that important issue?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge the persistence with which my hon. Friend has campaigned. His vigilance is welcome to all concerned. The Government look forward to the coming into force of the Montreal convention because it will significantly enhance the rights of air passengers. We have no plans at present to propose any changes.
Mr. Paul Goodman: When we went to war, the Secretary of State for Defence apparently knew that there was no threat to our bases in Cyprus but the Prime Minister believed that there was a threat. Following the question of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and given that the Leader of the House says we can ask the Prime Minister questions about local matters, should not the Prime Minister come to the House today to explain, in respect of an urgent national matter, exactly what went wrong?
Mr. Hain:The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary appeared before the House yesterday to answer all the questions that could have been put to
916
them and were put to them. The Defence Secretary appeared before the Defence Committee only this morning, answering precisely that type of question.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: May we have a debate on the introduction to the Bradford district of the extended schools childcare pilot in April? That scheme will use mainly existing facilities and seek to provide good quality, affordable child care for pre-school and out-of-school children in assisting all parents into work. Such a debate might encourage the local authority to work with the Government on that scheme. Voluntary organisations throughout the district will help, and I know that many of my constituents welcome the scheme.
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that scheme to the attention of us all. I am sure that the Government will want to consider promoting that admirable Sure Start plus-type scheme elsewhere. Sure Start schemes have been among the most successful projects introduced by the Government in seeking to address the problems and hurdles faced by vulnerable and deprived children—especially in single-parent families—and by those from ethnic minorities, with whom my hon. Friend works particularly closely. I hope that the pilot scheme will serve as a model for elsewhere.
Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great successes of this Government is their policy of introducing draft legislation—and that its increased use in recent times might have avoided some of the little local difficulties that have occurred? What plans does my right hon. Friend have to take forward further draft legislation? Why is it that all Bills cannot be introduced initially in draft?
Mr. Hain: Some Bills—those relating to Northern Ireland being a classic example—arise urgently and have to be dealt with quickly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was a pioneer—and we are indebted to him—in taking Bills forward on a pre-legislative basis. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that draft Bills can be scrutinised, improved and amended. We are introducing 13 draft Bills—the highest number in the history of the House of Commons. I am sure that each of those 13 measures will be improved and that as a result, greater consent will be obtained and the views of Back-Bench Labour Members especially can be heard more than they have been in the recent past.
Mr. Adrian Flook: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Highways Agency has published its technical report on the relative merits of dualling either the A358 or the A303 in Somerset. Given the sensitivity attached to the dualling of any road, particularly in an area of outstanding natural beauty, does the Leader of the House agree that there should be a debate on dualling roads?
Mr. Hain: I am not intimately acquainted with the dualling of the roads concerned, but I understand the importance of that matter to the hon. Gentleman, other local Members of Parliament, and their constituents. I

917
am sure that the Secretary of State for Transport will study closely what the hon. Gentleman has to say, if he is successful in obtaining the opportunity to speak on that subject next week.
Paul Flynn: When can the House debate the tragic consequences of the use of seroxat? We know now that the manufacturers of that drug suppressed research findings. One of the awful consequences of seroxat, proved in court cases in America and in cases in this country, is that it so modifies the behaviour of its users that in a number of instances they have taken their own lives and those of their families. This is a clear case of manufacturers putting greed before safety.
Mr. Hain: There is widespread debate about the status and role of seroxat. My hon. Friend vigilantly scrutinises all such drugs and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health will examine closely my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to read the exclusive article headed "Dirty Tricks" in yesterday's Evening Standard? It appears that an attempt is being made to hype up a row over Northern Ireland's participation in the Olympic games. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time as soon as possible for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to come to the House to give a reassurance that in the event of a successful Olympic bid by London, all regions of the United Kingdom will have the opportunity to share the benefits—and that Northern Ireland's opportunities will not be sabotaged by some Irish attempt to restrict Northern Ireland's participation?
Mr. Hain: As Secretary of State for Wales and a Member of Parliament representing a Welsh constituency, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made it clear, when she announced the Olympic bid, that all regions of the United Kingdom would have the opportunity to take advantage of the opportunities—and that should apply to Northern Ireland as much as to Wales or anywhere else. After all, Northern Ireland has produced some fantastic athletes—most notably, Mary Peters.
Rob Marris: The new sitting hours have made it more difficult for visitors from constituencies such as mine, in the west midlands. What discussions, if any, has my right hon. Friend had with the House authorities about establishing a reception centre for visitors, to improve the facilities available to them?
Mr. Hain: I am very much a champion of visitors to the House. When I was first elected nearly 13 years ago, I was absolutely appalled at the shabby way in which we used to treat visitors—and to some extent still do. Visitors, other than foreigners, elect us and they should be welcome here. This is their House of Commons and their Parliament. For that precise reason, I was discussing the other day with the Chairman of the Administration Committee how reception facilities for
918
visitors could be improved. I am confident that we can move forward and that right hon. and hon. Members will shortly have a chance to consider how the situation can be improved using a new infrastructure that treats visitors properly, so that they do not have to queue in the rain to see us and encounter a positive welcome instead of a "no entry" sign.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Did the Leader of the House hear the Secretary of State for Defence speaking on the "Today" programme this morning? He talked about battlefield nuclear weapons and strategic systems and said that he had not seen headlines in The Sun and Evening Standard that appeared at the time. Is there not a case for a debate on the competence of Government press officers and an argument for discussing whether or not there should be a return to old-fashioned independent Government press officers—rather than the hacks from Millbank who now advise Ministers?
Mr. Hain: That is a weapon of mass distraction from the hon. Gentleman. The Defence Secretary presumably answered questions on that matter in the Select Committee this morning. For the life of me, I have no idea how anybody can get uptight about a busy Secretary of State such as my right hon. Friend not remembering which newspaper he read nearly 18 months ago.
Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent debate on the administration process and, in particular, the role of the administrator? A company in my constituency that is well known to certain people, Lister-Petter, has just been through the administration process. It appears that the administrator has chosen to favour some creditors at the cost of employees, the pension fund and other creditors. Is that matter not worthy of an urgent debate and some change in accountability?
Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will want to consider that carefully. My hon. Friend will have a chance to raise it at Question Time next week, but it certainly needs consideration.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House be a lot more forthcoming about the Penrose report on Equitable Life? He will know, as we all do, that many of our constituents are very concerned. Will he give an undertaking that the report will be issued in full, unedited and unexpurgated, that it will be issued very soon, and—just as important—that there will be a full debate on the Floor of the House on Penrose and everything relating to Equitable Life, so that our constituents can be satisfied that everything is being done to get at the truth? That applies not least to the issue of compensation, if it arises as a result of the inquiries into Equitable Life.
Mr. Hain: I agree that this is a crucial issue. Having been in Government himself, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that we must get this right—it is a complex matter, especially if the question of compensation arises—and I am sure he understands

919
that we would rather take a little time to do that than rush into it prematurely. I know that people are anxious for this to be dealt with as a matter of urgency, though, and having noted that anxiety, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will no doubt want to act on it.
Richard Burden: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at a report published today by the International Development Committee on development assistance in the occupied Palestinian territories? It reveals levels of poverty in some parts of the occupied territories that are equivalent to those in sub-Saharan Africa, and mentions the particularly severe humanitarian impact of the wall being constructed by Israel. There are 176 signatures, from Members in all parts of the House, to early-day motion 407.
[That this House calls on Israel to cease immediately the building of its Separation Wall deep within Palestinian territory, which, according to the preliminary analysis by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs of maps published by the Israeli Government, will be 687 km long and will leave more than 274,000 Palestinians living in 122 villages and towns either surrounded by the Wall or trapped between the Wall and Israel's internationally recognised borders, some even requiring permits from Israel to continue living in their own homes; notes that the analysis estimates that a further 400,000 Palestinians living east of the Wall will be separated from their farms, jobs, markets, hospitals and schools, and that the Wall will have 'severe humanitarian consequences' for 30 per cent, of the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank; contrasts this with the fact that UN figures reveal that 54 Israeli settlements in the West Bank and 63 per cent, of settlers will be on the side of the wall next to Israel, giving Israel control over the richest agricultural land and the aquifer system which provides much of the West Bank's water resources; further notes that the Wall is made up of concrete, razor wire and electronic fences, trenches, motion sensors, guard towers and security roads, that it costs $4.7 million per kilometre and that it violates articles 53 and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Britain is a high-contracting party, which forbids the destruction of property and confinement of persons by an occupier; welcomes the decision of the International Court of Justice to open hearings into the legal consequences of the construction of the Wall; further notes that, whilst Israel needs security, the Wall does not follow internationally recognised borders; insists that it does not become a de facto border for a future Palestinian state; further notes that only a reinvigorated peace process with full international support will stop the violence on both sides, not an 8 metre high wall; and calls on the British Government to bring all available pressure to bear on Israel to cease building this Wall].
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a debate on the Select Committee's recommendations, and also on what we in this country should do about the position in the occupied territories, not just what we should say?
Mr. Hain: I agree that the report published today is extremely welcome. It identifies the desperate situation
920
of the Palestinians—one of the most desperate in the world, as my hon. Friend says, and one that must be addressed. If I were a Back Bencher I would have signed his early-day motion, because it reflects a view that is widespread in the House that the injustice done to the Palestinians must end and that the wall is an abomination—and, ironically, an obstacle not just to Palestinian justice and the erection of a viable independent Palestinian state but to Israel's security, because it perpetuates tension between the two peoples. What we want is a secure Israeli state and an independent Palestinian state working together and economically interdependent, as they will always be.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Will the Leader of the House speak to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the long title of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill, which will have its Second Reading next week? As things stand it is drawn exceptionally tightly, and will not permit discussion in Committee of any amendments relating to the electoral system employed, which is what Scottish Members and their constituents want to be discussed. Surely it is wrong for them to be frustrated in their wish because of this narrow drafting.
Mr. Hain: I know that there is widespread anxiety in Scotland about the electoral system there, as indeed there is in Wales: I can say that from personal experience. The hon. Gentleman will be able to raise the issue on Monday, and I am sure the Secretary of State for Scotland will welcome that, but I do not think that widening the long title, which is quite specific, is the best way of dealing with the question of parliamentary boundaries. I am sure the issue will arise on Monday, however, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his points then.
Keith Vaz: May I press for a debate on the concessions that the Government are giving the member-designate countries that will join the European Union on 1 May? My right hon. Friend will know from his former role as Minister for Europe that Britain is the champion of enlargement. The Government's change of heart will cause concern in the applicant countries as they prepare to take the important step of joining the EU. If we have a debate, we will at least be able to clarify the Government's position.
Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend's successor as Minister for Europe, I know that these issues—with which we have both had to deal—are very difficult to resolve, because the rights and interests of the applicant countries must also be borne in mind. That is why the Prime Minister has been determined to get this right and consider any concerns that have recently arisen, and why he said what he did yesterday.
We should remember that exactly the same concerns were expressed in relation to the entry into the EU of poor countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal years ago. Some 150,000 migrant workers in France went back to their homes in Spain after its accession. Spain had a chance to become prosperous, trade with Spain increased, and both Britain and Spain benefited. I

921
believe that after this interregnum we shall see exactly the same prospect for eastern and central European countries.
Bob Spink: Could the Leader of the House find more time than he has allowed today for a debate on local government finance, so that we can review the performance of Castle Point borough council? Under its new Tory control it has produced a prudent, low-rise budget with strengthened reserves, which shows what a difference good Tory councillors such as Jeffrey Stanley can make.
Mr. Hain: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the business motion provided for extra time. As for good Tory councils—I have encountered no good Tory councils, as it happens, although I have encountered many good Labour councils—on present trends Labour councils are set to introduce smaller council tax increases, certainly a lot smaller than those of Tory councils and a lot smaller than those of Liberal Democrat councils as well. That shows the people of Britain that they are better off with a Labour council. They should think about that when they vote on 10 June.
Mr. Wayne David: May we have a debate as soon as possible on the extent of digital television coverage? The south Wales valleys are particularly poorly served at present.
Mr. Hain: As I too represent a south Wales valley, I know that this is an important issue. I have discussed it with BBC Wales, and I had a brief conversation with Greg Dyke, the former BBC director general, who was keen to promote digital television in Wales because of his interest in Welsh matters. During the past year I have been fortunate enough to acquire a digital television box in the Neath valley. We need to find out how we can extend coverage to other valleys.
Mr. Michael Jack: A few weeks ago I suggested to the Leader of the House that we should have a debate on the defence White Paper. He embraced the suggestion with enthusiasm, recognising that the document contained uncertainties, especially for aerospace workers in the north-west. May I ask him to renew that enthusiasm, and tell the House when he expects such a debate to take place?
Mr. Hain: I am not in a position to give a precise date. I do share the enthusiasm for a debate on the White Paper and there will be one, but that does not mean that I acknowledge or agree with the right hon. Gentleman's points.
Chris Bryant: May we have a regular European business questions session on the Floor of the House? Ministers—not just the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe—go to Brussels and to Council meetings all over Europe every month, and sign up to things on behalf of this country. We have very few opportunities to question them directly. May we have a regular session, not just the chance to ask the
922
Minister for Europe a one-off question that may or may not end up on the Order Paper for Foreign Office questions?
Mr. Hain: That is an important point. I agree with the thrust of it, which is why I have asked the Modernisation Committee to look at the whole issue of how European matters are discussed, not just in Committee—although the European Scrutiny Committee does a fantastic job—but on the Floor of the House. I think we should have more opportunities to debate them there. Our constituents would benefit, and Members would be better informed and thus better able to hold to account those responsible for what is done in Brussels.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Government published the Hutton report with commendable speed, but there is real and growing concern about publication of the Penrose report, which the Government received before Christmas—more than a month ago. Will the Leader of the House be a little more open with the House about when it will be published?
Mr. Hain: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will understand that the Hutton report was commissioned at the end of July and reported only recently; we are not looking at such a time scale. As I said earlier, we are ensuring that we get things right, and when we do the hon. Gentleman will doubtless welcome that as much as everybody else.
David Burnside: Will the Leader of the House find time for a full debate on the future of low-cost airline travel—I declare at least a partial interest in this issue—in the European Union? A decision was taken this week against Ryanair—a low-cost, free-enterprise airline—in respect of the French Government's campaign, in conjunction with Air France, to take away the subsidy for regional airports. If that is allowed to happen across the European Union, it will herald the end of low-cost airline travel in the EU. This is a very serious development, which will change the face of air travel for UK regional airports such as Luton and Stansted. This matter deserves a full debate in the House.
Mr. Hain: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of this issue. Millions of our constituents have benefited from low-cost airline flights, as have I, and I want them to continue to do so. Although the rules should not be broken, it is in the interests of Ryanair, easyJet, bmibaby or any other low-cost airline providers in Britain to have rules that are respected by competitors. It is very important that state aid rules apply in an impartial way. But I hope that in this case, the European Commission has not challenged and put a stop to the enormous benefit and opportunity that many people enjoy by paying low-cost fares to fly to their chosen destinations, and that it will not do so in future.
Hugh Robertson: The Leader of the House will be aware of the importance of medals to members of the armed forces. They constitute official recognition of the service that they

923
give and, very occasionally, of the sacrifice that they are called on to make. Bearing in mind that the relevant Defence Council instruction was issued a matter of months after the 1991 Gulf conflict, and that members of the armed forces are now making an unfavourable comparison with members of the England rugby squad, whose awards were rightly rushed through, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to explain to the House why, nearly 10 months after the end of the Iraq war, no announcement has been made?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the England team's fantastic victory in the World cup occurred a matter of weeks before the new year's honours were announced, so that presented a convenient opportunity to recognise their achievement. However, I understand the point that he makes. Many of my constituents fought not just in the previous war in Iraq, but in the recent one, and if they are eligible they deserve early recognition. The authorities will want to look closely at how that can be achieved.
Sir Sydney Chapman: May I encourage the Leader of the House to look favourably on the request made earlier by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) for a debate on fair trading? He will know of the devastating consequences that the common agricultural policy—and, indeed, the agricultural subsidy policies of rich countries such as the United States—have for many poor developing countries' economies. That is instanced by the dumping of food surpluses, and the keeping, in effect, of their food markets out of rich countries. This is a matter of increasing urgency. Could the Leader of the House look favourably on debating it if not next week, then shortly thereafter?
Mr. Hain: I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman said. We must deal with the protectionism that is rife throughout the world's richer countries, including, I am sorry to say, those of the European Union. Frankly, the iniquitous common agricultural policy, which is being reformed, needs to be abolished. We need a rich world that opens up its markets to the poor world, thereby enabling the latter to lift itself out of poverty, and to provide markets for our own companies. The hon. Gentleman has identified a virtuous circle in this regard. Fair trade and trade justice are an imperative, and there will be opportunities to debate this issue as soon as possible.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I back the call for regular European questions, which would lead to a
924
very interesting hour, but may we have a full day's debate, in Government time, on law and order and the Government's sentencing policy? Last year, violent crime in Lancashire rose by 47 per cent., and I want to get to grips with the question of whether the confusion surrounding Government policy, particularly on drugs, has led to this increase. I was also staggered to learn that last year more people received custodial sentences for motoring offences than for burglary. This is a shambles of a policy and we need to get to grips with it.
Mr. Hain: There is a serious problem with alcohol and drug-related crime, which the Home Secretary and the police are addressing. However, that should be seen against a background of big falls in crime since we were elected to office, compared with the steep rises that occurred under the previous Conservative Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported.
If there were great enthusiasm for tabling questions on European matters—I regret that there is not—Foreign Office questions could be flooded with such questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and I discovered when we occupied our posts—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is discovering—on the whole, relatively few European questions are tabled, compared with questions on other issues. So the solution lies in the hands of Members of the House.
Mr. David Cameron: May we have a debate on the closure of post offices, particularly of those in convenience stores in small towns? Is the Leader of the House aware that this is a problem in Witney, as in many other towns, following the takeover of T&S Stores by Tesco, and did he read what the Prime Minister said yesterday about this issue? He said that Tesco
"did give us the assurance, however, that when reviewing those stores with post offices, it would work closely with Post Office Ltd." — [Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 757.]
As it is not clear that that happened, could the Leader of the House find out what those assurances were and when they were given, and place a copy in the House of Commons Library?
Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State will want to study very carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said, because it is important that when promises are made—whether by Tesco or by anybody else—they are honoured. His constituency and constituencies throughout the United Kingdom are facing the difficulties associated with post office closures for all sorts of reasons. However, one of those reasons is not a lack of Government support. The Government have put hundreds of millions of pounds into supporting local post offices, because of the importance that we attach to them.

Points of Order
1.37 pm
Mr. Tim Collins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that the next item on the Order Paper relates to the Standing Committee on the Higher Education Bill, and that the Bill has generated an extraordinary amount of interest on both sides of the House, and among many people outside it. In the light of that, could you say whether you received any representations from Ministers earlier today, indicating that they intend to rethink their approach to this Committee in two important respects? First, should they not revise yesterday's decision to ram through the Committee of Selection a balance of membership of the Standing Committee that violates the injunction of "Erskine May" that membership should reflect the balance of votes on Second Reading? Secondly, should they not revise their view that the Standing Committee should meet for only 12 sittings, which is clearly an inadequate amount of time? Given that many people outside this House are observing closely how we consider this Bill, would not a rigged and truncated Standing Committee be worse than no Committee at all?
Mr. George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) is misleading the House. It is my—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman goes any further, perhaps he would like to rephrase the beginning of his remarks.
Mr. Foulkes: Indeed, I will. I think that the hon. Gentleman has inadvertently stated something that is not correct. My understanding is that two rebels—if we can call them that—have been appointed to the Standing Committee, and that the Government's majority on it does not reflect their majority in this House as a whole; rather, it takes account of the vote that took place on this issue. [Interruption.] Well, that is certainly my understanding of the position. Yet again, Opposition Members are trying to make a party political point, and I hope that you will make it clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is not a point of order.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that there are 16 Labour Members on that Committee—of whom one was a rebel, the other Member in question having abstained—and nine Opposition Members? If the vote on Second Reading
926
had been properly reflected, the Government would have a majority on that Committee of only one, rather than their existing majority. Is it not a disgrace that they could not do what "Erskine May" says they should do?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may help the House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I can probably deal with the matter.
With regard to the initial point of order, I have received no representations of the sort that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) mentioned. "Erskine May" makes it clear that the Speaker cannot interfere with the Committee of Selection, but I understand that the Committee has complied with the provisions of the Standing Order in nominating Members for the Committee considering the Higher Education Bill.
Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In an interview on the BBC's "Today" programme this morning, and in evidence to the Defence Committee only a few hours ago, the Secretary of State for Defence said that he "did not see" the newspaper coverage after publication of the September 2002 dossier reporting that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction could be fired within 45 minutes and were long range and capable of reaching Cyprus. However, in his evidence to the Hutton inquiry on 22 September 2003, he was asked:
"Are you aware that on 25 September…a number of newspapers had banner headlines suggesting that this related to strategic missiles or bombs?"
The Secretary of State answered, "I can recall, 'yes'". What avenues are open to Members to secure a statement by the Secretary of State to establish which version is correct?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling on the previous points of order, and you are, of course, entirely correct to say that the Committee of Selection, on which I sit, did indeed comply with the Standing Order. However, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members find it difficult to understand how the Committee of Selection complied with "Erskine May". Perhaps the matter should be clarified for future Committees.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have nothing to add to my earlier ruling.

Higher Education Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
That the Programme Order of 27th January in relation to the Higher Education Bill shall be amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) for the words "Thursday 26th February" of the words "Thursday 4th March"—[Mr. Heppelli]
The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 160.
Division No. 44] [1.41 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

David, Wayne

Ainger, Nick

Dawson, Hilton

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Alexander, Douglas

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Allen, Graham

Donohoe, Brian H.

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Doran, Frank

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Drew, David (Stroud)

Atkins, Charlotte

Drown, Ms Julia

Austin, John

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bailey, Adrian

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Baird, Vera

Edwards, Huw

Banks, Tony

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Barron, rh Kevin

Fisher, Mark

Battle, John

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Bayley, Hugh

Flint, Caroline

Beard, Nigel

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Begg, Miss Anne

Follett, Barbara

Bell, Sir Stuart

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Bennett, Andrew

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

& Rye)

Berry, Roger

Foulkes, rh George

Betts, Clive

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Blears, Ms Hazel

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Blizzard, Bob

Gardiner, Barry

Blunkett, rh David

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Borrow, David

Gerrard, Neil

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Gilroy, Linda

Bradshaw, Ben

Goggins, Paul

Brennan, Kevin

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Grogan, John

Browne, Desmond

Hain, rh Peter

Bryant Chris

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Burden, Richard

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Burnham, Andy

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Caborn, rh Richard

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Cairns, David

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Rhymney)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Casale, Roger

Hendrick, Mark

Caton, Martin

Heyes, David

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Clapham, Michael

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Hopkins, Kelvin

Pentlands)

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Sefton E)

Coaker, Vernon

Howells, Dr. Kim

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Colman, Tony

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hutton, rh John

Cooper, Yvette

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

Corston, Jean

Highgate)

Crausby, David

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cruddas, Jon

Jamieson, David

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Jenkins, Brian

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Hatfield)

Darling, rh Alistair

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

928

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pound, Stephen

Jowell, rh Tessa

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

E)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Prescott, rh John

Keeble, Ms Sally

Purchase, Ken

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Reed. Andy (Loughborough)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Kidney, David

Rooney, Terry

King, Andy (Rugby)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Ruane, Chris

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Lammy, David

Savidge, Malcolm

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Sawford, Phil

Lepper, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Sheridan, Jim

Linton, Martin

Skinner, Dennis

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Love, Andrew

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Lunesdale)

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McAvoy, Thomas

Soley, Clive

McCabe, Stephen

Southworth, Helen

McDonagh, Siobhain

Squire, Rachel

McFall, John

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

McIsaac, Shona

Stinchcombe, Paul

McKenna, Rosemary

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Mackinlay, Andrew

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

McNulty, Tony

Stuart, Ms Gisela

MacShane, Denis

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mactaggart Fiona

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

McWalter, Tony

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Mahmood, Khalid

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Tipping, Paddy

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Truswell, Paul

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Martlew, Eric

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Michael, rh Alun

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Miller, Andrew

Ward, Claire

Mole, Chris

White, Brian

Mountford, Kali

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Munn, Ms Meg

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

C)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Woolas, Phil

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Worthington, Tony

O'Hara, Edward

Wright Anthony D. (Gt

Olner, Bill

Yarmouth)

Owen, Albert

Wright, David (Telford)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Perham, Linda

Wyatt, Derek

Pickthall, Colin

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Mr. Fraser Kemp and

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Mr. John Heppell

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Brady, Graham

Amess, David

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Brazier, Julian

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Baldry, Tony

Bruce, Malcolm

Barker, Gregory

Burnett, John

Baron, John (Billericay)

Burns, Simon

Barrett, John

Burnside, David

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Burstow, Paul

Beith, rh A. J.

Burt, Alistair

Bellingham, Henry

Butterfill, Sir John

Beresford, Sir Paul

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Blunt Crispin

Cameron, David

Boswell, Tim

Carmichael, Alistair

929

Cash, William

Maclean, rh David

Chapman. Sir Sydney (Chipping

McLoughlin, Patrick

Barnet)

Malins, Humfrey

Chidgey, David

Maples, John

Chope, Christopher

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Atcham)

Collins, Tim

Mates, Michael

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Maude, rh Francis

Cotter, Brian

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Cran, James (Beverley)

May, Mrs Theresa

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Mercer, Patrick

Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Stamford)

Coldfield)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

Moore, Michael

Howden)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Djanogly, Jonathan

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Dodds, Nigel

Opik, Lembit

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Doughty, Sue

Paice, James

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Pickles, Eric

Evans, Nigel

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Fabricant, Michael

Dinefwr)

Fallon, Michael

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Pugh, Dr. John

Westminster)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Flook, Adrian

Rendel, David

Forth, rh Eric

Robathan, Andrew

Foster, Don (Bath)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Fox, Dr. Liam

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

Francois, Mark

M-Kent)

Ganier, Edward

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

George Andrew (St. Ives)

Rosindell, Andrew

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Goodman, Paul

Salmond, Alex

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Sanders, Adrian

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Greenway, John

Selous, Andrew

Grieve, Dominic

Shepherd, Richard

Hammond, Philip

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Hancock, Mike

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

Hawkins, Nick

Kincardine)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Heald, Oliver

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Heath, David

Streeter, Gary

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Swayne, Desmond

Hermon, Lady

Syms, Robert

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Thurso, John

Jack, rh Michael

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Jenkin, Bernard

Tredinnick, David

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Trend, Michael

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Keetch, Paul

Tyrie, Andrew

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Viggers, Peter

Inverness)

Walter, Robert

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Whittingdale, John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Wiggin, Bill

Knight rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Wilkinson, John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Willetts, David

Lamb, Norman

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Leigh, Edward

Wilshire, David

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Wishart, Pete

Lidington, David

Young, rh Sir George

Lilley, rh Peter

Younger-Ross, Richard

Llwyd, Elfyn

Loughton, Tim

Tellers for the Noes:

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Angela Watkinson and

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Mr. John Randall

Question accordingly agreed to.

Police
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate, and in the following debate on local government finance.
1.55 pm
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2004–05, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
The Government are determined that resources for the police service should keep pace with the growing expectations made of it. I can assure the House that funding the police service properly remains a high priority for this Government. We will continue to provide the resources, powers and tools that are needed to deal effectively and efficiently with the whole range of policing problems, from tackling low-level disorder and antisocial behaviour to serious and organised crime.
Since we embarked on police reform two years ago, a great deal has been achieved. We have record investment in policing—policing provision has increased by £2.3 billion, or 30 per cent., since 2000–01. There is a growing team of crime fighters, with the number of police officers and police staff at historically high levels. At 31 August last year, there were 136,386 police officers in England and Wales, an increase of more than 9,000 since 1997, when this Government came to power, and of more than 3,000 since March last year alone.
Mr. Mark Francois: When the Minister quotes those figures, will she confirm that they include people who have accepted job offers to become police officers? They have not yet been to training school or worn a uniform, but are counted, for statistical purposes, as part of the force strength.
Ms Blears: At every stage of their development in the service, those people are considered to be members of the policing community and part of our crime-fighting team. The same practice would be adopted in any other organisation. The hon. Gentleman would do well to recall that police numbers fell, rather than rose, when the previous Conservative Government were in power. The record of this Government is therefore absolutely excellent.
By March 2003, there were more than 63,000 police staff, 10,000 more than when the Government came to power in 1997. That increase has freed up police officers to concentrate on police duties. In addition, there were more than 3,000 community support officers out on patrol at the end of December last year. I am delighted that recent contributions from Opposition Members suggest that they now appreciate that CSOs make a tremendous contribution to making our communities safer.
Dr. Vincent Cable: While I echo the Minister's upbeat assessment, would she acknowledge that one of the success stories of recent years has been the improvement in the morale,

931
effectiveness and numbers of the Metropolitan police since the present Home Secretary took over? However, why are the Government undercutting the position of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis by removing £million from the total for London expected as a result of last year's grant assessment?
Ms Blears: I had the pleasure of reading the hon. Gentleman's contribution in the recent debate that he arranged on funding for the Metropolitan police. I was delighted by his very positive statements about the improvement in policing in London. We have not taken £56 million away from the Met. There has been a flat-rate settlement this year, which has implications for all forces across the country, not just for the Met. Some forces are gainers and some are losers, but I shall deal in detail with the implications later in my remarks.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I can tell the Minister that the extra police officers and the community support officers are very much appreciated in my constituency of Cambridge. However, Cambridgeshire has also lost out as a result of this year's flat-rate increase. Will she say when Cambridgeshire can expect to receive its full formula spending share and to get the transitional grant that is due?
Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that she has been campaigning with great effect against antisocial behaviour in her community. The decision to make a 3.25 per cent. across the board increase this year is exceptional, and I hope to return to the formula, which reflects the needs of different communities, as soon as we can.
Hywel Williams: Will there be a review before we revert to the old formula? The Minister will be interested to know that North Wales police recently told me that the formula is in urgent need of review, particularly to give greater recognition to rurality. I also understand that the formula is based on the 1991 census. Can she assure the House that there will be a review before a return to the formula?
Ms Blears: The new formula was implemented only last year and was subject to a wide-ranging consultation, and the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and all other stakeholders supported it. The hon. Gentleman will know that the rural policing grant reflects the needs of sparsely populated areas, and if he wants to make representations, I am sure that they can be considered. However, the formula is fair because of the recent wide consultation.
Mr. David Rendel: The Minister claims that this year's increase is 3.25 per cent. Thames Valley police have told their local members that that is not the correct figure because it includes the Airwave money, which has been reduced this year. If one includes Airwave, the overall figure is less than 3.25 per cent.
Ms Blears: Hon. Members are anticipating many of the points that I shall cover in detail in my speech. On
932
Airwave, we tried to put a specific grant into the general grant in order to give police authorities greater flexibility in making their own decisions, which is exactly what they wanted us to do. We recognise that there were problems where authorities had already made contractual commitments as a result of the Airwave programme. To remedy that, we have put £10 million of new revenue that would not have been within the settlement into the pot, and we have also contributed £20 million of capital targeted specifically at those forces that lost out the most because they had the greatest contractual commitments. I place on record my appreciation of the constructive efforts made by ACPO and the APA in enabling us to reach a fair settlement on Airwave.
Mr. James Paice: While the Minister is discussing Airwave, will she go further than paying tribute to police authorities and repeat her apology to them about Airwave, which she gave in a letter to the chairman of the APA:
"I repeat the apology made at the meeting for the unhelpful though unintended consequences of reallocating this grant from specific to general."?
Why does she not just admit that the Government got it wrong rather than trying to make excuses?
Ms Blears: I have not made excuses and my comments have been transparent. I met members of the APA and was prepared to say that that step, which we took for the best of reasons, had had unintended consequences. I apologised for the difficulties that it had caused the APA, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, I was happy to confirm that in writing. I would not want a genuine step to maximise flexibility for police authorities to have inadvertent consequences, which we have done our best to remedy.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: May I take the Minister back to Cambridgeshire for a moment? We know that money must be set aside from the grant and devoted to pension payments. What proportion of the grant to Cambridgeshire must be set aside to pay for pensions and how does it compare with the average across the police authorities?
Ms Blears: I do not have that particular statistic at the moment. If I receive it before the end of the debate, I shall endeavour to give it to the right hon. Gentleman; if not, I shall write to him. He raises the important issue of pensions, on which we launched a consultation on 11 December last year examining how we can have a pension system that reflects the needs of both officers and the service. He is right to say that there is a retirements spike in some authorities, which makes funding pensions a burden. That is why in future we want to have a pension system that endeavours to even out the strains on police authority finances, because pensions are a large part of their budgets. Police authorities can also plan for pensions because they normally have significant notice of when people will retire and of when pension payments must be made.
Mr. David Drew: I would also like to see the disaggregated figures. Does the Minister agree that we should make a virtue of those members of

933
the uniformed police force who want to stay on with the police in a civilian capacity, rather than seeing it as a fiddle? We should be clever enough to reach an arrangement whereby such people forgo their pension for a time, which would keep their expertise in the police force and make sure that the figures stack up. That suggestion would benefit the police, Parliament and the community—will she examine it?
Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We invest an enormous amount in the training, skills and expertise of members of the police service, which we should be able to retain. He will know that we recently came up with a programme of retention at 30 years-plus to do exactly that. We should examine any measures relating to the pension scheme that would also encourage the retention of skills and expertise.
As well as record police numbers, it is as well to remind the House that the police service, in partnership with others, is bringing crime down. Since 1997, burglary is down by 39 per cent. and vehicle crime is down by 31 per cent. The chance of becoming a victim of crime in this country is as low as it was in 1981, which is a tremendous achievement, despite massive changes such as the growth in ownership of mobile phones. Indeed, the focus on police performance is much stronger than it used to be. We have been trying to make the use of modern technology more widespread: the 2 millionth profile has recently been loaded on to the DNA database and there are more than 2.17 million profiles for suspected offenders.
Despite those achievements, huge challenges lie in front of us, and it is vital that all our agencies and communities work together. I shall briefly refer to the "together" campaign against antisocial behaviour, which is having a significant impact. The "together" campaign, the "together" academy and the "together" action line give local communities the tools and powers to address low-level loutish behaviour, which causes so much misery to our communities. We have also made tackling antisocial behaviour a priority in the national policing plan, so it is a strategic priority for the police.
We want to make a stronger connection between communities and their police because we know that policing cannot simply be done to people. We want policing to occur with the active co-operation of communities so that local people give the police the intelligence and information that they need. Labour's approach has been "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", which is more than just a slogan—it is a workable response to the spiralling crime that the Tories created before 1997. Labour Members know that people on estates, in inner cities, in rural areas and in market towns want to see efficient and effective policing; deterrence that works; swift detection and arrest; and fast and fair sentencing.
Crucially—this is the main philosophical difference between our parties—we must also understand the causes of crime, which is why police funding and partnership working are important. The issue is about not only a lack of individual responsibility but trying to address the underlying conditions that cause criminal behaviour—poverty, poor educational achievement, high unemployment and, crucially, drugs.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Everything that my hon. Friend the Minister has just said relates to the situation in Suffolk. I wholeheartedly support the Government's strong message that local authorities will be capped if they come up with council tax increases greater than low single figure percentages, and I also agree that precepting authorities such as the police cannot be exempt from that. However, there is some evidence that the public are prepared to pay a bit more for their police than they are for their councils. When the Minister examines the proposed increases, will she be slightly more lenient with proposed increases from police authorities where they have put a good case together and where they present some evidence that people in their authority area support an increase?
Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He knows that I have been working extremely closely with my hon. Friends in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that we examine council tax and police precepts as holistically as possible. However, it is important that authorities have the support of their local communities when they propose increases. He is right that many local communities want to see good, effective, efficient, visible and accessible policing. I must also say to my hon. Friend that the council tax rises of the past few years are unsustainable, and we have sent out a clear message that we want authorities to be conscious of the effect on their communities of excessive council tax rises.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister mentions factors that can affect local police forces, but will she bear in mind that some forces—such as Surrey—that have a good record and are popular with the community they serve have faced unusual burdens? In my constituency, the murder of a lorry driver on the M3 by means of a brick dropped from a bridge coincided with Operation Orb in relation to the tragic murder of Milly Dowler, and with the inquiry into the Deepcut deaths. Will the Minister bear in mind that good forces such as Surrey have found it difficult to retain staff, because they have been tempted to transfer to the Met, and that forces have been under great financial strain even without the extra burdens of particular inquiries? Surrey police need help from this Government but they do not feel they are getting it.
Ms Blears: Because of the 3.25 per cent. flat rate this year, Surrey police will receive £15.7 million more than they would have done had the formula been applied. They are one of the massive gainers this year. They also have record numbers of police officers—518 more than when the Government came to power—and 64 community support officers on patrol. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a special grant of £280,000 in April last year as a contribution to some of the large investigations that Surrey police were required to undertake. The hon. Gentleman will know that other applications for special grants and assistance are being considered. I am aware of the good work that

935
Surrey police are doing, especially on the reassurance agenda, which is being led by the chief constable and is proving extremely interesting.
Mr. David Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Blears: No, I wish to make some progress; otherwise I will never get through everything I need to say.
Mr. Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Blears: No, I shall make some progress. The police settlement for this year—
Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When giving statistics to the House, such as the figure of 500 extra police in a particular police force area, should not a Minister making such a claim explain that it is because a Metropolitan police borough—my constituency—was moved out of the Met and into Surrey, and the officers went with it? That is not an increase.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair: it is a matter for the debate. The hon. Gentleman has made his contribution.
Ms Blears: I am sure he has, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The settlement builds on a strong foundation of significant investment in the police service in recent years. It builds on annual increases in policing provision of 10.1 per cent. in 2000–01, 7.3 per cent. in 2001–02 and 6.2 per cent. this year. We are providing grant to support overall police spending of almost £10.1 billion. That is an increase of £400 million or 4.2 per cent. for this year.
The police grant report deals with Home Office general police grant for revenue expenditure. That amounts to £4,380 million in 2004–05. The amounts payable to individual police authorities are listed in the police grant report that I have presented to the House. Additionally, police authorities will receive £2,892 million revenue support grant as local authorities, and special damping grant support for Wales of £14 million, making £7,286 million in total. That is an overall increase of 3.25 per cent. on last year. Main force allocations were set out in the statement on 30 January.
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: My hon. Friend mentioned special grants. Together with Gloucestershire constabulary, I lobbied for a private finance initiative credit of £1 million, so that we could have a new police station worth £26 million in Quedgeley in my constituency. Has that additional £1 million been confirmed by the Government?
Ms Blears: Yes, it is just under £1 million, but I confirm that the PFI credit has been provided to enable the scheme to go ahead. I am sure that my hon. Friend and his community will appreciate the excellent facilities that will be provided for policing in his area.
936
In addition to the revenue support in general grant, I will provide £657 million for a range of specific initiatives and £355 million to support police authority capital programmes. I will spend some £706 million centrally in direct support of the police, and I shall say more about specific grant funding later.
Mr. Roger Williams: As a consequence of the flat-rate settlement in Dyfed-Powys police authority, it will need to increase its precept on the council tax by 15 per cent. to maintain officer numbers. That means that in the past six years the burden falling on the council tax payers will have increased from 15 per cent. to 35 per cent. of the funding needed to maintain the police force. Is it the Government's policy to transfer the burden of police funding away from the Government to the council tax payer?
Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the proportion borne by precept payers has increased in recent years, but the amount of investment from the centre has increased even more. There has been an increase of 30 per cent. in funding from the centre, and therefore there is no attempt to push the burden on to council tax and precept payers. Equally, where there is a demand for good, effective, visible and accountable policing in communities, it is a local responsibility as well as a national one to ensure that funds are in place to enable that to happen.
Across Government, we will also invest £1.3 billion in the national drug strategy next year, which will make a real and significant contribution to breaking the link between drugs and crime.
Simon Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that her colleague Robin Wales, who chairs the Association of London Government, speaking on behalf of all London councils, has called her settlement disappointing for the Metropolitan Police Authority? The impact of the new formula, together with the transfer of funding mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), is the equivalent of a 9 per cent. council tax increase. Do the Government accept that their new formula for London will be the direct cause of 9 per cent. extra on the police budget for London council tax payers in April this year?
Ms Blears: No, I do not accept that in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman chooses to put it. I will come to the settlement for the Metropolitan police, but they will get a significant increase in general grant as well as in many of the specific grants, including the formula for capital city functions. Extra funding will also be provided for the costs of the counter-terrorism work in which the Metropolitan police are particularly involved. I certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's formulation.
There have been hard choices to make this year. We were always clear that this would be a difficult year in the spending review settlement, and I am very aware that recent changes to the funding formula—to better reflect forces' needs and to distribute police grant more fairly—were implemented for the first time only this year.

937
Funding formulae always involve difficult decisions, but we must try to ensure that the funding system operates as fairly as possible for everyone.
We have decided, exceptionally, to provide a standard general grant increase of 3.25 per cent. for each police authority in England and Wales in 2004–05. That is in recognition of the financial pressures on police authorities and our concern to avoid excessive burdens on council tax payers when police authorities set their final budgets for next year. Some authorities would benefit considerably were we to distribute general grant solely according to the needs-based formula. However, we have had to take full account of pressures across the board to ensure that all authorities could keep police precepts at sustainable levels next year and that policing services continue to improve. The general grant increase is well above inflation and will meet, in particular, the pay increases announced for next year. I want to assure hon. Members that we will try to get back to some better reflection of the funding formula in future years.
I shall give some examples of the effect of the flat-rate settlement. Essex will gain more than £15 million, Kent more than £14 million, Surrey £15 million, Sussex £10 million and Thames Valley nearly £5 million. It is clear that there are some significant gainers from the operation of the system this year, and some significant losers, too.
Mr. David Heath: The Minister has just said that she expects council tax increases this year to be sustainable. Elsewhere, she has said that she expects them to be low. Her ministerial colleague with responsibility for local government has suggested that any council tax increase for local authorities that is greater than a low single figure percentage increase would be unacceptable. Is that the sort of increase that she expects for police authorities, and if the increase is higher, does she intend to cap them?
Ms Blears: Clearly, the exercise of capping powers will be a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister but, as I said previously, I have been keeping in close contact with my right hon. Friend on those matters. I understand that the local government settlement is 5.5 per cent., which is a significant real-terms increase that builds on previous significant real-terms increases, so it is perfectly proper to ask authorities to try to keep their increases to low single figures in view of the amount that has gone into local government services. The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do, that the extra money found in December—£340 million—was specifically targeted on social services and the liveability agenda, so that is extra help for local government, too.
The Home Secretary is writing to the 10 police authorities that we think are likely to be at the high end of police precept—[Interruption] I can certainly supply the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) with a list of those authorities. The Home Secretary and I will be in direct contact with a wider range of authorities to discuss those issues. The issues are serious; it is not simply a matter of setting arbitrary figures, but of trying to support the authorities in making appropriate settlements.
938
For next year, we have done everything possible to maximise the increase in general grant. Time and time again, authorities say that they want more flexibility to spend the money as they see fit, so we have added £140 million from wider Home Office resources to general grant provision. We have also taken £100 million from existing and planned specific grants—not just the Airwave money—and central spending to try to increase the scope for police authorities to determine their own spending.
As in the last two years, we have made arrangements to ensure that Welsh police authorities receive support comparable to that for police authorities in England. We are providing special grant totalling just under £14 million to Welsh authorities next year. That is provided from outside the general grant settlement, as there are not enough forces in Wales to apply the floors and ceilings, and that will bring their allocations up to the 3.25 per cent. increase, in line with their English counterparts.
I have already dealt with matters relating to Airwave, and I hope that the extra money that we are providing will assist forces in that regard.
As part of the consultation exercise on the funding settlement, I have received 63 representations covering 32 police authority areas. I have received letters from chief constables, police authorities and hon. Members. I have met as many hon. Members and delegations as I possibly could during the consultation period. People expressed concerns about 10 big issues. Naturally, the biggest was the overall level of the settlement, because everybody would like more money, but the second biggest was the suspension of the funding formula—a point that has already been raised by hon. Members today. There were also concerns about the rural policing fund, the Airwave grant, the fact that there were no extra funds from the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, the effect on police precepts, the floors and ceilings, the area cost adjustment and the assumed national council tax rate—which I have endeavoured to understand—and its possible effect on the police precept.
I have taken into account all the representations made to me, whether in writing or at meetings, but I want to deal with a couple of those concerns. The first is the suspension of the funding formula. The funding formula is a fair guide to relative needs and we minimised use of it this year only with the greatest reluctance. The formula is based not only on crime rates, but on employment, density, population, including residential population, and tourism, and it provides an accurate measure so that we can direct our resources to the places with the greatest need. This year, obviously, we have taken exceptional decisions.
We have tried to protect police authorities from excessive year-on-year fluctuations by the introduction of floors and ceilings in 2002–03, but this year, with a standard-rate increase, the floors and ceilings are, in effect, at the same level. Through that arrangement, nine forces have contributed about £106 million to increase grant for forces that would have been below the floor of 3.25 per cent. I recognise that many of those making contributions to the funding floor feel that they are not

939
getting their full share of the funding pot, but I have had to consider the need for financial stability across the board.
Mr. Paul Truswell: The situation for West Yorkshire is an example of what my hon. Friend has just been talking about. Does she acknowledge that the authority has not shared in the record increase in police officers, that the number of police per head of population in West Yorkshire is less than in any other metropolitan area, that as a result of floors and ceilings over the last two years we have lost grant of about £16 million and that the authority faces exceptional expenditure of more than £13 million as a result of the Bradford riots? Will my hon. Friend take that into account both when considering the precept and disbursing the extra money to which she referred earlier?
Ms Blears: Only this week, I was in West Yorkshire visiting Leeds to look at some of the excellent work that is going on in local communities, especially in tackling antisocial behaviour, and to meet some of the community support officers. I think that West Yorkshire has 201 CSOs on patrol—one of the highest numbers. My hon. Friend is right to say that the force contributed £6.8 million to the pot for floors and ceilings this year and that will clearly have an effect. Nevertheless, there is an increase of £9.5 million in grant allocation for the force this year, which, building on significant previous increases, ought to be of assistance.
We shall continue to work with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on issues relating to the police precept. Pensions have been mentioned several times, and I think that I have dealt with those issues.
I want to deal with the Metropolitan police, as hon. Members are greatly concerned about that force, which has a significant impact in policing our country. Grant for the Metropolitan Police Authority will increase from £1,764 million to £1,822 million. I have increased the formula provision for the MPA national and capital city functions from £202 million to £207 million. The Met will benefit from a range of special grants and payments: £73 million from the crime fighting fund; £9 million —again—to tackle street crime; about £10 million for basic command unit funds; about £7 million from the DNA expansion programme; and a range of other funding, including £29 million for the London allowance and £3.1 million towards free travel for officers in the capital.
The capital grant will be £355 million in the coming year, an increase of £22 million, or 6.6 per cent. Most of that provision, £185 million, will go directly to police authorities to support their capital programmes; we circulated the allocations this week. The Met will receive £48 million for capital plus a further £40 million as part of our agreement to support the costs of creating the command, control and communications system—the C3I system—which will further enhance the force's effectiveness.
I am delighted to tell the House that this year we shall be phasing out the £20 million premises improvement fund, as we have managed to make significant progress on improving police stations and facilities for officers.
940
However, I shall be asking forces to concentrate a similar sum on capital improvements in the coming year to give priority to investment in technology to support front-line policing. In north Wales, I have seen excellent examples; forces are beginning to use palm pilots and mobile data that save them from having to keep going hack to the police station. They can download photographs or key in statements directly. We are asking them to look into such technology and I am delighted to say that forces will not have to bid for those funds, so we will not have to go through bureaucratic bidding processes.
There are several specific programmes where funding is provided. One of the best and most successful is the crime fighting fund, a grant designed to increase the number of police officers. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will acknowledge that we have a record number of police officers. That has been achieved with the assistance of the crime fighting fund, which has enabled us to drive up police numbers.
Dr. John Pugh: The Minister is presumably aware that her comments about increased police numbers do not apply to Merseyside, but may I take her back to her discussion of representations from police authorities? My only experience of that was in the days when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was at the Home Office, there was a Conservative chairman of the Merseyside police authority and we received nothing. Will the Minister make clear how many of the representations made this year resulted in any change whatever to funding for local authorities?
Ms Blears Ms Blears rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before the Minister responds, may I make this point to the House? It is difficult for the Chair to prevent Members from seeking to intervene and obviously the Minister then has to respond. The more and the longer the interventions, and the more the responses, the less the time that will be left for other Members who are waiting patiently to make their contributions to the debate.
Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know that the population of Merseyside is falling, but it has one of the highest ratios of police officers to population in the country. He will also know, from the statement made in the House, that we have confirmed the provisional settlement in relation to the proposals.
I am conscious of the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of the fact that hon. Members want to speak, but I should like to highlight one or two other issues in concluding my remarks. Additional funds will be given to the police service this year to enable it to respond to the continuing challenges of international terrorism. Special grant will continue for special priority payments.
We will continue to fund and support the hugely successful community support officers. We now have 3,000 patrolling throughout the country, and 18 forces have been able to receive funding for their CSOs, not just from the police but from local authorities and,

941
increasingly, from housing trusts and registered social landlords. I saw some in Telford just this week, and they are extremely successful.
The rural policing fund will continue at £30 million. The street crime initiative will continue to be funded at £24 million, and we have had tremendous success in driving down street crime—a 17 per cent. reduction in the top 10 areas. We will provide another £50 million for high crime areas under the BCU fund.
We will provide some new money this year for work force modernisation, which is absolutely central to the reform programme, to get a better skills mix throughout the police service; we have got £8 million this year and we will have £5 million next year. We have three big programmes in Northumbria and Surrey, and I hope to have a big programme in the Met as well, to redesign and re-engineer the way in which the police service works on the ground. We have seven medium-sized programmes in areas that range from Nottingham and Dyfed-Powys to civilian staff in Humberside and investigating officers in Lincolnshire—an engine for change and reform in our service.
On the centrally provided services, we continue to fund the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, with increases of £12.2 million and £6.8 million respectively. The Police Information Technology Organisation has £264 million, and Centrex training receives £89 million. All that is fundamental to our reform programme.
We are also taking action on the big challenge for us—to try to reduce bureaucracy. We will roll out the fixed penalty scheme right across the country. That scheme is hugely welcomed by officers, as they can issue fixed penalties without going through the custody process, so they are back out on the streets doing the job that they want to do and the job that we pay them for.
All 43 forces now have facilities to undertake video identification parades, and Airwave is being rolled out across the county. The case and custody IT programme, which I saw in Warwick, will be a tremendous improvement on the current system. We are continuing to press police authorities to meet their efficiency gains. Many of them have done extremely well in recent years, and I hope that they will be able to do the same again.
We always said that this year's settlement would be difficult. I believe that we have managed to strike the right balance in the distribution of police grant. There are some significant gainers; there are also those forces that have had to contribute significantly to the pot, but we have done a great deal with police reform in the past two years. We will continue to invest strongly in a reformed police service and to work closely with forces and communities to deliver, as the public rightly expect, ever higher standards of policing and performance to help to build safer communities for the people whom we serve. I commend the report to the House.
2.33 pm
Mr. James Paice: The Minister refers in her closing remarks to spending the past two years reforming the police service. Do I have to remind her that the Government have been in office nearly seven years and that, in the first four years of that period, they actually slashed the police service by 3,000 officers?
942
May I join the Minister, however, in paying tribute, as she did at the beginning of her speech, to our police forces? In the context of the Soham inquiry I am fortunate, or perhaps unfortunate, to represent South-East Cambridgeshire, so I have seen the police force at its most magnificent in the way that it and so many forces coped with that awful tragedy. I stand second to no one in paying tribute to the commitment, courage and sometimes astonishing bravery of our police in maintaining law and order—especially, as the Minister said, in these times of the increased threat from terrorism.
The Conservative party wholly welcomes the increase in police numbers. It is pity that we had to go down 3,000 before we went up 12,000.
Mr. Truswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Paice: I will give way in a minute. I have not really got started yet; the Minister took nearly 40 minutes.
It is interesting that the Prime Minister apparently has no reverse gear, yet we have reversed from a 3,000 reduction to a 12,000 increase. We have made it clear that we believe that another 40,000 police are needed. We will provide resources for those officers, so that we can have the policing that we believe is necessary for the country. It is interesting that the Government clearly do not share that objective.
One of the omissions—there were a few—from the Minister's speech is that she talked about the crime fighting fund, but she did not remind the House that she is abandoning the crime fighting fund for any further officers this year. She looks askance, but that is in her statement. There will be no more crime fighting fund money, other than that for the existing increase in officers. Clearly, the Government do not intend to make the significant increase in the number of officers that we believe is necessary.
Mr. Truswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talks about police numbers being slashed, but was that not partly the result of the Government perhaps unwisely keeping to Conservative Government spending figures for the first two years?
Mr. Paice: A Government in office have to take responsibility for their own decisions. The Government were not required to stick to any figure. I have no idea whether they stuck to previous figures. I cannot believe that that is the case. It is also very interesting to consider—dare I say it? —the totality of the Government's activities in the first Parliament. Where it suited them to blame the previous Government's spending plans, they blamed them; where it suited them to take credit for what was done, they took the credit. They cannot have it both ways.
After paying tribute to the police forces, I want to pay tribute to the Minister. Frankly, for a Minister who shows the marks of the Chancellor's hobnail boots all over her in terms of the settlement, she presented an incredibly rosy picture of police funding—if it can be said that giving a little more than half what police authorities need represents a rosy picture. I remind her

943
that the No. 10 strategy unit has said that crime figures in this country are among the worst in the developed world.
Let us look back at the past three years, since the welcome 12,000 increase in police numbers. In those same three years, the council tax precept for police authorities has gone up by no less than 87 per cent. We have to ask why that is so. Police authority expenditure has gone up by £8 billion—a 22 per cent. Increase— but that is almost entirely driven by central costs: centrally determined pay, pensions, national insurance hikes and the increased number of civilians. The Minister boasted about that increase, but most of those civilians are needed to fulfil bureaucratic functions required by the Government: filling in forms, meeting targets, and carrying out 34 Government initiatives, which they have imposed on police authorities regardless of local needs and priorities.
Mr. Dhanda: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me time, by giving way. He says that part of the problem has been increased bureaucracy. Is he aware that, over the past 10 years, we have seen something like a doubling—certainly in my area—in the number of civilian support staff? He may view that as added bureaucracy, but a lot of those people are retired police officers who are now civilian note takers, for example. Is he pledging to reduce the number of civilian support staff to boost the number of police officers; or would he increase the burden of taxation?
Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman entirely misses the point. My point is not that we do not want to see an increase in the use of civilians for jobs that do not require police officers, but that the huge increase in expenditure by police authorities has been caused by central Government decision making. Police authorities do not have the discretion that they used to have to control their expenditure.
Of the £1.8 billion increase in expenditure, total central Government contributions have increased by just £881 million. The Minister obfuscated over the past half an hour or so, with all sorts of lists of different funds—£10 million here, £50 million or £60 million there. The reality—the totality—is an increase in Government spending of £881 million in the past three years. So to meet those centrally determined costs, police authorities have had no option but to increase their precepts, because the Government have added expense burdens yet have not provided the resources to match them.
Whereas in the base year of 2000–01—the year in which police numbers started to rise—the council tax raised just 13 per cent. of police authority expenditure, it is raising more than 20 per cent. in the current year. That represents a dramatic shift in funding responsibility. If we look behind the national figures to determine what they actually mean for police numbers, we find out that although the Government boast about the extra 12,000 officers, the rise in council tax paid for by council tax payers throughout the country would have paid for more than 19,000 extra officers if it had not
944
had to be used to make up for the Government's shortfall in funding. In London, that would have meant another 500 officers. South Yorkshire has seen a tax increase of 63 per cent. That would have paid for 269 extra officers in the Home Secretary's force, but it has received just 47. The tax in my area of Cambridgeshire has gone up by 90 per cent. That would have paid for 267 extra officers, but we have got just 174. In Hampshire, which is the area of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—the previous Minister with responsibility for the police, who was in office for most of the three years about which I am talking—the tax has gone up by 80 per cent. That would have paid for 561 extra officers, but the area received only 274.
The list goes on. Only eight out of 43 police authorities have experienced an increase in officers greater than that which would have been paid for by the tax increase. My accusation against the Government is not that we have got extra police officers over the past few years, but that, contrary to ministerial hype, not only have they been paid for by the council tax payer, but the council tax payer has been short-changed by some 7,000 officers.
Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if one considers the widely varying policing needs of the Metropolitan police area, especially because of demands on inner London owing to terrorist threats, outer London boroughs such as Havering are getting the smallest slice of the Metropolitan cake? Whatever the additional resources poured into the Metropolitan area, the outer London boroughs are still starved of resources.
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend stands second to no one in supporting her force, and she is perfectly correct to question the allocation of resources in a force. My only caution in response is that forces should have such discretion, and my contention is that so much of it has been taken from them by the Government.
Let me turn to next year's funding. The settlement smacks of panic. What happened to education last year is happening to the police this year. Why else have the Government had to suspend the funding formula that they brought in only a year ago? They have suspended it regardless of need, growth or specific circumstances in localities. The Minister boasted of half a dozen police authorities that will gain from the settlement, but she did not list the losers. If she had stuck to the formula, at least it would have been clear to everyone why they got what they got. Instead, there is a blanket 3.25 per cent. for all authorities, although as was said earlier, it is about 3.15 per cent. after one allows for the Airwave debacle.
In many cases, specific grants were already committed. That was not only true of Airwave, for which £37.5 million was originally taken out of budgets—it is nothing short of a shambles that the Home Office took out that money. The Minister tried to lead the House into believing that because she has put some of the money back, there has somehow been an overall increase in spending on Airwave. There is still a £7.5 million shortfall, and authorities are contractually committed to pay much of that money, including, I dare say, that of the Surrey police force, which she suggested had received an especially good settlement.

945
Last autumn, the Association of Police Authorities told the Home Secretary that a 6 per cent. increase was needed to meet budget obligations. It told him why: all the increased pay required by central pay negotiations; pension demands; the new statutory duties in the Police Reform Act 2002; the running costs of the new information technology systems; anti-terrorist work; DNA support; and even—God help us—centrally determined uniform requirements, which will add 1 per cent. to my force's council tax precept. Instead of receiving 6 per cent., it is receiving 3.25 per cent. In fact, to underline the panic clearly faced by the Government, figures show that the Home Office police grant went up by only 2.1 per cent. Rather like Corporal Jones, I imagine that the Minister was flying round the Home Office shouting, "Don't panic—where can we find some more money?"
The Minister told the House that she had found a little more money. She found £140 million from somewhere else in the Home Office, which only goes to show where waste must already exist. She found £100 million from specific and capital grants, so the Government are using capital grant money to support revenue spending. The result is that the Association of Police Authorities expects an average 15 per cent. rise to the precept this year. Just 11 out of the 43 police authorities expect single-figure rises, and only three expect a rise below 9 per cent.
That brings me on to capping. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he expects council tax rises to be in low single figures. The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire told many authorities that he will step in if they levy an increase of more than 5 per cent. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety told the police authorities about capping:
"We hope that it will not be necessary for any police authority and look to continued improvement in policing services without excessive burdens being placed on local taxpayers"—
some hope.
What does the Minister propose? How are police authorities to reduce expenditure by £250 million, which is the gap between what she has provided and what they need? Most police authorities cannot reduce their numbers of police officers because of the crime fighting fund criteria—any reductions would be taken off the crime fighting fund figures first—so they will have no option but to reduce civilian staff. Reducing civilian staff inevitably means taking police officers off the streets and putting them back behind desks. What is the Minister doing to cut all the centrally imposed costs?
If the Minister is determined, as she appears to be, to impose only a 3.25 per cent. increase, police authorities must be told now. We are into February, so it is no use saying that she will hold discussions with police authorities over the coming weeks and months. They are setting their budgets now, and they must tell the preceptor authorities how much they need in the next few weeks. When will she tell them her expectations on capping? When will she tell them what she expects their budgets to be and what she expects them to cut so that they may meet those budgets? She cannot shuffle off responsibility on to the Deputy Prime Minister. She needs to tell the authorities now exactly what she expects of them. If she tells them that they must not increase their precept by more than 6 or 7 per cent. —whatever
946
figure she decides—yes, they will have to make cuts, but at least they will know what they are doing. They currently face setting an average increase of 15 per cent.
Far from providing the improvement in policing that the Minister wants from the settlement, it will almost certainly lead to a worsening. The beleaguered council tax payer will continue to pay more and to be short-changed by the Government.
2.48 pm
Paddy Tipping: The settlement is important for people who live in Nottinghamshire, as is the debate. On 25 February, the police authority will consider the precept increase—the indicative figure is 12.6 per cent. That comes on top of a growth in the current year of 18 per cent., and a growth in 2002–03 of 28 per cent. Over the space of three years, the council tax payers in Nottingham have been asked to pay more than 60 per cent. extra. People on fixed incomes, elderly people, the poor and those who are more prone to crime than others must ask whether they are getting value for money.
We in Nottinghamshire are in a position to make some judgments about that. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary reported last March that not only were we not getting value for money, but that the police in Nottinghamshire were not efficient or effective. HMIC reported again at the end of last year and concluded that there had been a small improvement. That had come at a very late stage, but at least it was an improving police force. I commend the officers on the beat in Nottinghamshire for their hard work. The HMIC report went on to say that, compared with other authorities, the performance of the Nottinghamshire police was relatively poor.
There are strong feelings among residents of Nottinghamshire that they are not getting a fair deal from their police. That view is supported by all the Nottinghamshire Members of Parliament. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) is present, sitting on the Front Bench. He has campaigned hard for local authorities to work on antisocial behaviour, and for better co-operation between the police and the local authority, because he knows that in places such as Netherfield, the yobbish behaviour affects people. He knows, too, that people living in Arnold were mortified by the tragic death of Marian Bates. I am delighted, as is my hon. Friend, that an arrest has been made and that it looks as though the efforts of the Nottinghamshire police are making progress. We want a successful conclusion.
We should acknowledge that alongside progress, there have been management failings. It was the chief constable who introduced a new telephone system two years ago, which was ineffective. It was the chief constable and the police who decided to realign boundaries alongside district council boundaries, again for good reasons, but that change caused problems and led to a fall in morale in the Nottinghamshire police. Again, it was a management decision that rapid response squads should be taken away from a local base and placed centrally. There was a strong feeling in the community that people were being denied their police. Of course, when police come from another town, they are not familiar with local problems, and sometimes have difficulty finding the scene of the crime.

947
Such management failings build on a long tradition of complacency. We have a new—or rather, a not so new—chief constable, Stephen Green, who has been in place for three years and has brought in radical change. If there is criticism of the chief constable, it is that he has introduced too much change. There have been difficulties in trying to handle change on that scale. Change and investment go together. Reform needs investment, but investment should be a precondition for reform. I am not confident that we have the balance right in Nottinghamshire. I want to see improved performance from the Nottinghamshire police, but we need to examine carefully what is happening in the force. They are, they argue strongly, under-resourced.
There are more crimes per officer in Nottinghamshire than anywhere else. In terms of crimes per 1,000 of population, Nottinghamshire tops the league. There are twice the number of 999 calls to the Nottinghamshire police. That shows the demands made on the force, but it has not all been bad news. Nottinghamshire police have record numbers of police officers—an extra 264 over the past few years, backed by 43 community support officers, who do valuable work in local communities. My fellow MPs from the area and I want to see more uniformed community support officers working in conjunction with the local authorities for change.
We need to ask why crime is traditionally so high in Nottinghamshire. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, in co-operation with HMIC and the police standards unit, investigate why for 20 years the crime rate in Nottinghamshire appears to have been higher than anywhere else in the country? There is a history of heavy drinking and violent behaviour, but it is not clear why Nottinghamshire, with a big urban centre, mining communities and a rural area, should appear to be so atypical. We need to examine that closely. We must also consider current crime trends in Nottinghamshire. Ten years ago there would be eight or nine murders a year. In the past two years the Nottinghamshire police have had to investigate 17 category A murders, and that takes a tremendous amount of resources.
Those crimes generally occur in Nottingham. The effect is that police are brought from outside the city, leaving a policing vacuum in suburban and rural areas. The police are on the case; they take the matter seriously. They are to set up a homicide unit, creating a pool of officers at the centre, backed by better technology. However, further work is required. The police in Nottinghamshire are considering the possibility of establishing a serious offending unit—a group based in the centre, so that officers are not sucked away from their area, and so that when assassinations take place, driven largely by drug-related crime, there is a separate unit that can respond to the situation. Much work is being done, funded by the police authority's budget, to establish such a unit.
It is important that we examine the level of serious crime in Nottinghamshire. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has discussed the matter with us privately, is to go to Nottinghamshire on Monday. She will meet a range of people there and speak to the chief constable and to the chairman of the police authority, John Clarke. I hope the discussion will be on
948
the twin themes of investment and reform. I hope that she and all of us will build on the work of pulling together the various bodies in Nottinghamshire. HMIC and the standards unit have been working closely together. When she visits Nottinghamshire, I should like my hon. Friend to deliver a new vision, a new sense of purpose, an awareness of the problem, a set of actions and a timetable to achieve change. People in Nottinghamshire deserve nothing less.
2.58 pm
Mr. David Heath: Throughout the country, people are sick and tired of the council tax, and of large increases in their council tax. They are sick and tired of increases in their council tax without any appreciable improvement in the service they receive. Although I have a great deal of respect and time for the Minister, it is no good blathering on about the improvements in police numbers if the Government are not prepared to put in the resources to pay for them. It is no good blathering on about keeping council tax increases down to a reasonable—sustainable, as she puts it—level, if the Government are not prepared to ensure the proper balance between central Government expenditure and local government expenditure.
The inconvenient truth hidden in the police grant report that we are debating, which was outlined by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), is that there are police forces and police authorities all over the country that will not put in bids this year for council tax increases of 5, 6 or 7 per cent. They will be well into double figures, as even a cursory glance at the list of expected increases reveals, although I accept that that may change over the next few days as budget meetings take place. Avon and Somerset expects an increase of 12 per cent.; Bedfordshire, 15.9 per cent.; Cambridgeshire, 14.1 per cent.; Cheshire, up to 18 per cent.; Devon and Cornwall, 12.5 per cent.; and Durham, 20 per cent. I shall not read the complete list, but it is clear that the vast majority of police authorities expect substantial increases in council tax this year, which build on increases that have been made year after year. Someone has to say. "Enough is enough." No one begrudges paying for policing: people want more police on their streets and welcome what the Government have done to increase the number of officers across the country. In that respect, their only criticism of the Government is that it took them two to three years to distance themselves from the tired Conservative policy of not providing any increases in police numbers. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) said that perhaps that was not wise. In fact, it was blindly stupid of the Government in their first term not to recognise the need to fight crime effectively.
There is a problem, and I hope that the Minister will give us the list of 10 police authorities to which she intends to write, and tell us what she intends to say to them. Will she tell them that they are to cut police numbers, or that they are to cut civilian numbers and return those duties to uniformed officers? Will she tell them that they are to reduce the effectiveness of their operations? Of course not. She will say that they must magically produce the money that the Government have

949
not provided. The question of whether the Government intend to cap police authorities, which face a funding gap of £250 million, remains unanswered.
Mr. Roger Williams: If my hon. Friend cannot help me, perhaps the Minister can when she replies. Which Ministry would be responsible for any possible cap of Welsh police authorities?
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but I do not know the answer. I hope that the Minister can help, as there is the slightly odd interposition of the Welsh Assembly. However, my hon. Friend's police authority, Dyfed-Powys, faces a 15 per cent. increase. I know its chief constable well, and appointed him to the ranks of the Association of Chief Police Officers a few years ago. He is a dedicated police officer, and his force is extremely lean, effective and efficient. If it says that it needs 15 per cent., we can be sure that that is not because it has inflated ideas about what it should provide.
Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend will be aware that in London we are looking forward to the prospect of the Government having to cap the Mayor—that would be an interesting phenomenon. However, has he seen any statement of Government policy that owns up to the fact that they want to cut the share of taxpayers' money going to police authorities? In effect, the Government would indirectly impose a stealth tax through police authorities, whatever their political persuasion.
Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and cogent point. The Government came as close as they have yet done to an admission that that was the case when the Minister replied to one of his interventions. The Government are pursuing a policy of increasing policing at the expense of the council tax payer rather than at the expense of central Government.
If the council tax system is not working on that scale, what are the answers? One solution is the reform or abolition of the council tax. I do not want to get into that argument, because it will be pursued in the following debate on local government finance, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) wishes to address it. We could tackle the overall presentation of figures, as there are distortions in the system. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire highlighted some of them, including the pension system. I always give this example, but I shall do so again. When I was involved with the predecessor of the Association of Police Authorities, I went to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), who was then police Minister, to discuss pensions. He promised me that the matter would be solved by Christmas. That was back in 1996, but we are still waiting for a solution.
Airwave has already been discussed, and I do not want to add anything, other than to observe that the money that the Government have put back into the system has reappeared mostly as capital rather than revenue, which will cause problems for police authorities. It is time to take a serious look at police authorities' responsibilities. There should be a national audit of the availability of officers in different parts of the country and the adequacy of police cover, which
950
could, for example, deal with the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). I hesitate to suggest another inquiry, as there are rather a lot of inquiries at the moment. Indeed, it is time that the Government published a directory of inquiries, so that we could work out which is which. However, we need an audit of the adequacy of police cover.
We also need to look carefully at the national responsibilities that many of our forces, especially the Metropolitan police, are taking on. We rightly regard the threat of terrorism, organised crime, the drugs trade and activities by paedophiles as matters that transcend police authority boundaries and that need to be dealt with effectively, but we do not have the apparatus to do so. We should acknowledge that and look at how we could remove those responsibilities from the sphere of the local chief constable and police authority so that they can concentrate on what is most important to the local community—tackling crime in the area, keeping the peace, reducing antisocial behaviour and doing the things that we all know our constituents want.
We need to look at the relationship between the police and the areas that they serve. The police, the chief constable and individual areas should agree a minimum policing guarantee. That guarantee need not operate on a force basis and certainly not on a joint force basis. My own constabulary, Avon and Somerset, covers a huge area, but there is major crime in Bristol, which acts as a magnet for resources, constantly reducing the policing available in rural parts of Somerset. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) mentioned the position in Havering. I do not know what the situation is in the London boroughs, but each one should have the opportunity to state the minimum level of policing needed in its area. There should be a relationship between that level and the amount of council tax that people pay.
Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that police authorities should have the freedom to use their budgets to decide, for example, whether to spend money on police constables or community support officers? The money allocated for CSOs should not be ring-fenced.
Mr. Heath: Such local freedom should apply. If we undertook some of the basic reforms that I have suggested, which may be far beyond the scope of the police grant report, it would enable local police commanders to make such decisions in consultation with local communities. We would thereby afford our police a genuine opportunity to work with and for the local community, so that they are no longer compelled by Home Office edicts to take on other responsibilities. I do not want to give the wrong impression, as I do not believe that national responsibilities are unimportant. I simply believe that they should not be dealt with at the expense of local policing and local crime fighting.
So many things could be done better to equip police forces. The Minister rightly mentioned IT provision. It is crazy that the average AA or RAC patrol officer has immensely better IT equipment in his or her van than a police officer who may be called to attend a serious crime, yet that is the case all over the country. However much money we plough into policing, we will not do a good job for the public until we reduce paperwork and

951
bureaucracy; understand the importance of the patrol function instead of treating it as a marginal activity that is always reduced when times are hard; realise the effect of abstractions on national responsibilities in relation to crime and local policing; and mobilise the local community by using retained officers, as do fire brigades in rural areas, to free up full-time officers and to provide extra cover and visibility.
Funding our police adequately is not only important but essential to the maintenance of good order. We sometimes expect an awful lot of our police, and they generally deliver, but they cannot do so without adequate personnel or resources to do the job. If the Government and we as a House want that to happen effectively in our local areas, we have to will the means as well as the ends. It is simply a deception on the public if we talk big about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime without ultimately providing the resources that make that a reality, while hoping that people will not notice. At the moment, however, they are noticing. They feel that they are not getting the value for money that they are entitled to expect from our policing service, and that they are paying more and more, to the point at which the policing precept is beginning to overtake the district council precept on the council tax bill. I fear that their questions are going unanswered. I fear that the Government are not providing the central resources and that many people will get a horrible shock when they open their council tax bills this year. Those people will be writing letters to their Members of Parliament, to their chief constables and to their local press to ask why they are paying another 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. for policing despite the fact that they cannot remember the last time they saw a police constable in their town, village or street.
The House should reject the report and ask the Government to think again. It fails to support local policing, fails to protect the local taxpayer and, in the long term, fails to protect the public.
3.13 pm
Sir Stuart Bell: It is always a pleasure to speak on the Floor of the House when you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I last did so, I spoke for 47 minutes, but today I will keep within Mr. Speaker's limit.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who spoke with great eloquence and pertinence. I shall not respond to his speech—I leave that to the Minister—but he made some important points about our local communities and their receptiveness to police officers, which he balanced against current levels of council tax.
I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister. Essentially, her increase in grant of 3.25 per cent. on last year means that Cleveland police will receive a total of £86.8 million in general grant for the year, with more specific grants that will become available, giving our police authority an extra £2.5 million. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the presence on the streets of police officers. The money that is on the table will go towards putting 200 extra bobbies on the beat in Cleveland—100 police
952
officers and 100 police community support officers, who, as the Minister said, are important in our communities. That will amount to one additional fresh police face in all 71 wards in Cleveland, covering Stockton, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, and Redcar and Cleveland.
The additional money that we are voting on today links in with the Government's determined drive to tackle antisocial behaviour head on and to heighten the police presence on our streets. That will help Cleveland police to establish a force with the specific task of tackling antisocial behaviour. The Minister referred to efficient and effective policing and deterrence that works. Such a presence on the streets is comforting and reassuring, and emphasises the fact that central Government do care and are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. I am sure that that feeling will be reflected in Middlesbrough and in Cleveland overall. Any new bobbies on the beat in Middlesbrough will link with the 70 street wardens, who now respond to more than 1,000 calls a month, and the 14 extra police officers introduced through the town's neighbourhood renewal programme.
On 19 December last year, we had the pleasure of receiving the noble Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, in Middlesbrough to see how well our warden scheme is working. He attended—as did I, with the mayor of Middlesbrough—a briefing for the wardens before they want out on patrol. Their knowledge of the local crime scene and the way in which they interfaced with our regular police force showed not only their determination to crack down on antisocial behaviour, but how, by coordinating their efforts, they can seek to get on top of that problem, which is, by general consent in this House and elsewhere, an affliction in our whole society.
Our elected mayor, Ray Mallon, has demonstrated how seriously he treats crime in the town. Each morning, almost before the rest of us wake, he is informed of the overnight crime statistics in the Boro— a fact that impressed me and the noble Lord Falconer. He can immediately see what the crime figures are, whether they are going up or down, and which areas are affected. In a sense, he has his finger on the crime pulse of our town. I would urge chief executives and leaders of local authorities up and down the land to adopt that system, so that, working with their constabularies, they too get the overnight statistics and keep their fingers on the crime pulse; and so that their citizens also benefit in the long run from the measures that the Government, with community wardens and the police, are taking against antisocial behaviour. The road to ridding our society of such behaviour might be long and rocky, but it is worth journeying for the benefit of our people. The motion is a positive step in that direction.
Our street wardens now respond to 1,000 calls a month, freeing up police resources to deal with crime. We have spent £500,000 on improving the Middlesbrough CCTV network, which covers the town centre and surrounding areas. Cameras have helped in increasing the number of arrests since the new centre was set up. Cleveland police and Middlesbrough council have secured more antisocial behaviour orders against offenders and more than 200 have signed acceptable behaviour contracts.

953
According to national crime recording standards figures, overall
crime in Middlesbrough is down by 3.7 per cent. and house burglaries have decreased by 22.9 per cent. In Cleveland, we have a unique opportunity because we have a new chief constable, a new senior management team and a new chief executive. It is important that they use the extra resources that the Government have awarded through the motion to respond to the overwhelming public demand, to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred, for an increase in high visibility community policing, with greater officer presence on the streets.
Cleveland police authority has assured the Minister that all additional funding in its budget, which is set on 19 February, will be used to increase officer numbers. It could give that assurance because the savings and efficiencies that it achieved amount to almost £3 million. Cleveland police authority would therefore fail in its duty to the local community and to central Government, who wish to tackle antisocial behaviour, if it did not go ahead with its proposals to use the new money available to put the 200 additional officers on the streets of the various wards in Cleveland. Our proposals for 200 additional officers in Cleveland have been welcomed at every public meeting that the chief constable and the chairman of the police authority have attended in the run-up to setting the budget on 19 February.
Following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), we learned that the Minister goes to West Yorkshire on Monday. She will visit Cleveland by the end of the month and witness our great and determined efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour and use the money on which we shall vote today with the utmost seriousness and diligence in the interests of the community by increasing the number of officers. Our people in Middlesbrough, like others throughout the land, will therefore see an increased police presence, feel reassured and continue to witness falling crime figures. I am therefore happy to support the motion and the increase in the money that the Minister will give Cleveland.
3.22 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: So far, we have heard from the north, the south-west, London and the east. Now it is the turn of the west midlands— specifically, the West Mercia constabulary.
I pay unqualified tribute to the West Mercia constabulary. Whenever I have raised an operational problem, it has responded magnificently. When it has made mistakes, it has admitted them and tackled them well. I have nothing but praise for Bob Forster, the chairman of the police authority, Paul West, the new chief constable and all the officers who work under him, especially in my constituency.
We experience specific challenges. West Mercia is a low crime area, and it is wrong to fear crime in my constituency to the same extent as in London. However, the police have to deal with genuine problems, especially antisocial behaviour, which is a huge menace in large parts of my constituency, and illegal travellers. Rural forces have to contend with such issues, which pose genuine challenges to the constabulary's resources.
I want to make two key points. First, police numbers have increased in West Mercia and, on balance, I am pleased about that. I say "on balance" because the
954
council tax payer has borne the entire cost of paying for the extra officers. Not one penny of Government money has gone towards increasing the number of officers in my constituency. Two years ago there was an increase of 300 officers, and that was financed by the 33 per cent. increase in the council tax precept in one year.
I am delighted that there are more officers, but I will not see the Government take the credit. The council tax payers of the West Mercia constabulary area should do that. The Government cannot brag about an increase in police numbers because they have not funded it. My constituents—the council tax payers—have paid for those additional officers.
My second point is almost parenthetical. It is a marker for the future rather than the present. I want to ensure the maintenance of the independence of the West Mercia constabulary. I am fearful of the Government's plans for regionalisation of the fire service and I worry that the same could happen to police services. I do not want the West Mercia constabulary to be merged into a larger West Midlands police force. The urban area that the West Midlands authority currently serves has a different set of problems, and I am delighted that the West Mercia constabulary remains separate, able to serve the larger rural areas of Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, and to have people, such as me, speaking up for its concerns. I hope that the Government will not toy with regionalising the police service.
My text is the "Draft 3 Year Strategy, Joint Policing Plan and Budget Consultation 2004/5", which West Mercia constabulary recently produced. It was sent to all Members of Parliament and other interested bodies in the constabulary area. It points out:
"Policing is funded in part from central government grant and in part from the council taxpayer. This year the government's provisional grant has increased by 2.8 per cent. against a minimum 6.6 per cent. increase in the Police Authority budget required to cover current obligations."
Does the Minister query that 6.6 per cent. figure? I have not seen all the details, and I freely confess that the police authority could do some things more efficiently. However, the West Mercia authority has been spectacularly successful in achieving efficiency savings year after year. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has confirmed that West Mercia exceeded its 2 per cent. efficiency target in each of the past four years. That means £12.8 million of savings, and I say, "Well done, West Mercia" for that.
I am broadly convinced that the increased obligations on several public sector organisations—district and county councils, as well as the police—are much higher than the Government admit. They want to take the credit for doing many things, but they will not pick up the bill for achieving them. The Government also impose increasingly strenuous reporting obligations on public services locally. That, too, imposes huge costs on organisations such as West Mercia police authority.
I am worried because the police authority document states:
"In order to maintain and develop the existing level of service and respond to external pressures, new legislation and unavoidable requirements, local council taxpayers will have to pay an increased share of the police budget. The calculated increase to permit this is an extra £18.40 per annum or 36p per week for a Band D property, which equates to a 15.4 per cent. rise."

955
I understand why the police authority, which is desperate for the money, resorts to a slightly disingenuous technique of referring to 36p per week. The figure of 15.4 per cent. is much more important. In 2001–02, there was a 6 per cent. increase; in 2002–03, there was a 33 per cent. increase, and in 2003–04, the increase was 14.6 per cent. So far in the Parliament, the council tax precept for West Mercia police authority has increased by 62 per cent. The proposed increase would take the cumulative figure to 86 per cent., which the hard-pressed council tax payers of my constituency have to fund.
The increase that the police authority proposes is smaller than what the chief constable wanted. He asked for an overall budget increase of 7.9 per cent., which would mean an increase of 19.4 per cent. in the police precept. The police authority has therefore already trimmed the chief constable's requirements, which would have meant an extra £23.27 a year for the average band D council tax payer. I am deeply worried about that. Clearly, the police authority is already cutting back on what it believes the chief constable needs to fulfil his policing requirements in my constituency.
The increase will lead to a further modest increase in police officers and the development of sufficient supervisory ranks to improve the performance of existing officers. However, a part of the relevant paragraph in the police authority document worries me. It states:
"This level of police officers would bring the force close to an average level for Shire forces"—
we are well below average for shire forces, never mind national forces—
"and complies with the Government's wish to see a strengthening of police officers nationally."
Let me revert to my earlier point. If the Government want to see higher police officer numbers nationally, they should pay for that from general taxation, not load the burden on to the fixed income households—the pensioners—in my constituency. They just cannot afford any further such council tax increases.
There is also the thorny question of the area cost adjustment applied to police authority funding. I remind the Minister that West Mercia is surrounded by authorities that receive the area cost adjustment. The West Midlands, Gloucestershire and Warwickshire police all receive the area cost adjustment but are fishing in exactly the same labour pool as the West Mercia constabulary. Indeed, many officers of West Midlands police live in my constituency, and when I canvass them at election time and between elections, they tell me about life in Birmingham. The West Midlands police authority is rewarded with extra money for the additional costs involved in the recruitment of police officers who have chosen to live in my constituency. By logic, the West Mercia authority should receive the same additional funding.
I have two specific points to put to the Minister. First, my police authority was very pleased to receive a letter at the end of last year informing it that there would be an extra £340 million for English local authorities. It wrote
956
back to ask how much of that it was going to get; the answer, of course, was absolutely nothing. It was very sweet of Ministers to ensure that a letter went to that police authority to tell it about extra money that other authorities would get. Why did it get a letter telling it about that additional money, when not a penny of it was coming to policing?
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that, as Robert Forster has said in a letter to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the claim that there has been a 3.25 per cent. increase in overall police funding is just not true? The increase is actually 2.8 per cent., as I believe she previously admitted, because the figure includes
"the transfer of ring-fenced initiatives into mainstream grant funding".
That is another classic example of smoke and mirrors from the Government.
I have a real concern for my police authority, which I hold in high regard, and the policemen and women of my area, whom I also hold in high regard. There is a perception abroad in the country that there is a war on motorists rather than a war on burglars. I say that that is a perception, and it may or may not be fair, but that is how people feel. Yet the council tax payers see the police demanding more and more money from them, year on year, through huge increases in council tax. I am worried that the Government's strategy for funding the police, and their strategy towards motorists, might well conspire to remove much popular support for the police, not just in my constituency but up and down the country.
The message is simple: if the Government will the ends, they must will the means. They are not doing that in this report.
3.32 pm
Dr. John Pugh: I shall be brief, because there is a danger that this debate can seem like an annual bleat to the Minister, in which a succession of MPs stand up and say how appalling things are in their area, and the Minister then winds up by saying that everything in the garden is lovely and they have never had it so good.
I am a veteran at making complaints on behalf of my police authority, Merseyside. Those complaints date back to when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was in the Home Office. At that time, I went to see him with the then Conservative leader of my police authority—that was the only time that my police authority had a Conservative leader. We were shown into a room and treated very politely and courteously, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman listened to us from behind a desk the size of which I had never seen before, but at the end of the day we got absolutely nothing from him. Despite that, and despite a subsequent succession of discouraging experiences with Ministers, I remain optimistic that this Minister will respond to reason.
The fact of the matter is that my residents still complain. They complain about standard things that residents in other parts of the country also complain about, including thin police cover, slow response and the constant rotation of staff and personnel. That is a particular problem in community policing. It is all very well for someone to bed themselves in their community,

957
but if they are moved soon afterwards, as often happens in my neck of the woods, it creates an ongoing problem with no solution.
I know, objectively, that the statistics are not favourably pitched for me to make my particular plea to the Minister because the per capita funding for Merseyside is pretty high—if not very high—compared with other authorities. The norm may not be good, but Merseyside is not comparatively worse off than other areas. However, Merseyside has its own problems. A significant amount of the Merseyside police authority budget goes on pensions. I was discouraged to learn the other day that, whereas in Manchester early retirements from the police authority are at 4 per cent., in Merseyside they are at 12 per cent. I ponder the reasons for that statistic, but that does not help more money to be distributed to police officers and less to pensions. We must also recognise, as does Merseyside police authority, that a problem of sickness in the force also consumes a certain amount of resources.
The reality is that the people of Merseyside feel that policing is not all that it could be. Although crime is down, so is police presence. The people face a very high increase in the precept this year, and that is not just because of Merseyside's settlement. An awful lot of property across Merseyside is in band A, which makes a difference to the impact of the precept.
I shall detain the Minister with an explanation of Merseyside's problems. It is not my explanation, but that offered by the retiring chief constable, Norman Bettison, to whom I pay tribute. He has done an exceptionally good job on Merseyside in his limited time there. He has made the entirely fair point that Liverpool is a port of access, which means a port of access for two major problems in this country at the moment: drugs and terrorism. The Government acknowledge that intellectually, and if they made inquiries in the police community I am sure that they would find the point entirely valid. But acknowledging something intellectually and doing so financially are not quite the same thing. As the chief constable would undoubtedly point out were he here, the situation on Merseyside—in comparison with the rest of the country—means that its police have to spend much time, resources and manpower on only a few, but none the less important, investigations into terrorism and the drugs trade. The areas that ultimately suffer from that include Southport, which is, in a sense, on the fringe.
I simply ask the Minister for a little hope. I should like her to consider seriously the distribution of community wardens, whom the Home Office often allocates to the pathfinder areas.
Mr. George Howarth: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to his next point, which I anticipate will be important, may I make the point that my constituents, too, feel that the exceptional burdens on Merseyside police authority because of organised crime and the other difficulties that he has referred to should be better recognised in the formula? There should not be a financial penalty for living in an area that has a higher than normal amount of organised crime.
Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman knows from experience, including as an MP, what he is talking about. His point is well founded.
Returning to community support officers, I have listened to hon. Members speak about how excellent and useful those wardens are. Certainly, when I come to London I find myself falling over them on my way into the Houses of Parliament. However, they are not on the streets of my constituency, where they could do such an important job in keeping down low-level crime, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) described. Will the Minister note that point? I am really asking her to give the force and the people of Merseyside—specifically the people of Southport—a little optimism that funding will recognise our genuine problems and needs. Even if what she offers is geared to Merseyside's having to sort out some of its housekeeping difficulties, that can only be progress, and a move in the right direction.
3.38 pm
Simon Hughes: I am happy to participate in this debate. Until a few years ago, there was a regular debate on London policing but now that policing has, quite properly, been handed over to democratically elected local government, the only opportunity to raise such matters is in the context of the funding settlement. I am grateful, as are all of us who live and work in London, for the Metropolitan Police and all that they do for us. I pay tribute to them. That does not mean that one cannot sometimes be constructively critical over the way in which they go about their work, and we all reserve that right.
I shall put clearly the position from which I come to the debate. I and my colleagues who are members of the London Assembly support the proposal put forward by the Metropolitan Police Authority for its budget. That proposal is higher than that which the Government are willing to fund, which is why there is a protest from London—across many party divides, and as cited in the letter from Sir Robin Wales, the chair of the Association of London Government and a Labour councillor—that the Government are not serving London well in the funding settlement on which we are to vote in a few minutes. That is why my London colleagues and I will vote against it. If we were to succeed in that vote, the Government would have to come back with something better. They would have to come back with more money from the taxpayer for policing, not just for London but for the other police authorities in England and Wales.
London has about a quarter of England and Wales's police officers, and about a quarter of the budget. It is by a long way the largest authority. We have the highest rate of crime per person in England and Wales. That is not surprising; it is common to capital cities. As in many other places, crime is one of the top three concerns of the residents and, sadly, the figures are still far too high. We have more than 1 million recorded crimes in London every year. Everyone hopes that we can go the way of New York. I was there recently, and I saw a headline in the local paper which read, "Crime at its lowest for 35 years", which is a wonderful tribute.

959
The Government have again come to a debate avoiding giving answers to some of the difficult questions, but we are pushing for answers. We pushed when the Conservatives were in government, and they promised that we would get answers. We did not, and we are now pushing for them from the Labour Government. Is the formula linked to the crime level? What is the link between paying for policing and the level of crime in an area? If crime goes down, should we expect to receive less? If London has a quarter of the crimes committed nationally, for example, should it expect to get a quarter of the Government budget for policing? Or should the funding relate to efficiency? Should a police authority be rewarded for bringing crime levels down? The Government never answered that question in describing the formula. Most importantly, what should be the Government's contribution—that is, the taxpayer's contribution—and what should be the council tax payer's contribution? We shall unarguably see a further significant imposition on council tax payers across the country, as a direct result of what the Government are proposing.
Mr. Ken Purchase: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is speaking for the capital city, and that is extremely important, but why should people with the highest per capita income in the country expect to get a greater fraction of taxpayers' money for their council purposes than people in the west midlands, for instance, who have a far lower per capita income and higher council tax to pay?
Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly proper point. I am not arguing that case. He will know that there is a huge disparity in his region, as in mine, in that many people will be paying a large amount of council tax—because of the value of their property— although their income is small and they have no savings. They have one asset, namely their home, which they cannot realise. That is why my hon. Friends and I are clear, as we have been for so long, that the council tax is inappropriate and unfair. I believe that that case is being made increasingly effectively, and that we shall soon see an end to the council tax. I am not making an anti-west midlands case, or a case against any other police authority.
I shall cite the relevant figures, not from a document that I have written but from that of Sir Robin Wales, who has said:
"the disappointing treatment of the Metropolitan Police Authority means that the increase in grant to London overall"
is 5.4 per cent. He makes the point—also made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) —that that effectively means that we shall lose £56 million, which will go into the general kitty for distribution elsewhere. That will mean the equivalent of a 9 per cent. precept. If that were not the case, there would not have to be that imposition on the London council tax payer.
Everyone wants more police and more community support officers. Like the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who represents part of the London
960
borough of Havering, I also support the idea that there should be a freedom to choose how we spend the money, and that we should not have ring-fenced funds for community support officers.
The national and capital responsibilities budget has gone up, as the Minister rightly said, but it has gone up from £202 million o £207 million, which, by my calculation, is 2.5 per cent. I cannot believe that the additional work on those issues in London over the last year has only been 2.5 per cent.'s worth—that is even lower than the rate of inflation.
There is a huge issue in relation to abstractions. I have some figures here for last year: Lambeth lost 3,400 police officers in abstractions to other, national duties; Southwark lost 3,100 officers; Merton lost 902; and Kingston lost 1,037. Those abstractions were for national anti-terrorism and other duties. If we consider all the reasons for abstractions, we see that my borough lost 597 officer days in the last year, and even boroughs at the bottom of the league table, in areas such as Bexley, for example, lost 227.
Please, please, please, Government, get on with sorting out the pensions liability. The council tax payer is increasingly having to pay the pensions of yesteryear, rather than for the policing of today. Please also allow all parts of London to have the increase in policing that we want. I do not have the figures for Havering in front of me, but I know that in Southwark in March 1997, when this Government came to power, we had 1,157 police and civilians. In March 2000, we had 1,110, and now we have 1,014. We have fewer people in the police service in our borough now than in either 2000 or 1997. This is not a party matter: the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) joined us in our campaign.
People in London want a fair settlement. They want the Government to ray their way, and they want a minimum policing guarantee for each community. I hope that, on this issue, whatever Ministers do in relation to the outgoing Mayor or to other matters, they will accept that the figure for policing in London should be agreed across the parties and should not be capped. If they want to cap the Mayor in other ways, they are entitled to do so, but policing in London needs to be protected. The Government should foot more of the bill, not the London council tax payer.
3.46 pm
Ms Blears: We have had a short debate but hon. Members have raised a number of important issues. I am pleased about that, because effective policing and community safety is one of the most pressing matters in the vast majority of our communities.
I was a little disappointed that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) resurrected a policy that I thought had been put to bed, namely the Conservatives' proposal to increase the force by another 40,000 police officers. They have been remarkably quiet about that since the previous shadow Home Secretary left his post, and the new shadow Home Secretary has certainly not majored on that policy. The hon. Gentleman will recall, as I do, that in our debate on community policing a couple of months ago, how

961
interesting it was to watch that figure of 40,000 being reduced to 20,000, and then to some 15,000. in the course of the debate.
Mr. Paice: Rubbish.
Ms Blears: That is absolutely the case. When the previous shadow Home Secretary said that the figure of 40,000 was based on two Tory terms of office, and that he could not predict whether there would be two such terms, we felt that he perhaps could not even predict one. I am surprised to see that figure being resurrected. Perhaps it should join the realms crime fiction rather than crime fact.
Mr. Paice: I want to place clearly on the record, for the avoidance of doubt, that our pledge for a further 40,000 police officers remains. It is calculated on the basis of an extra 5,000 a year, which the Minister knows full well is the most that can fairly be recruited, trained and added in addition to replacement officers. Is she or is she not telling us that there is a need for more police officers? Does she want more or not?
Ms Blears: I think that the arithmetic is 5,000 a year over the first term of a Tory Government, making 20,000. So the promise can only be for 20,000, even if there is a Tory Government, and 5,000 of them would be recruited by us anyway, so we are down to 15,000. The whole House knows that all of that is predicated on the marvellous savings from the asylum system, based on the island that has not yet been identified. I was surprised to see the policy being resurrected in that way.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the failure to apply the formula this year. Again, I am surprised if he is saying that he objects to the 3.25 per cent. flat rate across-the-board increase, because if we had applied the formula, many of the forces that I referred to earlier—Kent, Sussex and Surrey—would have lost out by millions of pounds. The vast majority of forces are gainers under the settlement this year. Only a small number, albeit including the Met, Greater Manchester and West Midlands, have made significant contributions to that pot. He did not make clear whether he wanted the other forces to lose out.
The hon. Gentleman also made a point that he has made on a number of occasions and that I take real issue with. It is that everything should simply be at the local level and that there is no place for the matters that are funded through the central pots. Is he saying that there should be no central assistance through the police standards unit, helping to drive up performance in our forces? Is he saying that there should be no central assistance in developing evidence-based codes of practice around the way that we do our policing; no central assistance around training and Centrex; no central assistance around new technology, bringing in automatic number plate recognition and video identification, and expansion of the DNA database, which is leading to our forces being much more effective?
There is a balance to be struck between the centre and the locality, but, as every other organisation in the country accepts, there is a case for having some functions, such as IT, training and human resources,
962
funded properly and rationalised. I hope that people who take a sensible approach to the future effectiveness of our police service will recognise that.
Mr. George Howarth: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having been here at the opening of the debate. I had another meeting elsewhere. Will she give some thought—I do not expect an immediate response—to the point that the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and I both made, that in looking at where the balance should be struck, the centre should take into account the presence of organised crime in areas such as Merseyside when the funding formula is reviewed or looked at again?
Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know that, because of where I live, I am very conscious of the pressures of serious and organised crime along the M62 corridor from Greater Manchester to Liverpool. Merseyside has developed some extremely effective ways of dealing with it, but clearly that is at a cost to the force. In the consultation document that we launched last year on the long-term future of the police service, we wanted to make sure that we got right not only community policing, but also the structure to deal with serious and organised crime, which unfortunately is an increasing threat to our communities. I undertake to look further at that matter.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I should like to put to the Minister a matter that I have raised in correspondence with the Home Secretary: the cost of policing the Iraq war at RAF Fairford, which was more than £3 million on a budget of £36 million for Gloucestershire police, one of the smallest forces in the country. The Government have kindly undertaken to pay most of that, but the Gloucestershire police force still faces having to pay some of it. It causes a great deal of bad feeling in Gloucestershire, which had to put up with the disruption caused by the war. It was happy to do that, but as it was a national war effort it seems to me that the national Government should pay that cost. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would look into the matter and write to me.
Ms Blears: I am aware of the extra costs of policing RAF Fairford and the demonstrations there. The police did an extremely good and professional job in that very demanding situation. An application for special grants to meet the additional costs is being considered at the centre. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that for most forces there is a requirement to find a minimum amount towards the cost of special occasions that arise, and we would want to treat Gloucester similarly to other forces. I certainly undertake to look at the significant additional costs that the force incurred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) made some excellent, serious and considered points about the challenges facing the Nottinghamshire police service. As he said, I am due to visit on Monday. I shall look at police performance and particularly at the extremely good partnership work with the local authority to tackle antisocial behaviour. I shall meet some of the victims of antisocial behaviour that has taken place in that community.

963
I am delighted that police performance in the area has improved in recent times, but there were significant problems in the force in the past, as evidenced by the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. There is a great deal of support from the centre. The police standards unit has been engaged with the force for a considerable time. There is consultancy support to look at performance, new ways of working and new ways of tackling crime. The extra resource provided by the police standards unit comes to about £1 million. It has been pointed out to me by colleagues from Nottingham that although Nottingham is funded as a shire, it has metropolitan police problems. The formula takes into account the pressures, the challenges and the demographics for all authorities, however, and authorities are not funded as metropolitan or shire authorities.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that forces were underfunded. I do not accept that. In the past two years, police authorities have raised their precepts by a greater amount than they needed to meet the requirements—
It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question forthwith, pursuant to Order [2 February].
The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 167.
Division No. 45] [3.55 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Caton, Martin

Ainger, Nick

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Alexander, Douglas

Clapham, Michael

Allen, Graham

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

Pentlands)

Darwen)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Atkins, Charlotte

Chryston)

Austin, John

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Bailey, Adrian

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Baird, Vera

Coffey, Ms Ann

Banks, Tony

Cohen, Harry

Barron, rh Kevin

Colman, Tony

Battle, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Beard, Nigel

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Begg, Miss Anne

Cooper, Yvette

Bell, Sir Stuart

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Bennett, Andrew

Crausby, David

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Cruddas, Jon

Berry, Roger

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Betts, Clive

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Blizzard, Bob

David, Wayne

Blunkett, rh David

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Borrow, David

Dawson, Hilton

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Bradshaw, Ben

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Brennan, Kevin

Donohoe, Brian H.

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Doran, Frank

Wallsend)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Browne, Desmond

Drown, Ms Julia

Bryant, Chris

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Burnham, Andy

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Edwards, Huw

Casale, Roger

Efford, Clive

964

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Lepper, David

Farrelly, Paul

Linton, Martin

Fisher, Mark

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Flint, Caroline

Love, Andrew

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Follett, Barbara

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Foster, rh Derek

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McAvoy, Thomas

Foster, Michael Jabez (Has,ings

McCabe, Stephen

& Rye)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Foulkes, rh George

McDonnell, John

Francis, Dr. Hywel

McIsaac, Shona

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

McKechin, Ann

Gardiner, Barry

McKenna, Rosemary

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Gerrard, Neil

McNamara, Kevin

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McNulty, Tony

Gilroy, Linda

Mactaggart, Fiona

Godsiff, Roger

McWalter, Tony

Goggins, Paul

Mahmood, Khalid

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Grogan, John

Mandelson, rh Peter

Hain, rh Peter

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Merron, Gillian

Rhymney)

Miller, Andrew

Healey, John

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Mole, Chris

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Munn, Ms Meg

Heppell, John

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Heyes, David

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hodge, Margaret

O'Hara, Edward

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Diner, Bill

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Owen, Albert

Hopkins, Kelvin

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Perham, Linda

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Pickthall, Colin

Sefton E)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

Pound, Stephen

Urmston)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

E)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Hutton, rh John

Purchase, Ken

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Purnell, James

Illsley, Eric

Quin, rh Joyce

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

Quinn, Lawrie

Highgate)

Rammell, Bill

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborougn)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Jamieson, David

Raynsford, rh Nick

Jenkins, Brian

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Rooney, Terry

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Jowell, rh Tessa

Ruane, Chris

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Salter, Martin

Keeble, Ms Sally

Savidge, Malcolm

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Sawford, Phil

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Sedgemore, Brian

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Sheridan, Jim

Kemp, Fraser

Short, rh Clare

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Khabra, Piara S.

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Kidney, David

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

King, Andy (Rugby)

Finsbury)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Laclyman, Dr. Stephen

Lunesdale)

L.ammy, David

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

965

Soley, Clive

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Squire, Rachel

Vis, Dr. Rudi

stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Ward, Claire

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wareing, Robert N.

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

White, Brian

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Wicks, Malcolm

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Wintenon, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

C)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Woolas, Phil

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Worthington, Tony

Tipping, Paddy

Wright Anthony D. (Gt

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Yarmouth)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Wright David (Telford)

Truswell, Paul

Wright Tony (Cannock)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Wyatt, Derek

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Tellers, for the Ayes:

Kemptown)

Vernon Coaker and

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Jim Fitzpatrick

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Barnet)

Amess, David

Chidgey, David

Arbuthnot, rh James

Chope Christopher

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Clarke rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Bacon, Richard

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Baldry, Tony

Conway, Derek

Barker, Gregory

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Baron, John (Billericay)

Cotter, Brian

Barrett, John

Cran, James (Beverley)

Beith, rh A. J.

Curry, rh David

Bellingham, Henry

Davey Edward (Kingston)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

Blunt, Crispin

Stamford)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

Howden)

Surrey)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Brady, Graham

Doughty, Sue

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Dunce n, Alan (Rutland)

Brazier, Julian

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Evans Nigel

Browning, Mrs Angela

Fabricant, Michael

Bruce, Malcolm

Fallon Michael

Burnett, John

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Burnside, David

Westminster)

Burstow, Paul

Flight, Howard

Burt, Alistair

Flook, Adrian

Butterfill, Sir John

Forth, rh Eric

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Foster. Don (Bath)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Francois, Mark

Cameron, David

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

Garnier, Edward

Fife)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Carmichael, Alistair

Gidley, Sandra

Cash, William

Gillan Mrs Cheryl

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Goodman, Paul

966

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Grayling, Chris

Dinefwr)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Pugh, Dr. John

Grieve, Dominic

Redwood, rh John

Hammond, Philip

Reid, Alan (Argyll &Bute)

Hancock, Mike

Bendel, David

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

Robathan, Andrew

Abingdon)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

Hawkins, Nick

M-Kent)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Heald Oliver,

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Heath David,

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Horam, John (Orpington)

Rosindell, Andrew

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Ruffley, David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Jack, rh Michael

Sanders, Adrian

Jenkin, Bernard

Sayeed, Jonathan

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Selous, Andrew

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Keetch, Paul

Shepherd, Richard

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

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

Inverness)

Kincardine)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Soames, Nicholas

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Lamb, Norman

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Leigh, Edward

Spring, Richard

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Steen, Anthony,

Lidington, David

Streeter, Gary

Lilley, rh Peter

Swayne, Desmond,

Llwyd, Elfyn

Syms rt Robert

Loughton, Tim

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Teather, Sarah

Maclean, rh David

Thurso, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tredinnick, David

Malins, Humfrey

Trend, Michael

Maples, John

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

Tyrie, Andrew

Atcham)

Viggers, Peter

Maude, rh Francis

Walter, Robert

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Waterson, Nigel

May, Mrs Theresa

Watkinson, Angela

Mercer, Patrick

Whittingdale, John

Moore, Michael

Wiggin, Bill

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Norman, Archie

Willetts, David

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Öpik, Lembit

Williams, Roger (Bercon)

Ottaway, Richard

Wills, Phil

Page, Richard

Wilshire, David

Paice, James

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Paterson, Owen

Younger-Ross, Richard

Pickles, Eric

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Peter Atkinson and

Mr. John Randall

Question accordingly agreed to.

Local Government Finance
4.8 pm
The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2004–05, HC 276, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
On 11 December I announced to the House an enhanced provisional local government finance settlement, including a further £340 million made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the pre-Budget report. The proposals I have now presented to the House confirm that the total formula grant will be £46.1 billion in 2004–05, 5.5 per cent. more than in 2003–04. Additional specific grants take the overall increase to 7.3 per cent.
This is not, of course, a one-off increase; it is part of a programme of sustained growth in investment in the vital public services delivered by local government. Overall, Government funding for English local authorities is up by 30 per cent. on that of the last seven years in real terms. That is in stark contrast with the previous four years, in which year-on-year cuts were the norm, resulting in a 7 per cent. real-terms funding cut during that period.
Opposition Members, who are now showing clear evidence of selective amnesia, may wish to forget their responsibility for the realities of life in that era, when real-terms cuts were the order of the day. But those involved in local government do not have such short memories. They know the change that has occurred. They know that in 2004–05, for the second year running, all local authorities will receive a real-terms increase in formula grant on a like-for-like basis.
Mr. John Burnett: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I faxed his colleague the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), on 22 January to arrange a meeting with the Minister, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter)—for whose support I am extremely grateful—and officials from West Devon borough council and Torridge district council. This contribution to floor has knocked a massive hole in the budgets of both councils. In effect, to stand still the ratepayers of West Devon borough council will have to pay an additional 6.75 per cent. How can the Minister justify that?
Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman simply has not given the House the full facts. He should Recognize—perhaps he should tell his local authorities This—that Torridge is receiving a 3.6 per cent. increase, West Devon a 4.3 per cent. increase and Devon county council a 4.5 per cent. increase.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Raynsford: Those are real-terms increases that are well above the rate of inflation, and we expect local authorities to work within the finance available to them, and to look for economies in order to deliver value for money and quality services to their residents.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have argued vehemently with him
968
on many occasions at this time of year about the settlement for my own local authority. This year, I want simply to say two words to him:the first is "thank" and the second is "you".
Mr. Raynsford: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. As he knows, his authority received an increase of 7.5 per cent., which is a realistic and very good settlement. I sincerely hope that the people of Brent will see good value for money from their local authority.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I understand that all Members want to intervene and I shall try to provide opportunities for them, but first I need to make some progress.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Is this such an opportunity?
Mr. Raynsford: No, it is not, but I have no doubt that we will hear from South Hams in due course.
Some councils have queried what is meant by a real-terms increase in formula grant on a like-for-like basis. The basic principle is clear enough. From one year to the next, the responsibilities of local authorities or the way in which they are financed may change. If we were to compare grant paid to an authority from one year to another without taking account of that —for example, councils are no longer responsible for funding part of the cost of certain benefits—we would be making a misleading comparison. So for the purposes of a like-for-like comparison,we recalculate the previous year's settlement as if the change had already happened. The following year's grant is then calculated on that basis. That is the only proper and fair way. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not accept that ever since this Government came to power, they have consistently loaded yet greater burdens on small borough councils in particular—Surrey Heath is an example—and that the funding to perform their functions has simply not followed? So the Government are not dealing with the situation fairly; they are loading on burdens and not providing the money. Whenever the director of finance for my borough council checks the figures announced by the Government, it is discovered that the money is not as much as the Government pretend through the Minister's statements.
Mr. Raynsford: For the second year running, every local authority in the country—including the hon. Gentleman's two district councils and Surrey county Council—has received above-inflation increases. A county council receiving a 7.7 per cent. increase would have been completely unthinkable when his party was in power, so I would have expected to hear a little more realism and a little less complaint.
I owe an apology to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), because I gave him a slightly incorrect answer. The figures that I gave were

969
the average increases in formula grant over the past seven years, but of course, this year's settlement is even better. Let me now put the record straight by giving him the figures for this year: for Torridge an increase of 4.9 per cent.; for West Devon an increase of 5.3 per cent.; and for Devon county council an increase of 5.5 per cent. I hope that he will take these good figures back to his local authorities and tell them that he expects them to budget prudently and deliver efficient services without the need for large council tax increases.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I recognise that we are in Devon territory, so I give way to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen).
Mr. Steen: My concern is less with how much extra moneys the Government are providing, though no one is against that; what I am against is asking council tax payers to pay more and more every year. In Devon last year, it was about 18 per cent., with the rate of inflation at around 2 per cent. On the settlement for Devon and Torbay, is the Minister telling me that the local authority should not increase its council tax more than the rate of inflation?
Mr. Raynsford: What I am saying to councils throughout the country, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard it, is that we are giving good increases. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the increases in his authorities: South Hams has an increase of 3.9 per cent.; Teignbridge of 3.9 per cent.; Torbay of 6.9 per cent.; and Devon county council, as we have already mentioned, 5.5 per cent. Those are all good increases, all above inflation. What I am saying is that, with those increases, we expect councils to budget for low single figure increases.
On the question of pressures on councils to increase the level of council tax, let me remind the hon. Member for Totnes—it would be wise of him and Conservative Front Benchers to be aware of it—of what happened when the Conservatives were in power. When the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was the Secretary of State and doing a similar job to mine in 1996—I am a mere Minister of State, rather than Secretary of State, but I am doing the same job of announcing the settlement—he said: "The increase in AEF"—
aggregate external finance, not the grant, which was a lot less—
"is 2.8 per cent.—less than the increase in TSS—because we take the view, which I believe the Opposition share, that council tax payers should properly fund a slightly larger proportion of the costs of their local services."—[Official Report, 31 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1021.]
A year later, in 1997, he said:
"The increase in aggregate external finance is less than the increase in total standard spending, reflecting the Government's belief"—
he did not have a very good speech writer, repeating almost word for word the previous year's formula—
"that local taxpayers could meet slightly more of the cost of local services."—[Official Report, 3 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 680.]
970
So when the Conservatives were in government, they clearly believed that local taxpayers should pay more. We believe that recent increases are excessive and that local council tax payers have every reason to object to the large demands placed on them. As I have said, we expect authorities to budget now for low single figures. It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of Conservative Members to complain about pressure on the council tax given that, when they were in power, they were encouraging increases in council tax because of the inadequacy of the settlements
Mr. David Curry: Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat what he said here yesterday—that although he expects councils to budget in low single figures, that is not necessarily the figure on which capping might be applied? What is the figure at which capping will be applied?
Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased to discuss capping with the right hon. Gentleman, who was responsible for the same matter when he was in power. Let me remind him of what he had to say on that particular subject in his winding-up speech of 1996. It was a very funny one. As the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"It is not often that, in a debate on local government finance, one can begin with Procrustes".
He had, as he said, done his research. Procrustes
"apparently lay in wait in the Athens road and equipped people who came for lodgings with a bed that was not necessarily the right size. If the people were too long, he chopped them. I did not realise that capping had such a distinguished antecedent, but I am encouraged to know that I follow in such a long tradition. I understand that Theseus fastened Procrustes to his own bed and chopped his head off—he had clearly missed his vocation as a local government Minister."—[Official Report, 31 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1090.]
That was what the right hon. Gentleman said eight years ago. In those days he believed in the road to Athens; clearly, he has been on the road to Damascus since then.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I hope that the Minister will stop messing about and answer my question. The Devon fire and rescue service will set its own precept for the first time this year, and I am very worried that the formula set out by the Government will have an adverse effect, not least because Devon has more retained firefighters than any other county. Meeting the pay award for retained firefighters will account for 23 per cent. of the budget, not 16 per cent. If Devon had received the national average amount, it would not suffer the projected budget shortfall that people fear will cause fire station closures, especially in rural areas. The £2 million that is the difference between what Devon will get and the national average would have resolved the problem. Without going back into history, will the Minister say something about the future of Devon's fire and rescue services?
Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to talk about Devon. As the hon. Lady knows, I have visited the county and discussed this issue. People are naturally worried about it, but I have told them the same thing as I have told

971
people elsewhere: we expect councils and all authorities—including the fire and police authorities—to budget prudently and to keep council tax levels down. We look to them to aim for increases in the low single figures.
As I have made clear on previous occasions, we do not operate a crude and universal capping system, so we are not saying that anything above a certain level will be capped. That would not be an appropriate way to proceed, but we will use our capping powers if we believe that any authority is imposing an unreasonably large increase. We will take proper account of relevant factors in that decision, but I put all authorities, including those for fire and police services, on notice that they must budget prudently, and that we will use our capping powers if necessary.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I will give way when I have finished answering this question. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) asked specifically about fire authorities. There are concerns, for example, about the need for the new combined fire authorities to build up reserves. I have written to fire authorities on that point, quoting advice from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. I have said that authorities do not need to move immediately to the level of reserves that they might consider necessary. I have suggested that the new combined authorities might wish to discuss with their previous constituent authorities an arrangement that could give them the cover that they want. In that way, the new authorities would not have to make large provision for reserves in any one year.
I have also touched on other issues with the combined authorities, and my officials will meet representatives from all fire authorities tomorrow. The aim is to explore further the practical help that the Government can give to ensure that fire authorities, while keeping their precepts down, can meet their responsibilities and drive forward the modernisation programme that is so important in the fire service. The levels of precept that we have been hearing about are not acceptable. They would be regarded as far too high in a year when local authorities are generally beginning to recognise that they must keep council tax levels down.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I hope that my right hon. Friend will use the capping powers if necessary, but he will know that, for many councils, a significant proportion of the budget increase is accounted for by the amounts that they must pay into pension funds to make up shortfalls. Councils have no choice about making those payments, which have a large impact on council tax levels. Moreover, the people who have to pay council tax are angry, because they see no benefit from the extra money that they have to pay. What can my right hon. Friend say to councils about that problem?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. My colleague the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), has issued guidance to local authorities on this matter. We are keeping it under
972
close review, as we know the real concerns that local authorities have. We shall continue to work with them to ensure that their pension obligations can be met in a way that does not impose undue burdens and unreasonable pressures on council tax payers.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I want to make some progress, as I have not made much for the past 10 minutes. However, I will give way in a little, while.
We certainly expect councils, like any well run organisations, continually to improve their efficiency, and to make better use of their funding. Council tax payers, many of whom are justifiably concerned about what they will face in the coming year, expect nothing less.
The Government will help in that. For example, we are putting in place a number of measures to secure improvements in local government procurement, through our national procurement strategy. We are also building cost-effectiveness and value for money assessments into the comprehensive performance assessment framework for 2005 onwards. We expect all councils to budget prudently and search out savings and economies to ensure that they deliver value for money to council tax payers.
During the consultation period, we received 454 written representations from local authority groups, individual local councils and hon. Members. The Under-Secretary and I met representatives from the Local Government Association, the Association of London Government and groups representing the main classes of local authority, and I shall deal briefly with the main points that were raised. A number of authorities with education responsibilities argued that they should not be expected to increase their spending on schools by the exact amount of the increase in schools' formula spending share—so-called passporting.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right lion. Friend find it as extraordinary as I do that Cambridgeshire county council, which received an 8.5 per cent. increase in this year's grant and has been promised a 7.9 per cent increase in next year's grant, is still having enormous difficulty in passporting the 6.8 per cent. increase in its schools budget on to schools without raising the council tax by 9 per cent.?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend raises a valid point and I have good news for her. As a result of the final adjustments to the settlement, Cambridgeshire county council will receive an increase in the coming year of 8 per cent., not 7.9 per cent. The increase is only modest, but most authorities would regard 8 per cent. as a good figure. Even if Cambridgeshire county council were to passport 100 per cent. of the increase in its schools budget, it would still be left with considerable headroom to fund other services.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards have been in touch with Cambridgeshire county council, and I hope that the issue can be resolved sensibly and amicably. Recent

973
discussions have been constructive and I hope that a settlement will be achieved, because large council tax increases in Cambridgeshire cannot be justified when the Government settlement was so generous both this year and last.
Derek Conway: The House knows that the Minister is a decent man. He can avoid Devon but he cannot avoid my constituency because he has to drive through it. My constituents want to know what he is saying to his chums who run the local council. They experienced a 17 5 per cent. council tax increase last year and everybody expects the increase to be well into double figures this year. He is the arbiter and has the power to cap such increases. Rather than delving into history and being such a reasonable man, will he please be a hard man and tell the council that it is not going to get away with it and that he will stop it?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is also a reasonable man, but he should pay a little more attention to geography. Although his constituency is close to mine and I often travel through it, I do not need to drive through it between my constituency and Westminster because it lies to the east. I will give him the exactly the same message as I would give the local authority in Bexley and, indeed, other authorities: I expect local authorities to budget prudently. Bexley has a 4.3 per cent. grant increase in the coming year, which is well above inflation, and I expect it to keep the council tax demand down to low single figures in just the same way as I expect all other authorities to keep council tax down. Bexley has achieved an excellent rating under the comprehensive performance assessment, and in a sense excellent authorities are almost duty bound to show other authorities how to budget prudently, deliver excellent quality services and achieve value for money.
Mr. Clive Betts: The good news is that Sheffield council will get its council tax increase down to low single figures. However, because it has rightly followed Government advice and passed on the welcome increases in education and social services spending to those services, the increase in grant for other services is only 1.3 per cent. at a time when there is a widespread desire for environmental improvements. When we were in opposition, many of us spoke out against capping on many occasions, and some of us remain to be convinced that the principle of capping is any more right now than it was in the early 1990s.
Mr. Raynsford: I understand my hon. Friend's position, which has remained consistent. The Opposition might have changed their position—
Mr. Eric Pickles: So have you.
Mr. Raynsford: No, we have maintained our position. Before taking office, we made it clear that we would retain reserve capping powers. We did not want to use them and, in fact, we have not made widespread use of them, but as the Audit Commission made clear in its report, published shortly before Christmas, the
974
assumption by local government that we would not use capping powers was probably one of the factors that contributed to last year's unreasonably large council tax increases. To avoid any uncertainty, we have made it clear that we have the reserve powers that, as we said before we took office, we would use if necessary, and this year we will use them unless local authorities heed the warning and keep their council tax increases down.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I shall make a bit more progress before I give way again.
I was talking about the importance of education when my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) asked a question. I was emphasising that the Government have always been clear about the priority that we attach to education—a priority shared by parents, governors and teachers in every area. I am pleased that, in general, authorities have made it clear that they, too, share that priority, by increasing school spending broadly in line with schools formula spending share.
Last year, some authorities were expected to increase school spending by more in cash terms than their formula grant increase. We accept that that caused difficulties for some authorities and this year we have dealt with the problem by guaranteeing that every authority will receive a grant increase at least large enough to match their schools' FSS increase. Some authorities that benefit from that complain that they have no money for other services. That is simply wrong; it overlooks two facts. First, those authorities are receiving more grant than they would otherwise receive from the general grant settlement. Secondly, schools are not funded solely from Government grant, and no doubt councils will want to continue to contribute to the cost from locally raised revenue.
Some concerns were expressed over the distribution to authorities of the new money—£40 million—made available in the pre-Budget report. It is worth repeating the basis of that distribution. The extra £340 million was added to revenue support grant but not to formula spending share, thus reducing the assumed national council tax. That reduction was shared among authorities so that the extra grant was directed to classes of authority with responsibility for children's social services and the liveability agenda. The resulting grant distribution was subjected to floors and ceilings at the increased level.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye)(Lab) rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I give way to my hon. Friend, who I think is about to raise a question on that very subject.
Mr. Foster: Yes. Is not the problem that when the Chancellor explained that the extra money would be available, it was described as a benefit that would enable authorities to restrict council tax, yet in East Sussex no extra money came from the second grant? However, East Sussex has received a 37 per cent. increase, which is

975
why capping should be pursued; under the previous Tory Government, cuts of 7 per cent. were the norm, so the current situation is completely different.
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those comments. He is right to point out that East Sussex has received a good increase—
Mr. Gary Streeter: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford: I am answering a question—I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Six authorities received no significant grant increase as a result of the extra £340 million, but that was due to the specific arrangement for supporting authorities with education responsibilities, which would not have had sufficient grant to meet the passporting requirement without an uplift. In the original provisional settlement announced in November, that uplift took their entitlement above the level of the new floor brought in after the additional payment of £340 million from the pre-Budget report statement. They had thus already received an uplift that took them above the level that they would have reached with the additional payment. I realise that sounds complicated, but the issue is complicated and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) will see that that is the reason for what might otherwise appear to be a slightly unfair outcome.
Mr. Streeter: On the issue of floors, may I take the Minister back to his comments to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who will be sadly missed when he retires at the end of this Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The Minister said that West Devon borough council had received an increase of 5.3 per cent. this year, which, on a budget of £6.5 million, is £332,000, but that is before the contribution of £167,000 to the floor and thus leaves an increase of only £165,000. That is what the treasurer of West Devon borough council told me today. The increase is not 5.3 per cent., and the actual amount does not leave the council enough money to deal with the extra burdens placed on it by the Government. What does the Minister have to say to that?
Mr. Raynsford: I have two things to say to that. First, I shall happily look into any figure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to send to me, but on the face of it West Devon council's treasurer's proposition is, frankly, curious. The floor is the level of guaranteed minimum for all authorities—for district councils, it is 3 per cent.—so there is no question of the floor taking down a settlement. A floor lifts a settlement, and there is absolutely no way in which a 5.3 per cent. increase, which is the figure that West Devon will receive, is reduced by the floor.
A separate issue relates to the specific arrangements for the reimbursement of costs incurred in council tax benefit and hosing benefit payments. I shall explain that technical issue in a moment. Some district councils have
976
been troubled by it, but it is the only possible circumstance where I can envisage West Devon might not achieve the 5.3 per cent. figure.
Mr. Tony McWalter: There is another circumstance to which I hope my right hon. Friend will give careful attention. In district and borough councils such as my own—Dacorum borough council—negative subsidy operates at ever-increasing, ratcheting levels, so the effect is to create a trapdoor in the floor. Will he carefully consider whether that trapdoor should be sealed permanently?
Mr. Raynsford: There is no trapdoor and no negative subsidy in the revenue support grant mechanism. My hon. Friend may be referring to a different regime—possibly the housing subsidy regime—but there is certainly no question of any trapdoor or negative subsidy in the local government settlement.
Mr. Adrian Flook: The right hon. Gentleman is only a Minister of State, as he said, in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Taunton Deane is getting a 3.3 per cent. increase, but with reductions for rent allowance, council tax benefit and non-HRA rent allowance, its increase is only 1.49 per cent. Will he therefore address his remarks to that increase?
Mr. Raynsford: As I told the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), I shall explain the technically complex issue of council tax and housing benefit subsidy when I reach that point in my speech, rather than dealing with it twice.
I have covered the issues that relate to the way in which the additional sums have been added to the settlement following the pre-Budget report. Let us move on to the floors and ceilings—an issue that has attracted a certain amount of comment. The floor receives general support—of course that is a rather obvious point. I cannot fail to notice a curious reluctance among authorities to propose a means of paying for that floor from a fixed pot of grant. The concerns to which the hon. Member for South-West Devon referred in respect of West Devon council might relate to the fact that, because it is an above-floor authority, it is making a contribution towards the floor. That does not reduce its 5.3 per cent. grant increase, which comes after the application of the floors and ceilings. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that those authorities above the floor contribute through either the scaling factor or the ceiling towards the cost of the floor. That is part of a framework that ensures that every authority is guaranteed at least a 3 per cent. Increase—a point that we will come back to.
There is a curious reluctance to pay for the floor. Indeed, authorities affected by the ceiling complained that they should have received a larger grant increase. Some claimed that they had funding entitlements withheld. I want to correct that misapprehension. The formula grant distribution system distributes a fixed pot of grant among authorities. The basis for the distribution of formula grant to local authorities in England next year is defined in the local government finance report for 2004–05, which we are debating this evening. Local authorities can expect to receive formula grant as calculated using the report, which combines

977
formulae and floors and ceilings. We have always made it clear that there are no entitlements in the grant distribution system, and the Government cannot be said to owe grant to any authority. Interestingly, the authorities that received the largest overall grant increases are the most vocal in criticising the effect of the ceiling.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister said that local authorities were expected to contribute to the cost of the floor through the cost of the ceiling. Will he explain how that mechanism works, or is it the case that there is a trapdoor in the floor?
Mr. Raynsford: The system is relatively straightforward. The floor guarantees that no authority will receive less than a specific level of grant so that authorities have certainty that they can budget ahead on the assumption that their grant from the Government will not fall unreasonably from year to year—stability and certainty are important in local government. Local authorities warmly welcome the floor. However, the uplift for authorities that would otherwise receive less than the floor must be paid for. It is paid for by reducing the amount paid to authorities that would have received more than the floor, which is achieved via two mechanisms. First, we apply a scaling factor so that authorities that are a little bit above the floor make a small contribution toward the floor and, secondly, we set a ceiling, which is the maximum entitlement that any authority can receive. Authorities that are above the floor contribute a tapered amount until the point at which they reach the ceiling, when they receive no more than the full amount of the ceiling. The mechanism has been discussed and agreed with local government, and it is widely supported in local government because it gives certainty and is considered to be fair. Inevitably, the authorities that are nearest to or at the ceiling complain about it because they know that they would have got more money but for the arrangement.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I see whether I have got this right? If local authorities are near the floor, they may scale to the ceiling; and if they are going to go through the ceiling, they are put down through the floor again—is that correct?
Mr. Raynsford: No, I am sorry. I shall not weary the House by going through it all again.
Mrs. Browning: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you arrange for a master class to be held on the subject so that we may get on with the debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank goodness, that is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say that I did arrange a series of seminars a year and a bit ago when we were introducing the new grant distribution formula. I tried to explain the floors and ceilings mechanism then, but clearly I failed. I was about to tell the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that when authorities reach the ceiling, they do
978
not go down again because they remain on the ceiling. [Laughter.] They remain attached to the ceiling by a magical system.
Sue Doughty: Half my constituency is in Waverley borough council. I have a small semi-rural constituency, so it has unavoidable costs. We have had a lot of problems. The council was supposed to receive a 3.2 per cent. increase, but that turns out to be 0.3 per cent. If one does a like-for-like comparison, as the Minister suggested, the formula grant has reduced by an assumed or notional sum of £630,000 for rent allowances and council tax benefits, but the money coming back from the Department for Work and Pensions grant is only £490,000. In addition to that—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a rather lengthy intervention.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Lady raises a point to which I have already alluded: the council tax benefit and housing tax benefit subsidy arrangements. I shall explain the arrangements and point out why the way in which she presented the situation is not quite accurate—it is more complex than she implied.
We are taking the remaining steps over the coming year to rationalise full support for housing and council tax benefit in the hands of the Department for Work and Pensions, rather than continuing to reflect a notional share of the cost in the formula grant. Most people would agree that the way in which council tax and housing benefit subsidy is currently reimbursed—the majority is refunded in response to claims submitted on the basis of actual payments by DWP, with a notional 5.5 per cent. added to the revenue support grant—is not a logical or sensible way to continue. Local government wanted to rationalise that, which we have done.
When one rationalises a scheme that is divided into two different elements—one making payments in relation to actual audited figures, and the other a notional amount paid in advance, relating to assumed costs—in a demand-led service such as council tax or housing benefit, there is bound to be some discrepancy, because one cannot accurately forecast the case for every authority. That is the present situation.
The figures given by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) reflect the current position, where it appears that the level in the revenue support grant in the current year may not have been sufficient to cover the actual cost incurred by the authority in that proportion of the total that should be covered by revenue support grant. The discrepancy is nothing new. As I shall explain in a moment, we are trying to ensure that all authorities have a safeguard provided by the Minister responsible, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), to ensure that there is a transitional arrangement limiting any reduction to 0.5 per cent. of the total budgeted cost of benefits. I hope that that message will soon get through to the hon. Lady's authority and to others that are troubled by the prospect of losing grant as a result of changes in the arrangement.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister presents an image of yogic flying councils floating above the floor, which I had not encountered before.

979
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned his visit to Devon county council. Is it not extraordinary that, wherever he goes, he hears from directors of finance—Jan Stanhope, in the case of Devon county—who disagree with the figures produced by his Department? Is it conceivable that, year after year, the Minister says that one set of figures is right and the directors of finance say that the other set of figures is right, with the public in between being confused? Is it not time that the Minister sent his officials down to places such as Devon to sit down and work out where the problem lies—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has got the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman does not give an accurate presentation of the situation in Devon. Some of the evidence submitted by the director of finance in Devon that my officials reported to me when I went to that meeting indicated a not fully complete understanding of the grant distribution system and the requirements on the local authority. There was some concern among my officials that the presentation had been rather politically clouded in the case of Devon county council.
Mr. Alan Duncan: I refer to the Minister's explanation of the way the formula works, and of the floors and ceilings. For a very small county such as Rutland, a formula designed for much larger units invariably throws out some pretty funny figures. Following our exchange of letters today, will he confirm that he will allow the officers of the council to see a suitably appointed Sir Humphrey in his Department to discuss the numbers that have been produced, so that as grown-ups we can resolve a simple matter that requires a small adjustment?
Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. I recognise that there are special circumstances in a very small authority such as Rutland. It gets a good overall percentage grant increase of 6.8 per cent. but there are specific issues that he has raised, and I am happy for my officials to discuss them in a sensible and grown-up way.
I have described the changes from the formulaic to the reimbursement regime in relation to council tax benefit and housing benefit. I shall now go on to the census—
Sir Paul Beresford Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I will not give way; I need to make some progress.
The census has also been a cause of concern. A number of authorities made points about data, and in particular data based on the 2001 census. Some were disappointed that we had not been able to incorporate socio-economic data from the census in the settlement proposed. We were simply unable to do so, as not all the data were available in time. Moreover, using those data will be more complicated than merely putting them into the existing formulae.
980
Re-analysing the expenditure figures using updated socio-economic data will inevitably point to new formulae, because the relative importance of the factors will change. We may need to change the factors in the formulae as a result. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will take this work forward in discussion with the local authority associations. The Office for National Statistics has revised its mid-year population estimates, and is continuing work in some areas that may lead to further changes. I have already given a commitment that we will amend the 2003–04 settlement, which was made using the best population figures available. I expect to do so in parallel with the settlement for 2005–06, taking account of the latest available figures, which the ONS will publish in August this year.
We are committed to the new burdens principle. If we ask local authorities to take on a new role, we accept an obligation to ensure that they have the ability to fund their new responsibilities adequately. A great deal of concern has been expressed about the effect on councils of the new licensing role that they are required to undertake from September. We have made it quite clear to local government that when the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport sets the guidance and fees she will do so in a way that ensures that authorities can recover their costs. That will cover the licensing authority's costs associated with the administration, inspection and enforcement. There will also be an independent review of the costs and income after the end of the transitional period.
Mr. Pickles: What about start-up costs?
Mr. Raynsford: There are, of course, issues in the first year, some of which relate to start-up costs and others to the fact that enforcement obligations do not arise. Those issues need to be looked at in the round to try to ensure that there is a genuine settlement that allows authorities over a period of time to recover their full costs—that is what we are seeking to achieve.
After considering points that were made in consultation, I can confirm the basis of grant distribution that I proposed on 11 December following the pre-Budget report. We have considered representations and made corrections to the data used where justified. There have also been changes in individual council allocations to allow for the updating of data, in particular on capital allocations and council tax base. Those updates are made each year. Finally, we have been able to incorporate a small change in population estimates published by the ONS on 27 January relating to naval personnel, which is primarily of interest to Plymouth and Portsmouth.
Simon Hughes: In the period between the provisional settlement and the final one, the Mayor of London, who was elected as an independent, became a Labour mayor. Has there been a change in the settlement for the Greater London Authority, and will the rule that applies elsewhere apply to the GLA—low, single-figure increases only will be acceptable and if the Mayor introduces anything higher he will be capped like anybody else?
Mr. Raynsford:I have already explained to the Liberal Democrats in a previous debate that the

981
arrangements for the GLA budget are slightly more convoluted than for other authorities, as there is a dialogue between the Mayor and the authority. That is why we did not act immediately when rumours first began about the level of council tax precept. At this stage, however, we understand that the Mayor is proceeding with a proposal for an increase of 9.9 per cent., which is certainly not in low, single figures. I shall write to him, as indeed I have written to all local authorities that have provided indications.
In case there is any confusion—this matter was raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—I remind the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that our decision on capping will take into account the circumstances of each individual authority and there will not be a blanket figure. It would be wrong to assume that we are imposing a blanket cap.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I shall take one more intervention, but then I must make progress.
Mr. Andrew Love: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that message for my local authority, Enfield, which will receive a 6 per cent. grant increase, yet is discussing the possibility of a 7.5 per cent. increase in council tax next year? When added to the GLA precept, that will be four or five times the rate of inflation, and is causing considerable concern among various groups in the area. I therefore urge the Minister to confirm that he will write to Enfield and take action if it exceeds a reasonable increase.
Mr. Raynsford:I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that I wrote to the London borough of Enfield on 30 January.
David Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Raynsford: I am afraid I cannot, as I wish to make progress. The time for debate is limited and many hon. Members wish to speak
Given the significant extra investment and the scope for efficiency improvements, our view is that next year local authorities can and should deliver council tax increases in low, single figures. I am pleased to say that the initial indications that I have show that many councils agree with those points and are considering budgets that would be consistent with that objective: some, however, are not. I must therefore make it absolutely clear that we are prepared to use our capping powers on any authority, including police and fire authorities, if that proves necessary. We will decide on the criteria in the light of authorities' budget decisions.
This is another good settlement for local government. We listened to local government's views on the spending pressures that they face, and met them. We provided a real-terms increase in funding for all authorities and helped them to plan ahead by freezing the formula for a period of years and by continuing with the use of floors and ceilings. We adapted the system to provide greater
982
certainty on school funding and reduced the ring-fencing of Government grant by £750 million. Given that, and the improvements in efficiency that councils are making and will want to make in future, we expect councils to deliver better services at a reasonable cost in council tax. I commend the settlement to the House.
Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for you to advise the House on when the winding-up speeches are going to begin? Given that we have only an hour left, it looks as though this debate may be unique in that we could move straight from the opening speeches to the winding-up speeches without the debate ever touching the Back Benches. Perhaps you and Mr. Speaker could consider how the interests of Back Benchers can be protected against Ministers speaking for 50 minutes in a debate of only two hours.
Andrew Bennett: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you not accept that most of the time taken up by the Minister's speech was on interventions, and that if Conservative Members had kept quiet, it would have been a much shorter speech?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister was generous in the number of interventions that he allowed. Mr. Speaker has tried to protect Back Benchers by imposing a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. We will now see how the debate proceeds.
4.56 pm
Mr. David Curry: As far as this debate is concerned, clearly the floor has already hit the ceiling, and there is nothing between the two. It is a matter of some regret that we are discussing in just two hours the disposal of about 25 per cent. of public expenditure. I am afraid that that is a reflection on priorities, and I think that the business managers should get together to ensure that in future we can have proper debates on matters of such importance.
The Government's handling of local government finance over the past 12 months has been characterised by incompetence, confusion, panic, and now intimidation: incompetence, because the Government utterly failed to foresee, then to get to grips with the dislocation caused by the application of a new formula—rigged, as it happens, to drag money to Labour metropolitan areas; confusion, because the Government sought desperately to bail themselves out by ordering the passporting of education funding, while all the time the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, whose blundering had caused the problems in the first place, sought to blame everyone except himself for the mess; panic, because the Government threw money at this year's settlement without sorting out the inevitable problems that flow from the Secretary of State's pre-emptive strike by prescribing the distribution of schools funding from Whitehall; and now, intimidation as the Government try a combination of cash and confrontation to bludgeon councils into setting a council tax increase in "low single figures"—or is it a "reasonable" crease—accompanied by an increasingly histrionic letter-writing habit that suggests that even the Minister has scant faith that the settlement will stand up as reasonable in its own right?

983
The Government are right to feel panic. Last year's incompetence has led to massive council tax rises because the Government decreed additional spending, but failed to provide for it in grant. The council tax increases were the direct consequence of the Government's miscalculations, as the Audit Commission made clear. So now we are back—with a vengeance—to crude and universal capping. Even the Deputy Prime Minister mocked himself—at least it saved us the trouble—when he talked yesterday about "exercising his sophisticated view" in implementing capping, and could hardly conceal his smile.
Capping has an interesting pedigree. The Minister quoted my reference to Procrustes when I was doing my job, as he is doing his. That reference was double-edged, which is why I used it, and it turned out to be right in the end. In June 1993, the now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said:
"The Labour party is wholly and unequivocally opposed to the capping of a council's budget. It is an abuse of central power, it demeans democracy, it undermines the right of local people to decide what services they are ready and willing to pay for, it is in breach of one promise after another from the Conservative party, it serves no economic purpose, and it has not worked in its own terms."—[Official Report, 9 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 385.]
That statement continues to be true. Everyone learns in retrospect. The Government had 13 years in which to learn, but they failed to do that.
Does the Minister remember his perorations about the new freedoms for councils that perform well? Is he aware of the sheer effort and energy that go into preparing for comprehensive performance assessment inspections? Does he remember the praise that he heaped on councils that were rated excellent, while encouraging those that were merely good to make one last heave? Does he know that, of the councils that received threatening letters from him and had a CPA inspection, nine were rated excellent: five Conservative, three Labour and one without overall control—Hartlepool— and 15 were rated good: five Conservative,two Labour, two Liberal Democrat and six without overall control? Does he remember that, in December 2002, the Deputy Prime Minister promised that excellent and good councils would be exempted from reserve capping powers?
We are now in the perverse position whereby councils that are rated excellent are awarded freedoms, but may be capped, while poor councils have no freedoms, but may not be capped. That is not the only perversity. On the first day of the new financial year, the Department removed controls on capital but enforced controls on revenue through capping. I understand that it is called the new localism
Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is curious that whenever the Minister mentions capping, he refers to one of his favourite Tory councils? It is an excellent council, which he keeps threatening with capping, but charges the lowest average council tax in the country. It is Wandsworth.
Mr. Curry: It will be interesting to note whether the Minister takes into account the absolute level of council tax when he determines his capping criteria.
984
There is a third perversity. The Government have created turbulence and introduced the famous floors and ceilings to control it. However, there are two sets of floors and ceilings. The interaction of floors and ceilings for the general grant and that for education expenditure means that, for some local authorities, the entire grant increase must go to education. Those authorities are:Richmond, East Sussex, West Sussex—which has a princely total grant increase of £6,000—Windsor and Maidenhead, Southend and Bromley, which last year had to increase education spending by more than the increase in the entire grant for all purposes.
Mr. Raynsford: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would like to correct the impression that he gave that West Sussex received a total grant increase of only £6,000. That is not the case. He is referring to the supplement as a result of the Chancellor's pre-Budget report. The increase to West Sussex is much larger.
Mr. Curry: The bonus that West Sussex received was, for the reasons explained, a princely £6,000.
The distribution is skewed. London faces a £247 band D precept from Mr. Livingstone. After the distribution of £340 million in central grant, the increases after passporting are 6.6 per cent. for Labour councils, 6 per cent. for Liberal Democrat councils and 2.5 per cent. for Conservative councils. Labour councils have got nine out of 10 of the highest settlements and Conservative councils have got seven out of 10 of the lowest settlements.
We do not even know how capping will work. Is reasonableness a criterion? Are low single figures a criterion? Yesterday. the Minister said that he had written to 54 authorities that were rumoured to be planning increases of more than 5 per cent. He also said:
"That is not necessarily an indication of the level at which we will cap".—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 746.]
What is the level? The word on the street is 7 per cent. There is a host of questions to be asked. The Minister said that he will cap police authorities, but at what level? It is all very well saying that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has given advice on the reserves to be constituted by fire authorities, but the wonderfully magic word "prudent" is attached. What is a prudent level of reserves for fire authorities?
Will the Minister relate capping to grant increases? Will he recognise the impact of floors and ceilings? Will he take account of the absolute level as well as the percentage increase of council tax when considering whether to cap? Let us consider a council such as Runnymede in Surrey. It currently charges £85.10 at band D, which makes it the second lowest in the country, against an assumed national average of £181.56. That council proposes to charge £100.44—an increase of 17.5 per cent.—partly because of the hit caused by the calculation of council tax benefit. It has written to the Minister to confess. It has put its hands up, but it will leave its precept as one of the lowest in the country. Can it expect a letter or is it a special case?
Andrew Bennett: On the question of the cap, I accept all the problems that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined for the Government, but where does his party stand? Would it have a cap if it were ever in government?

985
If not, would he go round the country to justify the council tax increases of 9 per cent., 10 per cent. or higher in most local authorities?
Mr. Curry: If we were in government, we would not have got into this mess in the first place. We would not have rigged the formula, we would not have betrayed the excellent councils and we would not have imposed the burdens on local government that this Government have.
Does the Minister recall that the figure for Kent to which he objected was in a council document that reproduced the Treasury's estimate of the increase in council tax as a yield of 7.3 per cent.? In fact, that was wrong because the Treasury's figure for the assumed yield from council tax is an 8.2 per cent. increase, which is rather higher than low single figures.
Now we hear, at last, that the Minister might be going to cap Ken. We look forward to seeing the Livingstone letter. The planned increase is still 9.9 per cent., as the Minister said, so perhaps the Government have overcome their fear that the Mayor of London's pledge of allegiance to the Labour party is so qualified that he has to be handled like cut glass. It should not be a difficult letter to write, just a standard draft. The Deputy Prime Minister could even top and tail it, and could perhaps finish with a few words saying what personal pleasure it gives him to see Mr. Livingstone once more embraced in the bosom of the Labour party.
The settlement is much better than last year's, and of course councils should budget as tightly as possible and constantly seek to eliminate waste and duplication. However, there is a problem with local authority inflation and the constant demand for the delivery of new services, without the assurance of the long-term funding to support them. Public service pay is rising at a rate of some 5 per cent. a year, and 60 to 70 per cent. of local authority costs are on pay. For example, we have seen pay increases in the fire and rescue services. We also know that demand is increasing. There is not an hon. Member in this House who has not seen people at his surgery concerned about problems in social services relating to care of the elderly, threats to places in residential homes and local authorities' difficulties in funding those care home places, particularly with the new standards that are being applied. That is a major constituency issue for all of us. A home has closed near Skipton in my constituency, and the only alternatives offered are miles away in Bradford and Lancashire, too far for any relatives to visit. People in their 80s, towards the end of their lives, have been displaced into a completely alien environment.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The right hon. Gentleman clearly states that increased pay is an issue for local authorities, but fair pay for local government workers is important. Would he find the answer in restricting that pay, and not providing fair pay to people who work in the public sector?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has entirely missed the point. Local authorities depend substantially on Government grant—we know that, although we all wish that it were otherwise and are trying to work to alter the situation. But while that is the case, and while local authorities are therefore subject to national pay
986
negotiations, the money has to be raised somehow. If it is not raised by grant, it comes from council tax. That is the point. It is a matter of record that public service pay is rising by some 5 per cent. a year, and that that is a significant burden on local authorities.
There are also the rising costs of child protection—after the Climbie case—the mounting cost of adoption and fostering, and the rising cost of domiciliary care. I am sure that all hon. Members find that that is another persistent issue in their surgeries. Social services are almost always the main sufferer where education preempts other spending in circumstances in which the total grant is inadequate.
Mr. Dennis Turner: What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about the excellent revenue support grant settlement that Wolverhampton has had? It will delight the council tax payers, who will be asked to pay only a very reasonable increase. One can think back to the years of the Conservative Government, when council tax increases were much higher. The right hon. Gentleman was partly responsible for that.
Mr. Curry: Some cities have benefited substantially from the reallocation of the formula, and Wolverhampton is perhaps one of them, but many others have not, and still face real difficulties. That is my point. I am not making a crude and universal condemnation. This is a very sophisticated condemnation of the way in which the Government have distributed the funds.
Mr. Raynsford: Given the right hon. Gentleman's very sophisticated analysis of the pressures on local government and the costs, will he now tell the House whether he agrees with the settlement that we propose or whether he would increase it?
Mr. Curry: I have made it absolutely clear that we shall oppose the settlement because of the mess that the Government have got themselves into, the way in which the formula has been applied, the betrayal of the excellent councils, despite a pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman's own boss, and the additional burdens imposed upon local authorities. I have spelt that out for the second time. I would do it again, but I do not think that it is necessary.
We also have the increase in environmental services, in waste collection—
Mr. Steen: I am sorry to stop my right hon. Friend in mid-flow, because we are much enjoying his speech. His colleagues on the Conservative Benches thoroughly agree with what he is saying.
My concern, and that of my hon. Friends in Devon, is the actual cash amount that Devon people have to pay in council tax. They are running out of money, and cannot pay it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that because council tax has been allowed to run away with itself, and has increased and increased, people can no longer afford the services that the county council says they have to pay for? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that what is important now

987
is to reduce the staffing levels in councils right across Devon? In this way, council tax could be reduced at a stroke.
Mr. Curry: I agree that if there is clear evidence of waste it should be eliminated, but I do not agree that the council tax has run away with itself. The Government have imposed the increases in council taxes. This is not a self-induced mechanism. The Government have failed to match their requirements by grant.
We have the increases in environmental services, and we are all in favour; we want to see the landfill directive implemented. We want to see the UK get over its catastrophic record in recycling, for example.
There is also simply the business of being in business: pensions, insurance, utility bills, the implementation of single status. Those are all new, major burdens on government. They are not invented. There is remorseless pressure because of increased demand, compounded by inflation.
District councils often get the thin edge of the wedge, because the increase is below or near the level of inflation pretty well across the board, so the services that are often most visible to local people—street cleaning, lighting, local roads—are likely to suffer. They have also been the ones hit by the council tax benefit difficulties.
Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that in the winding-up speech the Minister's response will be that every local authority has an inflation increase? But, of course, that is an inflation increase on last year, when many local authorities, particularly in the south and south-east, were savaged, unlike Wolverhampton and other urban Labour boroughs in the north.
Mr. Curry: I do not know what the Minister will say, but clearly we do not have long to wait, so we shall soon discover.
What will happen next year? Is the £340 million extra a one-off or is it a recurrent payment? If it is not a recurrent payment, if it is not in the base for next year—and the Government keep warning of the tight spending round—it must be found locally, and that looks like 2 per cent. on the council tax simply to start from the same place.
So the problem is that this is a dishonest settlement. It pretends to be much better than it is. It is distorted by the ordering of the distribution of school funding by the Government. It will have an inevitable consequence of tightening the squeeze on social services. It is disfigured by the threat of crude and universal capping, because this is a Government back to their bullying, hectoring, prescribing, dictating worst. This settlement must be opposed.
5.13 pm
Mr. Bill O'Brien: This debate is of paramount importance to local government.
I declare my interest, as the chairman of SIGOMA—the special interest group of municipal authorities—in the House of Commons. Our aim in SIGOMA is to
988
present to Parliament the interests of municipal authorities, including metropolitan authorities, outside London and the effect of Government policies on the services provided by our authorities affecting our constituents. My right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of our role, and I ask him to take note of the points that I and other members of SIGOMA may put in the debate.
Funding is of paramount importance in providing the services that I have mentioned, and the formula for allocating funds is what the local government finance report is about. I shall address some of the areas of concern expressed by members of SIGOMA. The report covers the year 2004–05, and sets out the amount of grant to be paid to each local authority and other specified bodies for the coming year.
First, I record my appreciation of my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, for the support given to local government since 1997. Under the Tories, for 18 years, local government suffered tremendously from cuts in finance that reduced services, as has been made clear tonight. The devastation of 18 years left a blight on many local authorities from which they are still recovering. Under the Tories, industries such as mining, steel, glass and railways all suffered, which created vast areas of deprivation. Local government had to address and provide for that deprivation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has recognised the problem of deprivation and has helped the local government wards that have been identified as the most seriously deprived. The Government and local government have worked together in delivering improved services to deprived communities, which is appreciated. Revenue funding, however, is still a real issue to be addressed, as the report demonstrates.
The formula spending share, which was introduced in 2003–04, recognised to some degree the need for a new formula, which helped each local authority to assess how the calculation for major services was arrived at. That is addressed in section 4 of the report. What the report does not show is the definition of poverty in the 21st century, and we are requesting that there should be improvements to the weightings given in the deprivation indicators in the formula. The needs in relation to individual problems and circumstances cannot be identified in the formula, so the requirement for freedom for local authorities to deliver those services through targeted grants is the way forward. We are asking for more freedom to be allowed to local authorities to face the way forward in terms of help for individual needs.
To some degree, the delivery of services to the most deprived communities has been successful with the neighbourhood renewal fund—the NRF. My question to my right hon. Friend the Minister is what will happen when the NRF comes to the end of its life? Crucial services will be lost, and much of the progress and improvements in those areas will fade away if funding is not maintained. We need to ensure that adequate resources are provided at the crucial level of funding through the NRF. I ask for that to be addressed in the winding-up speech tonight.
A further concern that I want the Minister to take seriously is population decline. In many metropolitan areas, we have witnessed population movement, which impacts on education, social services and the main, core

989
services provided by local authorities, which in turn creates deprivation and a vicious circle. Because population decline requires certain services to be maintained, that puts heavy costs on local authorities.
In relation to data loss and the census, which was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Minister, SIGOMA estimates that the loss to local authorities owing to data change is £85.6 million—as per the analysis of change data issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We accept that there is a loss in that regard, and I hope that it will be addressed. I know that my right hon. Friend referred to that issue, but I consider that it demands more attention.
A further point to which I wish to draw attention is revaluation. The current system has a basic premise that resources are distributed on the basis of need and will provide equal levels of council tax if authorities spend at FSS. Reference to that is made in annexe C. The current system is based on valuations 10 years out of date that bear no relationship to the current position. The relationship between the ability to pay and the level of council tax has diverged over the years, with the perverse result that council taxes are higher in the most deprived areas—the very communities that have a low tax base and cannot raise revenues to fund much-needed services. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that serious situation. The lack of revaluation penalises SIGOMA authorities to the extent of about £270 million a year. Some compensation should be given for that loss of income.
SIGOMA members welcome the commitment to the introduction of revaluation in 2007 but I reiterate my plea for help for those authorities that will be penalised because of the lack of revaluation.
Block 6 of the report refers to environment, protective and cultural services. Interventions have referred to the effect of that block on services to local authorities. About 21 per cent. of household waste is recycled or composted but that figure must increase significantly to meet the landfill directive targets for 2010—by which year, 30 per cent. of household waste will have to be recycled. By 2015, the figure must increase to 33 per cent.
The Prime Minister's strategy unit report "Waste not, Want not" referred to a 45 per cent. increase in household recycling rates by 2015, with households taking part in kerbside collection programmes. If waste recycling targets are to be met, local authorities must be offered additional resources because while the proposed programme is important, it will cost money. It is vital that there is funding for that that follows the costs incurred as a result of the targets.
The final settlement block does not provide further support for the recycling block, as was requested by SIGOMA members. Pressures on that block will continue to be highlighted by SIGOMA, to achieve recognition within the current spending review. I ask my right hon. Friend, when he winds up, to give some indication of how the Government will address the extra resources needed under the environment, protective and cultural services block
5.23 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, a core issue is the Government's attitude to capping, now that we know the settlement. Despite many years of Labour opposing capping and the Government's new-found attachment to the new localism, they talk of little else. They seem obsessed with capping. Ministers spend their time browsing newspapers and surfing the web for any report on any draft budget from any council, anywhere, just so that they can write a letter threatening capping—talking tough.
As councils throughout the country set their budgets, they need to know what the House feels about the Government's obsession with capping. By voting against the Government today, we can send a signal to councils that they should stop looking to Ministers but look instead to their electorates. We can send a signal to the Government that the House rejects the return to the extreme centralism of the Conservatives and reasserts its belief in local democracy.
The Government's case is based on the claim that this is a generous settlement.
Mr. Raynsford: It is.
Mr. Davey: By one measure, it is a generous settlement. In terms of absolute figures and percentages, the settlement is far more generous than anything ever proposed by the Conservatives. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is on the dodgiest of ground. As a Conservative Minister whose settlements led to severe cuts in education and social services, and as a Minister who praised the council tax—as, indeed, an Opposition spokesman who still supports it—he has little to offer.
When referring to Procrustes, the Minister forgot to say what Procrustes did to people who were too short for the bed in his inn. He put them on the rack. That is where the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and his party are when it comes to the council tax.
I am surprised that the Minister is using such a modest comparison to measure his generosity. He should be taking into account not just what Ministers are giving councils, but what Ministers are telling councils to do with the money. He talks continually about the revenue support side, but conveniently forgets the constraints that his Government are imposing on the expenditure side. The truth is that the Government are forcing councils to spend money on things on which they might not choose to spend it.
There is a long list. It includes the costs of unnecessary audit, inspections, comprehensive performance assessment and best value. Then there are the costs of supporting the plethora of central Government initiatives such as the local strategic partnerships, the work force remodelling exercise and the electronic service delivery targets for 2005. There are the national insurance costs, and the higher pension costs caused by the Government's policy.
Many of the costs may be linked to worthy Government objectives, such as the implementation of freedom of information legislation, the Disability

991
Discrimination Act 1995 and higher care standards. The point is that they should be subtracted from the Government's self-proclaimed generosity before they pat themselves on the back. Those are extra costs that must come out of the settlement. It is like being given a Christmas present that one does not really want: one is happy to have the bright new shiny Chinese wok or the lovely fondue set, but would have preferred the cash. That is the problem that the Government have got themselves into.
Our criticism of the Government's claim to generosity does not deny the increase in revenue support, nor does it argue for more. I hope that the Minister will accept from me that Liberal Democrats are not saying that he should have provided more cash. What we are saying is that he should have provided the cash without the massive accumulation of extra costs and responsibilities whose cumulative effect makes this a tight settlement
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davey: I want to make some progress, as many Members want to speak.
Above all, the settlement should have been made without strings. It comes with more strings than an orchestra. On ring-fencing, passporting, targets and inspections, the Government have tried to tie down councils' freedom so much that they have ended up tying themselves in knots. The central problem for this settlement is the tangled relationship between capping arid the Whitehall controls—or, more specifically, the disastrous collision between education passporting and capping threats. At the centre of that collision are the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Education and Skills.
I genuinely believe that the ODPM would like to give councils more freedom, but it has been told to keep council tax down, so it has offered a generous settlement. Then in charges the DFES, with its demands for all education cash to be passed on. Crash! No freedom.
Mr. Foster: Would or would not the hon. Gentleman's party insist on passporting?
Mr. Davey: We would leave it to the local education authorities. That is called local democracy. It is something in which this Government used to believe when they were in opposition.
What are councils to do, faced with this dilemma? Are they to obey the DFES and passport education cash, while risking the capping of the unavoidable increase in council tax? Or are they to obey the ODPM, keeping back some of the education cash and setting a modest council tax but risking legal action on the part of the DFES?
That is a dilemma for far too many councils. Let us take two, Labour-controlled Telford and Wrekin and Liberal Democrat-run West Berkshire. Telford is supposed to be a flagship Labour authority, judged excellent by the comprehensive performance assessment; yet last year it under-budgeted, set a lowish
992
council tax and ended up borrowing. Now the day of reckoning has arrived: there is talk in Telford of a 13 per cent. rise. If that happens, will the Minister cap Telford? After all, it is an excellent authority and the Government promised to give excellent authorities freedom from capping—but, of course, they reneged on that. Telford will be a big test for the Minister's logic.
Then there is West Berkshire, another well-performing authority. Caught in the pincer of passporting and capping, it is obeying the DFES, and as a result looking at a double-figure council tax rise—simply because it obeyed central Government. For West Berkshire, the situation is even more galling. The ODPM says that it deserves more money, but it lost more than £3 million of what the ODPM said it needed last year, due to the ceilings. This year, the ceiling will cost it the £3.6 million that the ODPM says it is now due. With that cash, its council tax would indeed be in low single figures.
Mr. David Rendel: Does my hon. Friend realise that in a way, the situation is even worse than he suggests? The very fact that the Government have imposed a ceiling on West Berkshire indicates that it was underfunded for many years under the previous formula. So there is now a big backlog of necessary expenditure, towards which not a penny is being offered.
Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Such councils are having huge problems. The effects of passporting, capping and ring-fencing are combining with that backlog and creating real problems.
We have arrived at a truly bizarre situation. The Government admit that a given council deserves more cash, but they take it away to fund the settlement's floors. When the council tries to adjust its budget by spreading its remaining cash fairly across its services, it is told that it cannot do so, and that much of the cash should go to schools. Then, when it tries to raise its council tax to do what it has been told, it is capped. No wonder the Audit Commission said that the Government's council tax system is fundamentally flawed. Frankly, that was an understatement. What are councils supposed to do if such a dilemma is the fruit of a generous settlement?
The truth is that, although this settlement may be generous when measured against the Conservative record, it is far from generous when measured against the new Labour world of controls and caps. For the Minister's sake, I repeat: we are talking about more generosity not in terms of cash, but in terms of freedom—freedom for councils. Ironically, by granting such freedom he would set himself free—free from the burden of having to cap councils.
Let us look a little more closely at the Minister's dilemma: his stance on capping. He has been talking tough, but he has been sending out totally mixed messages. That is probably because, in reality, he is engaged in a large and complex poker game. First, we are told that the Government want low single figures. What does that mean? Well, 5 per cent. and under would seem to be the obvious message. But then we get the statement about "single figures". What does that mean? Many in local government think that that means 9.9 per cent. or less. Yet when many Labour councils are

993
struggling to get under 10 per cent., we hear on the local government grapevine that some councils might get away with increases in the mid-teens. What are we to make of all this?
What of fire authorities? Many suspect that it is in respect of fire authorities and police authorities that we will see the highest rises, and for a multitude of reasons. There is the pay settlement, which is hitting rural fire authorities, with their retained firefighters, particularly hard. There is also the pension problem, which gets worse every year, the up-front costs of the modernisation agenda, and the cost of the new combined fire authorities building up their reserves. And there is the perhaps most bizarre centrally imposed cost pressure of all: fire authorities being forced to hike the council tax to comply with new accounting rules imposed by the centre, yet if they comply with them, they get capped. That is truly byzantine.
What is the Minister's intention for the fire authorities? He says that he will meet them tomorrow, but it is a shame that he could not share with the House what he is going to tell them. Will he cap them? Will he require districts to re-bill when he has capped them, at a cost probably equal to the "overspend" of the fire authorities? That would mean council tax payers' money going on re-billing, not fire protection. This is bizarre.
When one appreciates how ridiculous this mess has become, it is perhaps possible to understand why Ministers are obsessed with capping. It is the last hiding place of the Whitehall control freak. If Ministers cap, they are capping their own mess. That is why Liberal Democrats say, "Scrap it, don't cap it."
I want to ask the Minister several specific questions about this year's settlement, the first of which relates to the extra cash provided in a panic by the Chancellor in the pre-Budget report: the £340 million sticking plaster. There is some concern that that money has been taken directly from the NHS budget. Will the Minister assure the House that that is not the case, and instead come clean and tell us where the extra cash came from? If he cannot, there is an even greater need to ask my second question about the £340 million. There is a view that that sum has not been built into the baseline budget for next year for the ODPM and for councils. In other words, it is not just a sticking plaster, but one designed to come off in a year. If that is the case, it is a serious charge, for the £340 million is equivalent to 2 per cent. on council tax, and if the cash is effectively time-limited, we are witnessing the stealthiest council tax rise of all. It is in there, but it is being deliberately delayed to get the Government through the June local elections. I thought that they had tried every trick in the book, but it looks like they have invented a new one.
What about licensing? The Government promised that the new responsive licensing would be self-funding and that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport would design a mechanism. Will the Minister confirm that today? We still do not know what the mechanism will be, which is serious. The Minister is urging councils to be prudent, but should a prudent council provide for the contingent liability that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, when it comes to licensing, might not be able to organise the proverbial in a brewery? When will that other Whitehall silo get its act together for the ever patient, always subservient local government?
994
I would like the Minister's assurance on a final matter. His excuse tonight might well be that we should all wait for the balance of funding review. He might argue that he sees all the problems and understands the difficulties, but that we should all be patient because the matter is in hand. He is a well-respected, well-liked Minister who listens. He may persuade some of us sometimes, but he needs to provide reassurances—and I seek two tonight.
First, can he give the House a categorical assurance that education funding will not be centralised as a way out of the balance of funding problem? No. 10 advisers have worried about that problem, but will the Minister resign if school funding is taken away from local authorities, which would be a disgrace?
Secondly, we need to know more about the timing and status of the review's conclusions. The Minister said at ODPM questions yesterday that the review would report in the summer. Does that mean before the summer recess, during the recess or when we come back in September? The Minister appears not to know, so we would like some clarification. When we get the report, what status will its recommendations have? Will it lead to the reform of council tax through the legislative powers of the Local Government Act 2003? Will it lead to this Parliament producing more legislation, or will it just be a contribution to the Labour manifesto? We need to know how quickly the Government are going to deal with this appalling problem.
The Minister may not want to be definitive in answering those questions tonight. I understand that, but given that he seeks the House's support tonight, he could at least share some of his current thinking with us. With the council tax system and the current settlement so badly flawed, the Minister should be charting his path out of this quagmire for all to see. Otherwise, we can have no confidence in this policy, no confidence in the settlement and no confidence that the Government have a clue about what they are doing.
5.37 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I tell my right hon. Friend that I am not criticising him when I point out that in a debate of less than two hours, only 20 minutes is provided for Back-Bench Members? Surely we would all, including my right hon. Friend, agree that that is totally unacceptable. I suggest that my right hon. Friend and other Front-Bench Members make representations to the appropriate quarters so that in future years we can have a fuller and more representative debate than we are having this evening.
I did not participate last year, but usually in these debates I have a go at the Government for failing to provide sufficient resources for the city of Leicester. The Minister will be pleased to hear that that is not my intention tonight; indeed, I intend to put the boot into the city of Leicester. As the Minister knows, the Labour party lost control of Leicester last year and a Lib-Dem/ Tory council took its place. In recent weeks, we have seen the consequences of the Leicester electorate's decision. Despite a reasonable settlement—higher than 5.5 per cent.; lower than 6 per cent.—which will safeguard social services and education, the people of

995
Leicester are now threatened with a council tax increase of 14 per cent. and savage cuts in voluntary sector provision.
Mr. Streeter: I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks closely. I am glad that the people of Leicester have had a fair and reasonable settlement this year. However, for the past two years fair settlements like that have been paid for largely by people in the south of the country. Why should the people of Plymouth—a deprived and challenged community itself—pay for the people of Leicester?
Mr. Marshall: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speeches in recent years, he would have heard me complain that Leicester had not received sufficient funds. I am making an exception this evening, for the reasons that I gave earlier.
The people of Leicester are now being threatened with a 14 per cent. increase in council tax, and savage reductions in the provision of services by the voluntary sector. If it is imposed, the increase in council tax will be totally unacceptable. It will adversely affect social cohesion and increase social exclusion in the city, and have an adverse impact on Leicester's good race relations record.
The new leaders of Leicester city council cite two reasons for the proposed increase. The first will not surprise anyone, especially those who listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), the Liberal Democrat spokesman. The leaders claim that the financial situation left by the previous Labour administration rendered such an increase inevitable.
Anyone who has looked at the books will accept that that is simply untrue. The leader of the Labour group on the city council will set out an alternative budget in the next few weeks that would achieve a substantial reduction in the proposed level of council tax but without the swingeing cuts in the voluntary sector.
I have some sympathy with the second claim made by the new leaders of Leicester city council. They argue, as I have argued in the past, that Leicester has been historically underfunded ever since it returned to unitary status. That underfunding has been exacerbated every year. The city council now claims that the city is owed £20 million. I have been asked—as have my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz)—to speak to Ministers to try and get that money returned.
I do not have any great faith that the money will be returned, but I should be grateful for an assurance from Ministers that they will look into that claim again. I hope that, in future years, assessments can be made to take account of that historical underfunding.
I do not believe that the difficulties faced by Leicester city council this year are an order of magnitude different from those faced in previous years. In discussions that I have had with the council's leaders, it has become clear that there are legitimate questions to be asked about proposed levels of financial provision for certain
996
services. There are big arguments about whether the proposed level of reserves, the allocation of millions of pounds to parks for unspecified reasons, and the proposed level of expenditure on maintenance, are necessary.
That is not an exhaustive list of the questions being asked, but it is illustrative: it shows that, if there is political will in the new city council leadership, proposals can emerge that would be acceptable to council tax payers in Leicester, and lead to a substantial reduction in the proposed level of council tax. I urge the city council to follow that lead.
What concerns me most of all, however, is the proposal to cut expenditure in the voluntary sector from £11 million at present to £9 million over the next two years. If that £2 million reduction is carried out, it will impact on the whole city and all groups in the city, and no section of the community in Leicester will be unaffected: women's groups will be affected; children's groups will be affected; mental health organisations will be affected; and ethnic minority groups will also be affected.
In my view, the reduction is a mindless attack on those groups which have done so much in Leicester to improve social cohesion, tackle social exclusion and improve race relations. To be parochial, the closure of Goldhill adventure playground and Braunstone adventure playground in Leicester, West will inevitably lead to more young people on the streets, with a possible attendant increase in social problems. The threatened closure of the Saffron resources centre will remove one of the key players in improving the life chances of the people who live on Saffron Lane estate in the outer city of Leicester.
The biggest cuts will be made in Highfields, which is the crucible of the multi-racial, multi-ethnic population of the city. If the cuts are carried out, one must fear for the continuing development of Leicester as a good multi-ethnic community. The cuts are short-sighted and fail to recognise the value for money provided by the voluntary sector in Leicester. The damage done to our city and its development as a multicultural city will be irreparable. I hope that the cuts can be stopped and that the new leadership of the city council eventually sees the light and realises the futility and stupidity of its current proposals.
5.47 pm
Mr. Eric Pickles: At this point, I would normally comment on speeches by Back Benchers, and it is a matter of some regret that I cannot comment on speeches by my hon. Friends because they have been denied an opportunity to speak—they have, however, made a number of telling interventions.
I can also say to the usual channels that Her Majesty's Opposition take the view that half a day is sorely inadequate to debate one quarter of public expenditure, and I hope that we will now see—
Mr. Michael Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pickles: Yes, of course. We have plenty of time.
Mr. Foster: I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot comment on contributions by Conservative Back Benchers, but perhaps I can help him. A leading Conservative Front Bencher told a group of Worcestershire head teachers that he believed that the area cost adjustment should be scrapped. Does he agree with that position?
Mr. Pickles: Why did I take the intervention? I must have been mad.
We must restore confidence in the system by which the grant is allocated, because the system is shot. The speech by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) was immensely naive on one point: he asked whether central Government would take over education; they have. They absolutely control education and passporting is the final straw. It is the final measure that gives them complete control over education. Education authorities receive a sum of money which they pass over to schools, and sometimes they must find extra money because the Government have not allocated sufficient funds. The nature of passporting has completely skewed the organisation of local government finance. It means that there is practically nothing left in many authorities for care for the elderly, children in need, cleaning, or even for mundane things such as dustbins. Nor is there anything left for rodent control, about which the Prime Minister talked with such knowledge and passion yesterday.
We heard from the Minister his usual honeyed words about how adequate the whole settlement is, but we have been there before. As early as November, he said how generous the settlement was and that there was no reason why councils could not continue to improve services while sticking to a reasonable council tax increase. However, within a couple of weeks, the Chancellor of the Exchequer found it necessary to put in the additional sum of £340,000—[Interruption.] I am sorry—I mean —340 million.
Perhaps we should not be surprised, because the Minister said the same things last year. But we now know that last year council tax went through the roof. The average council tax rose by 12.9 per cent. on band D properties, which was the biggest increase in the history of the council tax. Previously law-abiding citizens refused to pay the council tax increases and old-age pensioners were dragged before magistrates courts for non-payment. Senior police officers warned of a breakdown in law and order.
The same formula that distributed the grant will also be used to distribute the extra top-up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made great play of the mere —6,000 that will be given to West Sussex. Put into context, that means that the good folk of West Sussex whose property is in band D will receive the princely sum of 2p off their council tax bills. By any stretch of the imagination, that is penny-pinching.
My right hon. Friend was also right to point out the discrepancy between Conservative and Labour authorities. After passporting is taken into consideration, Labour authorities have received, on average, an increase of £6.6 million, but Conservative authorities have received an average of £2.5 million. We
998
all know who will get the blame. Last year, most people blamed the councils, but this year we know from ICM that the people blame the Government. The independent Audit Commission blames the Government. The blame lies firmly on the shoulders of the Government.
Mr.Raynsford Mr.Raynsford indicated dissent.
Mr. Pickles: It is true. The Audit Commission says that burdens from central Government increased local authorities' costs and that changes in the allocation of funding hit many councils hard. It dismisses the Government's claim that the high rises last year were because the councils were not up for re-election.
The level of council tax has reached a high that even this Government find unacceptable. Council tax has been used for a purpose that it was never intended for. It has distorted the whole system of local government. Rather than scrabble around for a new form of taxation, the Government should remove the distortion. They must stop using council tax as a stealth tax to bring in public expenditure by the back door.
I shall conclude with some apposite words from the Minister. On the subject of capping, he said, in this very Chamber:
"We see a sad and sorry picture of the imposition of centralised diktats by Ministers who cannot possibly understand the intricacies and detailed implications for local communities".— [Official Report, 24 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 346.]
This is indeed a sad and sorry settlement.
5.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): We have held a short, intense but important debate on the financial settlement for local government next year. Many Members have had the chance to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, and many of them spoke in support of their local area. However, I noticed that no one asked for less money to be given to their council.
Many Members asked for unreasonable council tax increases to be capped, or to be dealt with. I have looked back at some of the debates when the Conservatives were in power; the Tory Government, who deliberately failed to recognise the problems of deprivation, boasted that tax increases under Tory councils were the lowest. Today, it appears that, on average, Tory councils, with the Liberal Democrats close behind, are planning to set higher council tax rates than Labour councils. Of course, they will try to pin the blame on the Government, but local people know better. They know that every council has received consistent, above-inflation support for its services every year since 1997. They know that Tory councils are to blame for high council taxes.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was ambivalent about capping when he responded to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett); he refused to say whether he would cap councils in future.

999
Given the right hon. Gentleman's record in government, that is strange, as he was one of the most ruthless, across-the-board, capping Ministers this country has ever seen. He knows that Tory councils cost us more, and that if ever they got back into government a Tory Government would cost us more.
What emerged from the right hon. Gentleman's contribution was the way the Tories would find the savings to stop those rises. We heard it: cuts to public services. That is the answer that the Tories came up with. Basically, the right hon. Gentleman said that public sector pay was too high, so all our public sector workers in local government know that their pay would be cut if the Tories ever came back to power.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman disfigures entirely what I said. I said that public sector pay was rising at 5 per cent., and when I was asked whether I wanted to cut it, I said "no" and that the Government had to finance it because it was a cost on local government. That is what I said.
Phil Hope: Those of us with a history of representing workers in the trade union movement all know what it means when we hear a Tory Minister talking about public sector pay going too high.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who is no longer in the Chamber, did not actually focus on public sector pay, but on public sector jobs. He said that the only way to reduce the cost of local government is to reduce the number of public sector workers in local government. Not only will the Tories cut their pay; they will also cut public sector jobs. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is only backing up his leader, who believes in small government. And what does that pledge mean in practice? A 20 per cent. cut in public sector spending across the board. That would be the impact of a Tory Government in charge of local government.
Mr. Streeter Mr. Streeter rose—
Phil Hope: From the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), we discovered that the Liberals are opposed to important new developments, such as local strategic partnerships, which do much locally to bring local agencies together and improve public services. It appears, however, that the Liberal Democrats will scrap those partnerships, along with other interventions we have made, such as the comprehensive performance assessment, which are driving up standards in local government. As a result of inspections and the support, such as the CPA, that local government enjoys, councils' performance improves year on year. The hon. Gentleman should tell his Liberal Democrat friends in local government, who are often the greatest enthusiasts—
Mr. Streeter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I have been unable to put the
1000
point that I came into the Chamber to make, and as you also know, no Conservative Back Bencher has been able to speak—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman, probably from understandable frustration, is distorting what a point of order should be. I cannot accept that.
Phil Hope: The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) intervened twice during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister and made his points then.
It appears that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to passporting, too—as, it seems, is the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who is opposed to the passporting of money for education. That is interesting in view of the comments about Cambridgeshire made in February 1997 by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was then in government. He said that the Conservatives had concentrated on education because
"the majority of people feel that it should be a priority … If a local authority does not passport through the money, as is provided for, it will be for the electorate to ask it whether it shares their priorities".—[Official Report, 3 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 678.]
The right hon. Gentleman wants to see money going to education—or he did then—but his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench no longer do. It always amuses me when Conservative MPs ask for more money, even though their Front-Bench colleagues would clearly cut it.
Let us contrast the Tory record with that of a Labour Government who believe in helping communities to help themselves. At the centre of that belief is our commitment to support local authorities in doing the job that local people rightly expect them to do.
It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the police grant report motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question forthwith, pursuant to Order [2 February].
The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 160.
Division No. 46] [5.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Borrow, David

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Alexander, Douglas

Bradshaw, Ben

Allen, Graham

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Wallsend)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Darwen)

Browne, Desmond

Austin, John

Burnham, Andy

Bailey, Adrian

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Baird, Vera

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Banks, Tony

Casale, Roger

Barnes, Harry

Caton, Martin

Barron, rh Kevin

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Battle, John

Clapham, Michael

Beard, Nigel

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Begg, Miss Anne

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Bennett, Andrew

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Chryston)

Berry, Roger

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Betts, Clive

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Coaker, Vernon

Blizzard, Bob

Coffey, Ms Ann

Blunkett, rh David

Cohen, Harry

Boateng, rh Paul

Colman, Tony

1001

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hatfield)

Cooper, Yvette

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Crausby, David

Jowell, rh Tessa

Cruddas, Jon

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

David, Wayne

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Kemp, Fraser

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Denham, rh John

Khabra, Piara S.

Dhanda, Parmjit

Kidney, David

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Doran, Frank

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Drew, David (Stroud)

Lammy, David

Drown, Ms Julia

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lepper, David

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Linton, Martin

Edwards, Huw

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Love, Andrew

Farrelly, Paul

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Fisher, Mark

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Hint, Caroline

McCabe, Stephen

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Follett, Barbara

McDonnell, John

Foster, rh Derek

McIsaac, Shona

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McKechin, Ann

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

McKenna, Rosemary

& Rye)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Francis, Dr. Hywel

McNamara, Kevin

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

McNulty, Tony

Gardiner, Barry

Mactaggart, Fiona

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

McWalter, Tony

Gerrard, Neil

Mahmood, Khalid

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gilroy, Linda

Mandelson, rh Peter

Godsiff, Roger

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Goggins, Paul

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Grogan, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Merron, Gillian

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Michael, rh Alun

Rhymney)

Miller, Andrew

Healey, John

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Mole, Chris

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hendrick, Mark

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Heppell, John

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Heyes, David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

O'Hara, Edward

Hodge, Margaret

Diner, Bill

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Perham, Linda

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Pickthall, Colin

Sefton E)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Howells, Dr. Kim

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Pound, Stephen

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

Urmston)

E)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Prescott, rh John

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Hutton, rh John

Prosser, Gwyn

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Purchase, Ken

Illsley, Eric

Purnell, James

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Quin, rh Joyce

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

Quinn, Lawrie

Highgate)

Rammell, Bill

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Jamieson, David

Raynsford, rh Nick

Jenkins, Brian

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

1002

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

NW)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Tipping, Paddy

Rooney, Terry

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

Ruane, Chris

Truswell, Paul

Ruddock, Joan

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Salter, Martin

Kemptown)

Savidge, Malcolm

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Sawford, Phil

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Sedgemore, Brian

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Sheridan, Jim

Ward, Claire

Short, rh Clare

Wareing, Robert N.

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Skinner, Dennis

White, Brian

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

Wilson, Brian

Finsbury)

Winnick, David

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Lunesdale)

C)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Woolas, Phil

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Worthington, Tony

Soley, Clive

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Speller, rh John

Yarmouth)

Squire, Rachel

Wright, David (Telford)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wyatt, Derek

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mr. Nick Ainger and

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Charlotte Atkins

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Amess, David

Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

Arbuthnot, rh James

Stamford)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Howden)

Bacon, Richard

Djanogly, Jonathan

Baldry, Tony

Doughty, Sue

Baron, John (Billericay)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Barrett, John

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Bellingham, Henry

Evans, Nigel

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fabricant, Michael

Blunt, Crispin

Fallon, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Flight, Howard

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Flook, Adrian

Brady, Graham

Forth, rh Eric

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Brazier, Julian

Francois, Mark

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Garnier, Edward

Bruce, Malcolm

Gidley, Sandra

Burnett, John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Burstow, Paul

Goodman, Paul

Butterfill, Sir John

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Grayling, Chris

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Cameron, David

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

Grieve, Dominic

Fife)

Gummer, rh John

Carmichael, Alistair

Hammond, Philip

Cash, William

Hancock, Mike

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

Barnet)

Abingdon)

Chidgey, David

Hawkins, Nick

Chope, Christopher

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Clappison, James

Heald, Oliver

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Heath, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Collins, Tim

Horam, John (Orpington)

Conway, Derek

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cran, James (Beverley)

Jack, rh Michael

Curry, rh David

Jenkin, Bernard

1003

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

M-Kent)

Keetch, Paul

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Roe, Mrs Marion

Inverness)

Rosindell, Andrew

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Ruffley, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Lamb, Norman

Sanders, Adrian

Leigh, Edward

Sayeed, Jonathan

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Selous, Andrew

Lidington, David

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Lilley, rh Peter

Shepherd, Richard

Loughton, Tim

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

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Kincardine)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Mackay, rh Andrew

Spicer, Sir Michael

Maclean, rh David

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spring, Richard

Malins, Humfrey

Steen, Anthony

Maples, John

Streeter, Gary

Maude, rh Francis

Swayne, Desmond

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Syms, Robert

May, Mrs Theresa

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mercer,Patrick

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Moore Michael

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Teather, Sarah

Norman, Archie

Tredinnick, David

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Trend, Michael

Öpik, Lembit

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Tyrie, Andrew

Ottaway, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Page, Richard

Walter, Robert

Paice, James

Waterson, Nigel

Paterson, Owen

Watkinson, Angela

Pickles, Eric

Whittingdale, John

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Wiggin, Bill

Dinefwr)

Wilkinson, John

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Willetts, David

Pugh, Dr. John

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Redwood, rh John

Wilshire, David

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Rendel, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Robathan, Andrew

Mr. Mark Field and

Gregory Barker

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2004–05, HC 276, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that strong representations were made at last week's business questions that today's important business should not be taken on the shortest day of the week, especially as the business for the week was light. As you know, both last Thursday and this Monday the business did not carry and the time was not used. Could you bring that to Mr. Speaker's attention so that he can
1004
use his influence to bring it to the attention of the Government and the usual channels, and try to protect the interests of Back Benchers for the future? You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that not a single Conservative Back Bencher was able to speak in the important debate on the local government settlement.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not bad enough that the Government scheduled business in a way that allowed very little time for it? They compounded that felony when the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire spoke for an excessively long time. Twice, therefore, the Government managed to squeeze out Back Benchers, from their own party as well as Opposition parties. Can nothing be done to protect the House and Back Benchers from such activity by the Government?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The original point of order is not strictly a point of order for the Chair, but it is certainly a matter of concern for the Chair, whose interest is to protect the interests of Back Benchers. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will know that the Chair does not organise the business of the House. The House's agenda and the time allocated for it are usually determined through the usual channels. There is a difficulty, because when a time limit is imposed, which Mr. Speaker has been encouraged to do by the Modernisation Committee, Back Benchers take a cue and intervene on Ministers. If Ministers are generous in taking interventions, time on a day when there is at most half a day for business is very severely curtailed for Back Benchers. I am sure that Mr. Speaker will read Hansard and the points that Members have made. In essence, the matter must be resolved by amicable negotiation through the usual channels.

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

TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. COM (03) 132, Commission Communication on developing the trans-European transport network: innovative funding solutions and interoperability of electronic toll collections systems and draft Directive on the widespread introduction and interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community; and endorses the Government's approach to discussions on this document.—[Paul Clark.]
Question agreed to.

Local Government Finance (Mid-Dorset and North Poole)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Paul Clark.]
6.16 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I am extremely pleased to be able to make points directly to the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) on behalf of my constituents. He will no doubt have heard all the previous debate and might be thinking, "Not more of the same." However, week after week, I receive letters from constituents who are extremely worried about future council tax increases; it is certainly the biggest single issue that is raised with me.
The second biggest issue is the provision of services locally, whether people are waiting to be rehoused, need better support from social services, want to know why the revenue funding per school pupil is much lower than in neighbouring Hampshire—about £100 per pupil—or why we do not have a more visible and accessible police force. It an important part of my representative role to tell the Minister about my constituents' deep concerns.
I should like to start by outlining briefly some of the characteristics of my constituency, which includes parts of four principal council areas—Poole unitary authority, East Dorset district council, Purbeck district council and Dorset county council. There are four parish councils and two town councils and area committees within Poole unitary authority, as well as the Dorset police and fire authorities. About two thirds of the population live in the urban area, but two thirds of the land area could be classed as rural.
From afar, my constituency would be judged an affluent area. The current level of unemployment is less than 1 per cent., so why do I stand up every year in the House and argue that my constituents have had a bad deal? In previous debates, I have focused on pensioners and I must make some further points today, bearing in mind that more than 20 per cent. of the population of Mid-Dorset and North Poole are of pensionable age.
The area has the characteristics of a low-wage and high house-price area, as was confirmed last May, when the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report entitled "Can Work—Can't Buy" on the affordability of homes in different parts of the country, taking into account the cost of living and wages. The report concluded, according to the press release, that
"the asking price for modest homes in Purbeck, East Dorset or North Cornwall demands almost as big a share of the typical pay packet for local workers under 40 as higher priced homes in the fashionable London boroughs of Westminster, Camden and Islington."
Areas such as Poole and Purbeck feature on the list of the least affordable areas in England, because the relatively low local rates of pay place home ownership beyond the reach of young working households, even though local house prices are lower than those in London and the south-east. Of the 40 authorities with the highest house price to income ratios, seven out of the 40 are in Dorset. Purbeck is sixth on the list.
On Monday this week, I was pleased to be able to attend the opening of Jobcentre Plus in Poole, and I was very impressed by the services on offer. Having been
1006
invited to play with the job-search machines, I printed details of a few local jobs: "Branch advisers, 37.5 hours a week, £11,500 to £13,000 per annum"; "Production labourers, £5.50 per hour"; "Sales adviser, £3.87 to £5.22 per hour"; "Waiting staff, up to £5 per hour, depending on experience". Those examples are taken from just a preliminary look through what was on offer. There were plenty of jobs, but the problem was the salaries—although the picture is mixed, because wages are considerably higher in the public sector, IT and financial services.
To put those characteristics in people terms, I should like to quote from some letters that I have received over the past week. Mr. W writes:
"I understand that the council tax bill for Dorset is likely to be increased by a staggering 7 per cent. I feel that I must put on record my concerns with regard to such an increase, firstly we are told by Government that inflation is running at around 2 per cent. I myself have a fixed income and have no way of increasing it, so that I have to balance my affairs which is increasingly difficult when taking into account massive rises in local taxation".
Mrs. D says:
"Having been to several of the council tax public meetings I can see the County and District Councils have got a really difficult task to set the budget without losing too many services. The government formula does not appear to distribute funding in a fair way throughout the country. Despite being confirmed by the Audit Commission as an excellent authority, Dorset County Council's grant is one of the lowest in the country. How can it keep up its high standards? In addition there is talk of increases being capped at 5 per cent. This would surely terminate important services, I am particularly concerned about proposed cuts in the Outdoor Education Service, young people will be deprived of a valuable and integral part of their education".
This is from Mr. C:
"I wish to add my voice to the many from Dorset who will be encouraging you to speak up for this lovely County. What a good place it is to live in? What a good County for its services. But we urge the Government to reward us with higher grants to encourage our Council and enable our older citizens to pay their Council Tax and live!"
I shall not read too many letters, because my mailbag is enormous, but I must point out that the letters I receive from pensioners reflect even deeper worries about how they will cope with paying their council tax.
On Saturday, I made a home visit to a family with three children living in a two-bedroomed first-floor flat with no garden—an East Dorset Housing Association property. The husband is a fully qualified social worker earning £18,000 per year. It is impossible for the couple to raise a big enough mortgage even to part buy/part rent a three-bedroom house in the area. The housing association has said that rehousing may take five years: the couple are desperate, but what can they do? The combination of the low wage economy, high house prices and a shortage of affordable housing is producing the saddest and most insoluble cases in my constituency. The couple went on to tell me how their standard of living would be further eroded by a big increase in council tax. Many constituents come to my surgery on manufacturing wages of around £13,000, in fear of what is ahead of them.
I believe that my constituents are suffering for the following reasons: there is inadequate funding for services from central Government; the shortfall in

1007
funding puts extra pressure on the council tax, which is unrelated to the ability to pay; and the shortage of affordable housing forces young local people to move from the area or, in some cases, be trapped in unsuitable accommodation for long periods. The local councils cannot be judged as inefficient. Last year, Dorset was judged excellent, and Poole only one point less than excellent.
Last year, in line with national trends and because of the implementation of the new formula, council tax increases were in double figures. This year extra windfalls, such as levying the council tax on second homes at 90 per cent., mean that council tax increases will be considerably lower. However, in an ideal world, the bulk of the second home council tax would have been used to support more affordable social housing. Instead, a large proportion is being used to keep the council tax down. In addition, Dorset county council is considering some drastic cuts in services. As well as outdoor education, which I mentioned earlier, a day centre for those with mental disabilities and libraries may be closed. Support for bus services may be reduced and day centres may be closed for one day a week. Any such cuts inevitably hit the most vulnerable residents.
Dorset county council receives both the lowest formula spending share and the lowest revenue support per head of population of all county councils. Council tax payers have to pay for 45 per cent. of spending, compared with 32 per cent. in the average county council. Dorset is the ninth lowest spending county council per head of population this financial year and cannot be judged as a high spender. It faces specific spending pressures in social services as a result of having the highest proportion of older people of all county councils.
Some of the problems that face Purbeck district council include financing the continuing deficits of the superannuation scheme and increasing responsibilities and demands from central Government. The 3 per cent. increase in Government grant is welcome, but it is simply not enough. The council cannot implement its recycling plan because of the additional costs that are likely to take the council into capping. Similar issues arise in East Dorset, including concerns about the cost of the new licensing regime.
The main additional expenditure for East Dorset is recycling, and it has plans for phased implementation. However, as in much of Dorset, recycling facilities are already good and the county therefore starts from a high base of 18 per cent. The Government have set new targets for East Dorset of 40 per cent. The council estimates that it will cost an extra £1 million to extend recycling to 40 per cent. of the district, but there are no additional grants or funds to help attain such a target. At a cost of approximately £30 per household, the district council faces a problem of phasing and spreading costs and implementation over a long period.
Poole is in a better position this year, and I hope that that is partly as a result of my previous representations. The Liberal Democrats ran the council efficiently until May last year. Windfall gains this year mean that the new administration will not face the previous year's
1008
tight budgetary constraints. However, the council tax increase is likely to be considerably more than the rate of inflation.
Concern remains about low funding for education. Poole primary school funding is the lowest in the country, despite the fact that there are deprived areas. One ward in my constituency is in the lowest deprivation quartile and there are pockets of deeper deprivation in the area. Earlier this year, a group of Poole head teachers met the Minister for School Standards, and I hope that he is dealing with some of their concerns. The head teachers were pleased with his attention to their anxieties.
Much uncertainty has been created in all councils because they do not know the position on capping. That is unhelpful for budgeting.
The overall increase in central grant of less than £2 million is wholly inadequate even to meet unavoidable costs such as pay and pension changes. It does not tackle the problem that Dorset police, who receive the second smallest amount of central funding per head of the population, remain underfunded in comparison with other forces. Consequently, Dorset's police expenditure is low; it traditionally spends the lowest per head of population of all but five forces. The police element of the council tax may increase by 9.7 per cent. Dorset is an efficient force, but so much more could be done with better funding. Residents expect a better service when they are asked to pay more.
The change to precepting status for Dorset fire authority, as for the other combined fire authorities, brings new responsibilities and duties, about which we have heard this afternoon, such as the need to provide for reserves and balances. To meet an increase of no more than 5 per cent. in the precept, Dorset fire authority would be able to set a budget only on the basis of present policies, while making a contribution to setting up a general reserve. It would have to bring to a halt progress on the Government's modernisation agenda and, after taking account of transitional funding, would still need to make further cuts of £1.25 million. Those cuts are equivalent to 50 whole-time posts, which is 16 per cent. of the whole-time establishment, or 167 retained posts, which is 50 per cent. of the retained establishment. The limited transitional funding does little to meet that agenda or the pay award, and it is totally unrealistic to expect rural authorities such as Dorset to find evidence-based savings to repay the transitional funding in the time suggested.
Dorset fire authority has asked me to represent its serious concerns to the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. It recognises the need to limit the burden on council tax payers, but believes that it is unrealistic to expect combined fire authorities to deliver a modernised fire service, and move to precepting status, with the limited funds allocated in this year's grant settlement. My residents are faced with a grim prospect: either a hefty increase in one part of their council tax or unacceptable cuts in services, with implications for safety and lives. I am pleased to hear that there is a meeting tomorrow, and I hope that my representations on behalf of Dorset fire authority are therefore timely.
We have unfair funding and an unfair tax. The Government could address the formula by revisiting the idea of resource equalisation, or by revisiting area cost

1009
adjustment to take on board high house prices and low wages. The forthcoming year will be the second year of the new formula, and I should like the Minister to look at those important possibilities for following years. It would make an enormous difference to my constituency if the area cost adjustment could take into account high house prices, and be applied to my councils.
I am sure that the Minister can predict that, before I sit down, I shall suggest amendments to the council tax system. Council tax should be scrapped and replaced with a tax related to the ability to pay. Local income tax was recommended for this country in 1974 by the Layfield committee. Baroness Thatcher, aided by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), chose to introduce the poll tax. The people revolted over that, as they are now doing over council tax. Even a 5 per cent. increase is unacceptable to those on low or fixed incomes. It is still more than twice the rate of inflation, and will mean the erosion of living standards.
Nationally, the poorest 10 per cent. pay more than four times more in council tax than the richest 10 per cent. as a proportion of their income. The poorest 20 per cent. of pensioners pay nearly six times more than the richest 20 per cent. of non-pensioners, as a proportion of income. The time has come to axe that tax. Local income tax operates successfully in the United States, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Finland and Denmark. Why should it not do so here?
6.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on securing this Adjournment debate and giving us the opportunity to consider further—perhaps in a slightly calmer atmosphere—the impact of the local government finance settlement on her area. She mentioned her concerns over Leeson house outdoor education centre at Prime Minister's questions this week. As the Prime Minister said then, although we recognise the value of outdoor education, it is for each local authority to decide its priorities and make its allocations.
The hon. Lady finished her contribution this evening by mentioning the Liberal Democrat policy of a local income tax. There are serious questions to be asked over the idea of replacing the council tax, which is a good, workable tax, with a local income tax. Although the council tax is perhaps beginning to reach the end of its life as a tax on its own, to sweep it away with one alternative would be to miss out on the opportunity of considering a range of ways of improving the funding of local government and the balance of funding review. Some Liberal Democrat leaders in the Local Government Association who take part in the balance of funding review are looking at a range of measures to improve the balance of funding for local government. The hon. Lady can visit the Department's website to see the kind of options that are being explored.
The hon. Lady will know that, earlier today, the House approved the local government finance settlement for the next financial year, and that we have increased the grant to local government by some 30 per cent. overall in real terms—that is, above inflations—
1010
since 1997. This is the seventh successive settlement to give an above-inflation increase to councils. In this case, it gives an overall increase for next year of no less than 7.3 per cent. We have also reduced ring-fenced grant from some 13 per cent. to 11 per cent., reversing the trend on the ring-fencing of grants to local authorities.
I should like to pick up on the issues that relate particularly to Mid-Dorset and North Poole. Of the local authorities in the hon. Lady's constituency, Dorset county council will receive an increase of 6.3 per cent. on its £185 million grant next year—an increase of £11 million—and Poole borough unitary authority will receive an extra £3 million, an increase of some 4.3 per cent. East Dorset district council will receive £3 million in grant, an increase of 3 per cent., while Purbeck district council will receive £2.7 million in grant, also a 3 per cent. increase. All those figures have been adjusted to take account of the changes in responsibilities, and so on, between the two years, so they are on a like-for-like basis. They represent significant increases above the rate of inflation that will enable the councils to improve the quality of their services and to keep the council tax down.
The hon. Lady read out some very clear messages from her constituents, and I think that most hon. Members will have received similar letters telling us that the public are unhappy with the unreasonably large council tax increases of recent years. We share her concern about that, as those increases hit those on fixed low incomes particularly hard. We were very disappointed that the average council tax increase for this year was 12.9 per cent. In our view, that is unsustainable.
Mrs. Brooke: Would the Minister accept that the Audit Commission said that the reason for the large increases in council tax last year, particularly in the south-west region, was the implementation of the new formula?
Phil Hope: I regret that I cannot accept that entirely. The Audit Commission gave a very balanced view of the reasons for this year's council tax increases, which included the turbulence that has taken place in relation to this year's funding and the fact that some local authorities took the opportunity to put up the council tax because we had not given as clear an indication as we are now doing that unreasonably large increases would be capped if they continued. We have said that continued year-on-year increases in council tax on the scale that we have seen will be unacceptable to voters—including the people who have written to the hon. Lady and to me—and, frankly, to t he Government.
We know that the electors will make their views clear through the ballot box, but the Government will, if necessary, use their capping powers. We do not threaten capping lightly. We would infer councils to answer directly to their electorate for their decisions, but we cannot stand aside if they continue to impose unreasonable increases. That includes all local authorities, including those categorised as excellent or good in current or future comprehensive performance assessments. Everyone is on notice that we will consider capping excessive council tax increases.
Given the generous grant settlement for next year, and the scope for efficiency improvements, our view is that local authorities can and should deliver council tax

1011
increases in low single figures next year. We are looking at proposed council tax rises very closely. I am pleased that initial indications suggest that many local authorities have listened and are planning increases in low single figures. However, some have not listened, so we remain prepared to use the capping powers if necessary.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on these issues, seemed to make it clear in the debate this afternoon that he does not support capping. If the hon. Lady is as concerned as I am, from the letters that she has received, about what councils might do if they do not behave reasonably, she might like to have a word with her Front-Bench spokesperson and to try to convince him of the wisdom of the Government's approach.
We understand the concerns of the people of Mid-Dorset and North Poole, particularly the pensioners and others on low incomes. We believe that those on low incomes should be helped, and we have a system of council tax benefit. However, the problem is that so few people on low incomes—particularly pensioners—are aware of their right to this money. Many seem to be put off by the stigma of claiming a benefit or by the length of the form. Some 1.4 million pensioners are not claiming the council tax benefit to which they rightly have a claim. Central and local government need to work together to do more to ensure a higher take-up of that benefit. We shall see whether any other improvements can be made to the system.
The hon. Lady raised the question of education. I know that there is concern in Poole and Dorset that the authorities are among the lowest funded on a per-pupil basis, but the new formula funding system is based on evidence suggesting that authorities with significant deprivation and additional costs of recruiting and retaining staff need to spend significantly more to make proper provision for their children.
The new formula uses up-to-date data, and strikes a proper balance between the basic amount of funding per pupil, which is the same everywhere, and top-ups for pupils with additional educational needs and top-ups for areas with high costs for salaries, recruitment and retention. The needs of sparsely populated areas are also properly reflected in the formula. This concerns a point that the hon. Lady made, because Dorset is a rural area.
The main reason why Poole and Dorset have a lower level of funding for pupils than many other authorities is that they do not attract as much funding as other authorities through the additional funding for deprivation and area costs. On the measures for deprivation, both Poole and Dorset have well below the national average numbers of children of families in receipt of income support, which is the most heavily weighted deprivation factor. They also have a below-average number of children with English as a second language and those from low-achieving ethnic groups.
The hon. Lady pointed out, and I appreciate, that Poole and Dorset do have some deprived areas. It is for the local education authorities, through the local funding formula that they use, to ensure that the additional funding that they receive to reflect that reaches those schools in their areas that most need it.
1012
I turn to social services, where we think there has been a good settlement this year, demonstrating the Government's commitment to helping councils to care for the more vulnerable and needy members of their local population. Both authorities are two-star social service authorities, with the structure in place to improve further. The extra resources and the funding spending shares should enable them to do just that.
The hon. Lady also raised the question of funding for recycling and waste management. In the last two spending reviews we have substantially increased the environmental, protective and cultural services, known as the EPCS, block of finance, which includes waste management services. We increased that provision in the block by £1.1 billion over the three years in the strategic spending review 2000, and in the spending review 2002 we increased it by a further £671 million over the then three years.
There has been extra funding for East Dorset and Purbeck. The national waste minimisation and recycling fund in round two meant that Purbeck district council received a grant of £104,560 for this financial year, 2003–04. East Dorset district council received a grant of £492,760.
Mrs. Brooke: If Purbeck has been granted some extra money, would you expect the recycling scheme to start this year?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady does not expect me to deal with those matters. She should use the right parliamentary language by now.
Phil Hope: It will, of course, be a matter for the authority itself to use wisely and sensibly the money that the Government are providing, to get on and get it spent to make the schemes happen. The extra money has gone to those local councils in addition to the formula grant that they receive. It is one of a number of extra grants that put extra cash into a local authority, relieving the burden on the mainstream funding and providing the extra funding needed to provide those new services, and to achieve the new targets that I think everybody believes should be achieved in the delivery of better services.
East Dorset district council will also benefit from Dorset county council's partnership bid, which was awarded £2,196,380 for this financial year. These are substantial sums of money provided by the Government to assist local authorities to achieve the sorts of targets and improvements that we wish to see. The hon. Lady has rightly raised the question of recycling and waste management, and I hope that she does not find it unreasonable for me to point out the extra resources that have been provided for those local authorities.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the fire service and the meeting that will happen tomorrow, during which I am sure her comments will be taken into account. We recognise some of the difficulties, and we have written to all the fire authorities. One of the particular problems has been that of creating reserves in the new, separately precepted, combined fire authorities. We have explained in writing that those authorities do not need to create

1013
those kinds of reserves in year one, all in one go. If their precept is designed to do that, it is not necessary—it can be spread over a period of three years, thereby relieving the pressure in relation to such a high fire precept.
Finally, the area cost adjustment was mentioned. Before, a crude system was used, in which London was shown with a series of a concentric circles, and the areas further away from London received a bit of extra help in their grant. We have scrapped that, and we now have a new system of area cost adjustment, which is more sensitive to local circumstances. It recognises that high-cost areas can exist outside the south-east, and that variations exist within London and the south-east. As the hon. Lady was explaining, the difficulty in her area is that wage levels, which are the issue, are low. The point about the area cost adjustment is that it is designed to help local authorities to deal with their problems of recruiting and retaining teachers and the extra costs that they face as a result: the cost of supply cover for vacant
1014
Posts, which is generally higher, the cost of employing a permanent member of staff, or the costs of recruiting and advertising for staff.
The problem for the hon. Lady is that in refining the area cost adjustment, we have targeted the allowance at those authorities with the greatest recruitment and retention difficulties, which do not include Poole and Dorset. Her authority does not therefore benefit from the area cost allowance, which is more refined but which will benefit others. The result of that is that the coverage of the adjustment for area costs has been extended so that it now includes 99 authorities, as opposed to 59. I appreciate that it does not help her solve her problem, but it has made life better for those authorities—
The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[DAVID TAYLOR in the Chair]

Broadcasting (Rules of Coverage)
[Relevant document: First Report from the Broadcasting Committee Session 2002–03 HC 786.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
2.30 pm
Mr. David Lepper: It is many years since a report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting was debated in the House of Commons, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss our report on the rules of coverage.
At a time when media coverage of the business of this House, political events and politicians, especially by the broadcasting media, is a subject of daily controversy, our debate today has a narrower and—I suspect—less controversial focus. The rules recommended by the Broadcasting Committee on behalf of the House cover the shots that may be used in providing pictures of proceedings in the Chamber, Westminster Hall and Select and Standing Committees of the House. This is perhaps a less controversial broadcasting debate than some others, but it is especially topical following events in the Chamber yesterday afternoon, which I shall come to later.
Although the immediate focus is narrower, the Committee's report also touches on issues that I believe should be of interest to all hon. Members, and especially to those serving on other domestic Committees and the Modernisation Committee, which is considering the crucial issue of reconnecting Parliament with the people on whose behalf we are all here. I believe that our report is very much in tune with the important decision of the House of Commons Commission that improving access to and understanding of Parliament should be a priority in the strategic plan for House of Commons administration that was adopted in June 2002.
For many years, Parliament was wary of allowing its proceedings to be broadcast. Following the refusal of John Reith's request on behalf of what was then the British Broadcasting Company to broadcast the state opening of Parliament in 1923, some 55 years passed before the first experiment with radio broadcasting, and 67 years passed before regular television broadcasts began in July 1990.
In 1990, the Select Committee on Broadcasting, chaired by the then Leader of the House, established two main principles to govern those broadcasts, and those principles still underlie the rules that are the subject of our debate. They are that the House will at all times have the principal and final say in any matter concerning televising the House and that the dignity of the House will be protected at all times. The rules of coverage were devised to ensure that the House retained control over how it was portrayed. The statement of objectives in annexe I refers to
306WH
"a full, balanced, fair and accurate account of the proceedings, with the aim of informing viewers about the work of the House."
The rules are essentially guidelines to help the television director to ensure that the shots that he or she selects preserve the dignity of Parliament and have regard to its function as a working body rather than as a place of entertainment.
The rules are set out in full in annexe 1 to the report. In essence, they require the camera to present a head-and-shoulders shot of the Member speaking, although cut-away shots are allowed to show the reaction of Members to whom the Member speaking has referred. Medium-angle shots, including over-the-shoulder shots, are allowed to show both the Member who has the Floor and another Member intervening or attempting to do so. There can be occasional use of group shots or wide-angle shots to show the reactions of a group of Members and to establish the geography of the House. Whenever the occupant of the Chair rises, the director should cut to show that that is happening. The Press Gallery and the Public Gallery, officials' and visitors' boxes and the area behind the Speaker's Chair should not be shown other than unavoidably in a wide-angled or other authorised shot.
If there is disorder on the Floor of the House, the shot should show the occupant of the Chair, although some use of wide-angle shots is allowed. As anyone who was watching BBC Parliament or the House of Commons monitor at approximately 1.10 pm yesterday or who saw the item on the news later will know, a similar rule applies to disorder in the Strangers Gallery or—the likelihood is remote, of course—in the Press Gallery.
There has been little substantive change in the rules since 1990, although the Committee, under powers delegated to it by the House, has from time to time allowed some relaxation of them. For instance, even though the Prime Minister might not refer by name to the Foreign Secretary when giving a reply on foreign policy during Prime Minister's questions, it is acceptable to cut to a shot of that Secretary of State during that reply.
Mr. Iain Luke(Lab): One of the issues that was raised in the Committee's discussions arose during our visit to the Scottish Parliament, where there is a complete relaxation of the rules. We thought that the possibility of displaying graphic scenes of disorder in the Public Gallery did not enhance the stature of that Parliament. That is why we decided to consider some relaxation but to keep it to the minimum.
Mr. Lepper: My hon. Friend is right about possible events in the Scottish Parliament and about the Committee's conclusion. As the Public Gallery in the Scottish Parliament is shown, any disorder in it might also be shown, as it is acceptable to show the reactions of members of the public. Members of the Scottish Parliament seem comfortable with that arrangement. We wondered whether it exists at least in part because of the layout of the Scottish Parliament Chamber, which makes it difficult to avoid showing the Public Gallery from some angles.
Our report proposes no major changes. When the rules were devised 13 years ago, Members believed that it would be better to begin with fairly tight restrictions

307WH
and to relax them if necessary as time went on, rather than begin with a looser framework of guidance and perhaps court controversy by having to respond to demands, possibly from Members, for more restriction.
We recommend adopting broadly similar rules for proceedings in Committees and here in Westminster Hall, taking into account the different geography of each location. As in the Scottish Parliament, however, that could make it difficult to adhere to prohibitions on showing the Public Gallery, for instance.
Why carry out an inquiry now? We felt that with so little change during the past 13 years it was about time to review the rules, to test whether they still fulfilled their original function and to ask whether consideration should be given to recommending their revision, especially in the context of technological changes in broadcasting during those 13 years and of the other legislatures that have come into existence in the UK and whose proceedings are broadcast. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) said, we therefore considered the approach of the Scottish Parliament.
Further impetus for the inquiry came from evidence given by the BBC and Channel 4 to an earlier inquiry carried out by the Committee into the development of parliamentary broadcasting. We published a report in June 2000, although it was, unfortunately, never debated on the Floor of the House or in this Chamber. Nevertheless, several of its recommendations have been adopted. For instance, changes have been made in the composition of the board of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd., or PARBUL, to remove the potential conflict of interest that could arise from the inclusion of members of the Broadcasting Committee on that board.
Progress has also been made in providing coverage of the devolved legislatures on our internal video network. The new camera system and control units are in place in Westminster Hall. Live inject points where broadcasters can plug in to relay signals directly to their studio have been established for interviews in Central Lobby, so that whether there is sunshine, wind or rain, College green is no longer the only available location for an interview, although it is amazing how much broadcasters persist in using it. All of us know that when constituents see interviews taking place in Central Lobby, the reaction is very favourable, as they provide a visual and graphic impression of the House of Commons at work in splendid surroundings.
We raised in our earlier report the potential for webcasting proceedings. The initial experiment was successful and webcasting is now established, and it is expanding. Although that report did not deal directly with the rules of coverage, it recommended a relaxation of the restriction on the use of reaction shots. In giving evidence to the Committee in 1999, the broadcasters made a clear plea. Anne Sloman, then chief political adviser at the BBC, told the Committee that
"the rules established ten years ago are really desperately out of date."
308WH
Comparing Westminster with the Scottish Parliament, Ms Sloman said that in Edinburgh, those involved
"took the view that the cameras were there as a surrogate for being
in the public gallery, so anything you can see in the public gallery should be available on the electorate's television screens".
She argued that the rules of coverage made the proceedings
"incredibly static compared with other serious outside broadcast events, for example party conferences."
David Lloyd, then head of news and current affairs at Channel 4, also took up the concept of the surrogate Public Gallery in his evidence to the Committee:
"No wonder again that some of our viewers find so much of the coverage lacking in the very dynamic that they experience when sitting in the public gallery, and yet the objective, clearly states, that it was to have been a full and accurate account of proceedings."
Mr. Lloyd continued:
"As a broadcaster I spend a great deal of my time thinking how to bring current affairs in general, and politics in particular, home to a younger under-35 audience. This is the generation that has an enormous visual literacy with an instantaneous instinct for anything that they regard as at all dull, stuffy, old-fashioned. If it is any of those things then they do not watch."
He argued that a relaxation of the rules could help to
"bring a new audience to politics and"—
as we hope—
"relocate a departed one."
Those statements from the broadcasters are powerful, especially to those of us concerned with reconnecting the political process to the people, although as someone whom I hope has contributed to that visual literacy through many years teaching film and television, I also believe that real visual literacy extends beyond the obsession with the instantaneous and ephemeral.
At the beginning of our inquiry, the Committee asked the broadcasters whether they wished to update their evidence. Anne Sloman, on behalf of the BBC, submitted a further memorandum, which can be read as an annexe to our report. New issues that were raised included panning shots showing a Member being addressed or told off by the Speaker, a greater variety of shots during Divisions and the entry of the Speaker and Prayers. Ms Sloman argued that such arrangements would make sense of the day's proceedings, and she emphasised that she was not suggesting coverage of the Public Gallery. In general, she argued that the relaxation of the rules was appropriate for building on the
"spirit of trust which currently exists between broadcasters and Parliament".
At the start of my speech, I referred to the often controversial nature of debate about the relationship between politicians and the broadcast media. Whatever the situation elsewhere, I believe that I speak for all members of the Committee when I say that we have the greatest admiration for the professionalism of Peter Knowles, the editor of BBC Parliament, and his colleagues in carrying out their responsibilities and using the clean feed from the House to provide BBC Parliament on satellite, cable and free digital terrestrial TV.
I congratulate BBC Parliament on its viewing figures. It had 270,000 viewers last Tuesday during the debate on the Higher Education Bill and 225,000 viewers on Wednesday when the Prime Minister made his statement on the Hutton report. Indeed, during the

309WH
Higher Education Bill debate in mid-afternoon, BBC Parliament overtook all the other news channels for a half-hour period. It stayed ahead of Sky and ITV News for two hours. That suggests to me that it might well be the issues being debated that are important to the audience, rather than the formal style of presentation.
As has been mentioned, during our inquiry we visited the Scottish Parliament, and we also visited the Irish Parliament in Dublin. The Committee would wish to thank the elected Members, media representatives and parliamentary staff who welcomed us and gave us their time to discuss the issues. I suspect that other Committee members who took part in those visits might wish to say more about the detail of that aspect of the inquiry. The opportunity to view the coverage of the two Parliaments in situ, and especially the opportunity to discuss with elected Members and journalists their experience of the systems in Edinburgh and Dublin, were valuable, particularly where people had also had experience of the Westminster model.
Our conclusion, however, was that there was no case for major changes in the rules at Westminster. The Committee believes strongly that, whatever other purposes exist for the televising of Parliament, the prime purpose must be to provide an accurate record of proceedings, and that focusing mainly on the Member who has the Floor fulfills that purpose. We believe that the right of the elected Member, whether a Back Bencher or Minister, to be seen by his or her constituents, as well as by the wider public, when addressing Parliament or taking part in Committee proceedings is central, as the basis of ensuring an accurate record of proceedings. For those reasons, we do not accept the comparisons made by the broadcasters with other outside broadcasts or with party conferences.
It is also true that, on behalf of Parliament, Bowtie Ltd. provides the clean feed—the signal—from the Chamber through a single set of cameras. That clean feed is used by people in a number of ways and therefore should not contain mixes. For example, a TV company that wanted the clean feed of a clip of a particular speech could find that the precise moment in question was unavailable because the director had used a cut-away shot to provide a greater variety of shots. Similarly, panning shots away from the Member speaking distracts from what should be the primary focus—the Member speaking. The rules fulfill a necessary function and ensure that attention is focused on the proceedings.
It had been suggested by the broadcasters that the Scottish Parliament provided an example of the surrogate gallery model. On the basis at least of the technology that is currently available, we do not accept that the experience of the viewer at home can in any way approach the experience of the viewer in the Gallery. The viewer at home does not and cannot have available to them an infinite variety of shots of the Chamber from which to choose. The viewer sees what the director decides that he or she should see, whether it is the person speaking, the Speaker in his Chair taking advice from staff—which is prohibited at the moment—or Back Bench ribaldry or displeasure, which is on the borderline. The director makes the choice, not the viewer. Technology might change that, but we are not yet at that technological point.
310WH
We also felt that there was no case for showing the entrance of the Speaker or Prayers, not only because they have traditionally been private, but because they would not fulfill the function suggested by Ms Sloman—providing a context for the day's proceedings. In terms of dealing with disorder, as I said, the situation is somewhat different in Scotland, although all legislatures have rules that should be followed by broadcasters in the event of disorder. We also looked at the Irish tradition of welcoming and showing distinguished visitors to the Public Gallery. It was pleasant for us to be welcomed in the Senate, but we decided that that was an issue for the Procedure Committee rather than for us.
The conclusion that we drew from our experience was that, whatever more relaxed rules there might be elsewhere, and taking into account the different geography of different Chambers, televised proceedings look much the same wherever they take place. This is a function of the parliamentary system, rather than the range of shots that is available to the director.
As I said, we believe that our report has wider significance than its immediate subject. We agree with the broadcasters who have commented on the need to provide a clearer context for understanding the significance of what goes on in Parliament. We also believe that the broadcasters have the main responsibility for providing that context. Our responsibility is the clean feed—the signal. In the broadcasters' programmes, the pictures that that clean feed provides can be mixed with other content to provide understanding and context. We believe, for instance, that the excellent coverage of the Iraq debate last March and of last week's Second Reading of the Higher Education Bill show how, through showing a mixture of live events in the Chamber, interviews and studio discussions, Parliament can be presented in a way that engages viewers and increases understanding.
In its second report of the 2001–02 Session, the Modernisation Committee emphasised the importance of making the House more accessible, saying:
"It is therefore important that the House makes maximum use of the TV media to convey a sense of the Commons as a working environment and a forum of serious and challenging debate."
We agree. We look forward to working with the Modernisation Committee and, indeed, the broadcasters to take that aim forward. We remain enthusiastic about the idea of a visitors' centre and the role that a live relay of Parliament and archive material could play in that regard.
From our discussions with the broadcasters, we also believe that we might need to reconsider the rules about the use of the clean feed signal, especially in the context of the more relaxed style of many current programmes about politics. A magazine programme with an occasionally irreverent tone can none the less be a serious platform for political debate. At the moment, the Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting has offered to use her discretion when dealing with requests for material from the broadcasters, but we may need to devise new guidelines to assist her in making those decisions. I am pleased to say that she has not so far had to recommend to the Committee that it should call before it call named persons to answer charges of contempt, as it has a right to do.
Mr. David Drew: I am intrigued. It is not clear from the report what the exact relationship is between the broadcasters and Bowtie, the current contractor. Does the Committee get an opportunity to look at that contract and make any observations?
Mr. Lepper: The report does not deal with that issue. I refer my hon. Friend to our previous report. which we issued in the last Parliament. Put briefly, the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd. includes representatives of Parliament and of the broadcasters. PARBUL appoints a contractor to provide the clean feed. That contactor is Bowtie. My Committee is exercising its right, halfway through the Bowtie contract, to review the way in which it is working. We will do that over the next few weeks. There is no direct relationship between the Broadcasting Committee and the contractors providing the clean feed.
We dealt with webcasting in our 2000 report and in the current report. The www.parliamentlive website began as an experiment in January 2002. I was quoted in The Guardian at the time as saying that it would be a powerful new tool in opening up Westminster. I said and the Committee shares my view:
"There is an audience there and more and more people will make use of it."
The webcasting experiment, with our enthusiastic support, was put on a permanent basis in September last year. The figures for January alone show that 29,403 plays were requested from www.parliamentlive. The availability of webcasting of the Lords, the Commons and Westminster Hall is important and we hope that it will eventually redress an imbalance in the visual presentation of Parliament on which we commented in both our reports—the comparative lack of coverage of Select and Standing Committees.
Television broadcasters still tend to cherry-pick the Committee sittings that are likely to provide the most dramatic soundbites and confrontation. At present, Parliament Live carries material on seven channels, with the aim of eventually providing coverage of every Committee in sound or sound and vision, as well as coverage of the Chamber and Westminster Hall. We look forward to when that system is fully up and running and available to Members at their desks.
Mr. Luke: It was the Committee's view that webcasting was useful for the general public and an educational tool that would enable school children and college students to watch interesting live debates on points of procedure in Committees and the House. It would bring back the connection between Parliament and the people.
Mr. Lepper: I agree with my hon. Friend. The educational potential of the webcasting of Parliament is immense; it provides opportunities that are not available through the parliamentary channel.
Mr. Khalid Mahmood: On the educational issue, a programme on the 1964 election was shown during the recess. I was three in 1964 and I enjoyed watching the programme, especially in relation to what happened in Smethwick, which I had
312WH
heard about. It was interesting to see live coverage from that election. It was educational, and it was a fundamental part of broadcasting history and the political process. As well as the broadcasting of Committees and the Chamber—
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. That is too long for an intervention.
Mr. Lepper: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. He is right; we are at the beginning of considering how webcasting can be used by Parliament and by the general public to access live broadcasts from Parliament and archive material to make political events come to life more vividly.
Webcasting, rather than revisions to the rules of coverage, will be a major development to aid the modernising agenda and to promote the ambition to reconnect Parliament with the people. It is a major change to the way in which the public can experience what happens in the Palace of Westminster. It extends the range of coverage and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East suggested, it targets a new, potentially younger audience. It has the potential to develop into an integrated, interactive information service for Parliament.
I have no way of knowing when there will be another debate on a report of the Broadcasting Committee; I hope that it will not be as far away as the last debate on the subject. On behalf of the Committee, I put on record our huge appreciation of the work of Barbara Long, the Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting, her staff, the Committee staff and the staff of Bowtie, who provide the clean feed.
In the 13 years since the televising of Parliament began, technological change has evolved more rapidly than most of us would have imagined possible. The pace of change will increase and the Broadcasting Committee looks forward to working closely with other relevant Committees and the broadcasters in assessing how that change will widen the possibilities for re-engaging with the public on the work of Parliament.
2.59 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: May I associate myself with the Chairman of the Committee's remarks and with his thanks to Barbara Long, the Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting, and to her staff, to successive Clerks who have helped us since the last report was debated—when God was a boy—and to Bowtie, the current Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit?
I hope that because it has been so long since we last debated this matter, it will be in order for me, as the Committee's then acting Chairman, to place on record my thanks to Brian Lamb of C-SPAN in the USA and Peter Milliken, the then Deputy Speaker and now Speaker of the Canadian Parliament, for the assistance that they gave us in the preparation of the report that was published, but not debated, in the 1997 to 2001 parliamentary Sessions. Without the assistance of all those people, our work would have been much more difficult, if not impossible.
The Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), gave a thorough appraisal of the Committee's deliberations

313WH
so far as most of the report is concerned. He outlined carefully the determinations that we made—I hope in the interests of the House and of the public—in reaching our decision not to extend the shot coverage of the main Chamber of the House of Commons. We came to that decision after painstaking thought and, as the Chairman said, after visits to the Scottish and Irish legislatures, to which thanks are also due. We found their coverage interesting, but we did not feel that it was best suited to the mother of Parliaments, for the reasons that outlined. Rather than rehearse arguments that have already been rehearsed and that have been set out clearly in the report, I shall confine my remarks to paragraph 5 on page 4 of the report, which concerns access to parliamentary broadcasting.
The Committee Chairman said—I entirely agree with him—that we have made major progress in the webcasting of Parliament. There has been considerable criticism that not enough of the work of Parliament has been properly covered. Although it is true that there is what the Americans call "gavel-to-gavel" coverage of the main Chamber, albeit in limited form, the real work of Parliament—the coverage of Select Committees and Standing Committees, where so much of our work is done and to which so much of our time is devoted—has received scant, if any, coverage.
The perceived way forward to deliver that at reasonable cost has been through webcasting. It is now technically possible to put a web camera into every Committee Room and, on a fixed shot basis, to offer through the internet wall-to-wall coverage of whatever is being debated, however obscure and esoteric it may be. However obscure and esoteric the subjects deliberated on in Select Committees and Standing Committees may be—sometimes statutory instruments; sometimes obscure bits of European legislation—they all affect the lives of someone in the United Kingdom. If they did not, we would not cover them. It seems to us that it is right that that handful of people—it may be only a handful—should have access to those debates, in a way that they otherwise could not if they live outside striking distance of London. That experiment, now converted into practice, seems to be working. I hope and believe that it will be expanded.
That, however, does not overcome the fundamental problem that I have attempted to address since I was a member of the Select Committee on televising the House, in its first form—I am sorry that I am the only dinosaur remaining from that time. In that Committee we argued not only over the merits of whether the House should be televised at all, which is now water under the bridge, but over how we were going to bring Parliament to the people. I have to say that this House—both Houses—have signally failed to do that.
In 1989–90, when I was the only member of the Select Committee to vote against Lord Wakeham's report, I opposed it on the ground that the arguments that had been rehearsed by the then Leader of the House, Tony Newton, and others, were that it would enhance democracy by bringing Parliament to the people. We all know only too well that there is scant interest in the work of Parliament: voting figures at elections reveal that. It seemed to us—it certainly seemed to me at the time—that if we wanted to go down this road, we had to do it properly. It was not supposed to be an exercise in providing news clips to sex up the "9 o'clock News", as
314WH
it then was, and "News at Ten", as it then was. It was a serious attempt, first, to provide an electronic Hansard and, secondly, to make sure that as many people as possible could see Parliament working—not just Prime Minister's Question Time by the kids in the playground at break, but the real work of Parliament in all its forms, at its dullest, soundest, most genuine and most worth while.
In 1989, relatively few analogue television channels were available. I said that we should have a dedicated channel and was told, "No. There simply isn't the space." There were technical reasons that made that a reasonable argument. However, since then, we have seen the development of digital television: multi-channel broadcasting has burst out of our screens like there is no tomorrow. Soon analogue will be a thing of the past, and everything will be digital. It grieves me enormously, on behalf of both Houses of Parliament, that we, the legislators, have failed to take this opportunity to take some of that spectrum and make it available for the broadcasting of democracy.
In my opening remarks, I paid tribute to Brian Lamb of C-SPAN. Brian has been responsible, almost single-handedly, for developing not one but two channels of democratic broadcasting in the United States—gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Senate and the House of Representatives, interspersed with coverage of committees and with serious, in-depth and worthwhile current affairs interviews. If they can do that in the United States, we can still do it here. I am bored with hearing myself rehearse the arguments about who should do it. I have long felt that the Houses of Parliament should own their own broadcasting unit. If we want it and believe that it enhances the cause of democracy, we, the taxpayers, should be prepared to pay for it. We are prepared to pay for new offices all around the estate of Westminster—we are prepared to pay for all sorts of things—but we in the House have not been prepared to vote the relatively modest sum that would allow us to have our own broadcasting unit.
That is no criticism of Bowtie, which does a superb job, or of the BBC parliamentary channel, which also does a superb job. One of the suggestions that I have made, as colleagues know, is that the BBC should do the job, on the same basis as World Service radio does its job—by special vote—so that there would be a ring-fenced sum dedicated to that purpose and a Chinese wall between the work of that bit of the British Broadcasting Corporation and everything else. I almost care not how it is done, but it can be done and it should be done. Both Houses of Parliament should get to grips with the issue and insist that we, as parliamentarians, take the necessary steps to give the British people what I believe to be their right to full access to parliamentary broadcasting.
Were there to be two digital channels—two C-SPAN channels—most people would not have access to them, because at present the majority do not have digital television. Yet we all know that, in a few years. there will be analogue switch-off and we shall move solely to digital broadcasting. Channel after channel after channel is available. At that point, it is right that the public should have access to the work that we do. If we can achieve that, either in-house or by contract, and if we can offer the public a real insight into the work of the

315WH
Chamber of the House of Lords, the Chamber of the House of Commons, the Committees of both Houses, the Select Committees, the Standing Committees of both Houses—and good commentary—and if we can offer, in addition, the facility to see the wall-to-wall work of the Committees through the website, we shall achieve what the original Committee set out to achieve. If we fail, I do not believe that we shall be forgiven.
3.10 pm
Mrs. Helen Clark: I am glad to have the chance to contribute to this debate on what everyone here understands to be a vital topic. Having the debate means, of course, that what we say and what I say now will be recorded in Hansard, providing a full record for any future use and therefore complementing our formal report.
Also, we are being televised according to the very rules of coverage that are the subject of the debate. That means that, unless I am interrupted, the camera will remain on me almost all the time, but not in close-up. Any viewer will not be able to see, therefore, what others in the Chamber are doing while I am speaking, unless—and perhaps one should experiment—something I say causes an abnormal reaction, which the television director decides warrants a panning shot along the Benches. That is not likely to happen, Mr. Taylor, I hasten to add.
There may, however, be an occasional group shot to show the reaction of a group of Members—I cannot predict that—or a cut-away to another Member to whom I refer, or who wishes to intervene. I do not think that anyone today, unlike yesterday, is expecting any disorder, but if any occurs, the camera will not show it.
All that may sound arcane, if not positively boring—I have bored myself by reading it out. Ten minutes watching one person speak does not sound like good telly, or a good advertisement for Parliament. It may even sound defensive. The introduction to the Select Committee report says that
"the television director should have regard to the dignity of the House and to its function as a working body rather than a place of entertainment."
That might imply that if the viewer finds our debate boring or incomprehensible it is his or her problem, not ours.
I hope to use these 10 minutes or so to persuade the viewer—or later, the reader—of the proceedings that the rules of coverage protect a basic part of our democratic form of government. Crucially and in short, they enable those in Parliament to be shown fully and fairly, and they provide those outside Parliament with access to a full and impartial visual record of our proceedings.
I digress slightly, but I will get to the point. I think hon. Members will understand. During our careers as politicians, all of us here have attended hundreds of the dread party meetings. I cannot speak for other political parties, but I know that newcomers to Labour party meetings are often bemused, if not entirely put off. by the formal agenda, registering attendance or apologies for non-attendance, approving the minutes, points of procedure, having to speak through the chair and so
316WH
on—not to mention the mystifying acronyms that refer to the hierarchy of committees and other bodies whose decisions are reported to and impact on the meeting in question.
Nevertheless, all those features are necessary if the meeting is to be accountable to others who are not present, and for the purposes of future decisions. They are essential if those present are to be given a fair chance to speak and to be listened to. If decisions are to be taken, it is vital that other criteria, such as valid membership and whether the meeting is quorate, are adhered to. If those matters are allowed to lapse, we will be on a slippery slope to secret decision making by an unknown number of unaccountable individuals with an undisclosed agenda—three men or women and a dog down the pub issuing statements claiming to represent the wishes of the organisation as a whole. Yes, it does happen, and not only on the so-called lunatic fringe.
Similar considerations apply to proceedings in Parliament, where fortunately we have the benefit of centuries, rather than decades, of experience to guide us. However, over the last decade we have had the additional visual broadcast and recorded dimension provided by television. The significance and control of those are the subject of the rules of coverage and of this debate.
Much has been said and written in recent years—we have probably said this ourselves in our constituencies—about the need to engage or re-engage the public with the processes of democracy. That concern informed much of the work of members of the Modernisation Committee under the previous Chairman, the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). In September 2002, when announcing several recommended changes to parliamentary procedures, he said:
"Public confidence in our democracy depends on whether the public respects Parliament as relevant to their lives and believes that its scrutiny of Government is effective. The strongest case for modernisation is to convince the public that the Parliament they elect does a good job representing modern Britain."
Being able to see what goes on in Parliament without being in the Chamber, in this new and additional Chamber or in Select or Standing Committees, surely ought to be a jolly good thing. It is better than being able only to read or listen to the proceedings. It ought to reduce the distance between the public and their elected representatives, demystify the processes of legislating and scrutinising, and enable people—yes, the general public—to form their own opinions as to whether their Members of Parliament are worthy of respect and doing a good job.
Some proposals that the Modernisation Committee made in a recent questionnaire to Members would, I believe, help in those respects. I shall mention a few of the possibilities that it suggests: a short Commons newsletter for constituents; an introduction-to-Parliament pack for first-time voters; clearer explanatory notes for legislation or debates; and allowing more time for the presentation of petitions, which would perhaps include allowing the presenting Member to make a brief speech.
As an individual, I am in favour of maximum public access to Parliament. I have always encouraged as many of my constituents as possible to visit the House for a

317WH
tour, thereby making an awful lot of work for my assistant, Isobel. I have met many visiting groups, especially school parties—one visited yesterday—and arranged discussion sessions and speakers for them.
Mr. Luke: I am glad to hear about the many suggestions that my hon. Friend is making to re-engage or reconnect voters with the political system. I had the privilege of visiting Russia as an official involved in the scrutiny of elections to the state Duma in December, and it was great to see the returning officer for an electoral district meeting young first-time voters aged 18 and presenting them with a certificate as well as little guide to electoral politics in Russia. I do not know whether that custom could be included in my hon. Friend's list of proposals, but it certainly gave the first-time voters a feeling of importance and—
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. That is a long intervention.
Mrs. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an excellent suggestion, and I shall enjoy considering it when I read Hansard. It shows that Members of the Mother of Parliaments can still learn from the fledgling, emerging eastern democracies.
I am not sure what the mooted comprehensive citizens education centre at Westminster would look like, but the cafeteria in Westminster Hall has certainly made Parliament a much friendlier place for visitors. However, I do not support radical relaxation of the rules of coverage. I do not agree that the word "modernisation" is a euphemism for less democracy. That was the opposite of the intent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, but it could be the effect of ill-considered changes if we are not careful.
No one would accuse the Broadcasting Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), of not being careful. We have recommended only minor changes to the rules of coverage for the Commons Chamber. We do not rule out future change—we are not total
dinosaurs—and I support our Chairman's expressed wish to meet the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee to discuss matters of common interest. Meanwhile, I would be concerned if a relaxation of the rules meant that TV directors were enabled, or required, to make decisions on where to direct their cameras, with what focus and range, and on who and what to show in live broadcasts.
Like other hon. Members, I was interested to see a different philosophy in action on our visit to the new Scottish Parliament. There is more of an attempt to present a surrogate Gallery to the viewer, and a more dramatic and varied approach, which gives more of the experience of being there. However, it is not the same as being there, because what is seen on television is, in effect, the director's cut. That may be an intelligent and well-rounded version of events, but it does not give each speaker their full coverage. It picks out media stars or telly stars, and it will not serve as a future record for other purposes, or for other broadcasters to use on other programmes. It might not necessarily be what visitors to Parliament would choose to see, or what they would necessarily consider interesting and significant.
318WH
Some broadcasters told us that parliamentary coverage should be more like other major events, such as jolly old party conferences, using
"a shape that viewers are accustomed to".
I am not too happy about the effects on full and free debate of unrestricted televising of the party conference, although I shall let that pass, because there is a crucial difference. The significance of parliamentary proceedings is not visual; it is not about what appears to happen; it is not about mood music. It is about what is said, and indeed how it is said. The meaning lies in the text, and to understand it requires a close scrutiny of that text. There is a place for commentary, illustration and other contextual material, but not while the proceedings are happening.
In a previous life, I was a teacher of English and it is tempting to draw a parallel with Shakespeare's plays. A lot of Shakespeare is not visually dramatic. We have all studied him: some of his plays are quite awkwardly crafted and have been heavily reconstructed in Hollywood-style script conferences. The enduring strength and relevance of Shakespeare, and the secret of his appeal then, were in the words—his audiences knew it. They knew that they had to listen hard to understand what was going on. Sadly, there are proposals from some quarters today to downgrade Shakespeare in our schools. Some people do not believe that students ought to make the effort to understand in detail what he wrote; it is enough to get the story, the narrative, the general picture.
I suggest that making the televising of Parliament more like other television programmes would have that same downgrading effect. Far from opening up parliamentary proceedings to scrutiny, less secretiveness and more accountability, what we do here would end up less comprehensible, more mystifying and more insulting to the electorate. In contrast to a Shakespeare play, or any other play or TV programme, Parliament is not intended primarily to entertain or to be a bear pit. We are at work when we speak to proposed legislation or Government policy, or draw a particular issue to Government attention. It is certainly better if what we are saying happens to be interesting, intelligible and audible, and if it engages the attention of listeners in and outside the House. However, we are not thespians or performers; nor are we elected to be so. Parliament is not a human circus to divert the public. It is not, "I'm a celebrity, get me in here or get me out of here". I hope that it is never allowed to become that.
3.24 pm
Mr. Alan Reid: I greatly welcome today's opportunity to debate the Select Committee's report on broadcasting of the House. I join other hon. Members in thanking Barbara Long, director of broadcasting, and the other staff who assisted the Committee in compiling the report. As has already been pointed out, when television coverage of the House began over a decade ago, the rules of coverage were originally framed restrictively. That was done deliberately, because it was realised that it would be much easier to relax them than to tighten them later.
Changes made since then have allowed the television director more flexibility in shot selection. I support the Select Committee's view that there is no need for

319WH
wholesale changes to the rules or for any significant lessening of the House's control over how it is portrayed. However, it is right that change should continue as part of an evolutionary and incremental process, so I welcome the extension of the rules of coverage to Westminster Hall debates and Select and Standing Committees.
I note that broadcasters have reservations about some restrictions that are imposed, but, as was pointed out, it is important to remember that the prime objective of televising the proceedings of the House is to produce a proper record of them and for that record to be made available to other broadcasters. If we were to allow the TV director to cut away to add variety to the live feed, that could disappoint other broadcasters if the clip that they wanted was unavailable because the director had unfortunately chosen the wrong moment to cut away to something else. A clean feed is essential to maintain a proper record of our proceedings. As long as other broadcasters stay within the rules, they have the opportunity to broadcast coverage of the House, along with interviews and discussions.
As the Select Committee Chairman has pointed out, today's debate is timely, given yesterday's rowdiness in the Public Galleries. Mr. Speaker clearly had no choice but to suspend the sitting and clear the Public Galleries. However, the presence of TV cameras meant that the proceedings of the House were recorded and available to the public. Yesterday's events confirmed that the Select Committee is correct to recommend that cameras should not cover the Public Galleries. I agree that allowing such coverage would only encourage disorder there.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): It would guarantee it.
Mr. Reid: As the Deputy Leader of the House says, it would guarantee it. The Public Gallery in the Scottish Parliament is shown. It is probably true that there have not been a significant number of rowdy demonstrations there, but there certainly have been some that would have been much less likely to occur had the demonstrators not known that they would be on the news that night. Covering the Gallery guarantees that the news will cover such a demonstration later the same evening.
My impression is that the behaviour in the House has improved since cameras were introduced. I was not a Member in the days before the cameras came in, but I well remember many incidents of hon. Members being suspended for bad behaviour—a certain Mace-wielding incident immediately springs to mind. Following the introduction of cameras, such incidents do not happen, because hon. Members do not want to be seen behaving badly in front of them.
I greatly welcome other developments, such as webcasting and the live inject points. The live inject points, which allow short interviews or pieces to camera to be done on the parliamentary estate, have done much to enhance the House's image and are a great improvement on shots in a studio or on College green.
320WH
The innovation of webcasting is to be welcomed; I believe that it has tremendous potential. I especially like the ability to search for a particular point in the proceedings. As Robert Burns mused in the kirk one Sunday:
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!"
Webcasting certainly gives us the opportunity to see how we performed the day before.
With all new technology, however, one or two hitches have to be overcome. When I searched for my contribution to yesterday's Prime Minister's Question Time, the clip that appeared was of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Opik), who was two questions after me. Fortunately, I knew that, so I was able to move the cursor back to find the right clip, although the way that the cursor is set up needs to be improved. It is very small and it is possible to move back only in quite significant stretches.
The technical hitches need to be overcome so that the search engine either finds the Member whom the viewer is looking for, or, if it is not possible to get to that exact point, takes the viewer to a previous point so that he can find the right place when the broadcast is played. Taking the viewer to a point after the one that he is looking for is not particularly useful. Those hitches have to be overcome, but this is still a tremendous innovation.
One disappointment so far is that no cost-effective solution has been found that will allow proceedings of the Scottish Parliament to be broadcast on the internal video network. Proceedings of the Welsh Assembly are available, so I presume that that means that there are no technical problems. Having broadcasts of proceedings in the Scottish Parliament available would be extremely useful to hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies, such as me. I hope that the difficulties can be overcome.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) gave us a vision of what could be achieved with digital TV. His suggestions are well worth investigating. The analogue switch-off will probably arrive in less than a decade and digital TV should be universally available. For the moment, however, it is important to remember that the prime purpose of the broadcasts is to provide an accurate record of our proceedings. I believe, therefore, that the Select Committee has adopted the correct approach of proposing only modest changes, and is correct in continuing the evolutionary and incremental approach taken by previous Committees. I commend the report.
3.32 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I join the tributes that have already been paid to the Select Committee, to its Chairman, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), to all those who assist the Committee and to those who are responsible for parliamentary broadcasting.
When I found that I would be speaking on behalf of my party in this debate, I was particularly pleased because, over the past few years, I have got to know a constituent of mine, Mr. Bob Longman, OBE, who was the most senior engineer at the BBC at the time that the cameras were first installed. I am delighted to have this

321WH
opportunity to pay tribute to him. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who also knows Mr. Bob Longman, for his endorsement of that. I am also fortunate in that one of the early producers of parliamentary coverage is a lifelong friend of mine and is married to another friend of mine. Therefore, I have personal and constituency connections with parliamentary broadcasting.
I was delighted to read the report that the Select Committee produced because it accords not only with the views of my party, but with my view that we need to ensure the continuation of parliamentary control—that term occurs several times in the report—over the way in which Parliament is broadcast. We need to retain the dignity of the House.
Reference has been made to the length of time since there was last a debate on the views of the Select Committee. I have another concern: the length of time that has passed between the Select Committee publishing the report in June last year and today. Will the Minister give an undertaking that, the next time there is a report from this important Select Committee, we will not have a six-month gap before it is debated? As the Select Committee makes clear in the report, under the powers that are delegated to it by the Speaker, as soon as it has made recommendations, they are implemented. We do not have to wait for this debate to take place for the changes to be made. I hope that the Minister and those who advise him will recognise that that makes it particularly important that there should not be a substantial length of time between a report by this Select Committee, above all others, and a debate, whether in Westminster Hall or the main Chamber. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) is nodding.
Mr. Lepper: I, too, regret the length of time between publication of the report and this debate, but, in defence of the Minister, such issues are largely in the hands of the Liaison Committee, which recommends when debates should take place.
Mr. Hawkins: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right, and I am sure that the Minister appreciates the defence that the hon. Gentleman offers. He and I are actually arguing the same thing—that there should not be delay. I am grateful for his confirmation of that. He will also know that if the Government and the usual channels are keen to avoid a delay, representations can be made to the Liaison Committee. I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to go through the usual channels to ensure that there is not such a delay in future.
I particularly welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet. Other members of the Committee also mentioned wider availability of parliamentary broadcasting, and it is mentioned in the report. As someone who has been concerned about the availability of the parliamentary channel via digital and satellite broadcasting, I wish to echo the concern on behalf of my party.
My hon. Friend and I are also concerned about another matter; namely, the need for greater coverage of Standing Committees. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is nodding. As he said, there is a degree of cherry-picking in that Select Committees are broadcast
322WH
only if the broadcasters think that they will include something dramatic, confrontational or controversial. Standing Committees are hardly broadcast at all. Most of the people whom we represent do not have a clue as to which Committees do what. Even long-standing political activists in all the parties have no idea that the Standing Committees, which carry out line-by-line, word-by-word and clause-by-clause scrutiny of legislation, often have far more power over the law of the land than any Select Committee.
Of course, Select Committees are important. My party was proud to introduce them. I do not suggest that they should not be covered, but something has gone wrong with the balance. I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and his fellow Committee Members, many of whom have spoken this afternoon, will take that point on board. When they do their next inquiry, I hope that they will take it from me, on behalf of my party, that we would like them specifically to consider the need for broadcasting all Standing Committees.
Such broadcasts should not be through webcasts only. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) made it clear that there are technical difficulties with webcasting. The coverage should be like that of CSPAN—gavel to gavel—which my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet discussed. We should move towards broadcasting every Standing Committee and covering every Bill so that those who are interested in a Bill that may affect their livelihood, the company for which they work or the things in which they are interested can follow not just Second Reading and Third Reading debates in the Chamber but what is discussed by representatives of the different parties in the Standing Committee. I feel strongly about that.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion rightly referred to the fact that BBC Parliament coverage of the top-up fees debate—the Higher Education Bill—and the Hutton report debate in the past few days led to an increase in the audience of other news channels. He rightly drew the conclusion that what affects the size of the audience for Parliament is the nature of the issue being debated. I am sure that he is right about that. I know that previous debates—for example, the war in Iraq—received a much higher audience share because some of the mainstream news channels, in addition to the specific parliamentary channel, covered the whole of the debate. That is important. As the report says and as all the speakers have said, the prime purpose of parliamentary broadcasting is to provide an accurate record of proceedings. On behalf of my party, I say that we entirely agree with that. We also agree with the Committee about the importance of the single, clean feed.
I am glad that the Committee has decided not to change the rules in the way that some political journalists—Anne Sloman and colleagues of hers—had suggested and had sought to persuade the Committee. I am glad that the Committee has said that the rules should hardly be changed at all. It was right to reject the broadcasters' attempts to push the boundaries. I strongly agree, as the Committee has concluded, that there is no case for showing the entrance of the Speaker, Prayers and other private matters.

323WH
I also agree with other speakers that it is particularly timely, in the light of yesterday's serious misbehaviour that led to the suspension of the sitting and required Mr. Speaker to have the whole of the Strangers Gallery cleared, that the Committee reported—we should be debating the fact—that there should be no coverage of the Strangers Gallery and no coverage of disorder. I agree with the Minister's sedentary remark, at the time that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute was speaking, that allowing coverage of disorder would simply provide those who wished to disrupt our tradition of parliamentary free speech and orderly debate, and who do not believe in proper parliamentary debate, with the oxygen of publicity. We do not want that to happen. We want to keep disorder in the Strangers Gallery to a minimum and preferably rule it out altogether. We certainly do not want the enemies of democracy to be given television coverage.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute talked in more detail than I am able to about the technical side of parliamentary webcasting. He has far more experience of that than I do, but he is right to say that if there is scope for a greater expansion of webcasting, the technical difficulties will have to be dealt with. I hope that those who are responsible for the technical side will continue to consider that.
I very much believe that the debate is timely and that the Committee has got things right. I want to end by reaffirming—in bold type—on behalf of my party what I regard as the most important single conclusion from the Committee's report:
"We do not, however, believe that there needs to be wholesale change in the rules or any lessening of the control that the House has over the way it is portrayed."
We should make changes only when a compelling case can be made. The Committee has got the balance right and I am delighted to endorse its report.
3.43 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): It has been a pleasure to listen to the debate and to follow what has been said about the proceedings of the Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and the other Committee members on producing the report. It has clearly been hard work and a good job has been done. We have heard more information about the investigations that have taken place, and the whole House and the broadcasting industry will be grateful.
As has been mentioned, this is a timely debate not only because of yesterday's disruptions and the recent increase in television viewing figures, but because of the many changes taking place in other areas of the House through different modernisation processes. It has been fascinating for me to prepare for this debate and to consider the history of how the House communicates with the public, or rather of how it does not communicate with them.
It is interesting to note that 300 years ago, before Hansard, Parliament met in secret. Not only was no electronic recording available, but no minutes were kept. The reason was a desire not to keep Parliament out of the eyes of the public, but to keep it out of the eyes of
324WH
the King, because that was where the threat lay. It was only as Parliament and the settlement developed that recording started. Interestingly, as has been said, the BBC first applied to broadcast proceedings from the House on the occasion of Winston Churchill's Budget speech in 1926, but it was turned down.
The issue was raised intermittently over the years and pressure from the broadcasters grew in the 1960s. Another former television producer who used to be a Member of Parliament, Tony Benn, first called for Parliament to be broadcast in an article in TV Times in 1957. The first microphones were installed in the Chamber in 1952, not for broadcasting purposes, but merely to enhance the sound—I guess that it was thought that hon. Members needed aid for their hearing. Recordings were also made to assist Hansard, but not for broadcasting. Tragically, those recordings were not kept, so the recordings of the great speeches of the Clem Attlees, the Churchills and so on are lost for ever.
In November 1966, the House considered a recommendation made by a predecessor body to the Broadcasting Committee that there should be a closed circuit experiment in sound and vision. That recommendation was defeated by one vote, but a proposal to make specimen sound programmes was approved the following year. It was not until April 1975 that an experiment in sound broadcasting finally took place. Regular sound broadcasting began in 1978, and it was Jim Callaghan, not Harold Wilson or Edward Heath, who was first heard by the British public on the radio. That was a tragic delay. No one would now say that radio broadcasting is controversial; people may say that some of the comment is controversial, but not the broadcasting itself.
The arguments about television continued. Television broadcasting began on an experimental basis in November 1989 and was made permanent in July 1990. As a young assistant producer for the BBC, I had the honour and pleasure of being the first assistant producer on the "Newsnight" programme to use the signal that was given to us. I certainly endorse some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) about the people involved.
Mr. Hawkins: I did not realise that the Minister had been in that position. He may have worked with my longstanding friend Suzanne Franks, or Mrs. Suzanne Bowers as she now is. I thought that he had guessed to whom I was referring, and in the light of his remarks, I should put that on the record.
Mr. Woolas: I also sat alongside a delightful and charming young correspondent from ITN who is now the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). We had a cross-party agreement about the fact that, if we had been able to direct and edit the pictures as we wanted for BBC and ITN, the dignity of Parliament would not have been upheld. The then Member for Derbyshire, South, Edwina Currie, would have featured more on those programmes than Ministers or the Speaker. I can see that my point is clearly understood from the nods around the Chamber.
It is interesting to look back at the debates of 1989 and 1990, when the key decisions were taken. On 12 June 1989, some 98 votes were cast against televising

325WH
Parliament. One of those who voted against was the then hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge, Sir John Stokes, who fiercely opposed the televising of Parliament, as some hon. Members may recall. He told the House:
"I have always felt that, in general, the coming of the television industry has been thoroughly harmful rather than beneficial to the nation."
He continued:
"We must never forget that the public have no interest in whether the House is televised … I fear that the televising of our proceedings would utterly ruin the character of this great and famous Chamber, the most famous debating chamber in the world. I very much hope that this nonsense is thrown out."
The moderniser in me disagrees with those dinosaur sentiments. However, my wiser head acknowledges that Sir John made a good point when he said:
"When television covers current affairs, it tends to distort, to trivialise and to sensationalise."—[Official Report, 12 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 640–41.]
That remark was quite prophetic. There is a balance to be struck. Nowadays, the idea that we would not televise the House is preposterous. Televisation seems entirely natural, and not merely beneficial, but essential to our parliamentary democracy and the way in which we communicate our proceedings to the nation and beyond. It is primarily through broadcasting rather than the written media that the public become aware of debates in this Chamber.
To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, there is a decline in parliamentary reporting in the printed press. Standing Committees are rarely covered, despite the fact that very important decisions are made there. That leads to disillusionment with politics when people think that they have seen a decision taken, only to find a few months later that it has been changed. Greater openness, using the electronic media to supplement the falling away of print media, is to be welcomed.
In the past, before the House was broadcast, people had no idea what their representative sounded like. In preparing for the debate, I discovered that when Gladstone, who was Prime Minister well before broadcasting, toured the country and spoke in public, people were amazed to discover that he had a Scouse accent. My constituents in Greater Manchester were heard to mutter to the local reporters that they would have never voted for the old so-and-so if they had known that he was from Liverpool.
The point that I am making about regional accents is relevant in the televised age. The fact that broadcasting has failed to lead to the dire consequences predicted by its opponents is testimony to the expertise and good sense of the broadcasters and to the careful oversight exercised by the Broadcasting Committee and by the Director of Parliamentary Broadcasting and her predecessor. Tributes have rightly been paid to them in today's debate.
In the report, the Committee recommended a number of modest changes in the rules of procedure that have now been implemented. By all accounts, the rules appear to be working. The Committee's report also
326WH
explored whether the guidelines on the use of signals should be changed to allow new forms of programmes that would perhaps be more accessible to the public. It is right that we should impose certain rules on the use that the broadcasters can make of parliamentary proceedings, but we must also work with the broadcasters to ensure that these rules are not too restrictive.
Let me respond to a few of the points that have been made. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) talked about his long-standing commitment to the idea of a dedicated channel. From reading the debates that occurred in 1989 and 1990, I can see that his consistency is remarkable. It also been suggested that the advent of webcasting is important, as television broadcasting and information technology broadcasting can thereby be brought together. I think that he will see his objective met, but perhaps not by the route that he hoped.
Mr. Gale: I agree in part that there is a tremendous role for webcasting, but I hope that the Minister will agree that there is a fundamental difference between a dedicated channel giving multi-camera coverage of main debates in the Chamber and the sort of information service that webcasting can offer.
Mr. Woolas: I think that that is true. With the advent of interactive television comes the idea that the viewer of such a dedicated channel could have the choice to dip into a Standing Committee to look at proceedings, which would be advantageous.
I thought that the Shakespearean analogy of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) was very powerful, and I would endorse the Committee's report with the following remarks. If one considers the example of the televising of the US courts, one sees that there are a lot of parallels between televising courts and televising Parliament. The presence of the media and cameras, if they were uncontrolled, would change the coverage broadcast to the public, and it would change irrevocably and for the worse the behaviour of the participants in the debate. The way in which justice seems to be decided on the airwaves in certain cases in the US is a bad thing from the point of view of equity, because those who can influence television coverage through power and resources have a greater say than the ordinary person. I thought that her speech was a powerful case for the report.
We thank the Chairman of the Committee for his well-informed speech. He put the case powerfully, and in general, the Government agree with it. We point also to the many advances that we have instigated in the use of electronic broadcasting in local government, as well as in Departments and so on.
The development of new technologies presents exciting opportunities for Parliament both in terms of how we communicate our proceedings to the outside world and in terms of how we obtain information and views from the public. To that end, I am delighted to conclude this short but interesting and important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Four o'clock.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Commission for Equality and Human Rights
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on how she intends to contribute to the creation of a Commission for Equality and Human Rights. [149753]

  Jacqui Smith
  Establishing the Commission for Equality and Human Rights reflects this Government's commitment that equality matters to everyone—it is not a minority concern. The Commission will give greater support and joined-up advice to individuals, businesses and communities to crack down on discrimination and to promote equality and diversity.

  This afternoon I will be chairing the third meeting of the Taskforce that we have brought together to consider the priorities and role of the new Commission. It brings together people with experience, expertise and knowledge on equality and human rights issues.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West on 20 January, ref. 149941. [153090]

  The Prime Minister
  I replied to the hon. Member on 3 February 2004,Official Report, columns 757–58W.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library all correspondence between his press secretary and the Director General of the BBC relating to the lead-up to and conduct of the war in Iraq. [153012]

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library correspondence from(a) himself and (b) other members of his office to the BBC relating to (i) the conduct of the war in Iraq and (ii) interviews with Dr. Kelly by BBC reporters. [152967]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) in the debate on Lord Hutton's Report on 4 February 2004,Official Report, column 768.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish an independent United Kingdom inquiry to investigate the intelligence which led the United Kingdom to take military action in Iraq in 2003; and if he will make a statement. [153930]
  998W
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will take steps to establish a cross-party joint committee of both Houses to inquire into the foreign and domestic intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; [153082]

  (2) if he will establish an independent inquiry into the foreign and domestic intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. [153083]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the statement given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 3 February 2004,Official Report, columns 625–28.

  Surveillance Commissioner
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an announcement about the re-appointment of the right hon. Sir John MacDermott as Surveillance Commissioner under Part III of the Police Act 1997. [153773]

  The Prime Minister
  In accordance with Section 91 of the Police Act 1997, I have agreed to re-appoint Sir John MacDermott as Surveillance Commissioner for Northern Ireland with effect from 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004. The remit of each Surveillance Commissioner covers the whole of the United Kingdom so that any Surveillance Commissioner can act in jurisdictions other than his own.

  The right hon. Sir John MacDermott has served as a Surveillance Commissioner since 1998.

  The Commissioners are appointed under the provisions of Part III of the Police Act 1997. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 extended the Commissioners' remit. Since the authorisation of intrusive surveillance operations forms a key component of the Government's response to serious and organised crime, I attach considerable importance to these appointments and I am delighted that Sir John has accepted his re-appointment. In conjunction with Sir Andrew Leggatt, their substantial judicial experience, particularly of the criminal justice system, will provide independent oversight of surveillance operations, which although operationally important, must also be subject to stringent safeguards.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Support Schemes
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the business support schemes being operated by the Government. [148193]

  Ms Hewitt
  All DTI funded business support schemes are being replaced with a small set of more strategically focussed products. Four of these new products (Small Firms Loan Guarantee, Grant for Research and Development, Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea and Knowledge Transfer Partnerships) have been available since spring 2003. Further products will be made available from April this year.

  Public Bodies (Membership)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who the members of the(a) Advisory Committee on Coal Research, (b) Energy Advisory Panel, (c) Measurement Advisory Committee, (d) Overseas Project Board and (e) London and South East Industrial Development Board were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and what their remuneration is. [151299]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Measurement Advisory Committee (MAC) consists of the following members. Members are not remunerated.

  Members

  Period of Appointment

  Colin Gaskell—Chair

  1 April 2002 to 31 March 2005

  Penny Allisy-Roberts

  1 July 2001 to 30 June 2004

  Peter Bleasdale

  1 May 2003 to 30 April 2006

  Mike Buckley

  18 March 2002 to 31 March 2005

  Peter Cowley

  18 March 2002 to 31 March 2005

  Les Ebdon

  1 July 2002 to 30 June 2005

  David Ellix

  18 March 2002 to 31 March 2005

  Richard Freeman

  1 May 2003 to 30 April 2006

  Ken Grattan

  18 March 2002 to 31 March 2005

  David Holmwood

  18 March 2002 to 31 March 2005

  Alan Johnson

  18 March 2002 to 31 March 2005

  Roger Jones

  18 March 2002 to 31 March 2005

  John Latham

  18 March 2002 to 31 March 2005

  Steve Lower

  18 March 2002 to 31 March 2005

  Janet Townsend

  1 May 2003 to 30 April 2006

  John Tyrer

  1 May 2003 to 30 April 2006

  London and South East Industrial Development Board consists of the following members. Members are not remunerated.

  Members

  Period of appointment

  John McCready—Chair

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005

  Thomas William Cohen

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004

  Peter Edwin Croucher

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004

  Praful Davda

  1 February 2001 to 31 January 2004

  Bryan Davies

  1 June 2003 to 31 May 2006

  Gurbrinder Gill

  1 July 2003 to 30 June 2006

  Jim Hicks

  1 July 2003 to 30 June 2006

  Wendy Hyde

  1/08/2001 to 31 July 2004

  Mei Sim Lai

  1/08/2001 to 31 July 2004

  Helen Sasson

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004

  Indeer Jeet Sodhi

  1 July 2003 to 30 June 2006

  Robert Stiles

  2 January 2001 to 31 January 2004

  Graeme Wyles

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2004

  Note:

  Praful Davda and Robert Stiles have been reappointed for the period 1 February 2004 to 31 January 2007.

  The Energy Advisory Panel ceased to exist on 31 July 2003.

  I am not responsible for appointments to any body known as the Advisory Committee on Coal Research or the Overseas Project Board.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 26 January 2004,Official Report, column 74W, on Regional Development Agencies, what the costs of the arrangements for each Regional Development Agency were in the last year for which figures are available. [152022]
  1000W
  Jacqui Smith
  I have been advised of the following answers by the individual Regional Development Agencies (RDAs).

  Many RDAs share the costs and management of overseas offices with partner organisations in order to maximise efficiency. Total annual outlay for each RDA in 2002–03 was:

  £

  Advantage West Midlands

  867,488

  East of England Development Agency

  329,500

  East Midlands Development Agency

  950,000

  London Development Agency

  50,000

  One North East

  969,045

  North West Development Agency

  698,000

  South of England East Development Agency

  910,000

  South West Regional Development Agency

  848,016

  Yorkshire Forward1

  11,196,000

  1 2003–04 data

  Wind Farms
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many miles of new power lines will be needed in(a) Yorkshire and (b) other parts of England as a result of the planned development of wind farms; and what estimate she has made of the costs. [152450]

  Mr. Timms
  The plan for remodelling the transmission grid to accommodate new renewable energy generation is currently being prepared by National Grid Transco, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Electricity. They are upgrading the initial estimates prepared for, and published by, the Transmission Issues Working Group in June 2003.(a) There are no planned upgrades of the transmission system required in Yorkshire. (b) For the rest of England there will be a need to upgrade transmission lines but the final plans have not been presented. The costs of adding an additional 6 GW of wind energy in England were estimated at £605 million.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Expansion
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has collated on the effect of airport expansion on foreign direct investment. [152846]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 February 2004]: We recognise the importance of aviation to the economic prosperity of the United Kingdom. The effects of airport expansion on foreign direct investment were considered in the studies which led to the publication of our recent White Paper, 'The Future of Air Transport'.

  Our work suggested that net inflows of foreign direct investment in 1999 were estimated to be almost 50 per cent. of total investment in the UK, and that the strategy set out in the White Paper—including two additional runways in the South East and expansion in the regions—would meet 95 per cent. of foreign business demand. Although our economic appraisal of airport options focused on direct benefits for airport users,

  1001W
  enabling more foreign business travellers to fly to and from the UK will only have a positive effect on foreign direct investment.

  Road Accidents (Wales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people(a) were killed, (b) were seriously injured and (c) suffered less severe injuries on roads in Wales, broken down by (i) police force, (ii) constituency, (iii) safety camera partnership and (iv) local authority area, for each year since 1997. [151749]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1999, this is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. Some of the information requested has been published by the Welsh Office and the Assembly in the annual series of "Road Accidents: Wales" publications, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

TREASURY

  Alcohol-related Deaths
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many alcohol-related deaths there were in each year since 1980. [152822]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 5 February 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the number of alcohol-related deaths in each year since 1980. (152822)
  The table shows numbers of deaths certified as due to alcohol abuse, dependence and poisoning, and diseases directly related to alcohol use from 1980 to 2002, the latest year for which figures are currently available. Information on the part that alcohol may have played in deaths from other causes, including other accidents and violence, is not available from death certificates.

  Alcohol-related deaths1 in England and Wales, 1980 to 20022

  Number of deaths

  1980

  2,575

  1981

  2,540

  1982

  2,476

  1983

  2,472

  1984

  2,647

  1985

  2,935

  1986

  2,933

  1987

  3,138

  1988

  3,278

  1989

  3,517

  1990

  3,594

  1991

  3,631

  1992

  3,553

  1993

  3,546

  1994

  3,821

  1995

  4,231

  1996

  4,455

  1997

  4,922

  1998

  5,272

  1999

  5,473

  1002W

  Alcohol-related deaths1 in England and Wales, 1980 to 20022

  Number of deaths

  2000

  5,543

  2001

  6,020

  2002

  6,100

  1 For the years 1980–2000 the cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9). The codes used by ONS to define alcohol-related deaths are as follows:

  291—Alcoholic psychoses

  303—Alcohol dependence syndrome

  305.0—Non-dependent abuse of alcohol

  425.5—8Alcoholic cardiomyopathy

  571—Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis

  E860—Accidental poisoning by alcohol.

  For the years 2001–2002 the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) was used. To maintain comparability with earlier years the following codes were used:

  F10—Mental and behavioural disorders due to use of alcohol

  142.6—Alcoholic cardiomyopathy

  K70—Alcoholic liver disease

  K73—Chronic hepatitis, not elsewhere classified

  K74—Fibrosis and cirrhosis of liver

  X45—Accidental poisoning by and exposure to alcohol.

  The selection of codes to define alcohol-related deaths is described in:

  Baker A. and Rooney C. (2003). Recent trends in alcohol-related mortality, and the impact of ICD-10 on the monitoring of these deaths in England and Wales. "Health Statistics Quarterly" 17, pp 5–14

  2 Deaths registered in each calendar year.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made to the Barnett Formula with regard to the updating of population statistics; and when he expects the Barnett Formula to equalise spending per head between England and Scotland. [151762]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Barnett formula is updated periodically to take account of population estimates produced by the Office for National Statistics. As set out in the Statement of Funding Policy, the latest mid-year estimates are used; the ONS published mid-year estimates for 2002 in September 2003. Spending plans for Scotland were published in the "2002 Spending Review: New Public Spending Plans 2003–06" (Cm 5570, July 2002) and plans for the 2004 spending review period will be published later this year.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish for each year from 1998–99 to 2005–06 a table showing the levels of expenditure in England comparable to that expenditure in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales that is both within the assigned budget and within the scope of the Barnett formula, at the same level of programme detail as is provided in the analysis of 2002–03 provision in Annex C of the third edition of Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly: A Statement of Funding Policy. [152446]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Barnett formula is used to determine increases in spending of the devolved Administrations, rather than the previous levels of spending in England or the devolved Administrations. Information on subprogrammes for earlier years was published in Annex C of the first and second editions of the Statement of Funding Policy in 1999 and 2000.
  1003W

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many and what proportion of claims for the child care tax credit have been subject to follow-up checks in each year since its introduction to establish whether the child or children are being cared for by(a) registered childminder, nursery, play scheme, or out of school club, (b) a child care scheme run on Crown property which does not need to be registered, (c) schools and other establishments exempt from registration, (d) providers of care for children aged eight years and over which is approved by specifically accredited organisations and (e) an approved home child care provider; and how many of those checks resulted in (i) investigations, (ii) penalties, (iii) prosecutions, (iv) convictions, (v) end of year overpayment recovery and (vi) cessation of the award; [152739]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the level of fraud in the child care tax credit element of the working tax credit; [152740]

  (3) how many allegations of non-compliant application for child care tax credit have been reported to (a) the childminder's hotline and (b) his Department; and how many of those allegations resulted in (i) investigations, (ii) penalties, (iii) prosecutions, (iv) convictions, (v) end-of-year overpayment recovery and (vi) cessation of the award; [152741]

  (4) how many calls have been made to the childminder's hotline in each of the last 12 months; [152743]

  (5) if he will estimate the cost of running the childminder's hotline in the last year; and how many full-time equivalent staff are employed to deal with calls. [152744]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The child care tax credit was part of the working families and disabled person's tax credits (WFTC and DPTC), which were available between October 1999 and April 2003. It contributed to the cost of eligible child care for working families. It was replaced in April 2003 by the child care element of working tax credit (WTC).

  Applications for WFTC and DPTC could be investigated for a number of reasons, including where there were concerns about claims for the child care tax credit within the applications. However, this was only one component part of the award. An inquiry may involve more than one element of non-compliance, and it is not possible to say how many investigations related only to this particular aspect. However, the Inland Revenue successfully prosecuted and convicted 14 cases where child care was a consideration. Of these, six were solely concerning child care.

  For WTC, the Inland Revenue will be able to arrive at an error rate for the tax credit population when it is in a position to carry out a full random inquiry programme on a complete set of finalised awards for 2004–05.

  A dedicated telephone line was set up in February 2000 for child care providers as a result of consultation with the National Child Minders Association. This gave child care providers the opportunity to tell the Inland Revenue about any concerns regarding claims for child care costs. Up until 31 March 2003, over 2,100 allegations were received in respect of WFTC and DPTC.
  1004W
  With the introduction of working tax credit (WTC) in April 2003, a new service, the Childcare Provider Helpline, was set up to deal with queries about the scheme and receive information about specific concerns relating to claims to child care costs. Between then and the end of January the helpline has handled over 3,800 calls. It is run as a very small part of the tax credits helpline and it is therefore not possible to isolate the number of staff handling these calls, or the cost.

  It is not possible to identify the number of allegations that have been reported outside of the Childcare Provider Helpline. Every allegation received is given careful consideration and, where there is sufficient reason, steps are taken to examine the circumstances more closely.

  Child Trust Funds
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the decision to have two different initial payment values into Child Trust Funds; [152644]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the likelihood of Child Trust Funds discouraging teenage children from saving through other means; [152645]

  (3) what targets his Department has set to encourage (a) low income, (b) middle income and (c) higher income families to make additional contributions to Child Trust Funds; [152722]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the ability of families on low incomes to make additional top-up contributions into Child Trust Funds; [152723]

  (5) if he will make it his policy to make an additional contribution into a Child Trust Fund when the child reaches 18 years of age on the condition that the accrued funds will be spent on educational facilities; [152724]

  (6) whether the Government will make a contribution to a Child Trust Fund between the child's seventh and 18th birthday; and if he will make a statement. [152725]

  Ruth Kelly
  The objectives of the Child Trust Fund are to:ensure that in future all children have a financial asset at the start of adult life to invest in their futures;
  help people understand the benefits of saving and investing;
  encourage parents and children to develop the savings habit and engage with financial institutions; and
  build on financial education to help people make better financial choices throughout their lives.

  All children will receive a Government endowment of £250 when their Child Trust Fund account is opened. Families on child tax credit, with an income below the threshold (currently £13,230) will receive an additional £250. The additional endowment for children in low income families will help give their Child Trust Fund accounts a good start and ensures that the Child Trust Fund is both a universal and progressive policy—helping to extend opportunity to all, while targeting support to those that are most in need. The Government have confirmed that there will be a further progressive payment at age seven. This structure provides a foundation on which the Government will build in future.
  1005W
  Financial information and education are key to helping people make better financial choices throughout their lives. The Government view Child Trust Fund holders as the best judge of what most meets their future needs. By enabling children to interact with their own savings and investment account, and accompanying this with financial education in schools, the Child Trust Fund will help young people to understand the advantages of saving. The Government will commission a range of teaching and learning materials to meet children's needs at different ages, moving towards guidance on possible uses of financial assets, including continuing to save, as the child grows into adulthood.

  We do not believe that setting targets for saving in the Child Trust Fund would be helpful since it risks distorting savings priorities. Information and guidance accompanying the Child Trust Fund will encourage parents to consider their savings priorities—be that the repayment of any debt, the need for 'rainy day' savings they can access and/or longer-term savings for their child in the Child Trust Fund.

  We are currently developing a monitoring and evaluation plan for the Child Trust Fund.

  Research has shown that people on low incomes can and do save. Early findings on the Saving Gateway support this.

  Economic Inactivity
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of the total cost to the economy of economic inactivity. [152935]

  Ruth Kelly
  The performance of the UK labour market over recent years has been strong by both international and historical standards. In 2002 the standardised inactivity rate for persons aged 15–64 was 23.4 per cent. for the United Kingdom, well below the EU average of 30.2 per cent.

  Sharp declines in the unemployment rate have boosted UK GDP growth, and a falling inactivity rate would increase labour supply and add further to the growth rate of the UK economy. That is why this Government attach priority to reducing the inactivity rate. In addition to helping the unemployed back to work, and increasing the skills of the lowest skilled workers, Government policies aim to encourage inactive people who are able to work back into the labour market.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the major causes of economic inactivity. [152936]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have published an analysis of the extent and causes of inactivity and unemployment, and of the policies in place to address them, in "Full employment in every region" (HM Treasury/Department of Work and Pensions, December 2003).

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men aged 64 and (b) women aged 59 are in paid employment; and if he will estimate the average earnings of each group. [153010]
  1006W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 5 February 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on how many (a) men aged 64 and (b) women aged 59 are in paid employment; and the estimated average earnings of each group (153010).
  The numbers of people in paid employment are estimated from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). People are considered to be in paid employment if they have done at least one hour of paid work as an employee in the week prior to their LFS interview or if they have a job that they are temporarily away from. The self-employed and people who do unpaid work in a family business and people on Government-supported training and employment programmes are excluded.
  Average earnings are estimated from the 2003 New Earnings Survey (NES) and are provided for full-time employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was unaffected by absence during the pay period. This is the standard definition used for NES tables. The NES does not collect data on the self-employed and people who do unpaid work.
  The following table gives the average gross weekly pay (including overtime) for the groups requested.

  Estimate of the number of (a) men aged 64 and (b) women aged 59 in Great Britain who are in paid employment and the average gross weekly earnings of each group, spring 2003

  Estimate of number in paid employment

  Average gross weekly wage (£)

  Males aged 64

  60,000

  428.10

  Females aged 59

  64,000

  361.10

  Notes:

  1. Information is provided for average gross weekly earnings including overtime and relates to full-time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay period was unaffected by absence.

  2. The LFS estimates have not been adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census results and the figures are not seasonally adjusted. The estimates relate to full-time employees.

  Source:

  For earnings data: New Earnings Survey, April 2003.

  For numbers of persons in employment: ONS Labour Force Survey, Spring (March to May) 2003.

  Gangmasters
  John Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount has been recovered since 1994 in unpaid income tax and national insurance contributions from gangmasters operating in the agricultural sector. [152878]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) on 30 January 2004,Official Report, column 567W.

  Inward Investment (Wales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the levels of inward investment in Wales for each year since 1990, broken down by(a) source country and (b) destination by (i) constituency and (ii) local authority area. [151758]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.
  1007W
  The figures collected by UK Trade and Investment Inward Investment Group for Wales since 1990 broken down by source country are as follows. The destination of these projects are not recorded by constituency or local authority area.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Australia

  2

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Austria

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Belgium

  0

  2

  2

  1

  1

  3

  2

  Bermuda

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Canada

  1

  3

  1

  4

  3

  1

  1

  China

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Denmark

  1

  1

  3

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Finland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  France

  7

  5

  4

  4

  1

  3

  2

  Germany

  6

  12

  10

  5

  5

  2

  2

  Greece

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hong Kong

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  India

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ireland

  2

  2

  2

  5

  3

  1

  1

  Israel

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Italy

  1

  2

  3

  2

  0

  4

  4

  Japan

  7

  8

  2

  0

  7

  6

  8

  Korea

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Kuwait

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liberia

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lichtenstein

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  1

  3

  4

  4

  1

  0

  2

  New Zealand

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norway

  1

  2

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  Poland

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Singapore

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  South Africa

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Spain

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Sweden

  3

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Switzerland

  1

  1

  4

  2

  3

  0

  3

  Taiwan

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Thailand

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Turkey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  US

  27

  20

  24

  19

  21

  23

  14

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Australia

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  3

  Austria

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Belgium

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Bermuda

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Canada

  1

  1

  2

  0

  3

  2

  China

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Denmark

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Finland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  France

  3

  3

  2

  0

  6

  4

  Germany

  7

  6

  7

  3

  5

  3

  Greece

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Hong Kong

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  India

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Ireland

  1

  1

  3

  4

  7

  4

  Israel

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Italy

  3

  2

  2

  2

  0

  4

  Japan

  12

  5

  7

  6

  8

  2

  Korea

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Kuwait

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Liberia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lichtenstein

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  1

  2

  0

  1

  2

  1

  New Zealand

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Norway

  1

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Poland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Singapore

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1008W
  This is based on information provided by companies at the time of announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. These figures include only those projects where the Inward Investment Group and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.
  1009W

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  South Africa

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Spain

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Sweden

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Switzerland

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Taiwan

  1

  1

  1

  2

  0

  1

  Thailand

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Turkey

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  US

  20

  18

  17

  13

  20

  21

  Spread Betting
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to the Financial Services Authority of regulating the United Kingdom spread-betting industry was in 2003–04. [152530]

  Ruth Kelly
  In 2003–04 the Financial Services Authority (FSA) estimates that it charged fees of approximately £600,000 to the main firms for which spread-betting represents a large part of their regulated activities. More details are not available.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regarding the effect of stamp duty land tax on leases on the licensing trade. [152609]

  Ruth Kelly
  There have been no recent discussions with officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Meetings have been held previously with representatives of various parties with an interest in stamp duty land tax as applied to leases, including the licensing trade.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff of(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) its contractors have been allocated to work on tax credits for each year since their introduction. [145947]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The following table shows the number of staff (full-time equivalents) working in the tax credit office or in the Inland Revenue contact centres dealing with new tax credits.

  Number of staff (full-time equivalents)

  As at

  TCO

  TCO (NI)

  NTC contact centres

  1 October 1999

  3,656

  1—

  —

  1 April 2000

  3,568

  134

  —

  1 April 2001

  3,455

  163

  —

  1 April 2002

  3,357

  173

  —

  £000

  Grants by area of activity

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Audience Development/New Audiences

  4,442

  5,289

  5,151

  1,262

  493

  Collaborative Arts/Cross Artform

  16,541

  16,866

  42,092

  41,711

  46,119

  Dance

  23,236

  25,521

  17,982

  17,634

  24,729

  Drama/Theatre

  27,165

  29,987

  29,947

  30,289

  71,670

  Literature

  1,551

  1,707

  1,498

  1,469

  3,408

  Music1

  43,348

  47,790

  29,924

  29,911

  48,549

  Visual Arts

  5,148

  9,599

  6,067

  5,483

  22,279

  1 The figure for music includes Opera—a separate figure is not available.

  1010W

  Number of staff (full-time equivalents)

  As at

  TCO

  TCO(NI)

  NTC contact centres

  1 April 2003

  3,532

  296

  1,954

  1 January 2004

  3,157

  231

  2,301

  1 n/a

  There are also a significant number of staff working on tax credits in other areas of the Inland Revenue and for its contractors, either full-time or as part of a wider role. However full information is not held centrally and could not be collated without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what elements of the new tax credits IT system will require systems testing before April; and when that systems testing will(a) commence and (b) conclude. [150533]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]: The new tax credits IT system will be upgraded in April 2004 to allow awards for 2003–04 to be finalised and awards for 2004–05 to be renewed. This will require both new software and changes to existing software. The first stage of IT testing started in September. Further stages of testing have subsequently followed and are planned to be completed for April.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Grants
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants were paid by the Arts Council to arts organisations in the past five years, broken down by(a) opera, (b) dance, (c) theatre and (d) other art, and by company. [152324]

  Estelle Morris
  The following table supplied by Arts Council England provides a breakdown of their Grant-in-Aid funding by area of activity.
  1011W
  The same information broken down by Company could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the size of the UK's fishing fleet has changed in the last five years. [152863]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The number of UK fishing vessels has fallen by 13 per cent. since the beginning of 1999.

  Public Procurement
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the status is of her Department's guide to public procurement. [152880]

  Alun Michael
  The Department publishes a number of guidances on public procurement, and contributes to others that are available publicly.

  The Department has published extensive guidance on the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative—a strand of work arising from recommendations in the Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy.

  More guidance is in preparation. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with details of where the guidance can be found.

  Waste Management Plan (Essex)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultation she has had in the past six months with Essex county council over its waste management plan. [152881]

  Margaret Beckett
  None. County Waste Management Plans are a matter for the relevant county. It is for them to decide, following consultation with local stakeholders, what options they include in line with the Waste Hierarchy and Best Practicable Environmental Option as set out in 'Waste Strategy 2000'.

  Energy Efficiency Commitment
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what plans she has to extend the Energy Efficiency Commitment in line with the commitments made in the Energy White Paper. [152883]

  Margaret Beckett
  In the Energy White Paper the Government acknowledged the continued important role of the Energy Efficiency Commitment in meeting energy efficiency and carbon abatement targets in the domestic sector and made a commitment to publicly consult on an expansion of the EEC to run from 2005 to at least 2008, at possibly twice its current level of activity. We aim to launch the public consultation in spring this year.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps she is taking to promote the wider use of sustainable and recycled materials in the construction industry. [152884]

  Alun Michael
  The Government established a Sustainable Buildings Task Group in order to identify ways to improve the sustainability of our building stock. It is due to report to Ministers in the spring.

  Steps already taken range from economic instruments, such as the Landfill tax and the Aggregates Levy which encourage the recycling of waste, to the Waste and Resources Action Programme, to increase the use of secondary and recycled aggregate in the construction industry.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, what discussions she has held with the Scottish Executive about the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. [152885]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remains in close and regular contact with Scottish Executive Ministers on this and other matters.

  Sewage Plants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on the regulation of sewage plants in relation to mosquito infestation. [152908]

  Alun Michael
  The High Court ruled, on 23 May 2003, that odour from sewage works is within the scope of the statutory nuisance regime and that mosquito nuisance is not. Thames Water has appealed against that ruling. If the appeal is successful, further legislative change may be necessary. The Government are now waiting for a decision by the House of Lords.

  Transport (Environmental Impact)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent discussions she has had with the Department for Transport on the environmental impact of transport. [152886]

  Alun Michael
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and other Defra Ministers have regular discussions with the Ministerial team in the Department for Transport on many matters, including the environmental impacts of transport.

  Avian Influenza
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the levels of imports of poultry meat from(a) Thailand, (b) Pakistan, (c) Indonesia, (d) Vietnam and (e) other countries in South East Asia were in each of the last 24 months for which records are available. [151965]
  1013W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]: The importation into the EU of poultry meat from third countries must be in accordance with European Community legislation. The exporting country must be approved to export to the EU, there must be agreed animal and public health conditions in place and the meat must be produced in EU approved establishments.

  The levels of imports of poultry meat from the following countries as follows:

  Units: Tonnes

  Thailand

  Indonesia

  Hong Kong

  Singapore

  2001

  November

  2,639

  —

  —

  —

  December

  2,936

  —

  —

  —

  2002

  January

  2,783

  —

  —

  —

  February

  2,656

  —

  —

  —

  March

  3,170

  —

  —

  —

  April

  1,218

  —

  —

  —

  May

  3,077

  —

  —

  —

  June

  2,412

  —

  —

  —

  July

  2,919

  —

  —

  —

  August

  3,377

  —

  1

  —

  September

  3,103

  —

  —

  —

  October

  2,255

  —

  —

  44

  November

  2,450

  —

  —

  87

  December

  4,404

  24

  —

  66

  2003

  January

  4,593

  —

  —

  107

  February

  4,194

  —

  —

  88

  March

  4,099

  —

  —

  69

  April

  2,142

  —

  —

  86

  May

  3,010

  —

  —

  —

  June

  3,267

  —

  —

  17

  July

  3,472

  —

  —

  —

  August

  4,281

  —

  —

  34

  September

  2,818

  —

  —

  57

  October

  4,772

  —

  —

  106

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  The information in the table shows imports of poultry meat (includes fresh/frozen and cooked meat) from Thailand, Hong Kong and Singapore from which imports of poultry meat are permissible.

  Our records also show imports of poultry meat have come from Indonesia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Imports are not permitted from these countries but we believe that these represent consignments which have been exported from GB, rejected and returned or goods where the incorrect Customs code has been entered:

  Number

  Japan

  8

  South Korea

  73

  Taiwan

  22

  Birds and Habitat Directives
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she is making in the application of the Birds and Habitat Directives to the UK's offshore waters. [152882]
  1014W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Consultation on draft Regulations to apply the Birds and Habitats Directives to the UK's offshore waters ended on 29 October 2003. Responses highlighted the complexity of transposing these Directives to the offshore area. We nevertheless hope to lay the Regulations in the summer.

  Consultation Documents
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those individuals and organisations to whom(a) her Department, (b) its Executive Agencies and (c) the non-departmental public bodies for which her Department is responsible sent a copy of the consultations (i) sustainable farming and food: meeting the new data needs: a consultation document and (ii) consultation on the implementation of the dairy elements of the Common Agricultural Policy reform package; and from whom each received a response in each case. [152249]

  Alun Michael
  The Consultation Document on new data needs for sustainable farming and food was published on the Defra and Office for National Statistics websites and widely circulated. Copies were also placed in the House Library. 36 responses were received from outside the Department. They have informed the National Statistics Strategic Review of Farming and Food Statistics, which is nearing completion. It is expected that a report of this review (together with the results from the consultation) will be published shortly.

  The consultation on the implementation of the dairy elements of the CAP reform package closed on 3 February. Details of responses received will be published shortly.

  A list of those who were sent a copy of these consultations has been placed in the Library of the House. Respondents are identified with an asterisk.

  In answer to Parts B and C of this question, this information is not held centrally and to do so would incur disproportionate costs.

  Crematoria Emissions
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ensure that future measurements of emissions from crematoria will be monitored by independent organisations. [151303]

  Alun Michael
  Crematoria are one of many categories of process regulated under the Local Air Pollution Control regime. It is normal practice for local authority regulators to include in LAPC authorisations conditions requiring monitoring of relevant emissions. It is open to operators to undertake such monitoring themselves or to contract out to external organisations. Local authorities may also commission their own compliance monitoring where they consider there is a case for doing so.

  Departmental Investigation Officers
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many
  1015W
  investigation officers are employed by her Department; and how many investigation officers were recruited in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [152382]

  Alun Michael
  Defra currently employs 13 Investigation Officers, one Senior Investigation Officer and one Chief Investigation Officer.

  The number of Investigation Officers recruited in (a) 2001 was none, (b) 2002 was four, including one casual, and (c) 2003 was two. However, the total number of Officers in the three grades is unchanged since 2001, but one post has been converted from a Senior Investigation Officer to an Investigation Officer.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the purpose and job description of an investigation officer. [152383]

  Alun Michael
  Defra's Investigation Officers work in the Investigation Branch of the Legal Services Directorate General. The overall aim of the Branch is to provide the Department, its agencies, the National Assembly of Wales Agriculture Department and the Forestry Commission with a criminal investigation service of high professional and ethical standards delivered in a manner that is consistent with the law including the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

  The key duties of an Investigation Officer involve detailed investigation into fraud and irregularities covering a wide range of subjects including animal welfare, cattle identification, tree felling, veterinary medicines, pesticides use and plant health. Officers undertake detailed investigations and prepare cases with a view to prosecution, by Defra's in-house team, where appropriate.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total annualised cost to public funds is of her Department's force of investigation officers in 2003–04. [152384]

  Alun Michael
  Defra's Investigation Branch is forecast to spend £481,600 on pay and £103,500 on non-pay running costs in 2003–04.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library a copy of(a) the July 2003 recruitment advertisement and (b) the required skills and qualifications for investigation officers. [152385]

  Alun Michael
  Copies of the 2003 recruitment advertisement for Investigation Officers, and the accompanying information pack that contained details of the required skills and qualifications have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Foot and Mouth Contractors
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) of 8 January 2004,Official Report, column 391, on rural businesses (payment), if she will break down the £800 million of public money saved as a
  1016W
  result of investigations into the validity of invoices submitted by foot and mouth contractors by main budget headings. [152699]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 3 February 2004]: In his answer to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), on 8 January 2004, Official Report, column 391, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Environmental Quality made reference to "… about £800 million" and "… some £800 million" being saved for the public purse.

  The public money saved as a result of investigations into the validity of charges submitted by foot and mouth contractors is broken down into the following main budget headings:

  £ million

  Cleansing and Disinfection

  672.8

  Logistics

  47.

  Claims Surveying

  7.1

  Value Recovery

  4.0

  Forensic Quantum and Accounting

  48.8

  The public money saved to date does not include the £52.9 million being withheld from businesses in connection with disputed charges arising from the provision of goods, services and works during the outbreak.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people employed in her Department have claimed statutory sick pay for(a) less than one week, (b) one to three weeks, (c) four to six weeks, (d) seven to 12 weeks, (e) 13 to 20 weeks and (f) 21 to 28 weeks in each year since 1997. [148632]

  Alun Michael
  Defra only came into being in June 2001. Figures for the number of staff in the Department and its Agencies who received payment of Statutory Sick Pay in each of the following categories for calendar years 2002 and 2003 are as follows:

  2002

  2003

  Less than one week

  1,963

  1,859

  1–3weeks

  1,301

  1,178

  4–6weeks

  327

  287

  7–12weeks

  310

  260

  13–20weeks

  343

  215

  31–28weeks

  5

  4

  Figures for the part year June 2001–December 2001 are not available. The Department is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and meeting its targets for reduced sickness absence as set out in departmental plans.

  This response covers the core-Department and its Agencies, which comprise the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, Pesticides Safety Directorate, Central Science Laboratory, Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Rural Payments Agency and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chechnya
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 2004,Official Report, column 1251W, on Chechnya, what plans his Department has to make direct representations to the Chechen authorities regarding human rights conditions in Chechnya. [152347]

  Mr. Rammell
  The respect of human rights in Chechnya is primarily the responsibility of the Russian Federal Government. Consequently UK Government representations have been, thus far, to the Federal Government. That said, we are currently considering appropriate representations to the local authorities in Chechnya regarding human rights. However, this is complicated by the fact that our diplomats in Moscow are precluded by security considerations from travelling to Chechnya.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has collated of Chechen involvement in(a) conflicts in (i) Afghanistan, (ii) Iraq and (iii) Kashmir and (b) terrorism against (iv) EU and (v) USA interests since 1 January 2001. [152575]

  Mr. Rammell
  Some Chechen extremists had clear links to terrorists in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Chechen groups set up an "embassy" in Kabul in early 2001. Some Chechens fought with the Taliban and al-Qaeda against the Northern Alliance and subsequently against Coalition forces. We have no strong evidence of Chechen involvement in Iraq, although some media bulletins have reported Chechens in military action there. We have no evidence of Chechen involvement in the conflict in Kashmir.

  EU and US nationals have been kidnapped by Chechen militants. Arjan Erkel, a Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF) worker and Dutch citizen, was kidnapped in Dagestan in August 2002 and remains in captivity to this day, and Kenneth Gluck, a MSF worker and US citizen, was held by militants for a short time in January 2001. A number of EU (including UK) and US nationals were taken hostage during the Dubrovka theatre siege in October 2002. One US, one Dutch, and one Austrian citizen died during the rescue attempt by Russian security forces.

  Colombia
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of recent developments in the terrorist tactics employed by Colombia's revolutionary armed forces, with particular reference to urban terrorism. [148950]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are concerned that some recent Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) attacks have been carried out in urban areas. FARC activity had hitherto been concentrated primarily in rural areas. We have taken account of these latest developments in our Travel Advice for British nationals visiting Colombia.
  1018W
  We condemn the terrorist activities of all illegal armed groups in Colombia. We support the Colombian Government in the fight against terrorism and in its efforts to seek a negotiated solution to Colombia's prolonged internal conflict.

  Diego Garcia
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the study considering the feasibility of repopulating the atolls around the Diego Garcia; what representations the Government have made to the US authorities to allow some Illois to visit the islands around Diego Garcia; what steps the Government are taking to ensure that vessels chartered for such visits are made available; and if he will make a statement. [152540]

  Mr. Rammell
  A study by independent experts into the feasibility of resettlement of the Chagos islands was commissioned in April 2000. The report on the first phase of the study was completed in June 2000 and the report on the second phase, which incorporated findings from the first, was completed in June 2002. Copies of these reports are in the Library of the House. The study concluded that short-term habitation for limited numbers would be possible but only on a subsistence basis while any long-term settlement would be precarious, and costly. No final decisions have been taken on any further phase of this feasibility study.

  We have twice put in hand preparations to arrange a visit by the Chagossians to the islands around Diego Garcia, but these fell through for reasons beyond our control. We remain in contact with the US authorities on the re-instatement of a visit once the situation permits and provided that suitable arrangements can be made, including the charter of a suitable vessel.

  Iraq
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any British companies bidding for reconstruction work in Iraq have been blacklisted under the United States Iran-Libya Sanctions Act 1996. [152089]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No sanctions have been imposed against any UK companies under the United States Iran-Libya Sanctions Act 1996.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence has been found by the Iraq Survey Group of the destruction of the material and equipment dedicated to weapons of mass destruction listed under the clusters of unresolved disarmament issues published at pages 19 to 133 of his Department's White Paper 'Iraq: UN Documents', Cm 5785. [152316]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Iraq Survey Group has found no clear evidence to support Iraqi claims that it unilaterally destroyed any such material or equipment.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in his Department in the last 12 months. [151567]
  1019W
  Mr. Rammell
  Over the last 12 months the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has had 33 passes lost and 12 passes reported as stolen.

  Surplus Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place in the G8 ad hoc group on the disposition of surplus military nuclear materials on the forthcoming shipment to France from the United States of surplus weapons plutonium in France; and whether the United Kingdom has(a) been asked to and (b) offered to participate in this programme. [150831]

  Mr. MacShane
  The forthcoming shipment was noted at the last G8 ad hoc group on plutonium disposition on 4 December 2003. As part of its commitment to co-operative threat reduction, the UK has committed £70 million towards multilateral efforts to secure the disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium in Russia. This follows a US-Russia agreement to each dispose of 34 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium. The forthcoming shipment contributes to these efforts.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Cambridgeshire Schools
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings the Minister of State for School Standards has held since 1 December 2003 with(a) the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and (b) the opposition group leader on Cambridgeshire county council to discuss budgetary problems in Cambridgeshire schools. [150836]

  Mr. Miliband
  I have met the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and the opposition group leader on Cambridgeshire county council and separately the head of the council and his senior staff on one occasion since 1 December to discuss school funding.

  Excellence Challenge Funding
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in each local education authority area received Excellence Challenge funding in the current financial year; and what the total funding made available in the current financial year under the programme was in each local education authority area. [145432]

  Alan Johnson
  The Excellence Challenge programme is now known as "Aimhigher". The answer is given in the table. The figures in column 3 include funding for schools, sixth form colleges and further education colleges within each LEA area.

  LEA name

  Number of schools receiving Aimhigher funding in 2003–04

  Total Aimhigher allocation in 2003–04 (£)

  City of London

  0

  Camden

  10

  470,001

  Greenwich

  14

  560,000

  Hackney

  9

  360,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  8

  332,000

  Islington

  9

  404,000

  1020W

  LEA name

  Number of schools receiving Aimhigher funding in 2003–04

  Total Aimhigher allocation in 2003–04 (£)

  Kensington and Chelsea

  12

  189,700

  Lambeth

  10

  332,000

  Lewisham

  13

  554,000

  Southwark

  13

  407,191

  Tower Hamlets

  16

  582,000

  Wandsworth

  9

  552,000

  Westminster

  0

  0

  Barking and Dagenham

  8

  473,982

  Barnet

  4

  229,571

  Bexley

  0

  0

  Brent

  13

  608,000

  Bromley

  7

  77,000

  Croydon

  16

  496,256

  Ealing

  13

  649,000

  Enfield

  17

  652,236

  Haringey

  11

  464,000

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  5

  205,784

  Hounslow

  14

  497,870

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  Merton

  0

  0

  Newham

  15

  793,000

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  Sutton

  0

  0

  Waltham Forest

  17

  704,000

  Birmingham

  76

  3,317.000

  Coventry

  9

  270,030

  Dudley

  2

  77,000

  Sandwell

  25

  564,988

  Solihull

  4

  404,478

  Walsall

  7

  261,168

  Wolverhampton

  21

  480,592

  Knowsley

  11

  470,000

  Liverpool

  32

  1,356,000

  St. Helens

  12

  652,000

  Sefton

  22

  961,000

  Wirral

  23

  1,023,082

  Bolton

  2

  77,000

  Bury

  0

  0

  Manchester

  23

  1,175,000

  Oldham

  15

  442,195

  Rochdale

  14

  611,000

  Salford

  17

  606,000

  Stockport

  5

  446,741

  Tameside

  6

  253,313

  Trafford

  3

  161,265

  Wigan

  7

  426,343

  Barnsley

  18

  480,493

  Doncaster

  17

  696,134

  Rotherham

  17

  912,000

  Sheffield

  27

  1,352,000

  Bradford

  27

  1,618,000

  Calderdale

  4

  77,000

  Kirklees

  6

  573,485

  Leeds

  43

  2,134,000

  Wakefield

  6

  77,000

  Gateshead

  10

  35,0005

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  18

  806,000

  North Tyneside

  18

  614,000

  South Tyneside

  11

  498,000

  Sunderland

  17

  892,942

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  0

  Bristol, City of

  22

  836,000

  North Somerset

  4

  201,846

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hartlepool

  6

  322,000

  Middlesbrough

  8

  530,000

  Redcar and Cleveland

  11

  500,000

  Stockton-on-Tees

  13

  599,000

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  15

  829,000

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1

  77,000

  North East Lincolnshire

  5

  190,211

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  York

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  12

  77,000

  Luton

  12

  408,894

  1021W

  LEA name

  Number of schools receiving Aimhigher funding in 2003–04

  Total Aimhigher allocation in 2003–04 (£)

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  337,340

  Milton Keynes

  4

  226,393

  Derbyshire

  3

  77,000

  Derby

  8

  359,087

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Poole

  0

  0

  Bournemouth

  0

  0

  Durham

  8

  353,466

  Darlington

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  6

  77,000

  Brighton and Hove

  2

  77,000

  Hampshire

  2

  77,000

  Portsmouth

  3

  277,894

  Southampton

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  Leicester

  16

  987,000

  Rutland

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  Stoke-on-Trent

  17

  734,000

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  Swindon

  0

  0

  Bracknell Forest

  0

  0

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0

  0

  West Berkshire

  0

  0

  Reading

  0

  0

  Slough

  9

  77,000

  Wokingham

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  4

  315,044

  Halton

  8

  453,000

  Warrington

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  0

  Plymouth

  2

  77,000

  Torbay

  0

  0

  Essex

  5

  154,000

  Southend-on-Sea

  5

  77,000

  Thurrock

  3

  190,162

  Herefordshire

  3

  123,304

  Worcestershire

  0

  0

  Kent

  15

  343,243

  Medway

  1

  77,000

  Lancashire

  17

  871,636

  Blackburn with Darwen

  12

  414,056

  Blackpool

  11

  331,106

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  19

  862,001

  Shropshire

  3

  77,000

  Telford and Wrekin

  3

  77,000

  Cornwall

  3

  77,000

  Cumbria

  7

  205,334

  Gloucestershire

  3

  77,000

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  10

  393,154

  Northamptonshire

  4

  77,000

  Northumberland

  8

  77,000

  Oxfordshire

  1

  77,000

  Somerset

  3

  77,000

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  Total

  1,167

  49,916,366

  Higher Education (Centres of Excellence)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the cost to higher education institutions of bidding to become a Centre of Excellence in Learning and Teaching. [152649]

  Alan Johnson
  Neither I nor the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) have made any estimates of this nature as the costs will be variable.1022W
  However, the bidding process for Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning has been designed by HEFCE to keep additional costs to a minimum, while ensuring a rigorous selection process. At stage one, institutions will be able to draw on existing practice and readily available information. At stage two, institutions will be provided with additional funding as a contribution to their costs.

  Higher Education (Participation Rates)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many universities have widening participation units. [152661]

  Alan Johnson
  This information is not available centrally. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) does not collect information about the number of universities that have widening participation units. Most of the 131 higher education institutions funded by HEFCE have widening participation strategies, which set out how they intend to use their widening participation funding allocations. The organisational structure an institution puts in place to administer their strategy varies from institution to institution.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what international comparisons he has made between participation in higher education institutions in the UK from lower social groups and the situation in other countries. [152663]

  Alan Johnson
  My Department published a paper "Higher Education Funding—International Comparisons" on 12 December 2003, giving an overview of tuition fee, student support and widening participation arrangements in 13 OECD member countries. Copies of this paper are available in the Library of the House. This was followed by a further Departmental paper "Variable Fees—International Evidence" on 22 January this year, giving evidence on the effect of tuition fees on access in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

  Higher Education Academy
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason he will make subscription costs from higher education institutions to the Higher Education Academy mandatory for the first three years. [152651]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England has determined that, for the first three years, institutional subscription to the HE Academy should be a condition of grant. This indicates the importance that the Council attaches to quality enhancement and the valuable role that the Academy will play. Institutional subscription will enable the HE sector to support the Academy in its set up phase and give institutions a direct stake in the new organisation. It will also provide much-needed financial stability for the Academy during its crucial early period. It is anticipated that after this initial three year start up period, the Academy will be self sustainable through membership subscriptions and other marketable services.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the Higher Education Academy. [152657]
  1023W
  Alan Johnson
  The HE Academy will play a major part in enhancing the role of teaching and learning in universities and colleges. It will support curriculum and pedagogic development; facilitate the professional development of all staff teaching in HE; and develop and promote good practice. Paul Ramsden has been appointed as the Chief Executive and will take up post in August 2004 prior to the launch of the Academy in October 2004. The Academy will encompass the existing functions of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in HE (ILTHE) and the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN).

  Higher Education Funding
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of gross domestic product the Government is spending on higher and further education and student support in 2003–04. [152635]

  Alan Johnson
  My Department has responsibility for expenditure on higher and further education for England and student support for England and Wales. Planned expenditure on these areas for 2003–04 represents 1.33 per cent. of UK gross domestic product (GDP).

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the total projected change in the teaching fund allocation to higher education institutions from 2003–04 to 2004–05. [152662]

  (d) Teacher Training Agency

  Term

  Remunerated

  Chair

  Professor Sir Bryan Follett

  21 September 2003 to 20 September 2006

  Yes

  Board Members

  Dr. John Cater

  1 March 2003 to 29 February 2006

  No

  Professor David Reynolds

  1 March 2003 to 29 February 2006

  No

  Brenda Bigland

  1 March 2003 to 29 February 2006

  No

  Andy Buck

  1 March 2003 to 29 February 2006

  No

  Felicia Lord-Attivor

  1 March 2003 to 29 February 2006

  No

  Christopher Baker

  2 September 2002 to 1 September 2005

  No

  Professor Barbara MacGilchrist

  10 October 2003 to 9 October 2006

  No

  Steven Andrews

  10 October 2003 to 9 October 2006

  No

  Victoria Nye

  10 October 2003 to 9 October 2006

  No

  Professor Jill Bourne

  10 October 2003 to 9 October 2006

  No

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who the members of(a) the Further Education Funding Council, (b) the Further Education Funding Council Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Committee, (c) the Higher Education Funding Council for England, (d) Investors in People UK and (e) the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151823]

  (c) The Higher Education Funding Council for England

  Term

  Remunerated

  Chair

  David Young

  1 October 2001 to 30 September 2004

  Yes

  Board Members

  Stephen Bundred

  1 October 2002 to 30 September 2005

  Yes

  Richard Coldwell

  1 December 2003 to 30 November 2006

  Yes

  1024W
  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) plans to announce its teaching and research allocations to institutions for the academic year 2004–05 in March. They estimate, however, that the funding available for teaching in that year will be £3,830 million, including funding for widening access and improving retention and for rewarding and developing staff. That represents a 5 per cent. increase on the equivalent funding for 2003–04.

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who the members of(a) Remploy, (b) the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities (c) the National Disability Council and (d) the Teacher Training Agency were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151822]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is listed as follows:

  (a) Remploy:

  Responsibility for Remploy rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

  (b) National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities:

  The Advisory Council ceased to exist on 1 April 1998.

  (c) National Disability Council:

  The Council ceased to exist on 25 April 2000.

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The Further Education Funding Council:

  The Council ceased to exist on 31 March 2001.

  (b) The Further Education Funding Council Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Committee

  The Committee ceased to exist on 31 March 2001.
  1025W

  (c) The Higher Education Funding Council for England

  Term

  Remunerated

  Jackie Fisher

  1 December 2002 to 30 November 2005

  Yes

  Ann Lloyd

  1 August 2002 to 31 July 2005

  Yes

  Professor Peter Rubin

  15 August 2003 to 14 August 2006

  Yes

  Peter Saraga

  1 August 2002 to 31 July 2005

  Yes

  Nigel Savage

  1 August 2002 to 31 July 2005

  Yes

  Professor Peter Scott

  1 December 2003 to 30 November 2006

  Yes

  Sir Richard Sykes

  1 October 2002 to 30 September 2005

  Yes

  Ann Tate

  15 August 2003 to 14 August 2006

  Yes

  (d) Investors in People UK

  Term

  Remunerated

  Chair

  Tim Melville-Ross

  1 October 2002 to 30 September 2005

  No

  Board Members

  Garry Hawkes

  1 November 2003 to 31 October 2006

  No

  Roger Spencer-Jones

  1 October 2003 to 30 September 2006

  No

  Ed Sweeney

  1 March 2001 to 29 February 2004

  No

  Sue Thomas

  1 March 2001 to 29 February 2004

  No

  Dame Geraldine Keegan

  1 October 2001 to 30 September 2004

  No

  Hans Reismann

  1 February 2002 to 31 January 2005

  No

  Lord Tom Sawyer

  25 January 2002 to 24 January 2005

  No

  Norman McLean

  25 January 2003 to 24 January 2005

  No

  Martin Henry

  1 October 2002 to 29 September 2005

  No

  Hugh Try

  4 February 2003 to 3 February 2006

  No

  Professor Robert Fryer

  2 June 2003 to 1 June 2006

  No

  Peter Ayliffe

  2 June 2003 to 1 June 2006

  No

  Sir Nicholas Montagu

  2 June 2003 to 1 June 2006

  No

  Michael Stark

  1 March 2001 to 29 February 2004

  No

  (e) The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  Term

  Remunerated

  Chair

  Sir Anthony Greener

  23 October 2002 to 30 April 2004

  No

  Deputy Chair

  Richard Greenhalgh

  1 October 2003 to 30 September 2006

  No

  Board Members

  Jenny Fitton

  1 October 1999 to 30 September 2004

  No

  Edward Gould

  5 December 2002 to 30 May 2004

  No

  Nick Stuart

  5 December 2002 to 30 May 2004

  No

  Sue Kirkham

  1 October 2003 to 30 September 2006

  No

  Jim Rose

  1 October 2003 to 30 September 2006

  No

  Sir David Watson

  1 October 2003 to 30 September 2006

  No

  Ian Ferguson

  1 October 2003 to 30 September 2006

  No

  Mike Tomlinson

  1 October 2003 to 30 September 2006

  No

  Dr. Helen Gilchrist

  1 October 2003 to 30 September 2006

  No

  Mike Beasley

  1 October 2003 to 30 September 2006

  No

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who the members of the(a) Centre for Information on Language Teaching, (b) Construction Industry Training Board, (c) Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, (d) Equal Opportunities

  Term

  Remunerated

  (a) The National Centre for Languages (formerly the Centre for Information on Language Teaching)

  Chair

  Professor Leo Murray

  January 2004 to January 2007

  No

  Board members

  Jim Beale

  October 2002 to October 2004

  No

  Dick Bunker

  October 2001 to October 2004

  No

  Janev Christofides

  April 2003 to April 2006

  No

  1026W
  Commission and (e) Funding Agency for Schools were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151824]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is listed as follows.
  1027W

  Term

  Remunerated

  Jonathon Day

  October 2001 to September 2004

  No

  Anne Farren

  October 2001 to October 2004

  No

  Colin Flint

  October 2000 to January 2005

  No

  Terry Lamb

  February 2002 to February 2005

  No

  Ian Lamont

  October 2002 to October 2005

  No

  Peter Lehmann

  October 2002 to October 2004

  No

  Anthony Lunch

  October 2002 to October 2004

  No

  Hugh Morgan-Williams

  October 2002 to October 2004

  No

  Hilary Munday

  April 2003 to April 2006

  No

  Dr. Susan Price

  October 2001 to October 2004

  No

  Mike Short

  October 2001 to October 2004

  No

  Professor Eric Sunderland

  February 2002 to February 2005

  No

  Peter Thompson

  October 2002 to October 2004

  No

  (b) Construction Industry Training Board Chair

  Sir Michael Latham

  1 April 2002 to 31 March 2007

  Yes

  Deputy chair

  Peter Rogerson

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2006

  Yes

  Board members

  Trevor Gamble

  25 June 2001 to 24 June 2004

  No

  Howard Baggaley

  15 July 2002 to 14 July 2005

  No

  Roderick Tait

  1 August 2000 to 31 July 2005

  No

  Neil Telling

  3 December 2001 to 2 December 2005

  No

  Maurice Denyer

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2006

  No

  Geoffrey Snow

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2006

  No

  Geoffrey Lister

  1 May 2001 to 30 April 2006

  No

  Margaret Sullivan

  11 March 2002 to 10 March 2007

  No

  James Wates

  3 June 2002 to 2 June 2007

  No

  Stewart Tilley

  1 December 2002 to 30 November 2007

  No

  John Milne

  1 April 2003 to 31 March 2008

  No

  Brian Houston

  4 August 2003 to 3 August 2008

  No

  Ian Mackey

  29 September 2003 to 28 September 2008

  No

  Robert Stephen

  29 September 2003 to 28 September 2008

  No

  David Adamson

  1 August 2001 to 31 July 2004

  No

  George Brumwell

  1 April 2003 to 31 October 2004

  No

  Robert Blackman

  1 October 2003 to 30 September 2008

  No

  Professor Brian Lee

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2004

  No

  Sadie Walton

  3 November 2002 to 3 November 2007

  No

  (c) Engineering Construction Industry Training Board Chair

  Jim Rowland

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2004

  Yes

  Board members

  Barbara Rider

  1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

  No

  Mike Hockey

  1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

  No

  Louise Ferguson

  1 October 2000 to 30 September 2005

  No

  Richard Leamon

  14 January 2002 to 13 January 2007

  No

  Brian Rogan

  3 June 2002 to 2 June 2007

  No

  Colin Barnes

  1 November 2002 to 31 October 2007

  No

  William McLean

  1 November 2002 to 31 October 2007

  No

  Brenig Williams

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2005

  No

  Bill Murray

  1 April 2003 to 31 March 2008

  No

  Jeffrey House

  5 March 2001 to 4 March 2004

  No

  Dr. Alix Thom

  1 December 2001 to 30 November 2006

  No

  Paul Corby

  1 May 1999 to 30 April 2004

  No

  Neil Moore

  1 February 2002 to 31 January 2007

  No

  Michael Bretherick

  4 August 2003 to 3 August 2004

  No

  (d) Equal Opportunities Commission

  Responsibility for the Commission rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  (e) Funding Agency for Schools

  The agency ceased to exist on 31 October 1999.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department spent on (i) advertising and (ii) information campaigns in each year since 1995–96; what his estimate is for 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [149724]
  1029W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 21 January 2004]: Expenditure on information campaigns from the Department's central advertising and publicity budget is set out as follows. In addition to expenditure from this central budget, expenditure from budgets allocated to individual programmes will also include spend on publicity related activity. It is not possible, except at disproportionate cost, to separately identify all such publicity related expenditure. It is, however, possible to identify separately the Department's total expenditure on advertising, and this is also set out as follows:

  Advertising and publicity budget

  £000

  1995–96

  1—

  1996–97

  1—

  1997–98

  10,879

  1998–99

  13,426

  1999–2000

  9,902

  2000–01

  14,595

  2001–02

  11,688

  2002–03

  14,089

  2003–042

  17,092

  1 Not available

  2 Estimated

  Total departmental spend on advertising

  £0001

  1995–962

  8,296

  1996–97

  7,538

  1997–98

  9,992

  1998–99

  15,673

  1999–2000

  11,900

  2000–01

  29,066

  2001–02

  20,489

  2002–03

  11,261

  2003–043

  17,984

  1 These figures include spend on advertising from the central advertising and publicity budget

  2 Employment Department and Department for Education

  3 Estimated

  The spend on advertising fluctuates from year to year. Some campaigns will run over financial years and billing will fall in the later period. The main reasons for the rise in estimated spend on advertising in 2003–04 are: the increased spend on the aimhigher campaign, which targets 13 to 16-year-olds with no history of higher education in their family about the benefits of higher education and gives 16 to 19-year-olds information about how to apply to university and the financial help available to them; increased promotion of Foundation Degrees to employers; and upweighting of publicity for the Connexions service to teenagers

  Information on expenditure by agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.

  Quality Assurance Agency
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the role of the Quality Assurance Agency. [152632]

  Alan Johnson
  The mission of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) is to promote public confidence that the quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are safeguarded and enhanced. It fulfils this role by conducting regular audits of Higher Education 1030W
  Institutions (HEIs) and reviewing of HE provision delivered in Further Education Colleges (FECs). It also provides advice and guidance to HEIs and other stakeholders, defining clear and explicit standards which form a reference point for review activities. This includes a qualifications framework, subject benchmark statements, programme specifications and a code of practice for institutions.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual budget is for 2003–04 of the Quality Assurance Agency. [152640]

  Alan Johnson
  The Quality Assurance Agency's work is financed through two main sources of income: subscriptions paid by individual universities and colleges; and contracts with the HE funding bodies and Government Departments. QAA's estimated budget for 2003–04 is £10 million. This sum is made up of:

  (a) Funds from UK funding bodies and institutional subscriptions (£8.5 million),

  (b) Funds from Department of Health for reviews of all NHS funded healthcare programmes in England (£1.5 million).

  Student Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the total cost to his Department of providing financial support to students in higher education after 2006–07. [152517]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the costs and benefits associated with the proposal in the Higher Education Bill to allow universities to set their own tuition fees is contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published on 8 January alongside the Bill. Because of the nature of a variable scheme, the costs vary greatly according to the decisions that both students and higher education institutions take, and they cannot be estimated precisely at this stage. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment were placed in the Library of the House; it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

  The Department's future spending plans on both new and continuing elements of student support will be considered as part of Spending Review 2004.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial assistance is available for students paying maximum tuition fees under(a) present arrangements and (b) proposed student support from 2006–07; and if he will give a breakdown of such help for students from families with joint family incomes below (i) £15,970, (ii) £22,270 and (iii) £33.533. [152534]

  Alan Johnson
  The following two tables summarise the financial assistance available to students by income under(a) the present arrangements and (b) the proposed student support arrangements from 2006–07:

  (a) Students paying standard £1,125 fee in 2003–04

  £

  Residual income

  Fee remission

  Maintenance loan1

  Less than: £20,970

  1,125

  4,000

  of: £31,230

  —

  4,000

  1 Maintenance loan values shown for students living away from home and studying outside London

  1031W

  (b) Students paying maximum £3,000 fee in 2006–07

  £

  Residual income

  Combined grant

  Maintenance loan1,2

  Fee loan

  Bursary

  Less than: £15,970

  2,700

  3,550

  3,000

  Min £3003

  of £22,270

  1,250

  3,550

  3,000

  Min £3003

  of £33,533

  —

  4,440

  3,000

  Min £3003

  1 Maintenance loan values shown for students living away from home and studying outside London.

  2 Under the proposals for a single combined grant of £2,700 in 2006–07, there is a necessary reduction of £850 in the maintenance loan available to offset the potential cost of additional fee loans. Further modelling will be required to confirm this figure and it is possible the amount required to offset costs might rise.

  3 Universities will be expected to offer a bursary of at least £300 for students from poorer backgrounds.

  4 Projected income thresholds and maintenance loan rates for 2006–07 assume inflation of 2.5 per cent. per annum.

  Note:

  Projected income thresholds and maintenance loan rates for 2006–07 assume inflation on 2.5 per cent. per annum.

  These figures are based on the model for a combined grant as set out in the published discussion paper "Moving toward a single combined grant for higher education". Further details on combining the two grants will be announced later.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average tuition fee paid by a student at a further education college in 2003 is in 2003–04. [152574]

  Alan Johnson
  Data for 2003–04 are not yet available. In 2001–02, the most recent year for which data have been analysed, the average tuition fee for those adults in further education who did pay a fee is around £135.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the additional funding required to meet the additional support measures for students announced by the Government will come from(a) existing education budgets and (b) additional funding provided by the Treasury. [152665]

  Alan Johnson
  The enhancements to the student package announced by the Secretary of State on 8 January—increasing the Higher Education grant to £1,500, increasing maintenance loans to the average of basic living costs and writing outstanding loans off after 25 years—will, as set out in the Secretary of State's statement, be met from a reprioritisation within the Department for Education and Skills' budget. The remaining costs of the student support package, including the costs of deferring fees, will be dealt with in the spending review.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much additional funding his Department will require as part of the comprehensive spending review(a) to maintain existing funding levels in real terms and (b) to meet the cost of the measures (i) announced in the Higher Education Bill and (ii) for the improvement of student support. [152666]

  Alan Johnson
  Full details of the costs of the Government's proposals announced in the Higher Education Bill, and the associated package of improvements in student support, are set out in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published on 8 January alongside the Bill. Copies of the Regulatory Impact 1032W
  Assessment were placed in the Library of the House; it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) under what circumstances his Department will ignore parental income in deciding eligibility for a student grant; [152734]

  (2) at what age his Department will cease to take into account family income when assessing a student's right to receive a student grant under his new proposals for student support. [152735]

  Alan Johnson
  The income of a student's parents is not taken into account when assessing entitlement to student support in a number of circumstances. The most commonly applied are: the student is aged 25 or over; is currently or has been married; parents are deceased or cannot be found; the student is irreconcilably estranged from their parents; has been self-supporting either through earnings, benefits or training allowances for three years before the start of the course. These arrangements have been in place throughout the existing student support package which was introduced in 1999.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who is entitled to receive education maintenance allowances. [152788]

  Alan Johnson
  In the first year of the national scheme, all young people aged 16 who are planning to continue their education from September 2004 in a school, sixth form college or a College of Further Education, can apply for an Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA). In the existing EMA pilot areas young people who plan to continue their education into Years 13 and 14 from September 2004, can apply for an EMA. Entitlement to an EMA is dependant on an assessment of household income. Any young person who lives in a household with an income of £30,000 or less is eligible to apply for an EMA.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what he estimates the total cost to the Government will be of fee deferral in each of the three years following the introduction of top-up fees: and how much he estimates universities will receive in fee income in each of those three years. [152789]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the costs associated with the proposal in the Higher Education Bill to allow universities to set their own tuition fees is contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published on 8 January alongside the Bill. Because of the nature of a variable scheme, the costs vary greatly according to the decisions that higher education institutions take, and they cannot be estimated precisely at this stage. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment were placed in the Library of the House; it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his reply of 22 January 2004,Official Report, columns 1405–07W, what the

  1033W
  assumed distribution was in the model of the (a) size of means-tested loan taken out and (b) size of fee loan, net of any fee remission. [151860]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 29 January 2004]: In estimating the 13 years figure as the average time for loan repayment—22 January 2004, Official Report, columns 1405–07W—the modelling was undertaken across all students rather than being a figure for an 'average student'. The estimate is based on the whole distribution of borrowers rather than on an 'average student' or a student with average debt—there is therefore no one level of debt on which the estimate is based. Factors that were taken into account in developing the model include:

  (i) The future pattern of demand for Higher Education by parental income;

  (ii) The proportion of students studying in London, at home or elsewhere;

  (iii) The propensity of students to take out loans;

  (iv) The distribution of fees actually charged by Higher Education institutions from 2006/07;

  (v) The distribution of lengths of courses (based on internal modelling); and

  (vi) The pattern of withdrawals from HE courses (based on internal modelling).

  The model was applied on the basis of a separate fee grant and HE grant as set out as follows. Once the grants are combined, as announced by the Secretary of State to the House on 27 January 2004, the balance between maintenance loan and fee loan will be slightly different, though the overall impact is likely to be small.

  (a) We currently expect that in 2006/07 around 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. of students will be eligible for the full value of the means-tested maintenance loan of—on average—around £4,000. The remaining students are expected to be eligible for at least the non means-tested element of the loan—an average of around £3,000.

  (b) For fee loans, our estimates have been prepared using an assumption that 75 per cent. of students could be charged £3,000 and 25 per cent. of students £1,200 (an average fee of £2,550). We expect around 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. of students will receive some fee remission. Under these assumptions, the 40 per cent. to 45 per cent. of students who receive no fee support would be eligible for an average fee loan of £2,550.

  As noted above, this is on the basis of a separate fee grant and HE grant. Under the combined grant scheme, we expect that 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. of students would receive all or part of the HE grant of £2,700.

  We then assume that 85 per cent. of students will take up maintenance loans and 80 per cent. of students take up fee loans. Loan take-up is assumed to be independent of parental income.

  TeacherNet
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the costs involved in producing the TeacherNet Emergencies website were. [152418]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In my earlier replies of 7 May and 8 September I indicated that the cost would be approximately £60,000. The final cost for producing the website was £63,338.

  Teachers' Pay
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the pay differentials between teaching staff in schools, further education colleges and higher education institutions. [152690]

  Alan Johnson
  The statutory pay and conditions of service for teachers in the maintained schools sector in England and Wales are based on the recommendations of an independent pay review body—the School Teachers' Review Body.

  The Government play no part in setting the levels of pay in the higher education and further education sectors as universities and further education colleges are independent and autonomous bodies. Pay levels are subject to negotiations between employers and the representative trade union bodies, and will therefore vary from institution to institution.

  Top-up Fees
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills under his proposed top-up fees plans, what the difference in take home pay would be between two graduates, one of whom had been liable to pay fees of £3,000 and the other of whom had not, at salary levels of(a) £15,000, (b) £25,000 and (c) £35,000. [153084]

  Alan Johnson
  Loan repayments do not depend on the level of fees charged to a student or their level of outstanding debt. They depend on their salary level after graduation, so there will be no difference in monthly take home pay between graduates who were liable for different levels of fees. Monthly repayments for a graduate on £15,000 will be zero; for a graduate on £25,000, they will be £75; and for a graduate on £35,000, they will be £150.

  University Access
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the impact on the teaching budgets of higher education institutions of the creation of the access premium. [152781]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Funding for widening access and improving retention forms part of the teaching grants paid by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to higher education institutions. For the 2003–04 academic year, HEFCE allocated £3.4 billion of teaching funding, of which £265 million, including £10 million for disabled students, related specifically to widening access and improving retention. For 2004–05, HEFCE have recently announced that they will allocate some £3.8 billion in teaching funds, including £273 million for widening access and improving retention. HEFCE funding is provided as a block grant and it is for institutions to decide how to spend that money.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol Harm Reduction
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether health warnings on alcoholic drinks are being considered in the development of the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy; and when the strategy will be published. [149348]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's strategy unit is currently developing the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England, which will be published shortly. The strategy unit is examining a range of interventions to combat health harms, including the placement of health warnings on alcoholic drinks containers, as part of the work on the development of the strategy.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers who have committed crimes in the UK in the last five years have been deported. [151270]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom as a result of deportation action in each of the last five years for which information is available is given in the table.

  Persons removed from the United Kingdom as a result of deportation action 1998 to 20021,2,3

  Total

  of whom: principal asylum applicants

  of whom: non-asylum cases

  1998

  1,730

  350

  1,380

  1999

  1,210

  140

  1,075

  2000

  1,280

  145

  1,140

  2001

  450

  85

  365

  20024

  415

  100

  315

  1 Under section 3(5) and 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971.

  2 Figures for 2001 and 2002 have been estimated.

  3 Deportation figures may be under recorded in 1999 and 2000.

  4 Provisional figures.

  The number of these who were removed after having committed a crime is not available except by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  We take very seriously any criminal or antisocial acts committed by asylum seekers. Although there is no evidence to suggest that asylum seekers are disproportionately likely to commit crime, we have taken powers in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to prevent serious criminals using the protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention. We will seek to remove such criminals from the United Kingdom wherever possible.

  Civil Servants (Disabled People)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the number of employees in his Department who have a disability, broken down by disability type. [148994]
  1036W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  The information requested for the Home Office (excluding Prison Service and the UK Passport Agency) is in the table.

  Type of disability

  Number of staff1

  Non-disabled

  18,500

  Hearing impairment

  50

  Visual impairment

  30

  Mobility impairment

  70

  Physical coordination difficulties

  40

  Reduced physical capacity

  110

  Learning difficulties

  20

  Mental illness

  20

  Unknown disability

  50

  Speech impairment

  2—

  Hearing impairment plus3

  —

  Visual impairment plus

  —

  Speech impairment plus

  —

  Mobility impairment plus

  10

  Physical co-ordination difficulties plus

  10

  Reduced physical capacity plus

  40

  Mental illness plus

  10

  Status unknown

  250

  Total Home Office staff4

  19,210

  1 Provided from Mandate Data as at 1 April 2003. The data from Mandate incorporate information on 98 per cent, civil servants. Therefore, any analysis that comes from Mandate will not cover the complete population of civil servants and will not always reconcile with the data that are in the public domain.

  2 Less than 10.

  3 In combination with one or more disabilities.

  4 Including Forensic Science Service.

  Note:

  The number of staff in post and the number of disabled staff have been rounded to the nearest 10, and numbers under five are not disclosed in order to protect the privacy of the individual.

  A Home Office Staff Survey undertaken in 2001 showed that 5 per cent. of respondents were declaring a disability against a declared level of 2.3 per cent. staff with a disability recorded on their personal record at that time. However, the declaration of disability is a voluntary matter and the Department is exploring ways of persuading staff of the value of declaring their disability. The Department participates in the Cabinet Office Disability Bursary Scheme, designed for staff with potential for early promotion to the senior civil service, the Cabinet Office summer placement scheme for disabled graduates and is a member of the Cabinet Office-chaired Disability Working Group, which is examining issues around disability monitoring and collection and the non-declaration of disability.

  The Department has facilitated and resourced the establishment of the Home Office Disability Support network (HODS), to provide support and encouragement to staff with disabilities and advice to the Department about their needs. The Department is working with HODS to raise awareness and improve understanding of disability issues across the office, and to help realise the potential of disabled staff to rise to senior levels.

  Crime Statistics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means he has achieved reductions in(a) burglary, (b) vehicle crime and (c) violent crime since 1997. [150127]
  1037W
  Ms Blears
  We have instituted a large number of measures to reduce crime, many of which are listed in the Crime Reduction Strategy that we published in 1999. Some will have had an impact on a wide range of crimes, others are aimed specifically at burglary, vehicle crime and violent crime.

  There are too many to list all in this reply, but examples include:
  The activities of police forces and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership to tackle local crime problems—for instance through making homes more secure, using local authority warden to warn car owners who leave valuables in their vehicles of the risks involved and tackling city centre hooliganism.
  Working with all parts of the criminal justice systems to improve procedures and the effectiveness of sentencing.
  The work of the Youth Justice Board and Youth Offending Teams.
  Our anti-drug strategy including the work of the Drugs Actions Teams.
  Increasing police numbers to a record 136,386.
  Promoting partnership working—not just at a local level but also with a range of stakeholders such as other government departments, motor manufacturers and dealers, the insurance industry, local authorities, universities and student bodies and leading commercial brands.
  Requiring crime reduction targets to be set, and instituting new methods of monitoring, managing and improving performance at local and national levels. In addition to measures such as the Police Reform Act and the Police Standards Unit we have been promoting problem-oriented and intelligence-led policing which tackle the problems and their causes in a more pro-active way.
  Introducing new legislation and other powers such as minimum sentences for third time convictions for burglary; strengthening the law on rape; increasing the powers of courts to impose restraining orders in domestic violence cases; and regulation of the motor salvage industry.

  There is still more that we can do and, for example:
  We are starting some new work on reducing the market for stolen goods—i.e. making the disposal of stolen property more difficult, riskier and less profitable.
  The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit will be publishing an alcohol harm reduction strategy for England which will set out how to address the problems associated with alcohol misuse.
  We are further improving vehicle registration procedures and working more closely with local authorities suffering the highest levels of crime and voluntary and community groups to get across vehicle crime prevention messages.
  The Crime Reduction Delivery Board is finalising its prolific offenders strategy.

  There are a number of other drivers of crime including social, economic and demographic factors and these will have contributed to the trends in crime in recent years.

  Guns
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward legislation on the(a) sale, (b) promotion and (c) dissemination of (i) equipment and (ii) instructions for the re-conversion of guns that have previously been de-activated. [153098]

  Caroline Flint
  Component parts which can be used to re-activate firearms are already controlled in the same way as an actual firearm. Reamers, drills and other 1038W
  engineering tools are used for a variety of purposes and their sale is not restricted. It is already an offence, with a maximum sentence of seven years, to convert a de-activated firearm or to conspire to do so. Where the weapon converted is a prohibited firearm, anybody convicted of possessing such a weapon is liable to the new minimum sentence of five years and a maximum of 10 years.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend legislation relating to the(a) sale and (b) ownership of deactivated guns. [153100]

  Caroline Flint
  We have no plans at present to legislate in relation to the sale and ownership of de-activated weapons but we will be looking at this issue as part of the comprehensive review of current firearms legislation. We will be publishing a consultation paper shortly.

  Hutton Report
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the premature disclosure of the Hutton Report. [152600]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following the disclosure of some of the conclusions contained in Lord Hutton's "Report of the Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly CMG" before its publication on 28 January, Lord Hutton set up his own investigation into the handling of all copies of the report prior to its publication.

  Ministerial Security Costs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of provision of security cover for ex-Ministers was in each of the last five years; and what the highest cost relating to any one ex-Minister since his or her retirement was. [152192]

  Mr. Blunkett
  We seek to ensure the most effective and efficient protective security arrangements for public figures in the light of the changing threat from terrorism and other continuing risks. It is not our policy to comment on the details of protection arrangements for individuals, as to do so could compromise their security.

  An exercise has obviously been conducted in rearranging the particular level of threat to those no longer in post and arrangements have been made where this is judged to be appropriate based on the security threat to the individual concerned.

  Police Recruitment
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the recruitment of police officers, (b) the recruitment of graduates to work as police officers and (c) the Accelerated Promotion scheme for graduate police officers. [152473]
  1039W
  Ms Blears
  From 1 April 1997 till 31 March 2003 the following number of officers have been recruited:

  Number of officers

  1997–98

  6,543

  1998–99

  5,391

  1999–2000

  4,535

  2000–01

  7,415

  2001–02

  10,215

  2002–03

  13,126

  We now have record police numbers of 136,386 as at 31 August 2003.

  We do not currently collate the number of graduates recruited into the police service centrally and cannot therefore say how many graduates have been recruited. However, we have reason to believe that the Police Service continues to be an attractive career option for graduates. Since April 2003 we have been rolling out a new police assessment centre. So far 4,244 candidates have gone through this of which just under 25 per cent. were graduates or post graduates. The Accelerated Promotion Scheme for Graduates was replaced in April 2002 by the High Potential Development (HPD) scheme which recruits both graduates and non graduates, externally and from within forces, with the potential to reach at least superintendent rank and ensures that they are equipped with the necessary skills to become highly effective in middle management, command and leadership roles. The scheme provides a structured yet flexible career framework which can lead to the most senior positions in the police service. A high proportion of graduates are recruited onto the scheme which is actively marketed via university careers fairs, other graduate events and targeted marketing in graduate publications and literature placed in universities. Latest statistics show that 50 (67 per cent.) of those successful in gaining a place on the scheme are graduates on application.

  Police Statistics (Wales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests, (b) people charged, (c) cautions issued and (d) convictions there were in Wales, broken down by (i) police force, (ii) constituency and (iii) local authority area in each year since 1997. [151732]

  Ms Blears
  The available information, relating to persons arrested in Wales, by police force area, is contained in Table A. It is limited to arrests for notifiable offences and relates to the financial years, 1999–2000 to 2002–03.

  The number of persons cautioned, proceeded against at the magistrates courts (numbers of persons charged are not held centrally) and found guilty at all courts for all offences, in Wales, by police force area, 1997 to 2002 is contained in Table B.

  Statistics on cautions and court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the Autumn.
  1040W

  Table A: Persons arrested for notifiable offences recorded by the police, by police force area, Wales, 1999–2000 to 2002–03

  Police force area

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Dyfed-Powys

  14,057

  13,036

  12,217

  13,219

  Gwent

  27,829

  24,642

  20,757

  14,753

  North Wales

  12,653

  14,843

  14,928

  17,214

  South Wales

  n/a

  34,838

  36,295

  37,216

  Wales

  188,300

  87,359

  84,197

  82,402

  1 Estimated.

  n/a = not available

  Table B: Number of persons cautioned, proceeded against at the magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for all offences, by police force area, Wales 1997 to 20021

  Year/police force area

  Cautioned

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  1997

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,109

  18,538

  13,464

  Gwent

  5,329

  27,038

  21,128

  North Wales

  3,074

  22,051

  16,372

  South Wales

  6,868

  59,389

  42,613

  Total

  18,380

  127,016

  93,577

  1998

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,452

  18,839

  14,066

  Gwent

  5,780

  29,648

  23,712

  North Wales

  3,544

  21,515

  16,829

  South Wales

  6,339

  63,457

  45,429

  Total

  19,115

  133,459

  100,036

  1999

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,313

  18,790

  13,695

  Gwent

  5,502

  29,053

  23,271

  North Wales

  3,619

  20,617

  16,053

  South Wales

  5,852

  57,881

  41,658

  Total

  18,286

  126,341

  94,677

  2000

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,185

  18,186

  13,241

  Gwent

  4,529

  27,365

  21,406

  North Wales

  3,124

  21,446

  17,649

  South Wales

  5,399

  57,478

  41,649

  Total

  16,237

  124,475

  93,302

  2001

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,495

  16,374

  11,908

  Gwent

  4,258

  26,158

  20,131

  North Wales

  3,120

  21,199

  16,398

  South Wales

  4,826

  53,042

  37,720

  Total

  15,699

  116,773

  86,157

  2002

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,761

  17,572

  12,796

  Gwent

  3,803

  25,523

  20,218

  North Wales

  3,558

  25,166

  19,471

  South Wales

  3,680

  57,282

  40,513

  Total

  14,802

  125,543

  92,998

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis

  Policing Consultation Documents
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those individuals and organisations to whom(a) his Department, (b) its executive agencies and (c) the non-departmental public bodies for which his Department are responsible sent a copy of the consultations documents (i) National Policing Plan 2004–07 and (ii) Policing: Building Safer Communities Together. [152456]
  1041W
  Ms Blears
  The lists record the individuals and organisations to whom the National Policing Plan 2004–07 and the "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together" were sent, and, this list will be placed in the Library.

  It was then a decision for these bodies as to whether the documents were distributed further within their organisations and to their stakeholders. Both documents also appear on the Home Office website at www.policereform.gov.uk.

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the members of the(a) Advisory Board on Restricted Patients, (b) Commission for Racial Equality, (c) Gaming Board for Great Britain, (d) Health Advisory Committee to the Prison Service

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Chair

  1 March 2003–28 February 2007

  Phillips, Trevor

  Remunerated

  Deputy Chair/Commissioner

  1 April 2002–31 March 2006

  Hampton, Kay

  Remunerated

  Deputy Chair/Commissioner

  1 April 2002–31 March 2006

  Spencer, Sarah

  Remunerated

  Commissioner

  1 April 2002–31 March 2006

  Barr, Ian

  Remunerated

  Commissioner

  1 March 2002–31 March 2006

  Ahmed, Khurshid

  Remunerated

  Commissioner

  1 April 2002–31 March 2006

  Gundara, Jagdish

  Remunerated

  Commissioner

  1 April 2002–31 March 2006

  Mills, Gloria

  Remunerated

  Commissioner

  1 June 2000–31 May 2004

  Jandu, Kamaljeet

  Remunerated

  Commissioner

  1 April 2002–31 March 2006

  Short, Cherry

  Remunerated

  Commissioner

  1 July 2003–31 March 2004

  Jones, Digby

  Remunerated

  Terrorism Act
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2004,Official Report, column 268W, on the Terrorism Act 2000, what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the ethnic origin of the individuals who have been stopped and searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. [152399]

  Mr. Blunkett
  No independent research has been commissioned by the Home Office on the ethnic origin of the individuals who have been stopped and searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

  Neither is the data routinely collected on stops and searches made under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 automatically cross-referenced with data on the ethnic origin of those stopped. This information could only be collated and verified at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2004,Official Report, column 268W, on the Terrorism Act 2000, how many (a) arrests and (b) prosecutions have directly resulted from stop and searches carried out under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [152400]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The table gives details of stops and searches under section 44(1) and 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 and resultant arrests.

  Year

  Total searches

  Resultant arrests

  (i) 2001–02

  10,200

  189

  (ii) 2002–03

  32,100

  380

  1042W
  and (e) Horserace Betting Levy Board were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151811]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The information requested is as follows.

  1. Advisory Board on Restricted Patients ceased to function with effect from 16 September 2003.

  2. Gaming Board for Great Britain—is the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sports

  3. Horserace Betting Levy Board— is the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  4. Health Advisory Committee to the Prison Service

  The Health Advisory Committee for the Prison Service was abolished as a consequence of the decision, announced in March 1999, to reorganise prison health care on the basis of a partnership between the Prison and National Health Services. The table lists the Commission for Racial Equality on 1 January.

  This information is taken from the Home Office Statistical Bulletin Arrests for Notifiable Offences and the Operation of Certain Police Powers under PACE. England and Wales 2002–03.

  Data collected on stops and searches are not routinely cross-referenced with the data held on prosecutions. This information could be collated and verified only at disproportionate cost.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which armoured vehicles are used by British patrols in Afghanistan. [152375]

  Mr. Ingram
  Where and when assessed as necessary UK forces in Kabul use SAXON light armoured vehicles.

  Army Redundancies.
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been given to Army commanding officers on identifying individuals who may no longer be regarded as necessary by their units. [152221]

  Mr. Ingram
  Generally the Army uses the Manning Control Point review process to identify soldiers who may not be required for a full Army career. No discharge action has been taken under this process since 2002 and no further reviews are currently planned. Commanding Officers have been told that individuals
  1043W
  who have already given notice to terminate their engagement before 30 September 2004 may be allowed to leave without serving their full notice period, if they wish to do so and they can be spared by their unit.

  David Kelly
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the name of each individual who contacted Dr David Kelly by(a) telephone and (b) e-mail on 17 July 2003, indicating the time of contact, and broken down by (i) MOD and other Government personnel, (ii) press and (iii) others; and if he will make a statement. [152931]

  Mr. Hoon
  The only Ministry of Defence or Government personnel known to have contacted Dr. Kelly on 17 July 2003 were his colleagues from the Counter- Proliferation and Arms Control directorate in the MOD. These contacts were detailed in Lord Hutton's report and in the evidence of the individuals concerned.

  Lord Hutton has included in his report or made available on the internet such details of those others who contacted Dr. Kelly as he thought appropriate.

  Driver Training
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces undertook(a) training to drive and (b) driving tests in the last 12 months. [152304]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information on the number of armed forces personnel, who undertook training to drive in the past 12 months, is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  The total number of individuals who took driving tests in the period 1 January to 31 December 2003 was:

  Number

  Individuals

  22,071

  Passes

  40,974

  Fails

  19,516

  Tests taken

  60,584

  Note:

  Most individuals will have undertaken a number of theory and practical tests during the period. The total number of individuals is therefore less than the sum of those undertaking each type of test.

  The number who took practical driving tests in the period 1 January to 31 December 2003 was as follows:

  Number

  Individuals

  17,145

  Passes

  24,982

  Fails

  13,422

  Tests taken

  38,460

  The number who took theory driving tests in the period 1 January to 31 December 2003 was as follows.
  1044W

  Number

  Individuals

  15,300

  Passes

  15,992

  Fails

  6,094

  Tests taken

  22,124

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations govern the discharge of coolants from nuclear submarines in British waters, with particular regard to distance from shore; and what procedures are used to ensure that these regulations are adhered to, with particular reference to radioactivity of the discharged coolant; and if he will make a statement. [152754]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Radioactive Substances Act (1993) (RSA(93)) governs the accumulation, use and disposal of radioactive materials. Discharges within the 12-mile limit or within known fishing grounds are permitted only for safety or operational reasons, and only if activity levels are below statutory limits. While specifically exempted from the provisions of the Act, the Secretary of State for Defence continues to comply voluntarily with RSA (93) when controlling discharges of primary coolant from RN nuclear submarines.

  Operation Telic
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection filters were fitted to the FV432 series vehicles in Operation Telic; and how many vehicles had NBC protection. [153045]

  Mr. Ingram
  The FV 432 vehicle is not fitted with a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) air filtration system. In the event that protection is needed, the crew rely on their individual protection.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reply to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York for answer on 12 January regarding a breach of security at RAF Leeming, refs 147075–7. [152074]

  Mr. Ingram
  I replied to the hon. Member on 4 February 2004,Official Report, columns 889–90W.

  Private Kitulagoda
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether Private Kitulagoda of the Rifle Volunteers was a member of the Civil Contingencies Reaction Force; [153051]

  (2) how many members of the Rifle Volunteers who are currently deployed to Afghanistan are members of the Civil Contingencies Reaction Force. [153052]

  Mr. Ingram
  Private Kitulagoda, of the Rifle Volunteers, who was sadly killed on 28 January 2004 while on duty in Afghanistan, was a member of the Civil Contingency Reaction Force.

  All members of the Rifle Volunteers are part of the 43 (Wessex) Brigade Civil Contingency Reaction Force, and 46 members of the unit are currently deployed in Afghanistan.
  1045W
  Despite the absence of these individuals on operations we retain the necessary capability for the CCRFs to meet any role required of them.

  RAF Marham
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what hours of the day the bird-scarer at RAF Marham operates; and whether those hours have changed in the last five years. [152457]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Bird Control Unit (ECU) at RAF Marham operates within standard Station flying hours 0800–0000 Monday to Thursday, 0800–1800 on Fridays. These hours have not changed in the last five years. Additionally the BCU operates to meet any operational requirements outside standard hours.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents of bird-strike occurred at RAF Marham in each of the last seven years. [152458]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the past seven years the following number of bird-strikes have been recorded at RAF Marham:

  Number

  1997

  1

  1998

  3

  1999

  2

  2000

  5

  2001

  6

  2002

  2

  2003

  6

  Work Strands
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many work strands have been established by his Department; what subject areas each strand will cover; what savings have to be identified in each work strand; and if he will make a statement. [152926]

  Mr. Ingram
  As part of the Ministry of Defence's annual planning round, 16 work strands have been established to conduct a thorough examination of defence costs and capabilities. Each work strand will explore aspects of military capability and/or associated overheads with a view to identifying options for re-balancing the Defence Programme. This work will take place within the policy context set out in the Defence White Paper: Delivering Security in a Changing World. Financial savings targets have not been set for individual work strands.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iran
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department is offering for the reconstruction effort in Bam, Iran, in the aftermath of the earthquake. [152529]

  Hilary Benn
  Following our immediate support to the emergency phase of the Bam earthquake response, we have committed a further £2 million towards the rehabilitation effort.
  1046W
  This additional support is focused on the restoration of primary health care services in partnership with the World Health Organisation (£0.5 million); the implementation of a mid-term sanitation programme in partnership with the United Nations children's agency, UNICEF (£0.5 million); the restoration of agricultural based livelihoods, focusing on the rehabilitation of wells and procurement of pumps, livestock restocking and the replacement of agricultural tools in a joint United Nations Development Programme—Food and Agricultural Organisation partnership (£0.25 million) and also through the non-governmental organisation Action Contre La Faim (£0.3 million); and further support to the International Federation of the Red Cross's appeal (£0.45 million), including the re-stocking of relief items, continued provision of emergency medical services and capacity building of the Iranian Red Crescent Society.

  The UK's overall support since the earthquake is £2.95 million, including the UK share of European Community commitments. The European Commission is expected to shortly announce a package of support to the rehabilitation effort. The UK share of this additional commitment would increase our overall support to around £3.7 million.

  Iraq
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 21 January 2004,Official Report, column 1297W, on Iraq, if he will break down the expenditure by (a) secondment, (b) consultant and (c) security measure. [153133]

  Hilary Benn
  The breakdowns are as follows:

  £

  (a) CPA Director of Infrastructure and support staff

  150,000

  Deployments to the region by DFID's Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Dept (CHAD)

  1,287,000

  Secondments to UN

  536,000

  DFID staff secondments to Iraq

  80,000

  Total

  2,053,000

  (b) DFID consultants (on-going programme)

  1,360,000

  Consultants for Essential Services in Southern Iraq

  46,000

  Recovery and Infrastructure Group

  2,500,000

  Governorate Offices

  1,895,000

  Emergency Infrastructure Programme

  500,000

  Total

  6,301,000

  (c) Close protection services to CPA(S)

  4,384,000

  Close protection/security equipment for consultancy teams

  1,614,000

  Security equipment (incl. Armoured Vehicles)

  5,445,000

  Total

  11,443,000

  Nigeria
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid his Department will give Nigeria in(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [152850]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's development assistance to Nigeria for 2003–04 is £35 million and for 2004–05 will be £43 million. In addition, I recently announced an extra £15 million for Nigeria's programme of civil service reform.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service Jobs (Relocation)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Civil Service jobs have been relocated to Dumfries and Galloway since 1997. [145680]

  Mr. Alexander
  The information is not available in the form requested. Data are available on the number of Civil Service jobs in Scotland as a whole, although it is not possible to separate changes resulting from the relocation of existing work from changes due to new work arising and old jobs disappearing.

  Detailed civil service Statistics for UK Departments are available at www.civil-service.for.uk/statistics.

  I understand that the Scottish Executive is committed to the dispersal of public sector jobs and that as a result of this policy around 1,250 posts have been and plan to be located out with Edinburgh and that further 1,950 are covered by planned location reviews.

  Government Vehicles
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of official Government vehicles are fitted to run on liquid petroleum gas. [151292]

  Mr. Alexander
  The responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government and Car Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive Mr. Nick Matheson to write to the hon. Member. Copies of his letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what audit mechanisms are in place to determine whether information technology(a) hardware and (b) software products are being used properly in his Department. [150929]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office and its agencies (the Central Office of Information and the Government Car and Despatch Agency), use formal processes and procedures to ensure that all official IT hardware and software is used properly.

  The Department maintains asset registers and service statistics, and undertake regular checks on these using both electronic and manual methods. We have controls in place to guarantee that approved software and hardware products only are used on official systems, and that they are sourced and supported through approved channels. The Department also use systems to manage and monitor access to Internet services, to secure the effective day-to-day operation of IT, and for other lawful purposes.

  The Cabinet Office Management Code informs staff on the rules and guidelines covering the use of electronic communications facilities, and highlights the consequences of non-compliance.

  Procurement (Outsourcing)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether the Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries the Department has outsourced these jobs; how much the Department has spent on outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147577]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office's procurement policy is based on value for money with due regard to propriety and regularity, including the EU Treaty and the UK's international obligations.

  The Department does not have a specific procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing. The Cabinet Office has outsourced a number of IT contracts over the last two years and I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 6 October 2003, Official Report, column 998–99 for a list of all such contracts signed by my department since 1997. All of these were to companies based in the UK. To establish the sub-contracting arrangements of these companies would incur disproportionate costs.

  Public Services Audit
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to his answer of 26 January 2004,Official Report, column 72W, on public services audit, for what reasons the contents of the Cabinet Office paper were revealed to Rosemary Bennett of The Times newspaper. [152453]

  Mr. Alexander
  There was no authorised official briefing to Rosemary Bennett of The Times newspaper.

  It is not Government policy to comment on reports in the media that are not from authorised briefing.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in (i) his Department and (ii) departmental agencies in the last 12 months. [147985]

  Mr. Alexander
  The number of security passes lost or stolen between January and December 2003 are:

  Lost

  Stolen

  Cabinet Office

  49

  7

  Cabinet Office Agencies

  12

  3

  My Department assesses all cases of lost and stolen passes to determine any increased vulnerability to security. Additional controls and procedures are introduced as necessary.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in his Department in the last 12 months. [150429]
  1049W
  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) today.

WALES

  Easements
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce legislation to create an exemption from easements for private home owners who require vehicular access across common land to access their homes. [152346]

  Mr. Hain
  Under section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, a home owner can acquire a right of way over common land to gain access to their home. The section is to be brought into force by the National Assembly for Wales in early February. The Government have no plans to introduce further legislation on this subject.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Learning to Listen Initiative
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost of marketing his Department's Learning to Listen to Young People initiative will be. [153085]

  Yvette Cooper
  Marketing of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Learning to Listen competition cost £2,333.75. This was for the production and printing of the leaflet. This has been the only marketing activity to date and there are no existing plans for other further marketing activities that would have a cost implication.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost of his Department's Learning to Listen to Young People initiative will be; and if he will make a statement. [153086]

  Yvette Cooper
  The costs are as follows:

  £

  Salaries from March 2003–April 2004

  34,969.02

  Competition leaflet production

  2,333.75

  Competition winners event and exhibition

  16,000

  Total

  43,302.77

  1 Predicted expenditure.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many officials in his Department have been assigned to work on the Learning to Listen to Young People initiative. [153087]

  Yvette Cooper
  There is one lead official (currently a secondee from the Voluntary sector) assigned to work on the Learning to Listen action plan full-time. Other officials across the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister contribute through a departmental steering group that meets quarterly.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how his Department will take account of the views expressed by young people through the Learning to Listen to Young People initiative. [153088]
  1050W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Learning to Listen initiative aims to involve children and young people in shaping the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's policy design and delivery. As such this is an on-going activity and all policy areas are examining how they can engage with children and young people more effectively as their stakeholders.

  In November 2003 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister launched a competition for young people to suggest the most appropriate way for them to become actively involved in the work of the Department. The winner and short listed youth groups will be invited to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to explore their ideas further with relevant policy leads. There will also be an in-house exhibition of the competition entries.

  All of the views expressed by the young people in the competition will be forwarded onto the relevant Office of the Deputy Prime Minister policy areas. The young people will be provided with feedback on any changes that occur as a result of their suggestions.

  Light Pollution
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on the control of light pollution. [152983]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's policy on planning control and light pollution has long been that such issues are most appropriately dealt with by: raising awareness by those who buy and procure external lighting of the consequences of badly installed lighting; providing guidance on how those problems might be mitigated; and encouraging more effective use of existing planning powers.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also intends to provide an annex to Planning Policy Statement 23, Planning and Pollution Control, specifically on light pollution. This will send a clear signal to local planning authorities that they should take the issue of light pollution as seriously as they do other types of pollution when considering planning applications.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will reduce the safety limit of 58 V/m for mobile phone and Tetra masts to the European limit of 0.002 V/m to 6 V/m; [152298]

  (2) if he will amend safety limits on mobile phone masts to cover non-thermal influences; [152299]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the latest evidence on the possible risks to health of mobile phone masts; and if he will take steps to bring UK safety measures into line with best practice in other European countries. [152305]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government, along with other European Union member states, have adopted the exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) as expressed in the 1999 European Council Recommendation 519/EC/ 1999. All mobile phone base stations and handsets should comply with these guidelines.
  1051W
  The Stewart Report on "Mobile Phones and Health" in May 2000 (www.iegmp.org.uk) included the following conclusions on base stations:
  "the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines."

  Further reduction of guidelines was considered by the Stewart Group but this was rejected, as there was "no scientific basis" for it.

  A review of recent research, entitled, "Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", published in January 2004 by the National Radiological Protection Board's (NRPB) Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation, came to similar conclusions:
  "Exposure levels from living near to mobile phone base stations are extremely low, and the overall evidence indicates that they are unlikely to pose a risk to health."

  In the last three years the Radiocommunications Agency (RA), now part of Ofcom, has carried out and published radio frequency exposure level measurements near base station sites. The data show that exposure to signals from masts at locations accessible to the general public is very low compared with guideline levels advised by the ICNIRP (www.ofcom.org.uk).

  The NRPB has the statutory responsibility for advising the Government on exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMFs). They issued a consultation document last year, in which they proposed new advice on exposure guidelines for all EMFs comparable with the international guidelines. Publication of the new NRPB guidelines is expected this spring.

  I wrote to all right hon. and hon. Members on 21 January with a summary of the current position relating to mobile phone technology and health concerns.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his policy on tackling age discrimination in Northern Ireland. [152592]

  Mr. Spellar
  Consultation on proposals for legislation which will tackle age discrimination in employment and training in line with the requirements of the E U Employment Framework Directive ended on 23 January 2004.

  Draft regulations will be developed in the light of responses to this consultation and further consultation on these regulations will then take place. The legislation will come into force in late 2006 to comply with the Directive. Guidance will be developed and published when the regulations have been made giving employers time to complete preparations for their new obligations, and it will allow individuals to familiarise themselves with their new rights.
  1052W
  Policy development is continuing within the context of the single Equality Bill, on extending protection for the age ground to the provision of goods, facilities and services. A consultation on the single Equality Bill is planned for this year.

  Children's Commissioner
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the work of the Children's Commissioner in Northern Ireland. [152590]

  Mr. Spellar
  Mr. Nigel Williams was appointed as the first Commissioner for Children and Young People for Northern Ireland on 1 October 2003. His powers and duties, as an independent champion for children and young people, are set out in the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. This legislation establishes the primary aim of the commissioner which is to'safeguard and promote the rights and best interests of children and young people'.

  In the period since his appointment, the commissioner has met with children and young people throughout Northern Ireland to listen to their concerns. He has also engaged with political representatives, and statutory, voluntary and community organisations dealing with children and young people's issues.

  He has already established a unique identity and branding with a dedicated interactive website, www. niccy.org, and has begun the process of recruiting his staff team, with the involvement of young people. He has also commissioned a base-line study into how Northern Ireland is implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  Drugs Treatment
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to increase the number of specialist beds in the Province for the treatment of patients with drug addictions; and if he will make a statement. [152365]

  Angela Smith
  There are no plans at present to expand the number of specialist beds for the treatment of patients with drug addictions. However, the services for problem drug users, including the provision of specialist beds, will continue to be assessed. An independent review of mental health and learning disability policy, services and legislation has been established and part of its remit involves looking at the services available to problem drug users.

  Education and Library Board Transition Plan
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what opportunity is available to parents of young people with moderate learning disabilities to comment on the Education and Library Board Transition Plan. [152234]

  Jane Kennedy
  In accordance with the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs, an Education and Library Board is required to produce a Transition Plan at the first (and subsequent) Annual Review of the statement of Special Educational Needs following the young person's
  1053Wth birthday. The Transition Plan draws together information from a variety of sources, including the young person, his/her parents, the school and any other professionals involved with the young person.

  Parents of young people with Special Educational Needs (SEN) are routinely invited to transition planning meetings in schools to discuss key issues relating to the young person's SEN. Parents are invited to comment during the meeting and to contribute actively to the transition planning process.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how(a) parents and (b) others may appeal the provisions contained in the Education and Library Board Transition Plan. [152235]

  Jane Kennedy
  Transition Plans are reviewed and updated on an annual basis following the young person's statutory Annual Review of a Statement of Special Educational Needs. When Transition Plans are written there is every opportunity for parents, the young person and others to have their opinion noted and the Education and Library Board will endeavour to resolve any difficulties identified. Within existing legislation there is no provision for a formal appeal specifically of the Transition Plan. If, however, as a result of the Annual Review, the Education and Library Board amends the educational provision contained in the Statement of Special Educational Needs, the parent has the normal right of appeal to the SEN Tribunal, if he/she is in disagreement with the provision.

  Fair Employment Legislation
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what employees are exempt from fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland; and for what reason they are exempt. [152586]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 as amended by the Fair Employment and Treatment Order (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 provides for the following exemptions in respect of employees:

  (i) any employment or occupation as a clergyman or minister of a religious denomination;

  (ii) any employment or occupation where the essential nature of the job requires it to be done by a person holding, or not holding a particular religious belief or political opinion.

  The legislation recognises that there are particular jobs where it may be necessary for a person carrying out that work to be of a particular religious belief or political opinion.

  Government Solicitors
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether solicitors have been retained to draft legislation in respect of the Single Equality Bill. [152215]

  Mr. Spellar
  No. Assembly Bills introduced by the Northern Ireland Executive during devolution and Orders in Council made under the Northern Ireland Act 2000 while the Assembly is suspended are drafted by the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. A panel of experts,1054W
  who are legal and academic specialists, was set up in February 2003 to provide advice to assist in the policy development process.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the longest period is that an individual has been waiting for(a) in-patient admission and (b) initial out-patient assessment in orthopaedic surgery. [152366]

  Angela Smith
  Information from health trusts in Northern Ireland indicates that, at the end of December 2003, the longest time an individual has been waiting for in-patient admission to the trauma and orthopaedics specialty is 2,808 days, and the longest time for an initial out-patient appointment is 3,485 days.

  It should be noted, however, that over 80 per cent. of in-patients for trauma and orthopaedics and 90 per cent. of out-patients are seen in less than 12 months.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the terms of reference are of the working group chaired by the Department of Education to consider future provision for the needs of young people with moderate learning difficulties; and if he will place a copy of them in the Library. [152141]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education does not chair a group to consider future provision for the needs of young people specifically with moderate learning difficulties. It does, however, chair an Inter Departmental Working Group (IDG) that is looking at the Transition of young people with statements of special educational needs to adult life.

  The remit of the IDG is:
  To consider gaps in the process of transition from school (mainstream and special) for children with Statements of Special Educational Needs;
  To address these gaps by considering needs and best practice in the area; and
  To formulate proposals for additional resources in relation to the transitions planning process through to post-school provision in employment, further education and training and day care.

  A copy of the above has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which Northern Ireland Departments are represented on the working group chaired by the Department of Education to consider provision for the future needs of young people with moderate learning difficulties; how many times the working group has met; and from whom the group has taken evidence. [152142]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education does not chair a group to consider future provision for the needs of young people specifically with moderate learning difficulties. It does, however, chair an inter-departmental working group (IDG) that is looking at the transition of young people with statements of special educational needs to adult life.
  1055W
  The IDG on transitions consists of representatives from the Departments of Education, Employment and Learning, and Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and at one meeting representatives from the Social Security Agency were co-opted for advice. The IDG has met on seven occasions and has taken advice from a range of interests including the Education and Library Boards, the Education and Training Inspectorate, a number of schools and parents groups, a community Health and Social Services Trust, the Carers Forum, a cross section of voluntary groups and an MLA with a special interest in the transitions process.

  Post-primary Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of how the proposed new Northern Ireland post-primary education system will affect current schooling arrangements under the Craigavon-Dixon scheme. [152124]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government's decisions are not imposing a 'one size fits all' system. All existing school types, including Dickson plan schools, have a place in the new arrangements, provided they meet the requirements of the Entitlement Framework. Academic selection will end and new transfer arrangements will be based on informed pupil and parental choice.

  Rates Relief
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people are eligible to receive rates relief, broken down by parliamentary constituency; [152093]

  (2) how many pensioners (a) applied for rates relief and (b) were successful in their application in each of the last five years, broken down by parliamentary constituency. [152094]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Rate Collection Agency to write to the hon. Gentleman in response to this question. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on recruitment advertisements in the press, broken down by publication, by(a) his Department, (b) quangos under the Department and (c) non-departmental Government bodies under the Department (i) in the last year and (ii) since 1997. [145806]

  Mr. Pearson
  Expenditure by the Recruitment Service on advertising in relation to appointments to the Northern Ireland civil service is as follows:2003: £0.5 million
  1998–2002: £1.8 million

  The Recruitment Service uses the most appropriate publication for recruitment advertising (normally the regional press), depending on the nature of the vacancy to be filled.

  Other information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Disability Discrimination Bill
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) on what basis(a) HIV, (b) cancer and (c) multiple sclerosis were included in the draft Disability Discrimination Bill's definitions of disability; and if he will make a statement; [152568]

  (2) on what basis (a) restricted growth conditions, (b) mental ill health and (c) high functioning autism were excluded from the draft Disability Discrimination Bill's definitions of disability; and if he will make a statement. [152569]

  Maria Eagle
  Anyone with a restricted growth condition, mental ill health or high functioning autism who meets the current definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is treated as a disabled person for the purposes of the Act and is entitled to protection against disability discrimination. A disabled person is defined in section 1 of the Act as a person who has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

  In the particular case of people with progressive conditions (such as HIV, cancer or multiple sclerosis), the current definition treats them as disabled if their impairment has some effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, even if not substantial, provided that it is eventually likely to have that effect.

  We propose through the definition of disability clause in the draft Disability Discrimination Bill to extend the current definition of disability in the Act for the progressive conditions of HIV infection, cancer and multiple sclerosis to anyone who has that condition whether or not it has an effect on normal day-to-day activities; although there is a power which could be used to exclude cancers which do not require substantial treatment. The provisions relating to HIV infection and cancer follow recommendations by the Disability Rights Task Force. The extension for multiple sclerosis followed consideration of case law. No conditions already covered by the 1995 Act would be excluded by means of the draft Disability Discrimination Bill.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of attendance allowance claimants in England who would no longer qualify for this benefit if they were being given free personal care; and what estimate he has made of the consequent saving to his Department. [152835]

  Maria Eagle
  Data from which such estimates could be derived are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefit Fraud
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were successfully prosecuted in Scotland for(a) housing benefit, (b) income support, (c) council tax benefit and (d) jobseeker's allowance fraud in each of the last five years. [147829]
  1057W
  Mr. Pond
  The available information is in the table:

  Number of successful benefit fraud prosecutions in Scotland

  1DSS/DWP Agencies

  2Local authority

  1998–99

  598

  NA

  1999–2000

  494

  NA

  2000–01

  510

  NA

  2001–02

  503

  23

  2002–03

  486

  73

  1 Fraud Information by Sector system

  2 Local authority subsidy returns

  Note:

  1. The DSS/DWP figures refer to prosecutions undertaken specifically by the Counter Fraud Investigation Services in Scotland. These figures cannot be broken down separately into individual benefits and include successful prosecutions for all benefits paid by the Department, including Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance. Figures relating to prosecutions carried out in Scotland by the National Investigation Service can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  2. The local authority figures are for successful prosecutions carried out by local authorities in Scotland in respect of Housing Benefit fraud and Council Tax Benefit fraud.

  3. Information on the number of people successfully prosecuted by local authorities in Scotland is available only as a total figure for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit and can not be provided separately.

  4. For figures prior to 1999–2000, the Fraud Information by Sector database shows completed cases commenced in the relevant period. Due to the elapsed time between commencement of an investigation and completion of a prosecution there are cases which are inserted into previously completed data for earlier periods. All totals are therefore correct at the time when quoted but subject to adjustment at a later date.

  5. Reliable information for local authority prosecutions in Scotland is not available for 1998–99 to 2000–01.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many whole time equivalent staff were employed by his Department on anti-benefit fraud programmes in each of the last six years; what the operational costs were in each of those years; how much additional benefit was recovered in each case; and what the unit cost ratio of cost to benefit was in each case. [151016]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available.

  The overall aim of the Department's anti-fraud strategy is to have a benefit system which is secure from first claim to final payment. The implementation of this strategy means that an anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of all staff in the Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments. It is therefore not possible to account for the cost of anti-fraud work separately.

  The information currently available shows that around 5,000 staff are employed nationally at any one time by the Department and its agencies in work to investigate suspicions of fraud.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many calls have been received by the National Benefit Fraud Hotline in each of the last six years; and how many(a) investigations, (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions have resulted. [151018]

  Mr. Pond
  The available information is in the table.
  1058W

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline

  Number of calls received

  Investigations

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  April 1997–March 1998

  188,038

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  April 1998–March 1999

  170,032

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  April 1999–March 2000

  162,067

  31,686

  376

  335

  April 2000–March 2001

  208,201

  35,637

  542

  492

  April 2001–March 2002

  205,999

  40,447

  768

  703

  April 2002–March 2003

  159,290

  33,700

  780

  706

  Notes:

  Full information on the number of successful investigations, prosecutions and convictions resulting from calls to the National Benefit Fraud Hotline is available only from April 1999.

  Source:

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline and Fraud Information by Sector system

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff have been employed to investigate internal fraud within his Department in each of the last six years. [151021]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department for Work and Pensions was created following a machinery of Government change in June 2001 by a merger of Department of Social Security and parts of the Department for Education and Employment and the Employment Service. Staff numbers involved in internal fraud investigations prior to June 2001 is now no longer available.

  Between July 2001 and March 2003, internal fraud investigations were undertaken by regionally based staff. In some instances these were dedicated staff, in others there was a panel of investigators called upon as and when required. The information on the number of staff involved in investigations during this period is not now available.

  From the 1 April 2003 it was decided that all internal fraud investigations would be undertaken by an independent team managed by the Director of Internal Assurance. Currently there are 66 full-time investigators and support staff undertaking this work.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions the additional powers to obtain information from specified private and public sector organisations to tackle benefit fraud and error introduced by the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 have been used in each year since the powers took effect; and if he will list the organisations which(a) were asked to provide information and (b) supplied information. [151022]

  Mr. Pond
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints per thousand disability living allowance examinations were received by each disability benefit centre in the last 12 months, listed in descending order. [152792]
  1059W
  Maria Eagle
  All complaints relating to disability living allowance medical examinations are recorded and investigated by Medical Services. The numbers of complaints Medical Services received per thousand DLA/AA examinations for the period December 2002 to November 2003, carried out for the disability benefit centres listed, are set out in the table.

  Location

  Number of examinations1

  Number of complaints

  Complaints per thousand

  Leeds

  26,904

  244

  9.1

  Birmingham

  30,770

  274

  8.9

  Manchester

  17,478

  148

  8.5

  Newcastle

  13.657

  106

  7.8

  Sutton

  17,209

  134

  7.8

  Bootle

  16,384

  125

  7.6

  Bristol

  12,442

  88

  7.1

  Glasgow

  13,969

  96

  6.9

  Wembley

  29,532

  144

  4.9

  Edinburgh

  11,366

  49

  4.3

  Cardiff

  15,302

  65

  4.2

  1 The numbers of examinations include examinations carried out for both DLA and AA. Figures are not available which differentiate between the two benefits

  Source:

  Medical Services report to Medical Procurement and Contracting Team

  Incapacity Benefit Appeals
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in how many incapacity benefit appeal cases processed by the social security office in Dundee in the last year it has taken more than three weeks to obtain a full statement of reasons from the Appeals Service, Glasgow: and what percentage of the total cases dealt with in that period this represents. [148748]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Christina Townsend, Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. She will reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Christina Townsend to Annabelle Ewing, dated 5 February 2004:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking in how many incapacity benefit appeal cases processed by the social security office in Dundee in the last year has it taken more than 3 weeks to obtain a full statement of reasons from the Appeals Service, Glasgow; and what percentage of the total cases dealt within that period this represents
  The information is not available in the requested format. However in respect of the period 1 December 2002 to 30 November 2003, out of a total of 955 statement of reasons issued by the Appeals Service office in Glasgow in respect of Incapacity Benefit appeals, 740 were issued after 15 working days, which is 77.5 per cent. of the total. In respect of the Dundee tribunal venue out of a total of 72 statement of reasons issued over the same period, 51 were issued after 15 working days, which is 71 per cent. of the total.
  I hope this reply is helpful.
  1060W

  Statements for incapacity benefit appeals at Dundee (1 December 2002 to 30 November 2003)

  Less than 15 days

  Between 15 and 20 days

  Between 20 and 25 days

  Between 25 and 30 days

  Greater than 30 days

  Total

  Dundee

  21

  12

  11

  5

  23

  72

  Glasgow

  215

  101

  87

  97

  455

  955

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many carers aged 65 years and over are receiving invalid care allowance. [152758]

  Maria Eagle
  As at 31 August 2003, an estimated 8,000 carers aged 65 and over were receiving Carer's Allowance, and over 33,000 carers aged 65 and over had a carer premium included in their Income Support.

  Note:

  Figures based on a 5 per cent. sample of IAD Information Centre data rounded to nearest 1,000.

  Pension Credit
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of pensioners in each London borough are(a) entitled to the pension credit and (b) claiming the pension credit. [153089]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of people who are eligible for Pension Credit is not available in respect of individual local authority areas. However, we estimate that approximately 500,000 pensioners in the London region (rounded to the nearest 50,000) are eligible for Pension Credit, which represents approximately 41 per cent. of the number of people in London aged 60 or over. Information on numbers of Pension Credit recipients in the London boroughs is given in the table.

  Recipients of Pension Credit (individuals) by London borough, 31 December 2003

  Number of Pension Credit recipients (individual)

  Percentage of population aged 60 and over

  London Government Office Region

  278,820

  24

  City of London

  150

  11

  Barking and Dagenham

  7,605

  26

  Barnet

  10,605

  18

  Bexley

  6,400

  14

  Brent

  11,710

  28

  Bromley

  8,135

  13

  Camden

  8,685

  31

  Croydon

  10,630

  19

  Ealing

  11,280

  24

  Enfield

  11,700

  24

  Greenwich

  8,880

  25

  Hackney

  11,230

  44

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5,915

  25

  Haringey

  10,095

  35

  Harrow

  7,815

  20

  Havering

  7,900

  16

  Hillingdon

  7,160

  16

  Hounslow

  7,690

  24

  Islington

  9,105

  39

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,235

  19

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,620

  14

  Lambeth

  10,340

  32

  Lewisham

  9,700

  27

  Merton

  5,505

  17

  Newham

  12,795

  44

  1061W

  Recipients of Pension Credit (individuals) by London borough, 31 December 2003

  Number of Pension Credit recipients (individual)

  Percentage of population aged 60 and over

  Redbridge

  9,000

  21

  Richmond upon Thames

  3,925

  13

  Southwark

  10,570

  32

  Sutton

  5,235

  16

  Tower Hamlets

  13,310

  55

  Waltham Forest

  9,705

  29

  Wandsworth

  9,385

  27

  Westminster

  7,805

  27

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  2. Percentages have been calculated using the ONS population estimates for mid-2002.

  3. Figures for recipients include a small number of partners underage 60.

  Privatised File Stores
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how he will ensure(a) that privatised filestores in the South East Region remain open and (b) that the files remain secure. [151528]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department expects to announce soon the outcome of the competition to manage the Departments storage and retrieval services.

  Future delivery will involve operating from a single site. Modern recording and transmission systems will ensure that documents are available to local offices in South East Region and elsewhere, within 24 hours where necessary as now, to meet operational requirements.

  The contract for record storage and retrieval will place, as it does now, specific requirements on suppliers regarding security of records. All bidding organisations have experience of operating security procedures and have offered assurances as to how this important aspect of the service will be managed.

HEALTH

  Alcohol Advertising
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research(a) his Department and (b) the Food Standards Agency has commissioned into the relationship between alcohol consumption and alcohol advertising. [152811]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The most recent review of the research on alcohol consumption and advertising was undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's strategy unit as part of its work on developing the Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England. Its Interim Analytical Report, published on 19 September 2003, indicated that the evidence on the relationship between alcohol advertising and alcohol consumption was complex—certain studies suggested that there was a link between advertising and consumption, while other studies suggested that there was no such link.

  Avian Influenza
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances avian influenza in poultry can be contracted by humans; what strains of avian influenza can be contracted by humans; and if he will make a statement. [151961]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]: Avian flu infection occurs rarely in humans and is usually caught through direct contact with infected chickens or contaminated objects, via the respiratory route or hand/face contact.

  Since 1996, the H7N7, H5N1 and H9N2 avian strains have been found in humans.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work is being undertaken to develop a vaccine for the protection of susceptible persons from infection by the avian influenza virus. [152176]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Prototype viruses for vaccine production are being prepared by laboratories in the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Influenza Network. Once these prototype viruses are available they will be supplied to manufacturers as the "seed stock" for vaccine production.

  The United Kingdom is an active participant in the WHO network through the Health Protection Agency National Influenza Reference Laboratory, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control and the WHO Influenza Collaborating Laboratory at the National Institute of Medical Research.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards extending breast screening to all women aged 65 to 70 years by 2004. [151701]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The expansion of the national breast screening programme is progressing well. Implementing the expansion began in April 2001 and since then over 200,000 more women have been invited for breast screening.

  At the end of December 2003 nearly 40 per cent. of breast screening sites were providing breast screening for women aged 65 to 70, with all sites expected to have implemented the extension by December 2004. Once the extension is fully implemented an extra 400,000 women a year will be invited for breast screening.

  Breastfeeding
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the recommendation of the Committee on the Rights of the Child that the UK Government adopt the international code for marketing of breast-milk substitutes, what plans he has to introduce the remaining articles of(a) the 1990 Innocenti Declaration and (b) the international code into UK legislation; and what steps his Department is taking to promote and support breastfeeding in the first six months of infant life. [150820]
  1063W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations came into force on 1 March 1995. These regulations implemented EC Directive 91/321/EEC, which embraces the principles of the World Health Organisation code of marketing of breast milk substitutes 1981. We are aware of the differences in United Kingdom legislation compared with the international code.

  We are exploring with the Foods Standards Agency ways in which the UK regulations could be better aligned to the international code.

  The Government are fully committed to the promotion of breastfeeding and have a commitment in the NHS Plan for "increased support for breastfeeding" and recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of an infant's life. Further commitment to this goal is reflected in a target that has been set to increase breastfeeding initiation rates by two percentage points, focusing particularly on those from disadvantaged groups as part of the priorities and planning framework 2003–06. A resource pack will be launched in the spring of 2004 to support the national health service in meeting this target. This work will be further developed in the context of the children's national service framework we will be publishing this year. The Department supports National Breastfeeding Awareness Week, a public health campaign to promote the benefits of breastfeeding through the NHS.

  Contaminated Blood Products
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many haemophiliacs in the United Kingdom have been treated in each year since 1975 for(a) hepatitis C and (b) CJD acquired from contaminated blood products. [146985]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of haemophilia patients who have been treated for hepatitis C is not collated. There are no haemophilia patients who have been diagnosed with vCJD acquired from blood products.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many haemophiliacs died from blood product acquired infections in each year from 1975 to 1987. [146986]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the number of haemophilia patients who have died from Hepatitis C from blood products is not collected. Information from the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation show 212 patients with haemophilia have died from liver disease to January 2000.

  Viral inactivation of blood products and screening for HIV were first introduced in 1985. Information on the number of haemophilia patients who have died from HIV from blood products is not collected centrally. Figures provided by the Macfarlane Trust are only available from 1981, and are shown in the table.

  Number of patients

  1981

  1

  1982

  0

  1983

  1

  1984

  2

  1064W

  Number of patients

  1985

  13

  1986

  31

  1987

  40

  Total

  88

  In my response to a question from the hon. Member on Monday 5 January 2004, Official Report, column 191–92W, the number of haemophilia patients infected with HIV/AIDS from infected national health service blood products, registered with the Macfarlane Trust and who died pre-1988 was listed as 87. The Macfarlane Trust has recently advised that the correct figure is in fact 88.

  Coronary Angiograms
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many coronary angiograms were sanctioned by each primary care trust in England in each of the last three years; and how many of these were(a) second and (b) third interventions. [150729]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This data is not held centrally.

  Delayed Discharge
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the social service departments in England that incurred fines for delayed discharge patients from NHS hospitals in January; how many fines were imposed; and what the total amount was of fines(a) in each social services department and (b) for England. [151799]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Liability for delayed discharge charging came into effect on 5 January. Figures for legal liability for delayed discharges for individual councils are not held centrally. However 29 councils have indicated that they have no liability for charges during the three weeks of 5 January to 25 January. During these three weeks national health service trusts have reported approximately 13,000 chargeable days in England as a whole, with a charging liability of approximately £1.4 million.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the procedure for non-EU overseas dentists wanting to work in the UK to be able to so do; and what plans his Department has to make changes to this procedure. [151466]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Dentists who qualified in countries outside the European economic area must pass the General Dental Council's international qualifying examination (IQE) for admission to the dental register. The General Dental Council is independent of the Department of Health, but we are aware that the council is monitoring the results of the IQE and the experience of dentists who have sat the examination.

  Depression
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the financial cost of the treatment of depression to the NHS in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [152358]
  1065W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information relating to the financial cost of treating depression is not collected centrally and no estimate can be made. However, the Government are aware that depression represents a significant burden, not least to those affected and their families.

  Drug-related Deaths
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to which year the baseline level of 1,480 drug-related deaths refers in relation to the target of reducing the number of drug-related deaths. [152832]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The year to which the baseline level of 1,480 drug-related deaths refers in relation to the target of reducing the number of drug related deaths is 1999.

  Drugs/Alcohol (Children)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children between 11 and 15 years were admitted to hospital in 2003 owing to alcohol-related problems. [152556]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The table shows the number of admissions to national health service hospitals of children aged 11 to 15 with a primary diagnosis of alcohol-related illness during 2002–03.

  Primary diagnosis

  Total admission episodes

  Mental and behavioural disorders due to use of alcohol

  2,760

  Alcoholic liver disease

  0

  Toxic effect of alcohol

  562

  Total

  3,322

  Notes.

  1. A finished admission episode is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  2. The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  3. Figures have not (yet) been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health.

  Food Promotion
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what basis the(a) chair and (b) panel members were chosen for the event organised by the Food Standards Agency in relation to the promotion of foods to children; [152601]

  (2)what the cost was of the event held on 27 January by the Food Standards Agency in relation to the promotion of foods to children, identifying the (a) production, (b) planning and (c) staffing costs; what the purpose of this event was; what outcomes were achieved; and if he will make a statement; [152605]

  (3)how many people attended the event held by the Food Standards Agency on 27 January in relation to the promotion of foods to children; and how many hon.
  1066W
  Members attended; and what representations he received from hon. and right hon. Members on changing the date of the event in order to allow them to attend. [152621]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) event, "Defusing the Diet Time Bomb", on the promotion of food to children, was held on the evening of Tuesday 27 January at the QEII centre in Westminster.

  The event was part of a series of activities organised by the FSA to promote public debate on the issue of the promotion of food to children, following the publication of the research review commissioned from Professor Gerard Hastings of Strathclyde University in September 2003. In October 2003, the FSA published a paper setting out a range of possible policy options that might be considered as a result of the Hastings findings.

  The purpose of the event on 27 January was to provide members of the public with an opportunity to debate the issues publicly with each other and with stakeholders drawn from consumer organisations, the food and advertising industries, public health and children's organisations. A report of the event, along with views gathered at other stakeholder events, will be used to inform the FSA board decisions on what advice to offer to Ministers.

  The chair was chosen on the basis that he was independent and fair. The six main panellists were selected to provide a balance of views and a range of expertise and experience to reflect the range of issues under discussion.

  Over 450 people attended in person at the QEII centre. 439 viewed the debate online via the FSA 's web-site and an estimated 1,000 watched on digital television.

  One noble Member of another place attended. A number of apologies were received from hon. Members but no representations were made by any right hon. or hon. Members to change the date.

  The total cost of the event was £147,000, of which £143,500 was allocated to production and a further £3,500 for planning and preparation. Staffing at the event was provided by FSA staff.

  GM and Animal Insulins
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2004,Official Report, columns 708–09W, what assessment he has made of the difference in costs between GM and animal insulins. [152391]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The cost of animal and genetically modified (GM) insulins varies between different manufacturers and presentations. The national health service list price of animal insulins is between £0.66/ml and £1.85/ml, and GM insulins, between £1.05/ml and £2.60/ml. Although the prices of individual insulins vary, the overall cost of medicines to the NHS is controlled by the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme which limits the profits companies are allowed to make through their trade with the NHS.

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the individuals and organisations from which his Department, its executive agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible received a response to the consultation, Tackling health inequalities: Consultation on a plan for delivery. [149870]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]: A summary report of the responses received to the "Tackling Health Inequalities: Consultation on a Plan for Delivery" was published by the Department in June 2002. There were almost 600 written responses received and registered, and over 1,000 people attended regional conferences to consider the issues raised. A list of the registered names of individuals and organisations, together with a copy of the summary report has been placed in the Library.

  Health Services Review (Surrey/Sussex)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of the South East Surrey and North West Sussex Health Services Review (Bagnall Review) which began in February 2001. [147971]

  Department of Health information collections that include data by age-band only

  Collection

  Over 75 age-band

  Over 60 age-band

  Other information

  Smoking Cessation Services Return1

  No

  Yes

  Other bands up to 59, then 60 and over

  Attribution Dataset1

  Yes

  Yes

  5-year bands up to 80–84, then 85 and over

  Summary of Genito-urinary Medicine Services1

  No

  No

  45–64, then 65 and over

  1 Patient data

  Department of Health information collections that include data by individual ages:

  Data on patients

  Hospital Episode Statistics

  National Joint Registry (hip and knee joint replacements)

  Patient Care in the Community: Community Learning Disability Nursing

  Patient Care in the Community: Community Psychiatric Nursing

  Patient Care in the Community: District Nursing

  Summary of Chiropody Services

  Summary of Contraceptive Services

  Summary of Occupational Therapy Services

  Summary of Physiotherapy Services

  Summary of Speech and Language Therapy Services

  Adult Screening Programme: Breast Screening (Screening Unit)

  Adult Screening Programme: Breast Cancer (Health Authority)

  Adult Screening Programme: Cervical Cytology

  Immunisation Programmes: Health Authority Activity

  National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS)

  Pathology Laboratories: Cervical Cytology and Biopsies

  Mental Health Minimum Dataset (MHMDS)

  National Survey of Patient Experience

  Data on the NHS workforce

  Annual Census of General Medical Practitioners (GMPs)

  Salaried Doctors employed under the Salaried Doctors Scheme

  1068W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I understand that the Bagnall Review was commissioned in the year 2001 by the former East Surrey and West Sussex Health Authorities, and carried forward by the Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority (SHA) from 2002.

  As consistent with our policy on "Shifting the Balance of Power", ownership of all information relating to this matter now lies with the SHA and the hon. Member may wish to approach the Chair of the Board or the Chief Executive.

  Health Statistics
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS statistics are collected specifically by age groupings including the(a) over 75s and (b) over 60s. [151909]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 4 February 2004]: Where practicable, relevant and justified, statistical collections by the Department include information on the date of birth or age of patients or other statistical subjects. Some data collected may include analysis by age groups and these may cover partly or wholly the over 60 and over 75 age groups.

  The available information on collections that specifically collect by age-bands and those that collect individual age data is shown in the table.

  Annual Hospital and Community Health Services Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Annual Hospital and Community Health Services Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Non-principals returns (assistants, trainee registrars and other doctors working in GMP practices)

  Personal Medical Services (take-up of PMS status amongst GMPs)

  Nursing Campaign Return (nurses returning to work in the NHS).

  Hepatitis C
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the basis was upon which the calculation of compensation for those that contracted hepatitis C from NHS blood products was made. [151856]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The following independent resources were considered in order to determine the level of ex-gratia payments to be made by the Skipton Fund:

  The scheme of payments implemented by the Macfarlane Trust.

  The scheme of payments implemented by the Eileen Trust.

  The report of the Hepatitis C Working Party to the Haemophilia Society.

  The report of the Scottish Executive's Expert Group on Financial and Other Support chaired by Lord Ross.

  The payment structure was also influenced by the need to consider the issue of making such ex-gratia payments in the context of other demands on the health care budget.
  1069W
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recourse families of patients who died of the effects of hepatitis C contracted through NHS blood products will have to compensation. [151857]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The announcement of a payment scheme for every person who was alive on 29 August 2003, and whose hepatitis C infection is found to be attributable to national health service treatment with blood or blood products, was made on 23 January 2004. The Department has no plans to introduce a similar scheme or pay compensation to families of those who have died of the effects of such an infection.

  If negligence on behalf of the NHS or private suppliers is suspected, families of those who have died are entitled to pursue punitive damages through the courts.

  HIV/AIDS (Children)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence of(a) HIV positive and (b) Aids was among children aged from one year to 15 years in 2003. [152562]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In children aged one to 15 years, there were 81 confirmed HIV diagnoses in the United Kingdom in 2003, including 12 who presented with AIDS. These numbers will rise as late reports are incorporated.

  In total, 742 children aged one to 15 years with diagnosed HIV infection were known to be living in the UK in 2003.

  Source:

  National Study of H IV in Pregnancy and Childhood, Institute of Child Health, London and the Health Protection Agency.

  MRSA
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to reduce the number of cases of MRSA in hospitals. [151715]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 29 January 2004]: We already have standards to ensure there is a managed environment, which minimises the risk of infection to patients, staff and visitors. Hospital performance in infection control has shown an improvement over the last three years but intensified action is required and a new action plan has been produced. We are confident that implementation of "Winning Ways—Working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England", will reduce infection rates for all pathogenic bacteria, including methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

  Neurology Services (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in improving neurology services in(a) Portsmouth and (b) South East Hampshire in the last five years; and what plans he has for the services. [151994]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since April 2002, responsibility for commissioning neurology services in Portsmouth and East Hampshire rests with Portsmouth City Primary Care Trust (PCT). During this time, the PCT 1070W
  has been working closely with East Hampshire PCT, Fareham and Gosport PCT and Southampton University Hospitals National Health Service Trust to reduce waiting times for the service and will continue to actively work in partnership with the NHS trust to look at ways of further developing the service.

  The national service framework (NSF) for long term conditions will focus on improving the standard of neurology services across England. It will also address some of the generic issues that are important to people with non-neurological disabilities; such as access to rehabilitation services, provision of good quality information, support for carers and access to community equipment, assistive technology and wheelchairs. We have appointed an external reference group and working groups to make recommendations and consider areas and issues for proposed standards. We currently plan to publish the NSF in December 2004 for implementation from 2005.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of his powers will be transferred to elected regional assemblies where they are introduced; and which body holds each of those powers. [152101]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The White Paper, "Your Region Your Choice", set out the Government's plans for the powers and responsibilities of English regional assemblies.

  An assembly will:
  Have a duty to promote the health of the population of the region. This will include scrutinising the assembly's own policies and strategies;
  Support the development and implementation of a health improvement strategy for the region, working with the relevant regional director of public health:
  Appoint the regional director of public health as the assembly's health advisor.

  None of these will require a transfer of powers from the Secretary of State for Health or from any agencies accountable to him.

  Respite Care
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money his Department gave to projects that deal with respite care projects for terminally ill children in 2003. [151665]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Funding for projects providing respite care for terminally ill children is available from national health service primary care trusts. Information on the amount provided is not collected centrally.

  School Fruit
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 585W, on the School Fruit Scheme, how much the Government spent centrally on administering the National School Fruit Scheme in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03, excluding the cost of the fruit. [152750]
  1071W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 3 February 2004]: Payments by the Department to local operators in the 27 areas that piloted the National School Fruit Scheme in 2001–02 included an estimated £20,000 for administration.

  All costs in 2002–03, in these pilot areas and in the three whole regions that joined the scheme during the year, were met by bodies receiving grants from the lottery-funded New Opportunities Fund. These grants included 1.7 per cent. for administration; on the basis of which the estimated cost of administrating the scheme in 2002–03 was £170,000.

  Smoking
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in smoking policy reviews in Government buildings. [150814]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have not undertaken a formal review of smoking policies in all Government buildings. The Department has taken the lead from April 2003 in making our buildings smoke-free and we continue to encourage employers and managers of public places to introduce smoke-free policies.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of(a) how many and (b) what proportion of children aged between 11 and 15 years smoke. [152557]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is estimated that, in England in 2002, 10 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds smoked cigarettes regularly (at least one cigarette a week), around 324,000 young people aged 11 to 15.

  Statins
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of the new general medical services contract on the prescribing of statins in primary care for patients with high cholesterol levels. [152833]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The quality indicators for the new general medical services contract include cholesterol management for patients with coronary heart disease. This will reinforce general practitioners' current work to deliver the quality standards set out in the national service framework for coronary heart disease, which are driving the present increase in statin prescriptions, with an estimated saving of 6,700 lives per year and preventing many more people from having heart attacks.

  Universal Vaccination
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has assessed relating to the value of universal vaccination as a means of protecting the population against disease. [151313]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Vaccination has been one of the most effective interventions along with improvements in clean water supplies and nutrition in reducing infectious diseases throughout the world. The introduction of vaccines in the United Kingdom against a number of childhood diseases, including whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, haemophilus 1072W
  influenzae type B (Hib), and diphtheria has lead to significant reductions or elimination (in the case of smallpox) of these diseases.

  There are a number of good examples where the level of a disease has fallen following the introduction of an effective vaccine. Following the introduction of Hib in 1992, there was a 98 per cent. fall in the number of laboratory confirmed cases in children under five years of age. Similarly, the meningococcal C vaccine, introduced in November 1999, resulted in a reduction in the number of laboratory confirmed cases of meningococcal group C disease by around 95 per cent. in babies under 12 months of age. Oral polio vaccine has been extremely effective in eliminating poliomyelitis from the UK. Excellent progress towards worldwide eradication is being made, and the World Health Organisation hopes to have interrupted wild polio transmission by the end of 2005.

  Vegetables
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in respect of all vegetables their carbohydrate content; and which are regarded by his Department as having too much carbohydrate to qualify for inclusion as vegetables in a healthy diet. [145535]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Carbohydrate content of vegetables is given in McCance and Widdowson's 'The Composition. of Foods' (Sixth summary edition), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Government guidelines for a healthy diet, set out in the Food Standards Agency's 'Balance of Good Health' model, recommend eating plenty of fruit and vegetables and also plenty of foods rich in starch (carbohydrate) and fibre. Potatoes and yams, cassava and plantains are usually eaten as the main source of carbohydrate in a meal and, for the purposes of the 'Balance of Good Health', are grouped with other starchy foods in the `bread, other cereals and potatoes' section. Vegetables eaten in addition to the main starchy food are covered by the 'fruit and vegetables' section.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Civil Service (Disabled People)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will set out the number of employees in the Department who have a disability, broken down by disability type. [148985]

  Mr. Lammy
  The following table is as at 1 April 2003. 442 members of staff in the Department for Constitutional Affairs have declared a disability. This information is obtained through a confidential survey issued to all staff, and collected against the following categories, which are based on Cabinet Office guidance. My Department is a member of the Disability Working Group.

  Disability description

  Total

  Reduced physical capacity

  159

  Hearing impairment

  65

  Mobility impairment

  61

  Visual impairment

  33

  1073W

  Disability description

  Total

  Physical co-ordination difficulties

  28

  Learning disabilities

  19

  Mental illness

  8

  Speech impairment

  1—

  Reduced physical—with one or more other disabilities

  32

  Mobility—with one or more other disabilities

  20

  Hearing—with one or more other disabilities

  12

  Visual—with one or more other disabilities

  5

  Learning—with one or more other disabilities

  1—

  Physical co-ordination difficulties—with one or more other disabilities

  1—

  Disfigurement—with one or more other disabilities

  1—

  Mental illness—with one or more other disabilities

  1—

  Disability unknown

  1—

  1No declarations have been received.

  Committee Membership
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs who the members of the(a) Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace, (b) Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of

  Public Body

  Member

  1st Term

  2nd Term

  Civil Procedure Rule Committee Remuneration: Members of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee do not receive remuneration. However, under Civil

  Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (ex officio)

  1 October 2000–.

  Procedure Act 1997 Section 2(5), the Lord Chancellor may reimburse the members of the Committee with "travelling and other out-of-pocket expenses". Subject

  Sir Andrew Morritt (ex officio) Sir John Dyson

  17 July 2000–1 September 2003 (without term)

  to that, there is no payment made to members.

  His Honour Judge StephemOliver-

  25 September 2002–

  Jones QC

  31 August 2005

  District Judge Carlos Dabezies

  1 September 2001–

  31 August 2004

  Master Steven Whitaker

  25 September 2002–

  31 August 2005

  Michael Black QC

  15 February 2000–

  31 August 2004

  Philip Rainey

  1 September 2001–

  31 August 2004

  Richard Walford

  1 September 2003–

  31 August 2006

  Julie Herzog

  1 September 2001–

  31 August 2004

  Nicholas Burkill

  25 September 2002–

  31 August 2005

  Andrew Parker

  1 September 2003–

  31 August 2006

  Ahmad Butt

  1 September 2003–

  31 August 2006

  Peter Candon JP

  1 September 2003–

  31 August 2006

  Judicial Studies Board Remuneration: Susan Hewett

  Lord Justice Keene (Chairman)

  31 July 2003–30 July 2007

  and Sonia Shah-Kazemi each receive a fee of £150 for

  attending each meeting as they are not full time

  Lady Justice Smith DBE

  2 October 2000–

  members of the judiciary.

  1 October 2004

  Mrs Justice Hallett DBE

  1 October 1999–

  1 October 2002–

  30 September 2002

  30 September 2004

  Mrs Justice Cox

  31 July 2003–30 July 2007

  Mr Justice Crane

  1 October 2001–

  30 September 2005

  Mr Justice Sumner

  1 October 1999–

  1 October 2002–

  30 September 2002

  30 September 2004

  Mr Justice Sullivan

  1 October 1999–

  1 October 2002–

  30 September 2002

  30 September 2004

  Judge Richard Bond

  1 August 2001–24 June

  25 June 2002–24 June

  2002

  2004

  Judge Dick Pollard

  1 April 2000–31 March

  1 April 2002–31 March

  2002

  2004

  District Judge Jeremy Cochrane

  1 August 2001–

  28 February 2004

  District Judge (MC) Phillip Wassell

  1 October 2002–

  30 September 2006

  Godfrey Cole

  4 January 2004–3 January

  2006

  1074W
  Income Tax, (c) Civil Procedure Rule Committees, (d) Judicial Studies Board, (e) Council of Tribunals and (f) Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151815]

  Mr. Lammy
  The following table details the membership of:(c) Civil Procedure Rule Committee, (d) Judicial Studies Board, (e) Council of Tribunals and (f) Legal Services Consultative Panel (which replaced the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct on 1 January 2000).

  There are 86 Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace, each having between and eight and 16 members in total. They would each normally serve nine years in total and are not remunerated.

  There are 74 Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of income tax, each having between six and eight members in total. They would each normally serve nine years in total and are not remunerated.

  I will place a copy of the full list of names in both Libraries of the Houses when they are available.
  1075W

  Public Body

  Member

  1stTerm

  2ndTerm

  Susan Hewett JP OBE

  1 January 2003–

  31 December 2005

  Sonia Shah-Kazemi

  30 September 2003–

  29 September 2005

  Sir Hayden Phillips (ex officio member)

  Council on Tribunals The Chairman receives an annual retainer of £44,973 plus travel expenses. The Chairman of the Council's Scottish Committee receives an annual retainer of

  The right hon. The Lord Newten of Braintree PC QBE

  1 October 1999–30 September 2002

  1 October 2002–30 September 2007

  John Ellitot

  1 June 1998–31 May 2001

  1 June 2001–31 May 2004

  Carolyn Berkeley JP

  1 April 1999–31 March 2002

  1 April 2002–31 March 2005

  £22,486 plus travel expenses. Members receive an annual retainer off £10,945 plus travel expenses.

  Michael Brown JP

  1 May 1996–30 April 1999

  1 May 1999–30 April 2002 3rd term 1 May 2002–30 April 2003

  Elizabeth Cameron

  2 September 2002–

  1 September 2005

  Anne Galbraith

  1 September 1997–

  1 September 2000–

  31 August 2000

  31 August 2003

  Rosalind Hepplewhite

  1 September 2002–

  31 August 2006

  Susan Howdle

  1 April 1998–31 March

  1 April 2001–31 March

  2001

  2004

  Penny Letts

  1 September 2002–

  31 August 2006

  Stephen Mannion

  10 August 2001–9 August

  2004

  Bernard Quoroll

  1 May 2003–30 April

  2007

  Douglas Readings

  1 September 1997–

  1 September 2000–

  31 August 2000

  31 August 2003

  Professor Genevra Richardson

  1 February 2001–

  31 January 2004

  Sandy Russell CB

  1 January 2002–

  31 December 2004

  Paddy Waring

  1 November

  1 November 2000–

  1997–31 October 2000

  31 October 2003

  Heather Wilcox

  1 February 2003–

  31 January 2007

  Ann Abraham

  4 November 2002

  n/a

  Legal Services Consultative Panel.

  Lord Justice Potter (Chairman)

  1 January 2000–

  1 January 2002–

  31 December 2001

  31 December 2004

  Members are not renumerated

  Professor Hugh Brayne

  1 January 2002–

  31 December 2004

  Lady Elizabeth Finsberg

  1 January 2000–

  31 December 2005

  Karen McKay

  1 January 2002–

  31 December 2004

  Richard Moorhead

  1 January 2002

  31 December 2004

  John Randall

  20 March 2000–

  31 December 2005

  Simon Sapper

  1 January 2000–

  31 December 2005

  Alan Street

  1 January 2000–

  31 December 2005

  Peta-Sweet

  1 January 2000–

  31 December 2005

  Dr. Matthew Weait

  1 January 2002–

  31 December 2004

  Jonathan Acton Davis QC

  1 January 2004–

  31 December 2006

  Jonathan Goldsmith

  1 January 2004–

  31 December 2006

  John Hannam

  1 January 2004–

  31 December 2006

  David McIntosh

  1 January 2004–

  31 December 2006

  John Young CBE

  1 January 2004–

  31 December 2006

  John Randall

  1 January 2004–

  31 December 2006

  Crown Court (Exeter)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans the 1076W
  Department has for the future of the Crown Court in Exeter; what impact he estimates this will have on the workings of the Crown Court in Barnstaple; and if he will make a statement. [152776]
  1077W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Crown Court in Exeter is due to relocate to purpose built accommodation at the end of 2004. The new premises will provide additional courtroom capacity, which takes account of the projected workload for Exeter over the next 20 years.

  The impact of the new Exeter Court on the Crown Court in Barnstaple will not be considered until the new Exeter Courts are fully operational. If, at that stage, it is thought appropriate to make any changes to the current arrangements consultation with all interested parties will take place. There is therefore no immediate impact on the Crown Court in Barnstaple.

  Hutton Inquiry
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what selection procedure was followed for the appointment of Lord Hutton to oversee the Dr. Kelly inquiry. [152676]

  Mr. Leslie
  Where a Government decide that they wish to invite a senior judge to conduct an Inquiry, the Prime Minister invites the Lord Chancellor to recommend a suitable judge. This process was followed on this occasion, and, after consulting the senior judiciary, the Lord Chancellor proposed Lord Hutton and he accepted the appointment.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what measures he plans to reduce the age profile of magistrates benches, with specific reference to rural areas. [151776]

  Mr. Leslie
  The written ministerial statement made in this House on 6 November 2003,Official Report, columns 43–44WS, on the National Strategy for the Recruitment of Lay Magistrates announces the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor's decision to remove the lower age limit for applicants to the magistracy who can show that they have the key qualities needed for appointment. This is intended to help in achieving a more diverse and better-balanced bench. The National Strategy itself contains proposals

  Less than one week

  One to three weeks

  Four to six weeks

  Seven to 12 weeks

  13 to 20 weeks

  21 to 28 weeks

  Total employees

  1997

  633

  249

  38

  52

  45

  0

  1,017

  1998

  1,537

  717

  115

  154

  80

  0

  2,603

  1999

  2,868

  1,198

  170

  198

  122

  0

  4,556

  2000

  2,834

  1,284

  190

  205

  172

  0

  4,685

  2001

  2,746

  1,359

  222

  249

  185

  0

  4,761

  2002

  3,242

  1,507

  228

  298

  197

  0

  5,472

  2003

  2,402

  1,057

  139

  139

  52

  0

  3,789

  1078W
  to encourage younger people, including advertising in a range of media, local radio and cinemas. A bus advertising campaign began on 1 November 2003. As a direct result of this 2,283 inquiries have been received of which 1,224 (54 per cent.) were from those aged between 18–40. Advisory Committees in rural areas regularly review the make-up of their benches at the outset of their recruitment campaigns with the intention of attracting the right range of people, using their local knowledge and ideas developed through the National Strategy.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in (i) his Department and (ii) departmental agencies in the last 12 months. [147987]

  Mr. Leslie
  In the last 12 months, 113 security passes have been reported lost and 16 reported stolen by staff within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Additionally 294 security passes were reported lost and 13 were reported stolen within the departmental agencies.

  When a security pass is reported lost or stolen, appropriate steps are taken to reduce the risk of unauthorised access into any of the Department's buildings.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many people employed in his Department have claimed statutory sick pay for(a) less than one week, (b) one to three weeks, (c) four to six weeks, (d) seven to 12 weeks, (e) 13 to 20 weeks and (f) 21 to 28 weeks in each year since 1997. [148630]

  Mr. Lammy
  The following table provides the number of people in my Department who have claimed statutory sick pay for the periods defined in each year since 1997.

  My Department is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and to meeting the targets for reduced sickness absence as set out in the departmental plans.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report (Dundee City Council)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) follow-up inspection report on Dundee City Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The "Performance Standards for housing benefits" allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the Standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected Dundee City Council against the Performance Standards for housing benefits. The report finds that the council is not at Standard for any of the seven functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.

  However, there had been some improvement since the first inspection report, published in June 1999, and the council's overall level of performance for administering benefits and counter-fraud activities was fair.

  At the first inspection, BFI reported that Dundee City Council needed to develop a more effective and secure benefits administration system. The council lacked key safeguarding policies and procedures, and there were significant delays in processing benefit claims.

  The follow-up report finds that the council had responded positively to the first inspection introducing 39 (71 per cent.) of 55 major recommendations. However, arrears of work and insufficient staff resources had prevented sustained improvement. Evidence gathering to support benefit claims was generally thorough but the council was failing to adequately protect the gateway to benefits due to processing delays. Performance was significantly below the clearance times required by the Standards. Overpayments were occurring because notified changes of circumstances were not being dealt with promptly.
  44WS
  The report finds that policies for safeguarding benefits had been introduced and sanctions were used to punish and deter benefits fraudsters. Recovery of housing benefits overpayments had improved markedly since the first inspection.

  In 2002–03, Dundee City Council administered some£70 million in housing benefits, about 14 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

  Community Sentences and Benefits Pilots
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Mr. Chris Pond)
  The Department is today publishing a research report by the National Centre for Social Research that presents the findings of the evaluation of the policy to apply benefit sanctions to offenders found by the courts to have breached their community sentences. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The scheme has been piloted by Jobcentre Plus and the Probation Service in Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Teesside and the West Midlands since October 2001. The evaluation looked at the effects of the policy between 15 October 2001 and 14 October 2002. Overall it found a small, positive impact on compliance with community sentences, with an estimated 1.8 per cent. increase in compliance among those on relevant benefits.

  The Government gave a commitment not to extend the scheme nationally without considering carefully the findings of the evaluation. Although there has been a positive impact on compliance and over 1,490 offenders have been sanctioned since the pilots commenced, the report also identifies some problems in the administration of the scheme and the way it is explained to offenders.

  On this basis we have decided to continue the pilots for a further year along with improvements to the monitoring and management of the probation processes together with better and more frequent explanations of the scheme to offenders themselves. These two changes, identified in the report as shortcomings during the first phase of the pilots, will ensure that the Department is informed of breaches, and a sanction imposed on the offender in all relevant cases. This in turn will help offenders to relate the sanction more clearly to the behaviour which gave rise to their breach.

  The results of these operational improvements on the effectiveness of the scheme will be assessed before a decision is made on the long term future of the scheme.
  45WS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Union Council
  The Minister for Europe(Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union is as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Event

  February

  4

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  4

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  6

  Brussels

  COREPER1

  9

  Brussels

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  10

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  11

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  13

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  18

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  18

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  19

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs

  20

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  23–24

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  24

  Brussels

  EU Moldova Cooperation Council (Troika)

  24

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  25–26

  Porlaoise

  Meeting of Regional Policy Ministers

  25

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  26

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  26–27

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  26–27

  Brussels

  Meeting of Regional Policy Ministers

  26

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  27

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  March

  1–2

  Cork

  ASEM Finance Deputies' Meeting

  2

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  3

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  3

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  4–6

  Co. Clare

  Youth Ministerial Conference

  4–5

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  8

  Brussels

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  8–9

  Ankara

  EU Ministerial Troika with Turkey

  8–9

  Brusssels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  9

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  10

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  10

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  11

  Dublin

  EU/Russia Ministerial Meeting (Troika)

  12

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  17

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  18

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  18–19

  Dublin

  OECD Ministers Conference

  19

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  22

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  24

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  24

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  24–25

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  25–26

  Brussels

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  30

  Dublin

  EU/Ukraine Ministerial Meeting (Troika)

  30

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  31

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  April

  2

  Punchestown

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  2–3

  Punchestown

  ECOFIN

  46WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  7–8

  Co. Wicklow

  Ministerial Conference on

  Communicating Europe

  16–17

  Tullamore

  GYMNICH

  26–27

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  26–27

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  27

  Luxembourg

  EU/Russia Permanent Partnership Council (Troika?)

  29–30

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  29–30

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  May

  6–7

  Dublin

  EuroMed Foreign Ministers

  7

  Limerick

  Meeting of Ministers with responsibility for Equality

  9–11

  Killarney

  Agriculture Informal Ministerial Meeting

  10

  Brussels

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  11

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11–12

  Cork

  Health Ministers Consultative Meeting

  14–16

  Waterford

  Informal Meeting of EU Environment Ministers

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  19–20

  Offaly

  Informal Budget Committee

  21

  Moscow

  EU/Russia Summit (Troika)

  23–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  24–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  25–27

  Co. Gal way

  Conference on Islands and Territorial cohesion—Meeting New Challenges

  27–28

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  27–31

  Dublin

  Ministers and Directors General of Public Administration

  June

  1–2

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  1

  Dublin

  Development Ministers' Meeting

  1

  Luxembourg

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  2

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  8

  Luxembourg

  Justice & Home Affairs Council Meeting

  10–11

  Luxembourg

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  17–18

  Brussels

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  21–22

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  21–22

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  28–29

  Luxembourg

  Council Meeting of EU Environment Ministers

  July

  8

  tbc

  EU-Ukraine Summit

  12–14

  tbc

  Informal Ministerial Education Youth and Culture

  19

  tbc

  JHA Council

  FAC Response to 2003 FCO Annual Report
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Jack Straw)
  This week, I laid before Parliament Government White Paper Command 6107, "Twelfth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee Session 2002–03 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003 Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs".
  47WS
  The Committee draws a number of conclusions and makes various recommendations in its Report on a variety of issues including staff management, resources and the FCO's overseas estate. My response covers all these points.

  The FCO welcomes the Committee's recognition among other things of its staffs commitment, often in difficult circumstances; its Public Diplomacy efforts with the BBC World Service and British Council to improve perceptions of the UK in the Arab and Muslim worlds; the improved management of its locally-engaged staff overseas and its innovative and effective handling of rapidly increasing visa applications. The FCO will build on good practice in these areas and report on progress in future annual reports.

  The Command Paper addresses the Foreign Affairs Committee's concerns about the FCO's asset recycling programme. The programme permits the FCO to invest part of the funds gained from the sale of underperforming or unsuitable property in other projects such as ICT development. The Response provides details of how we identify potential property for sale, in line with the FCO's strategic priorities. It also explains that half such capital is reinvested into the FCO's estate and that this figure will rise to 80 per cent from I April this year. The Paper admits the difficulties involved in sustaining the programme over the long term, but also describes how it has allowed the FCO to develop important capital estate projects such as the UK's new Embassies in Berlin and Moscow.

  The paper takes issue with the Committee's observation that the FCO attempted to conceal losses associated with a cancelled ICT programme in its 2003 Annual Report and emphasises its commitment to reporting FCO activity, including costs incurred, as clearly as possible.

  In its report the Committee highlighted the increasing demands being placed on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from new challenges such as Iraq while operating within a finite resource climate. Its report recommended that the Government increase the resources allocated to the FCO to prevent erosion of its core activity. The FCO's response welcomes the Committee's recognition of the difficult resource climate in which the FCO currently has to operate. It describes how the new FCO Strategy (Government White Paper Command 6052, "UK International Priorities: A Strategy for the FCO") which I laid before Parliament on 2 December 2003 will be a major tool in prioritising our work in future and ensuring that resources are targeted to achieve the most important goals of the Government's international policies.

  We are now in the process of putting the FCO Strategy into practice. We have established a departmental change programme, derived from the Strategy, which sets out what we intend to do to focus our resources on priorities, become more flexible and responsive, improve the diversity of our people, skills and experience, and target our activity to meet the needs of our customers across Government and the UK public. As part of the Change Programme we are reviewing our organisation in London and abroad to ensure that it is aligned with our priorities and able to deliver the outcomes we seek.
  48WS
  The Foreign Affairs Committee outlines some concerns it has about the FCO's posts overseas. It recommends that the FCO open a new post in Kyrgyzstan, and suggests that where post closures are being considered, the Department should seek creative alternatives. The Response explains that, to meet its strategic priorities and ensure safe and secure working environments for its staff while working within resource limitations, the FCO is obliged to adapt and amend its pattern of overseas representation. The FCO has already introduced alternative methods of representation in some parts of West Africa and agrees with the Committee that such options are preferable to Post closure. The FCO's network of diplomatic posts will remain a vital means of delivering the Government's priorities and building UK influence abroad. We need to ensure that it is adequately resourced, secure and tasked to address our most important priorities.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Inland Fisheries Annual Reports
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland(Angela Smith)
  Copies of the Inland Fisheries Annual Reports of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure for 2000, 2001 and 2002 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  These documents provide details of the Department's activities to conserve, protect and develop salmon and inland fisheries under the provisions of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, as amended and include statistical information and income and expenditure details for those years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office Urban Reinvention Network
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services(Mr. Stephen Timms)
  The urban re-invention programme aims to create a smaller, more viable network of post office branches adequate in number and suitably located to ensure accessible delivery of service to customers. At the end of the programme, within the UK as a whole, 95 per cent. of the urban population will still live within a mile of the nearest Post Office branch. It is supported directly by Government funding. This programme is absolutely necessary. If the Post office does not adapt to changing customer demands it will spiral into terminal decline.

  During recent weeks Members of Parliament and Postwatch have become increasingly concerned about some aspects of the urban re-invention programme. In particular, the consultation arrangements have been criticised. There has been mounting evidence that in too many cases Post Office Limited has not handled them appropriately, or with sufficient sensitivity. Accordingly I asked Post Office Limited and Postwatch to review urgently the arrangements for the consultation currently employed and to propose changes to make them more inclusive and appropriate to achieve a viable network to serve the public after the programme is concluded.
  49WS
  They have responded to this challenge and I am pleased to announce the following changes applicable to the remainder of the programme which will take immediate effect.
  Post Office Limited will advise MPs and local authorities as soon as possible of the remaining timetable for commencing consultations on plans for their area.
  Local authorities will be invited to provide relevant information, in advance, on infrastructure and regeneration projects to assist Post Office Limited in the preparation of area plans.
  When preparing an area plan, Post Office Limited will achieve a balance between sub-postmasters volunteering to leave the network, those offices which are not viable and the need for relocations and new openings.
  Post Office Limited will advise MPs and members of the devolved administrations on a strictly confidential basis of proposals, including the overall rationale for the proposed area plan, one week before they are put out to public consultation.
  Public consultation will be on the proposal to close an individual office but Post Office Limited will also take account of, and respond to, views expressed about the proposed service provision in the area in reaching decisions on individual closures.
  Once final decisions have been made and announced, Post Office Limited will write to Postwatch, Members of Parliament and local authorities referring to the main points raised during the consultation and giving the reasons for its decision.
  Public consultation will normally last for six weeks but will in future be extended to take account of public holidays that occur during that period.
  In view of Post Office Limited's responsibility to notify its staff at directly-managed offices of any proposal to close the office before the proposal is put to public consultation, the advance notification of Postwatch, MPs and of the devolved administrations will be replaced by notification of the proposal the day before the proposal is made public and the public consultation period will be extended to eight weeks.
  If branches previously identified as expecting to receive additional custom following closure of nearby offices, are themselves subsequently proposed for closure, Post Office Limited will provide a detailed explanation of its reasoning in putting forward the proposal for consultation.
  Post Office Limited will establish a separate team dedicated to promoting and supervising the implementation of investment required to upgrade remaining offices to ensure the provision of adequate facilities for the additional custom provoked by the closure of nearby offices.
  50WS
  Criteria have been agreed to define the "exceptional circumstances" which may justify putting into public consultation a closure proposal for an office located within the 10 per cent. most deprived urban wards and with no other office within half a mile. The core criteria are: the branch proposed for closure being relatively small; having experienced a significant decline in business between March 2000 and March 2003 with a continuing trend which, if it has not already done so, will render the business non-viable; and having a dense network of surrounding offices with several accessible by reasonable transport links within half a mile to a mile. Other criteria which might also apply include: significant depopulation of the surrounding area or the geography of public service and retail provision has shifted; a clear majority of customers of the branch proposed for closure live within half a mile of alternative branches; and security issues which make it unlikely to be feasible to continue service.
  Finally Post Office Limited has confirmed that the documentation between itself and a sub-postmaster does not create any binding arrangement for closure until the public consultation has been completed. No contract binding on Post Office Limited is signed before the public consultation process has ended.

  The above new arrangements will be reviewed by Post Office Limited and Postwatch one month after commencement to ensure that the implementation is satisfactory.

  Post Office closures will inevitably continue to be contentious. However, these changes to procedure should ensure that there is confidence in the consultation process.

  Post Office Limited is committed to the successful implementation of the new arrangements and to working with Postwatch to ensure an effective consultation process designed to maximise the quality of judgment and transparency, and to produce a fair result for customers and the Company.

EDUCATION

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office(Jane Kennedy)
  I have published today the Accounts of the Youth Council for Northern Ireland for the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwell): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers
Lord Russell-Johnston Lord Russell-Johnston asked Her Majesty's Government:
On how many occasions since 1997 they have been represented by (a);a junior Minister, and (b) the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, at the bi-annual meetings of the Committee of Ministers, which oversees the Council of Europe.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United Kingdom has twice been represented at the Council of Europe's bi-annual Committee of Ministers' meetings by junior Ministers since 1997. My late noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, then Minister of State at the Home Office, attended the 104th session in Budapest in May 1999 and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General attended the 112th session in Strasbourg in May 2003. The United Kingdom has not been represented by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs during this period, but, of course, the Prime Minister attended the Council of Europe's second summit in Autumn 1997.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, had I asked the same Question of the Minister about EU meetings, I bet that she would have declared a full slate. Given that the Government, I hope, recognise the huge contribution that the Council of Europe, not least its Parliamentary Assembly, continues to make to the consolidation of democratic and social values in central Europe—in Ukraine, Russia and the Caucasus—why does Britain, along with France and Germany, take the lead in holding back necessary budgetary increases? Is it the political effect of the grandpayeur system? Perhaps that should be scrubbed and a common system introduced. Lastly, if Russia leaves the grand payeur system, can the Minister at least assure me that the shortfall will not be made up by a budgetary increase and that Britain will argue against such a course of action?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there were several questions there. The fact is that we and most of our EU partners do not send Ministers as a matter of routine to those meetings. We are usually represented by our extremely able Permanent Representative, Stephen Howarth. We do send Ministers when there are matters of particular interest that we wish to discuss. As the noble Lord knows, it is a very different organisation from the European Union.
794
Regarding budgets, we contribute 13 per cent of the ordinary budget. Given that there are 45 countries around the table, I do not believe 13 per cent is bad on our part. I know that there are issues arising from the budget, but it is our policy to try to keep zero real growth in our budgetary contributions to most of the international organisations to which we are affiliated. In that respect the Council of Europe does not do badly. We are currently paying about 19 million—the 13 per cent to which I referred-compared with 20 million for the OSCE, 10 million for the OECD, 45 million for the United Nations and 18 million for NATO. The figure for the Council of Europe stands up well with those other comparisons.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Parliamentary Delegation to the Council of Europe and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, for the effective contribution he made as president of the Parliamentary Assembly. Does my noble friend not agree that, with enlargement of the European Union and the reality that many of the issues facing Europe are wider than the EU alone, the Council of Europe becomes more important, not less, in bridging the relationship between those countries still outside the Union and those within? Is there not a case for saying that strong ministerial representation, whenever appropriate, would be sensible in such a context?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is indeed a case for saying that and the Government meet that case, because UK Ministers regularly attend the meetings that are relevant. Both my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General have visited Strasbourg in the past year. The Question was specifically about ministerial meetings, but as I have indicated, the Deputy Prime Minister has also been participating. Of course we attach enormous value to the role played by the Council of Europe and in particular by the European Court of Human Rights. That is an area where we spend a great deal of time. We demonstrated our commitment to the protection of rights established by the European Convention, by introducing the Human Rights Act in 1999. I, too, pay tribute to the role of the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I have no great problem with the ministerial representation. The excellent organisation that we helped to found—I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about its importance in the reformed and enlarged Europe that lies ahead—may be even greater than it has been in the past. I also acknowledge the valuable role that the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, has played in it. If there are to be tight budgetary restraints and budget cuts, please could they be directed at the over-blown and over-centralised European Union institutions rather than at the Council of Europe?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that was an easy hit for the noble Lord to try to make. I am sure that I have already indicated to your Lordships

795
that our policy is to ensure that we control budgets tightly for all the multilateral organisations to which this country is affiliated.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I recognise that the relative contribution of the United Kingdom to the funding of the European Court of Human Rights is not out of line, but can the Minister assure us that Ministers collectively recognise that budgetary constraints are leading to serious backlogs and limitations on the effectiveness of the work of the European Court? That requires attention before the situation becomes such a crisis that countries do not adequately participate.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am extremely glad that the noble Lord raised that issue, because I can tell him that the Government have played an active role in the negotiations to ensure the continuing effectiveness of the Court. Indeed, regarding the budget, we made an extra financial contribution to assist the Court to reduce those sizeable backlogs of cases to which the noble Lord referred. So I hope he is pleased with that answer.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, the Minister did not respond to my question about the grand payeur system. Does she approve of it or would she like to see it changed? After all, that is why we pay 13 per cent.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did not respond to that point because it was the third that the noble Lord raised and I answered his two previous points. As it is, I do not have any briefing on that matter, so I shall write to the noble Lord and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

Anti-Social Behaviour: Juveniles
11.8 a.m.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there will be a full evaluation of the pilot scheme for fining 16 and 17 year-olds under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 before the Secretary of State considers extending the powers to those under 16.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we plan to introduce penalty notices for disorder as soon as possible for 16 and 17 year-olds in the same areas as for adults. Later this year we expect to pilot in some areas for 10 to 15 year-olds, taking account of early experience with 16 to 17 year-olds.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does she recall that during the passage of the Bill through this House, she assured us, on 3 November 2003 at col. 554 of Hansard, that there would be a pilot for 16 and 17 year-olds to see if the
796
scheme could be usefully applied to younger age groups? Is the Minister aware that at a recent meeting in the Home Office an official told the Children's Society that there was no intention to pilot for 16 and 17 year-olds, because there were no implementation issues for that age group? What therefore is the justification for the enthusiasm of her right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who said in response to a Parliamentary Question on 21 January that he hoped that the implementation of the scheme for the under-16s would happen,
"as soon as possible"?—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/04: col. 1319.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I recall the statements made as the noble Baroness suggested. The Home Office research findings, which I hope will be published soon and summarise the findings of the interim valuation of the pilot for the over 18 year-olds, have given us cause to be positive about the benefits of applying these to 16 to 18 year-olds. They confirm that the police think the scheme provides them with a quick and effective tool and I hope that when the noble Baroness and others are able to see those research findings they will see the basis on which we now believe that it is right and proper to include 16 and 17 year-olds.
I am most disappointed that that report is not available now because the noble Baroness would be greatly assisted and comforted if she were able to see what was in it.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that guidance on this issue will include special attention to the situation of children in public care? Is she absolutely confident that the measure will not lead inadvertently through fine default to an increase in the custody of children?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are extremely careful about issues in relation to children in care. In relation to the measure leading to conviction and then the sentencing and imprisonment of children, one of the benefits of a fixed-penalty notice is that it is a short, sharp way of dealing with matters which does not involve the child having a criminal conviction and therefore does not blight the child's life in the long term if he turns away. It is a creative intervention that can be useful.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, while I acknowledge the possible efficacy of direct penalties, is it not yet another case of the Government rushing wildly around a corner without having looked to see whether there is anything there that they might trip over?
It seems that by extending direct penalties to juveniles, one immediately brings into question parental responsibility because in most instances the parent will become responsible for paying the penalty. The question then arises: what happens if the parent is on benefit and is unable or chooses not to pay the fine? The idea of putting a parent in those circumstances in prison and leaving the child, the offender, alone at home would be unacceptable to everyone.

797
The matter needs deeper thought than has at present apparently been given to it and more experience of the 16 to 18 year-old age group before the Government move in this way and with this rapidity.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we intend to have a full evaluation of how the fixed-penalty notices will apply to 16 to 18 year-olds so that we can learn the lessons in relation to them. We would then have a clear understanding of precisely how they operate. For under-16s parental responsibility is an issue, but 16 to 17 year-olds are responsible for paying those fines themselves. I understand the noble Lord's anxiety, but I hope I will be able to satisfy him that it is not well founded.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, in response to the Minister's second answer to me, could she let the House know when we will be able to see the evaluation of the scheme for the over-18s? Is she aware that even if it were to show great benefit for that age group, all the children's organisations are convinced that it will be entirely irrelevant to the under-16s for whom the issues are completely different?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there are two sets of evaluations and I am doing everything I possibly can to ensure that they are before the House. I regret to say that the research findings have been significantly delayed for a number of reasons, including change of personnel in the statistics section, technical problems with staff, and sickness. Your Lordships will understand our frustration that they are not available.
I would love to be able to tell the noble Baroness that they will be available by the end of this month. I can certainly tell her that I will do everything within my power to ensure that they are—but whether that will be enough, we will have to wait and see.

Iraq: Kurdish Autonomy
11.15a.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the proposed new constitution for Iraq is likely to satisfy Kurdish demands for the autonomy of the northern provinces within Iraq.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, first, perhaps I may express the sincere condolences of Her Majesty's Government to the Kurdish community in Iraq for the death of more than 60 people and injury to many more, which was caused by the two appalling suicide bombings last Sunday. This has been the first opportunity to do so in your Lordships' House.
The proposed new constitution for Iraq is due to be drafted by the constitutional convention, which will be elected by elections in March 2005. One of the issues the constitutional convention is likely to address is that of federalism, including the status of the northern provinces.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and associate myself, Members on these
798
Benches and the whole House with her comments on the bomb outrages at party headquarters at the weekend.
Do the Government believe that it will be possible to achieve an appropriate level of autonomy in the northern provinces of Iraq to satisfy on the one hand the demands of the Kurds and on the other hand to allay the fears of people in the rest of Iraq and in surrounding countries? Does she believe that such an arrangement will have to be entrenched in a federal manner in the new constitution for it to have any permanence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, that is an extremely difficult question. Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that we support the territorial integrity of Iraq. The issue of federalism is for the Iraqis to decide over the longer term as part of the constitutional convention. We are of course talking to Jeremy Greenstock and Mr Paul Bremer, who during the past month have been holding discussions with all parts of the Governing Council to try to clarify the position individuals have on federalism in order to deal with the wording of the transitional administrative law.
Of course we recognise that the Kurdistan regional government and the Iraqi Kurdistan assembly have played an important part in administering and legislating in the areas that have been outside the control of the central government since 1991. We believe that that sort of arrangement should pertain during the transitional period.
As to the longer term, that is an issue for the Iraqi people to determine in the way I have indicated.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may associate Members on these Benches with the condolences and sympathies the Minister mentioned about the bombing massacres in Arbil and Kirkuk, which are appalling.
On the future of Kurdish land, aside from independence, which would not be welcomed by any of the surrounding countries, and given that most of us want to keep Iraq whole on a federal or confederal basis, there are two models. One is that Kurdish Iraq should continue with quasi autonomy, rather on the basis it has been for the past few years. The other is that it should be administered and divided into provinces on non-ethnic lines. That proposal was put forward by our American friends. Which of those two would we favour, given that ultimately the decisions will have to be taken inside the new Iraq?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords the noble Lord is right and I thank him for the point he made about territorial integrity. It is important that we have cross-party understanding on these issues.
We recognise the point the noble Lord made about there being a number of different federal models that can be discussed and we are endeavouring to do that. We believe that any kind of federal model should be drawn on geographical, not on ethnic, lines.

799
We support democratically elected local, provincial and regional administrations empowered to represent the local population in the national institutions. We support those with devolved authority and budgets where they are practical and appropriate to local circumstances. I return to the point I made in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves: this is a matter for the Iraqis. It must be an Iraqi debate dominated by Iraqi views.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we recognise that it is fundamentally a matter for the Iraqis themselves, but the surrounding states have strong feelings on the issue of Kurdish autonomy. Do the Government hold the view that it is a matter for the Iraqis only, or will the views of surrounding states be taken into account?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I know that surrounding states have strong views. I recently discussed them in Syria, but the Turkish and Iranian Governments also hold strong views. Of course we are keen to involve neighbours, but as good neighbours supporting the political and economic process in Iraq. We encourage the group of three neighbours that I just mentioned, but also Egypt and Bahrain, which currently chairs the GCC, to engage with the governing council if they want to express those views.
There is a world of difference between being a good neighbour in consultation and being an interfering neighbour meddling from outside.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, does the Minister consider the moves currently under way to unite the two separate regional administrations in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq to be a useful step forward, or not?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I find it difficult to answer that question in the light of what happened last weekend. The reason that I stress that is that there is a body of opinion that what happened last weekend is likely to accelerate that process, or even a process of discussion across the borders with other Kurdish communities. The impact of horrors such as last weekend's suicide bombing, which was no doubt intended to damage the Kurdish cause, often makes people stronger and more determined to be united. We must give the Kurdish hierarchy some time to settle— after all, many important people were killed last weekend and see how the Kurds want to determine their future direction.

Hepatitis C
11.22 a.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare an interest—not a pecuniary one— as president of the Haemophilia Society.
800
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they arrived at the scale of ex gratia payments for patients infected by contaminated National Health Service blood products with hepatitis C, proposed by the Secretary of State for Health on 23 January; and why the widows of those who have died are excluded from help.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the level of payments was decided after consideration of a number of independent sources. Those included the payment schemes of the Macfarlane and Eileen Trusts, the reports of the Scottish Executive's expert group and the Hepatitis C Working Party to the Haemophilia Society. The underlying principle behind the ex gratia payments is to help alleviate the suffering of people living with inadvertent hepatitis C infection. That is where the money available has been concentrated. These payments are not compensation for bereavement, although we recognise the pain and hardship suffered by widows.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, while I am grateful to my noble friend and, more especially, to John Reid, for the major reversal of policy in setting up a payments scheme, are Ministers aware of the scale of the disaster that has befallen the haemophilia community: that more than 1,000 people with haemophilia have already died from contaminated NHS blood and blood products; that many others are now terminally ill and waiting to die; that the help the scheme proposes is barely one-tenth of what is paid in Ireland; that excluding widows whose lives have been devastated by the disaster, causing them added distress and double despair, is seen as a total disgrace by the Haemophilia Society; that the society insists that there has been no meaningful consultation about these, among other deeply disturbing defects in the scheme, and that such consultation should take place forthwith?
Lord Warner: My Lords, this Question gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by my noble friend in his tireless efforts on behalf of the Haemophilia Society and the wider haemophilia community to put this item on the agenda. As he rightly says, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made a big gesture towards the concerns of that community, which we all recognise, and the hardship that has followed. It is important to distinguish between the scheme and that in Ireland, where public inquiries and criminal charges affected the basis of the scheme.
There has been strong dialogue with the Haemophilia Society. It has been involved in meetings with Ministers and departmental officials. It has a nominated representative to sit on the group of experts advising on the trigger point for the scheme's second

801
payment and, at its behest, that representation was recently increased. We will continue to consult it fully on development of the scheme.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware of emerging research evidence suggesting that a modified preparation of Interferon may prove to be an effective treatment for hepatitis C, with the hope that there may ultimately be a means of eliminating the virus? If that is proven, do the Government want such treatment made available under the NHS? Or will they at least promote research into the use of that preparation in treatment?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has published guidance on the use of combination therapy for the treatment of hepatitis C. We have provided additional funding and placed statutory obligations on the NHS to implement NICE's recommendations, so that clinical decisions made by doctors involving NICE-recommended treatment or drugs can be funded. I will look into the further points that the noble Lord made, but that is the current position for therapies in that area.
Lord Addington: My Lords, do the Government accept that we have been hearing Questions on this subject for a long time? The impression that many of us have gained from listening to the Answers is that the Government have moved slowly and only when pushed. They seem to have been hiding behind a curtain of legal restriction, and have not been addressing the point that people have died and are dying through no fault of their own, but through government action. Do the Government accept that, in future, quicker action should be taken and that there should not be this ritual dance around legal niceties?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not think that we are engaged in a dance around legal niceties. We have been working with the Haemophilia Society and other interests to produce a workable scheme, which has as its basis an initial payment of £20,000, with a further £25,000 if cirrhosis develops or if a claimant has liver cancer or has had a transplant. We are now trying to ensure that we can bring the scheme into operation as quickly as possible—wherever possible, from April this year.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many patients are still alive and how many widows there are now to be considered?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not know the precise number of widows. I will look into the matter and write to the noble Lord; but more than 5,000 or 6,000 people may be beneficiaries of the scheme.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that that benefit will be tax free and that people on social security will have a total disregard of that amount?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that, subject to the necessary amendments to
802
social security legislation, the payments will be fully disregarded for the purposes of social security benefits. A similar disregard has been secured for tax assessment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, are widows being included? If not, what is the philosophy behind the decision to exclude them?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I tried to cover that point in my first Answer. These payments are not compensation for bereavement, although we recognise the pain and hardship suffered by widows. They are payments to alleviate the suffering of people who are living with inadvertent hepatitis C infection.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the Macfarlane Trust. Am I right in thinking that that fund covers widows? It certainly does not seem obvious that there should be any difference between the Government's proposals and the Macfarlane Trust scale. Secondly, have the Government compared their proposals with the scale available, for example, in Canada, which is much more generous?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the awards that were made in Ireland and in Canada followed public inquiries or criminal charges which established that wrongful practices were employed. The payment structures of those schemes were therefore based on claims for punitive damages. We do not acknowledge any such wrongdoing in England, so it is not fair to make a comparison between those schemes. The Macfarlane Trust will be involved in the administration of this scheme, but there are significant differences. The Government's policy is as I set out in the Answer to my noble friend.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
11.32 a.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 47 [Planning contribution: regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 119C to 119E not moved.]
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 119F:
Page 36, line 3, at end insert "or at some other stage before the development is completed and occupied"
The noble Baroness said: Before I start on this amendment, I would like to say two things. We caused the Committee to be adjourned during our previous

803
sitting in order to obtain copies of the statement that the Minister had and, where possible, the result of the consultation on the tariff system for Section 106. At that stage, the Minister informed me that he had sent them both to me. I do not know about other Members of the Committee, but I still have not received them. If it had not been for the efficiency of the Library, I would still not have the result of the consultation. I would be most grateful if the Minister would note that that information has still not come in our direction.
I would also like to make one point of correction for Hansard. What I said was that I would like the Minister to get us copies of the statement. I did not say that I would like him to get us coffees, which is what it says in Hansard. Although I am sure that the House would love to be able to adjourn on many occasions for coffee, I fear that it may be a precedent that the Minister may not want to set. It was certainly not one that I was aiming for, although a coffee would have been very nice.
I have grouped for today's purposes Amendments Nos. 119F, 119G and 119H. We had an extended discussion on the tariff system and Section 106 at our previous sitting. It might be helpful to today's proceedings if I discuss those amendments.
Clause 47(6) provides, as a possible enforcement mechanism, that conditions can be attached to a planning permission requiring a planning contribution to be made before development has begun. This requirement can be, and often is, imposed in planning obligations. These planning benefits are often provided part-way through developments; for example, affordable housing units cannot be provided on site before the development is well under way.
Many developments, such as housing estates, will take years to build. These are the type of schemes that are likely to require payments to the local authority for off-site improvements, such as improved highway junctions, open space and extensions to local schools. The demand for these improvements is increased as the development proceeds. More classrooms might not be needed when there were 50 houses, but would be needed when 600 had been built. It is common for contributions to be paid over many years, as different stages are reached. On a major housing scheme, the development claims can total over £1 million. Front-loading the contributions would significantly increase financing costs and risks. This amendment would allow contributions to be made at a variety of stages.
Amendment No. 119G prevents a local planning authority retaining indefinitely money received as a planning contribution. It would mean that the Secretary of State could direct in regulation that after a prescribed period any money left over would be repaid with interest if it is not spent on the purposes mentioned in subsection (3)(c).
While it is hard to believe, even in these days of cash-strapped local authorities, many authorities have substantial planning obligation receipts that have not
804
been spent after many years. That should be stopped, and this amendment will do just that, by providing an incentive to spend the sum in full and in time.
An important protection for landowners is the ability to apply to discharge or modify planning obligations. An obligation may become out of date. It may prevent development, or restrict the intensity of development beyond what is subsequently desirable. It might frustrate development that the Secretary of State subsequently grants planning permission for. The Section 106 procedure allows for formal applications to be made to the local planning authority, and appeals then to the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 119H allows for appeals. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I apologise unreservedly for the inadequacy of the government postal mechanism. The documents clearly have not arrived. That is not on. If we cannot get post across the road, how on earth can we persuade people that we can run the country? It is unacceptable to Parliament that the Government do not provide the documents, especially when I was told that they were put in the post, although I do not know how physically that was done. To be honest, it is not on. It leaves me in a very awkward and embarrassing position, and I give an unreserved apology for our inadequacy.
On the other hand, I do not have to do that in reply to the amendments. I can give adequate replies to the amendments, by pointing out that they are not necessary. In one in particular, the point is met elsewhere in the Bill. I can understand why the amendments have been proposed, particularly Amendment No. 119F. Clearly, there will be some circumstances in which a planning contribution could not be made prior to the commencement of a development. For example, the development may be economically marginal, and the developer may have no funds with which to make a contribution until the development is complete and he gets his return. It may be that the development itself satisfies the terms of the planning contribution for the provision of, for example, affordable housing units.
I should emphasise that the local authority would be entitled to vary the condition that we propose. In the same way that by default conditions are attach to planning applications limiting their life to five years, local authorities can vary this, so local authorities could require planning contributions to be made at times other than at the commencement of the development. They would have flexibility not to use the condition proposed here, provided they could enforce this through a similar condition or the terms of the planning agreement. The flexibility that is sought in the amendment already exists.
So far as Amendment No. 119G is concerned, I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, that planning authorities should spend optional planning charge income on matters that they say they will. It would be tedious to read out all my notes, but if I point out that Clause 47(7)(a) is specifically intended to secure that very purpose. It reads,
"The regulations may—require the local planning authority to apply receipts from planning contributions made by the prescribed means only to purposes mentioned in section 46(3)(c)".

805
I hope that shows that the amendment is unnecessary. So far as Amendment No. 119H is concerned, it is similar—in fact my answer is the same as the one that I have just given, because Clause 47(7)(a) is intended to secure this point.
I hope that answers the points made by the noble Baroness at the end of this debate on planning obligations, which has been very interesting and very useful to the department, as was the meeting that I had this morning with developers, planners and others when this issue was raised. I made the point that we debated it at length in your Lordships' House on Monday. I have sent a message back to my planning colleagues that we must do better on Report, which was very well received.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may encourage the Minister to remind his officials that we are now only 11 months away from the dawn of e-government in 2005, and that sending us such documents by e-mail might avoid some of the difficulties. Since the intervention of the late Lord Williams I now get a third of my Written Answers by e-mail. I hope that we will do better over the coming months, but I would be delighted to receive all correspondence on the Bill by e-mail. It would mean receiving things much earlier.
Baroness Hamwee: I was going to make the same suggestion, but privately. I know of a third party who received an e-mail on Friday afternoon containing a Statement. However, I have not stood up to have a go at the Minister about that. Can he confirm that the regulations under Clause 46(3)(c), to which he has just referred, on the purposes to which the contributions will be put, will be a matter of consultation with local authorities? take the noble Baroness's point, but the matter ought to be discussed with them.
Lord Rooker: The bald answer is that we do not issue regulations without consultation, except in the most extreme circumstances. These regulations are not extreme. Throughout the Bill we have said that we will carry out much more consultation. Obviously, in many ways the Bill will be enforced by a lot of regulations, therefore we must have proper consultation.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. There is not much more to say on Amendments Nos. 119F and 119H, but I wish to tax him further on his reply to Amendment No. 119G. The amendment relates specifically to the local planning authority having to return to a developer any money not used, if for some reason a development does not go ahead or something happens during the process, so that money belonging to the developer is returned with interest. I struggle to understand how subsection (7)(a), which merely requires the local planning authority to apply receipts made by prescription only to the purposes mentioned, underscores the requirement to repay the
806
money if it is not used. Subsection (7)(a) does not resolve the problem. The Minister may wish to reconsider it.
Lord Rooker: I am happy to elaborate, as we are in Committee and I have not used half of the briefing note on Amendment No. 119G. I am happy to put the note on the record, because it will assist in ensuring that we do not have to return to the matter on Report.
Where the parties negotiate it is likely that the agreement will set out the matters on which the contributions will be spent, and provide for repayment if they are not spent by the agreed date. Such an agreement would be enforceable, but in the courts. Where the applicant decides to pay the charge, the matters on which the charge will be spent are not specifically identified in the agreement but in the local planning obligations policy. The whole point of the charge is that such matters are laid out in the local planning obligations policy, where everyone can see what is required. That transparent approach is referred to in Clause 46(5)(a).
In short, the provisions ensure that the same redress is available to an applicant who has paid the charge as it is to one who has negotiated an agreement. All that we are doing is moving the agreement on what the income will be spent on out of the negotiated agreement and into the local planning obligation policy prepared in advance. That is a plan-led approach, and the policy will have to be specific enough to give the applicant certainty about what the charge will be spent on; otherwise, the applicant would simply decide not to pay the charge.
We intend to introduce other accountability mechanisms to ensure that spending is appropriate. It is intended, for example, that the way in which local planning authorities spend planning contribution funds should be set out in an annual report. That is, again, part of the more open, transparent and certain system for planning obligations being introduced. The planning obligations that will be sought must be set out in a policy, and information on what they are being used for will also be available publicly. Those concerns arise only where the charge is paid in cash. Where the charge is paid in kind, the developer can be absolutely certain that the charge is spent appropriately—in effect, he is spending the charge in the same way. I hope that that further explanation satisfies the noble Baroness.
11.45 a.m.
Baroness Hanham: I hear what the Minister says. I understand from his response that, if the money had to be returned, the planning agreement would state the conditions under which that would happen. I was surprised at the detail in this part of the Bill about the planning conditions. An important aspect of a planning obligation is that people can get their money back if, for some reason, things go wrong. I do not promise not to return to the matter, as so much is on the face of the Bill that it is odd that this provision is not. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 119G and 119H not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Lord Bridges Lord Bridges moved Amendment No. 120:
Before Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
"APPEALS AGAINST PLANNING DECISIONS

(1) In section 78 of the principal Act (right to appeal against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) after subsection (2) there are inserted the following subsections—

"(2A) Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission and—

(a)the planning application does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated

(b)the planning application is one in which the local authority has an interest as defined in section 316;

(c)the planning application falls within the definition of "major applications", as defined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose

(d)the planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment; or

(e)the planning officer has recommended refusal of planning permission

certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) below may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State

(2B) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified in subsection (2A) above are—

(a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated

(b) other persons at the discretion of a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose.

(2) Section 79 of the principal Act (determination of appeals) is amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (2), leave out "either" and after "planning authority" insert "or the applicant (where different from the appellant)"

(b) in subsection (6), after second "determination" insert "(except for appeals as defined in section 78(2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 78(2B))."

The noble Lord said: Since retiring from public service more than 10 years ago, my wife and I have spent a lot of time as members of the county branch of the CPRE, looking at planning matters in our local community. In general, I am very enthusiastic about how our planning system is set up and works. Shortly after starting that work I felt that I needed to know more about how the inspectorate was recruited. I wrote to the department to request details about how that was done. The Permanent Secretary kindly sent me a massive dossier explaining how the inspectorate was chosen, trained and invigilated. It is clear to me that the department puts great effort into that work with very positive results on the whole.
The purpose of my amendment is modest. It is intended to improve further the planning system, because there are occasions on which it goes wrong. I shall cite briefly two such examples that explain why
808
we need to have a carefully defined right of appeal. The first case concerns the choice of a park-and-ride site near Ipswich in Suffolk. The moving spirit behind it was Suffolk County Council, an authority currently under a Liberal Democrat and Labour coalition. The county council had successfully promoted two park-and-ride schemes to the north and west of Ipswich. Those facilities having proved quite popular, the council wanted another scheme on the eastern fringes of the borough. The case had certain factors working in its favour. Ipswich is a thriving town that suffers, like many others, from traffic congestion. The principle seemed commendable.
However, it was difficult to find a site. After lengthy discussions a site was chosen at a wooded copse at the junction of two main roads—the A12, which is the London to Lowestoft artery, and the A1214 between Woodbridge and Ipswich. The site was controversial, involving considerable damage to the little piece of woodland, an intrusive complex of 16 traffic lights on the junction of a roundabout and fears of dangerous congestion. The local planning authority, supported by our county branch of the CPRE, among others, objected.
The district councillor, a Liberal Democrat, who is also a county councillor, was supported at the meeting of the county council. Having been rejected by the district council, the proposal was taken back to the county council. It appeared that the county council was likely to refuse it. However, the county council decided to defer the decision for a month, at which point the councillor in question did not take part in the vote—although a member of the coalition parties, he refused to support their proposal. The proposal was duly carried and is now operational, in spite of the earlier refusal by the planning authority at district level.
The second case concerned a public house on the A12, the main road. It had been a successful venture until it changed hands a few years ago. The new owner applied for a change of use to convert the pub into a private dwelling. The local plan had a provision to retain key facilities in rural communities unless there was proof that the existing use was not viable and there was no alternative plan to make it so. The application was strongly opposed by the parish council, CAMRA, local residents and an amenity society. It was refused by the district council planners.
Some months later the owner reapplied, producing accounts to show that she could not make a living out of the pub. Local opinion suggested that the pub was no longer open seven days a week and that its premises were less welcoming to customers. Council officers again recommended refusal. At the planning meeting of the council this case was the first item on the agenda. Under recent new rules the applicant spoke briefly to support and the parish council chairman to oppose. However, there was no contribution by other members—no discussion, no debate. The acting chairman then asked for a vote. This resulted in two votes in favour of the applicant, one against and five unexplained abstentions. Several members present were substituting for absentees. The application thus succeeded. I believe the acting chairman might have

809
devised a means of deferring a decision until the next meeting or arranging a site visit to allow councillors to reflect. This is a minor case but it has caused considerable local dismay in the parish in question.
I have cited these two cases as it seems to me it should have been possible for local residents who had sent in written objections to the proposal to ask the Secretary of State to review the circumstances in which the planning system could be said to have failed. The only other recourse is to appeal to the High Court which is clearly beyond the means of such communities.
The Minister may feel inclined to repeat the adage that hard cases make bad law. Maybe, but bad decisions, or inaction, can be even more damaging. I hope that he will undertake to look at this amendment in a sympathetic light. Local democracy arouses feelings no less keenly than national issues. In order to allow visible justice to get a fair hearing, a limited right of appeal available to third parties would be desirable. It is possible to include a number of restrictions. I have suggested some in my amendment, such as that the person who wished to appeal to the Secretary of State must have lodged a written objection to the application. Other conditions could be written into this wording if the Minister feels it is desirable. I hope the Government will understand my motives and give careful consideration to an amendment along these lines. If they cannot agree, perhaps they would care to think of alternatives. To use another adage: where there's a will there's a way. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We have tabled Amendment No. 126A, which forms part of this group of amendments. It is almost identical to Amendment No. 120 but excludes paragraph (e). On the issue of third party rights of appeal, at an earlier stage the Minister appeared to indicate a good deal of sympathy with the problem. I understood him to say that this was something that had exercised his mind when he was an MP. Perhaps today he can tell us why there should not be a limited right of appeal by third parties. And can he explain to the committee whether there are real objections to the proposal or has the Government decided to put it into the "too difficult" pile?
Perhaps he can also expand, like the Minister in another place, on whether the statement of community involvement, which is part of the new provisions in the creation of the new local development framework—I may be using the wrong terminology here—is adequate protection for third parties. I support a plan-led system. I support community involvement at the time a plan is being created, but we all know that there are limits in that respect. One has to produce more effective consultation and greater community involvement than many of us have seen, though not for want of trying. It is a very difficult exercise.
A report entitled Third Party Rights of Appeal in Planning was published in September 2001 by a number of organisations, including the CPRE, RSPB, WWF, TCPA, ELF, the Civic Trust, ROOM and Friends of the Earth. I apologise to noble Lords for using so many acronyms, but those organisations are
810
better known than LDFs and LDDs and RPBs. The report summarised (on page 10) the case against third party rights of appeal as follows. First, that there is insufficient evidence of a problem. The current discretionary system could be used more by the greater use of independent arbitrators with less reliance on locally elected councillors. I will not take the bait of going into the role of elected councillors, though I suspect others might wish to do so. However, there is a problem. It is still a current issue, people still raise it.
Secondly, the report said that landowners need to be able to appeal because their right to develop is being taken away, while third parties do not have a right that is being denied. The community—third parties—do have an interest in the area. That is not the same as a legal right but neither is it nothing. Thirdly, it said that there are already ample opportunities for third parties to express their views and have them considered before the decision is made. Yes, there are opportunities to express views; but that is not the same as having them heard by an inspector, who will determine the application. Fourthly, the report said:
"Any benefits will be outweighed by disadvantages, not least the delay to development".
Well, the benefits and disadvantages in this instance— if the disadvantage is delay—really are chalk and cheese.
However, in its summary of the case for third parties to have a right of appeal, the report finds that there is a perceived unfairness in the procedures. Prospective developers may appeal, third parties cannot—by definition, that is what we are discussing. There should be an opportunity for those disadvantaged and aggrieved by planning approval to seek redress from an independent body. The examples given in the report relate to people directly affected by the development, nearby local authorities, interest groups and concerned persons, statutory agencies (if their objectives would be impeded or their advice on planning applications overridden) and government departments, if their policies would be compromised. Further, the report states that such a right would raise standards in planning authorities and redress the present imbalance by making them as accountable for their approvals as they are for their refusals. Reference is also made to other countries with advanced democratic planning systems having such rights, which are reported as having led to better decisions.
I have summarised quite a long report, which also refers to possible alternatives to third party rights of appeal: the local authority conducting an internal review—that would not be impartial; the Secretary of State calling in the application—that is discretionary and a bit of a lottery; judicial review—this is limited to points of law and does not amount to an appeal; and taking the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, which would not allow for the detailed analysis that an appeal would afford. That is something all the major political parties have called for and has concerned many honourable Members in the Commons.
In 1996, the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—I am not aware that this

811
view has changed now that we have the Local Government Association—called for a limited right where there is a significant departure from the development plan, where the local planning authority is the owner of the land in question, or where the local planning authority is also the applicant. Of course, the second and third of those may go hand in hand on a single application.
Those three points are central to the issue, and I think that they are generally regarded to be so. I hope that the Minister can use today to share with Members of the Committee what research the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, or possibly its predecessor, has undertaken into how many cases fall into the categories that have been acknowledged as the real problem areas for some time, so that the delay point— the point that exercises developers most—can be answered. We are referring here to quality, transparency, probity and accountability, which I know are matters dear to the hearts of all Members of the Committee.
Noon
Lord Lucas: I am a little surprised—well, not surprised because the Liberals always surprise me in this way—that a party which says that it is in favour of local democracy should suddenly be in favour of local "quangocracy" and removing or questioning all possible decisions to be made by local councillors. There might be a case for it when the local authority is at once the applicant and the judge or when an agreed local plan in which local people have participated is being bust wide open in some way. But where it is just a question of whether a pub should be a house or a pub, surely that should be decided locally. Surely that is a local decision. If the locals have not bothered to elect decent local councillors, do not care to vote or to find out the local issues, that is their responsibility.
Lord Chorley: I spoke at Second Reading on this subject. I agree with both of the amendments; I do not mind which of them goes forward. As the noble Baroness said, only paragraph (e) of the amendment is different. My noble friend made a strong case, but I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, took us through the arguments in great and thorough detail, which I shall not go over again.
In his winding-up speech at Second Reading, the Minister also touched on the subject. In his usual disarming way, he said that he had always been in favour of third party rights of appeal when he was an MP. But apparently he had a Damascene conversion on the road up Whitehall and has changed his mind. All politicians, particularly when they become Ministers, find themselves having to do that. One of the reasons he gave at Second Reading was that third party rights,
''would be inconsistent with our democratically accountable system of planning".—[Official Report, 6/1/04; col.163.)
The noble Baroness touched on that point.
812
I found that a strange argument to advance in cases where the local district planning authority is making a favourable decision on its own application. I think that the noble Lord who has just spoken took that point. In this House, rightly, we make a huge fuss about conflicts of interest in public authorities. If ever there was a conflict of interest, surely this must be one. Moreover, what if the planning authority is a national park? As I see it, that is not an elected body. There have been cases where national parks have made decisions in their own favour, many of which have been extremely controversial.
The Government make the point that a feature of the Bill is community involvement, about which the noble Baroness spoke. But how are communities defined in those circumstances? I do not know; I hope that the noble Lord will be able to explain. What is the local community of a national park? In one sense, it is the nation. The hallmark of a national park is that it is national, but we tend to forget that.
Again, at Second Reading, the noble Lord said:
"We tried to find a way for third party rights of appeal that were tightly limited in scope, but every time a draft was presented, we were warned by the lawyers and parliamentary counsel that if we went down that road, the chances are that we would snuff out any and every development".
—[Official Report, 6/1/04; col. 163.) But lawyers and parliamentary counsel are always saying that things are too difficult. Perhaps I may encourage the Minister, who has a very independent mind, to be bold. As my noble friend Lord Bridges said, where there is a will there is a way. I doubt the reality of the Minister's remark that we could snuff out any and every development. I look forward with enthusiasm to the Minister's reply.
Lord Marlesford: I apologise to Members of the Committee that I was not here for the first few moments of the opening speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Of course, it is a well known subject, with which we have all wrestled at various times, where, in the immortal words, something needs to be done; but it is very difficult to determine what.
I certainly would favour the Liberal amendment over the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Under paragraph (e). one of the grounds for appeal would be where the local planning officer had been overruled by the elected council; that is clearly contrary to the whole democratic principle. In theory, every planning application is determined by the elected councillors on the advice of the planning officers. It is entirely because there is such a huge volume of applications coming before planning committees that the great majority of them are determined by planning officers. Certainly, in my book, that is not a reason for saying that where the council takes a different view from a planning officer, that is a reason for appealing against a consent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the question of call-ins. When I was at the Countryside Commission we had constant worries of fairly major planning applications that we thought would go wrong and where we were worried because there was no right of third-party appeal. The only way of trying

813
to ensure that an irreversible step, or a very hard to reverse step, did not take place would be to get it called in. But, of course, the resources of the central planning people in Bristol are very limited. For resource reasons, there was always a very understandable reluctance to agree to call-ins unless they were important subjects. Therefore, that is not a sufficient solution. As the noble Baroness pointed out, a judicial review is not really relevant to this particular issue.
Undoubtedly, there are one or two examples of something unacceptable. One has been highlighted already; namely, when an authority gives itself planning permission. On the face of it, that seems to be contrary to natural justice. I am familiar with an example in which I have no personal interest other than a third-party interest, a pro bono interest. The Braintree District Council has repeatedly given itself planning consent to erect advertising hoardings along the A12 Witham bypass, which is totally contrary to PPB policy. When I have raised the issue on a number of occasions, it has said unashamedly and crossly, "Well, we are getting £30,000 in rent from these advertising hoardings". That is precisely the kind of thing that the local authority should not be able to do. That illustrates one of the areas where something must be done. But I shall sympathise with the Minister if he says it is extremely difficult to find a solution. However, I would have thought it not beyond his wit to do so, and this Bill is clearly an opportunity of doing something.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: Have the Conservatives nothing to say? I do not want to stifle any debate on this. I wonder why there is silence. This is certainly the most important issue we will deal with today on this Bill. I have two speaking notes—one is a long one and one is massive. I was tempted to use the long one but I am going to use the longer one because we are in Committee and I need to put some of the issues on record, especially as we will come back to this at Report. To cut things out in Committee will make a rod for my own back and does not do a service to the House.
I must refuse to comment on any particular applications, some detailed examples of which we have heard. This is particularly so with regard to Ipswich, because I claim the credit of having at one time had more jobs there than anybody else in the late 1960s, when I was doing real work outside Parliament. I understand some of the issues but I must not comment in detail on any of the applications.
I think—from the speeches and the amendment—that the difficulties created by any blanket third party right of appeal have been understood. I am encouraged by the fact that the clause—both clauses, since we are in effect dealing with the same clause—constrains the right of third parties to appeal. A blanket right has not been requested, but not all the proposed measures are appropriate. I admit that I am on record as saying that I was in favour of third party rights of appeal until I became the planning Minister, so it is more precise than "going up Whitehall". The reason I was doing it for my
814
constituents is that I saw the way of just stopping development. That is why we wanted third party rights of appeal. We were not looking to amend developments. Most of us were looking to stop them; so was I at the time. I thus make my declaration of interest absolutely clear. The reason we wanted third party rights was because we had failed to stop development. That was the main reason for some of the individual cases I dealt with.
The Government have considered a limited scope; we want to be reasonable. However, the reasons for ruling out even a limited scope of appeal for third parties were set out in the planning Green Paper. Any right of appeal for third parties would slow down the system, though that is not a substantive argument against it. It would not be consistent with our democratically accountable system of planning.
At some time I will address the national parks issue. National parks are different in the sense that they are statutory bodies, but they are not directly elected. I take that point. It is the responsibility of local planning authorities to act in the general public interest when looking at applications. They are supposed to take account of the views of local people on planning matters before taking decisions. Elected members must justify their decisions subsequently to the electorate. They do not always like doing that; I accept that.
Part of my daytime responsibilities are the three major growth areas in the south-east. There is no doubt that councillors are reluctant to stand up in their local areas and say they support the growth. One cannot always rely on the democratically elected bodies to go along with the big picture of policy. I have known examples where councillors have said, "We will get this turned down so that it can go to appeal and then we can say that the Government are responsible together with the planning inspector for making the decision. We did not make the decision. We will say this to our constituents so that they do not vote us out". I have heard that said by local councillors. However, the Government do understand the situation. One of the reasons for this Bill is to get a faster, more balanced planning system. There is common consent on that.
We have acknowledged that we need greater community involvement in the planning process. It is right that anyone affected by, or with an interest in, development in the area should have the opportunity to make their views known, and to have those views taken into account. The planning system already provides opportunities for that to happen but this Bill builds on that and strengthens those opportunities.
Public participation must be at the right stage of the process; that is, before the decision is made. That is a fair and legitimate point. What nobody wants—perhaps somebody does—are increased opportunities for argument and debate after the event. That clearly is a requirement by some people, but that does not benefit anybody. It is the Government's intention to make the planning system more accessible, more transparent—I have rejxatedly made that clear—with strengthened opportunities for community involvement. The provisions will strengthen the

815
opportunity for people to comment on and influence development proposals much earlier in the process, even well before a planning application has been submitted.
I accept that this is going to be hard work because most people will only jump when their back yard or community is affected. They will not get involved when development plans or non-site specific proposals are being put together; it is only when something is on their doorstep that people get wound up to take an interest. Generally, people are getting on with their lives.
However, it is important that people's concerns are listened to up-front, and that once a decision is made people can see why it was reached. That is another important aspect; it is part of the process of opening up the planning obligation process so that people do not argue that someone has bought the planning decision behind closed doors. In that way the Bill will minimise the need for action after a decision has been made; it should ensure that the system is fairer and that everyone participates on as equal a footing as we can give.
Clause 17 of the Bill provides for a statement of community involvement. We are seeking effective participation by the community in the preparation of local development documents and in the exercise by the local planning authority of its development control functions.
Not only will it become a statutory requirement to prepare a statement as to how the local planning authority intends to involve the local community in the planning process, but that statement must itself be tested through independent examination. This is a major step forward.
Members of the Committee may already be aware that the Government are providing almost £4 million over the next three years to Planning Aid, an organisation that provides free and independent professional advice and assistance to members of the public who cannot afford to pay for advice on the planning process. I pay tribute to Planning Aid. I used the organisation umpteen times as a Member of Parliament in order for my constituents to have their cases heard both at the beginning and sometimes at the appeal process. It is a first-class organisation. We have made far more funds available.
The funding will enable Planning Aid to become more proactive and develop a greater role in targeting communities which traditionally do not get involved in the planning system—particularly groups in disadvantaged areas and those representing the socially excluded. We believe that the solution is not extra bureaucracy and lawyers, but meaningful engagement with local communities throughout the process, and greater transparency and clarity in the decisions taken.
Last year the Government extended the requirement for local planning authorities to provide a summary of reasons for granting a planning permission even where there were no conditions applied. This was done in order to improve the openness and transparency of the system. This is a major step forward. Local authorities were not required to say why they had approved an
816
application; they were required to say why they had refused one, but it almost went by default. To now require them to say why they granted planning permission is a very important step forward.
It has been argued by some parties that this underlines the need for a third party right of appeal. On the contrary, it should ensure that planning decisions are properly explained so that any confusion or concerns that may exist which would be the substance of a third party right of appeal could be met—as long as that right did not have as its objective to stop the development, as opposed to change or modify it. More information will alleviate that need.
Regarding the scenarios cited in the proposed new clauses, we have already established clear and strict rules and procedures to ensure the propriety of the decision-making process and the decisions taken.
First of all, planning permission must be decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where proposals for developments do not accord with the development plan, the Secretary of State must be notified so that he can consider whether to call in the application for his own determination. It is already the case that the Secretary of State may similarly be requested to call in other applications, including those that are accompanied by an environmental impact assessment.
Members of the Committee may find it useful to know that approximately 1,000 applications each year are notified to the Secretary of State where a local planning authority is minded to grant permission for a planning application that is contrary to the local plan. Of course, the Secretary of State may exercise his discretion on whether to call in the application for determination by him rather than the local planning authority.
That system works in practice. During the 12 months or so that I was planning Minister, dozens of cases went across my desk on which we had to make a judgment on whether to call in. Those decisions were taken by Ministers. We were given advice but we did not necessarily follow it in every case, either to call in or not call in as the case may be. Decisions contrary to advice were reached both ways, which is the right approach. Ministers are accountable for those decisions.
Just over 5 per cent of the notifiable departures are called in by the Secretary of State. The reasons for deciding that the Secretary of State should determine a case include those where the issues may conflict with national policies, where they have significant effects beyond their immediate locality or may give rise to substantial controversy. A set of guidelines is available, based on a Written Answer in the House of Commons given by Richard Caborn when he was planning Minister. We rely on those for our policy, in particular when answering the dozens of letters written every week by Members of Parliament asking us to call in various applications. So very tight criteria govern what is and is not called in. An inquiry is then held to enable full consideration of the issues involved and to hear the concerns of interested parties.

817
The proposal in the new clause in which Members of the Committee may see particular merit is for applications where the local authority has an interest. There appears to be a level of concern that a local authority will act improperly in deciding such cases. However, I should say that local authorities operate under very strict rules to deal with possible conflicts of interest and to avoid any impropriety where an application is one in which the local authority itself has an interest. Moreover, in the event that impropriety can be shown, judicial review by the courts is available.
Local authorities are often required to take decisions on issues in which they have a dual interest. There are around 5,000 cases a year in which local authorities have an interest in land to which they grant planning permission. It must be borne in mind that these will include town centre sites and often involve regeneration projects that will bring real benefits to local communities in terms of homes, jobs and environmental improvement. These are the very projects we need to ensure are delivered quickly and are not hampered by subsequent challenges.
However, where there are concerns about the ability of local authorities to act in a fair and unbiased manner in cases where they have a pecuniary interest in the proposed development, safeguards will apply to such decisions For the benefit of noble Lords, I shall briefly outline some of those safeguards.
Local authorities are under an obligation to act fairly in relation to persons affected by planning decisions and to adopt decision-making procedures which provide adequate fairness safeguards to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. Decisions are subject to control by means of judicial review in the courts. This ensures that decisions are taken in accordance with the law and within the authority's powers, and that they do not act for any illegitimate purpose or extraneous motive such as bias or vested interest.
In addition to these legal safeguards, a number of administrative safeguards ensure propriety in local decision making. The local government ombudsman has powers to investigate allegations of maladministration. Guidance on ethical conduct by local authorities is available, including the National Code of Local Government Conduct. Also, local authorities' own monitoring officers are charged with investigating allegations of maladministration or injustice. Arrangements are in place for the discharge of planning functions under the new constitutions for local governance, under which planning decisions are the responsibility of the planning committee and not the executive, to ensure propriety on land disposal and the promotion of specific developments. There are special procedural arrangements which already apply to local authorities' own development, including the need to notify the Secretary of State of proposals not in accordance with the development plan.
That forms a set of constraints on local authorities when they are dealing with matters where the planning permission is directly related to the local authority. We would argue quite strongly that those safeguards render third party rights of appeal in whatever shape or form unnecessary.
818
I turn to the suggestion that a third party right of appeal should be available where officers' recommendations to reject an application are overturned by elected councillors. This challenges the very heart of the democratic process. I imagine that noble Lords would not want elected members to feel that they cannot reject their officers' advice so long as they have good and decent reasons for doing so. That would echo what is done by Ministers; I have done it myself. As long as people act rationally rather than on a hunch, there are no vested interests and people do not consider anything with which they are even remotely connected—because my former constituency was located in the region, as planning Minister I never dealt with anything whatever to do with the West Midlands—this system, with its checks and balances, operates in a fair way and these issues are covered.
In circumstances where councillors reject the advice of officers, they must have good planning reasons for doing so. I stress that planning reasons must be given. I had constantly to say to constituents, "You can't use competition reasons for trying to stop a development. You must use planning reasons. Here are a few planning reasons for you to take away and flesh out". A reason such as claiming that there are too many of a certain kind of shop in an area is not a planning reason, it is a reason of vested interest in competition. Again, however, it is the case that judicial review is available where there is evidence of impropriety or the decision can be shown to be irrational or perverse.
It is difficult to assess the level of challenges to local authorities' decisions by means of judicial review as the Secretary of State has no locus in such challenges and we do not have that information. However, to the best of our knowledge, between January 2002 and November of last year—a period of almost 21 months—there were 16 instances we know of where third parties brought judicial reviews of local authorities' decisions to grant planning permission. These were successful in seven of the 16 instances.
This shows, first, that judicial review is actively employed by third parties. It will always act as a form of nuclear deterrent, in a way, because it is so expensive. Secondly, decisions of local planning authorities have been overturned as a result. I am not building a massive case on 16 instances, but those 16 decisions were thought sufficiently bad for someone to provide the funds to go for judicial review. In roughly half of those cases, the challenge of the review worked in the sense that the decisions of local planning authorities were overturned. One could argue that the system is working at the extreme end, in major cases where it is thought that something is seriously wrong. The numbers of such cases will always be small, but I would argue that the system worked in those cases.
I do not gainsay the argument that because the number of cases is low, it does not count; we would not expect there to be regular resort to such proceedings. Judicial review is out of the range of most people, but it is not the sole recourse in the event of an allegation of impropriety in the process; there are other ways.

819
Debates in Westminster Hall involving my colleagues as planning and other Ministers are held on individual cases on a regular basis. That, too, is quite right.
I have presented the difficulties, but I want to address just a few more issues. It is my understanding that the new clause envisages that the right of appeal would apply to anyone who had objected at application stage, and additionally to anyone else at the discretion of a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose. Providing a right of appeal to anyone who had objected at application stage is likely to encourage the submission of objections in order to safeguard the right of appeal should permission be granted at application stage. This would confuse and slow down the initial consideration of the planning application, not necessarily for good reason.
Providing a right of appeal to anyone else at the discretion of a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose would inevitably lead to delay. Introducing an additional procedure to be gone through to establish whether an appeal can proceed would mean that the developer would be unable to implement his permission until such sifting processes had been completed. Frankly, it is difficult to envisage the circumstances in which a person could legitimately seek a right to appeal against a proposal to which he did not object in the first place, but he would be able none the less to frustrate the development. It seems to us that that proposal as it stands is a recipe for chaos.
I believe that the third party right of appeal could be used to delay or effectively veto many otherwise acceptable developments which would bring benefits to local communities in terms of homes, jobs and the regeneration of neighbourhoods.
Challenges are not ruled out. However, in my experience, such a step was taken not to delay but to stop developments. Developers need certainty in order to invest in local areas and they want decisions quickly. Third party right of appeal would mean that planning approval could not be implemented pending an appeal and that would inevitably lengthen the decisionmaking process.
I have explained at length why the Government are not persuaded and why I am not persuaded. I am happy to defend this position. Our proposals for greater community involvement in the planning process are a major step forward. These proposals, coupled with the range of procedural and legal safeguards that exist, render even a limited third party right of appeal unnecessary. For those reasons I see no merit in introducing a third party right of appeal.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, regulations require the local planning authority to consult when preparing local development documents. All the bodies she suggested—regional planning boards; the Mayor; regional development agencies; the rail authorities; local authorities in neighbouring areas; electricity, gas, water and sewage companies; voluntary bodies; bodies representing religions and disabled people; local businesses—can comment and the local planning authority has to take any comment into account.
820
The statement of community involvement also provides an opportunity for third parties to be involved in significant planning applications. That is an important process, which I admit did not exist when people made complaints some years ago. The Green Paper was issued, but a Green Paper is not a firm proposal for legislation. There have been substantial changes since we produced the Green Paper. Those changes meet many of the demands made by people seeking a third party right of appeal on the issues I have mentioned. Having given that lengthy explanation, if this issue comes back on Report, I hope I can then use a shorter version because I will be able to refer back to Hansard
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Was that the long version or the massive version? I was going to ask if we could have the massive version in order that we could anticipate what might be said at the next stage, as the Minister anticipates that there might be further discussion.
I will not attempt to deal with all the Minister's points but I will make some observations. Picking up on what the Minister said towards the end, it would not be possible to veto development simply by a third party having a right of appeal. That is because the inspector would rely on all items relevant to the decision. The fact that the third party had a right of appeal would still have to be limited to arguments within the development plan and so on. He mentioned possibly using judicial review, but I understand that is limited to a point of law.
I understand what the Minister said about community involvement, but it does not seem to answer the proposals for a right where there is a departure, or a significant departure, from the development plan, nor when the local planning authority owns the land or is the applicant. I am not sure the Minister was attempting to use that as the basis of his argument. Given that there have been serious concerns about this for a long time, I understand many of the points made. I think the issue is whether the proposals go far enough. Is there something else that can be done and can this Bill be used to do it? I was going to say that I look forward to reading the massive version—I will read the massive version, although I am not sure whether I look forward to doing so. I thank the Minister for sharing it with the Committee.
Lord Bridges: This has been an interesting debate and some hits have been registered on my proposal, which I must consider. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He is right to say that we get the councillors we deserve. Something he did not emphasise is that they operate within a system. However good or bad the councillors, the effect of the system may be as important as the quality of the councillors. This is a subject we shall have to think about again.
In listening to the Minister's full speech, which deserves much study, I could not detect his earlier interest in this idea. As my noble friend, Lord Chorley,

821
said, the Damascene conversion seems to have been more or less total. It reminds me of the celebrated remark made by the late Ernest Bevin when he was invited to do something of which he, sensibly, felt suspicious—I suspect it was something in the secret intelligence line. He made the memorable observation that he would not open the Pandora's box because it was full of Trojan horses. It is a subject to which the Minister must return. I shall read the full text of the Minister's remarks with much interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Appeal made: functions of local planning authority]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 37, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert—
"(6) The additional period shall be eight weeks from the date of the submission of an appeal to the Secretary of State under section 78(2).""
The noble Baroness said: This amendment will be shorter. In moving Amendment No. 120AI speak also to Amendment No. 120B.
The purpose of the amendments—one relates to planning applications and the other to the listed buildings Act equivalent—is to specify the length of the dual jurisdiction regime on the face of the Bill instead of leaving it to be determined in a development order to be issued by the Secretary of State. This is dual jurisdiction for an appeal. The period allowed for an appeal is important because it is possible to miss out completely if the period is missed. It is also important as a matter of principle. I do not mean to be rude, but it is not something that should be left to the Secretary of State's whim. It should be able to be altered relatively easily. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 49 allows a local planning authority to continue to determine a planning application for an additional period after an applicant appeals to the Secretary of State on the grounds of non-determination.
I understand that the amendments would fix the additional period at eight weeks in both the principal Act and the listed buildings Act. They would also remove the flexibility to alter the additional period, which is to be prescribed by development order.
We suggested an additional period of four weeks for considering such an appeal. This will allow a local authority up to four weeks more to continue processing the application and to reach a determination without encroaching too far on the relevant appeal procedure. The length of the additional period was part of a full consultation on proposed changes to the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, which ended on 16 January 2004.
Officials are now analysing responses to that consultation. Early indications are that the additional four-week period is welcomed and may reduce the
822
work involved in non-determination appeals. For that reason, we think we have this provision about right. I can understand the cautionary approach behind the amendment but I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: The response seems to go to the period, but not to the point of whether it should be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that is a fair observation.
Baroness Hamwee: Obviously my point was not tempting enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 120B not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 120C:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
"ABOLITION OF DEEMED PLANNING PERMISSION
Section 90 (development with government authorisation) of the principal Act is repealed."
The noble Baroness said: Section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables the Secretary of State to grant deemed planning permission for various developments without a planning application being made to the local planning authority. These include developments by local authorities or statutory undertakers where authorisations are required from a government department, and consents for electricity generation under the Electricity Act 1989. These include power station projects, which are frequently contentious. Last year, Electricity Act consent and deemed planning permission for the installation of gas-firing equipment at Littlebrook power station in Dartford was quashed by the High Court because the environmental impact assessment was carried out inadequately. Small wind farms require planning permission which will be considered locally, but large wind farms can receive permission from the Secretary of State.
Electricity lines above ground can obtain deemed planning permission from the Secretary of State. Such schemes are often highly contentious because of their visual impact and health concerns. Transport and works orders for major infrastructure projects can also receive deemed planning permission.
Often deemed planning permission will be granted without a public inquiry. So decisions on major projects will be taken remotely, without local democratic decision and without the safeguard of an inquiry. Local politicians find that planning matters of substantial public concern are out or their hands. It is strange that the public would have greater ability to object to a house extension than, for example, to a power station.
Additionally, local authorities are perfectly capable of deciding planning applications on such schemes. They do so regularly. They can take responsibility for schemes in their areas. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: Amendment No. 120C seeks to repeal Section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which deems planning permission to be granted for development authorised by a government department under statutory authority. At the moment, Section 90 applies where the authorisation of a government department is required for the carrying out of development by local authorities, national park authorities and statutory undertakers. The section is available for use for major infrastructure development under the Electricity Act 1989 and the Transport and Works Act 1992. The section covers instances where consent is granted to the appropriation of land for development or a compulsory purchase order is confirmed.
The principal effect of repealing the section would probably be that infrastructure projects which at present require only the authorisation of a government department, granted under whatever procedure the relevant Act applies, would also require planning permission. This might be granted by the local planning authority, or by the Secretary of State on appeal or call-in, or as a major infrastructure project under the new rules of the Bill. In short, the repeal would lead to duplication of effort and delay for infrastructure projects, with consequential cost implications. We do not see how this could be thought to be in the public interest.
I do not accept the analogy that more work is carried out on private houses build than on a power station project. That may be the case, but the national policy relating to both is important. The effect on a local community of a growth in housing is important but, needless to say, the development of a power station or other such project requires a procedure to be gone through.
Speaking now without the aid of notes, I should remind the Committee that we have abolished Crown immunity, which is an important point. When I was at the Home Office we deliberately went out of our way to make it clear that the Home Secretary had decided that, even with proposals we had in mind for building certain establishments for which we did not need planning permission, we would go through the planning process. A fat lot of good that did us. But, nevertheless, it was important to do that in order to gain public acceptance of our policy on these sensitive issues.
Decisions on major infrastructure projects of national importance and local significance need to be made by government. If, for example, the amendment
824
sought to remove the Government from the decision-making process—I am not sure whether the noble Baroness said that—it would fail to do so. As I have indicated, the amendment requires local authorities to grant planning permission in addition to the approved procedure by government under the legislation. So there would still be call-in and, ultimately, the Government would still have a role to play.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. Local authorities would also have a role to play. Among the concerns are the major wind farms which are being gradually plonked down. There is more and more encouragement from the Government to reach their target of 10 per cent of our electricity requirement being met through wind power. Wind farms will be sited not only at sea but, in many cases, in areas of outstanding natural beauty and quite close to people's housing; and, again, local authorities will have no say in the matter.
There will be many major projects where it will be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to be the sole decision maker. Under the Electricity Act—I referred to this briefly when we discussed the dimensions that appear in the Energy Bill—huge projects can be undertaken. Pylons dangling across the countryside are not welcomed and, again, people should have a right to comment on such projects.
I have heard the Minister's reply. Unless he wishes to add anything more, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
12.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 120C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Glentoran, L.

Ampthill, L.

Goodhart, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Goschen, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Greaves, L.

Attlee, E.

Hamwee, B.

Avebury, L.

Hanham, B.

Biffen, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Buscombe, B.

Higgins, L.

Byford, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howe, E.

Coe, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Jopling, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Kimball, L.

Dholakia, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Kingsland, L.

Dundee, E.

Kirkham, L.

Elton, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Ferrers, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Flather, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Fookes, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Lucas, L.

Gedds, L.

825

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Rogan, L.

Maddock, B.

Roper, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Saatchi, L.

Marlesford, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Sandberg, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Mowbray and Stonrton, L.

Selborne, E.

Newby, L.

Selsdon, L.

Noakes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northesk, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Northover, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Tordoff, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Trefgame, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

L. Trumpington, B.

Rawlings, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wilcox, B.

Rennard, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ahmed, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Andrews, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bach, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Billingham, B

Lipsey, L.

Blackstone, B

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Blood, B

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brookman, L.

Marsh L

Campbell-Savours, L.

Masseyof Darwen, B.

Christopher, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mitchell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Nicol, B.

Crawley, B.

Parekh, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Pendry, L.

Desai, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dixon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Elder, L.

Rooker, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon V.

Filkin, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Fitt, L.

Strange, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

SymonsofVernhamDean, B.

Gale, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gavron, L.

Tenby, V.

Golding, B.

Thornton, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Triesman, L.

Grabiner, L.

Walpole, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Warner, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitaker, B.

Harrison, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hayman, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.56 p.m.
Clause 50 [Duration of permission and consent]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter):
I should tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 121 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 121A or 121B on the ground of pre-emption.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 38, line 15, leave out from "amended" to "after' in line 18 and insert "so that"
The noble Baroness said: I shall not read out the group of amendments. They all refer to Clause 50.
Clause 50 would reduce the duration of permissions and consents from the default position of five years, as at present, to three years. We have received innumerable representations stretching well into double figures. It is fair to say that the provisions of the Bill have been universally condemned. Many concerns have been expressed. I shall try to summarise them for the Minister.
First, there is confusion as to why changes need to be made to the current system. Hence, the amendment to which I have added my name to remove Clause 50 from the Bill. Local planning authorities already have the power to shorten the consent from the defaul t five years if they deem it necessary.
Instead of Clause 50, the Government should issue best practice guidance on when it will be appropriate for councils to exercise their existing right to issue shorter consents such as when there is a strong likelihood of housebuilders banking land or on very simple developments which could be completed quickly.
There seems to be general consensus that far from saving a local planning authority time and resources, as it will no longer be able to grant extensions to planning permissions, applicants will be forced to submit an entirely new application and the local authority will be burdened further. It will then have to devote much time to going through the process again simply because time ran out.
For many developments, three years will not be long enough. This short consent will serve only to put off potential developers. That is especially so for major brownfield, city centre and mixed use developments— precisely the type of development the Government are keen to encourage as part of their sustainable communities agenda. Marginal schemes on complex sites in regeneration areas will be made more difficult. Funding commercial and mixed development is already problematic as it is much more risky than traditional housebuilding. The changes in the Bill would make it harder still. What the Government are trying to achieve with one hand, successful urban regeneration, will be undermined by the other. By reducing the duration of consent, developers will be discouraged from taking on precisely that type of project.
Many of the organisations that I spoke to on the issue pointed out the number of processes, many of which are outside the developers' control, which must be completed before work can start on the site. That may involve subsequent consents from the Highways

827
Agency, the Fire Brigade and the Environment Agency. Compulsory purchase may be necessary, and there will be issues such as decontamination of land, pre-letting, negotiating finance, tendering contracts and assembling interests. There will be many planning conditions that require details such as landscaping, drainage, internal plans and the external material for buildings to be submitted and approved before the planning can be implemented.
A three-year period will cause difficulties for many of the developers of which the Government are most supportive. In the vast majority of cases, it is costly for the developer to sit on land and it would be in their own interests to get on with the development as quickly as possible. It will not encourage developers to introduce desirable schemes more quickly. If permission is about to expire and planning policy and its planning merits still support the scheme, the developer will be able to renew the planning permission. Neither a local planning authority nor the Secretary of State will refuse planning permission for a project that they support simply because the original permission has not been implemented.
Clause 50(2) relates to outline planning permission. The effect of the Government's change to the planning Act is that an application to the approval of reserved matters must be made within three years of the grant of planning permission. The developer then has two years from the final reserved matters being approved by the local planning authority to begin development.
That has a number of strange results. First, while the Bill considers that full planning permission should be implemented within three years, outline planning permission will have five years or more. Three years are given to apply for reserved matters and some time for them to be approved, and two years afterwards. The Government's intention to reduce the period for implementing planning permission applies only to full planning permission.
Secondly, if reserved matters are approved and granted within six months of the grant of outline planning permission, the developer will have to start development in the next two years—that is, two years and six months after the grant of planning permission. If not, the permission cannot be implemented. However, the developer who failed to implement within two years and six months can make a further reserved matter application towards the end of the three-year period. That reserved matters application could be identical to the one previously approved. The local planning authority would have to consider it and, if it were approved, the developer would have a further two years to implement the permission. He would have resurrected the planning permission.
That is an odd result and comes about because the Bill proposes to revoke Section 92 of the planning Act, rather than amending the five-year period in the Act to three years. The Government have made a minor concession on the issue for the case of complex regeneration schemes, making provisions in the regulations for the local authorities to "look favourably" at requests for longer periods of durations for such schemes. However,
828
that is really not enough. As a default position, experience shows that it would require substantial effort by developers to convince local authorities of the need for a longer time-frame than three years.
Beyond the clause stand part debate, I have tabled a number of additional amendments designed to change the effect of Clause 50 in a number of ways. Amendments Nos. 121, 121A, 122, 123, 125, 125A and 126 would remove the provision to reduce the default time limit for implementing planning permissions from five years to three years. That would prevent many of the negative consequences of the clause as it stands. Five years is a much more realistic time-frame, especially for major projects on complex sites.
Amendments Nos. 122Aand 126ZA would remove the provision expressly stating that nothing in the clause prevents the development being started when the permission or consent is granted. I beg to move.
1 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: We have two amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 121A and 125A, and have put our names to several others. The short point is that we seek to understand why existing legislation is not being used. There is certainly widespread misunderstanding that local planning authorities can grant permission for periods that are more or less than five years, but it seems to us that we should not consolidate that misunderstanding or in any way support planners ignoring what they can or cannot do now.
I look forward to hearing what the evil is that the Government seek to cure. If it is "land banking"—to use a phrase now in common use—by developers, who are thought not be getting on with providing housing, for example, in particular, why is the amendment needed, given the provisions of the 1990 Act? Section 91(2) of that Act provides that the period within which a development must be started can be longer or shorter, and should be the period that the local planning authority considers appropriate, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and any other material considerations. I assume that will still apply, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that, as it is not always easy to read one's way through interlocking provisions. Presumably, it would still apply but with a default period of three years. I simply do not understand why the existing provision is not an adequate tool.
I wonder whether the new provisions, proposed by the Government in Clause 50(1)(b), will encourage judicial review. I am not suggesting that legitimate opposition—or any opposition, perhaps, because until it has been tested one does not know whether it is legitimate—should be stifled. However, is it not better to have mechanisms in the planning legislation itself rather than have to go outside it and to use judicial review? If the Government are concerned that local planning authorities do not know what their powers

829
are now, there must surely be a place for issuing fresh guidance to remind the authorities and make the position absolutely clear.
Lord Lucas: I have a couple of amendments in this group, but I shall not speak long as my noble friend Lady Hanham has gone over the ground extremely well.
Of course I would not want the wording of Amendment No. 121B in the Bill; it merely sets out the concerns as to the reasons why three years will on many occasions be the wrong length of time. The ideal system is as set out by both opposition Front Benches: that we have guidance on the application of the existing arrangements, which can bias local authorities towards choosing three years where that is appropriate, when something is going to be done straight away and there are no complications.
Even in domestic situations, five years strikes me as the right default time. If one gets planning permission to put a third storey on one's house, which one might do before one sells it to clarify the planning arrangements, it might take two years to sell the house—and then the new purchaser is stuck with an extremely short timescale to implement the planning permission. Five years is the accepted, organised and reasonable time scale. I can see that with particular developments that a local authority wants done quickly, to shorten the timescale would be reasonable. However, five years seems the right default, certainly when one is dealing with anything at all complicated, as my noble friend says—when one needs to build up the site or to deal with problems on the site.
On Amendment No. 124, with the Bill as it is at the moment, a local authority that does not want a development to take place merely has to grant planning permission for it with a three-month timescale to start with, and then wait for the developer to be unable to comply with it. Under those circumstances, the developer would then be unable to appeal against the three-month timescale as being unreasonable, and would be blocked for two years under the other clauses of the Bill from submitting a repeat planning application. Surely, that is not the Government's intention. I hope that it is a misreading but, if not, I believe my amendment to be the right one.
Lord Cobbold: I rise to echo what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and what was said from the Front Bench by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The question about this clause, and about other clauses, is whether it improves the situation or whether it would be better left as it is. It seems to me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, five years is the logical period, not just for the big developers, for whom it is important, particularly with major schemes on regeneration, but also for the smaller schemes. One can have situations where finding finance is very difficult, where business circumstances change or even where economic circumstances change. All of those factors make a longer period necessary. Given that, under
830
existing law, local authorities are able to restrict the period to three years I query whether the proposed clause is appropriate for the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It will not surprise noble Lords opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, that I cannot agree with what is being offered. As has been described, it would essentially perpetuate the current system. Our view is that it is important that development, particularly where it relates to regeneration, should be begun as soon as possible.
Like other noble Lords who have been involved in these debates, I was involved in local government for a long time. I am well aware of land assembly and funding issues. But we can cope with that. The system that we are setting out will enable us to have the flexibility. Clause 50 is intended to encourage developers to start work on developments earlier and to prevent them sitting on planning permissions which, as noble Lords would accept, can be a problem, particularly when one is trying to regenerate an area that has long been neglected. I am sure we can all think of such areas from our local knowledge of planning development and regeneration issues. What we do not want is that sites should exist that are long unused and have planning permissions but where for a variety of reasons, sometimes understandable, sometimes less understandable, those planning permissions are not executed.
In our view the default period should not be as long as five years. The majority of permissions are implemented within a three-year period and for that reason we do not consider a three-year default period unreasonable. Developers that wish to extend the life of a permission should be required to submit a new application for planning permission. I appreciate that that will enable the local planning authority to consider the entire application afresh, enabling it to take account of changes to national guidance as well as to local circumstances and local funding issues. I do not think that is unreasonable because over a three-year period matters move on. We all appreciate that.
We recognise that there will be cases, particularly when complex regeneration issues are involved, when three years will not be sufficient time for a developer to commence work. Local planning authorities already have the power, as several noble Lords have suggested, to impose a period longer or shorter than three years. Therefore, when it grants a planning permission the planning authority will have the discretion to extend the period of validity for such cases. It will be plain where there is that complexity. For these reasons we do not wish to set the default period proposed in Amendment No. 121B of five years for major complex projects, those involving a high degree of risk or those with substantial upfront costs. In any case, these would be difficult to define in legislation.
We want to have flexibility for local planning authorities and developers to discuss what is appropriate in each case, rather than to set further arbitrary fixed periods. I find that notion particularly attractive because it will enable scope for discussion

831
and negotiation. The term "negotiation" has been used in many of our debates and noble Lords have recognised its importance.
We have already consulted on draft guidance that encourages local planning authorities to consider whether three years is likely to be long enough for the development in question and encourages applicants to seek to agree with the local planning authority that any permission or consent granted should be subject to a longer time period. The draft guidance formed part of a Bill-related draft secondary legislation package on development control issues.
Amendments Nos. 122A and 126ZA would prevent a developer beginning any work on a site where a consent had been granted but had been taken to judicial review. It would be entirely up to the developer to decide whether it wanted to start work. It is extremely unlikely that it would start work, and commit money and resources, on the back of a consent that could subsequently be overturned. However, there are works—for instance, on contaminated land sites—that would need to be completed, regardless of the type of development eventually granted. We want this type of work to be able to proceed.
We think that we have the package about right. We think that the flexibility is there. Certainly, we think that there will be scope for negotiation and discussion. I think that the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would be subject to flexibility and that the local planning authority would have the necessary discretion to deal with those smaller issues which, I fully recognise, can occur with smaller scale developments. All of that said, I think we have the balance about right here. I stress the importance, particularly where regeneration sites are involved, of the need to make progress and move matters on. Where communities have waited a long time for an important site to be unlocked, it is right that we have the shorter timeframe so that progress can be made.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister has talked about why the period should be three rather than five years, but not, in a way that I can follow, about why it is necessary to change it on the face of the Bill, rather than having a period that is not the default period. Section 91(2) of the 1990 Act states that the period, which at the moment is five years,
"shall be a period which the authority consider appropriate having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations".
Do the Government take the view that that subsection is inadequate to cope with the kinds of things that they have been talking about?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We do take that view. We have established that there is a get-out; there is flexibility and scope for negotiation if a longer timeframe is needed
832
for development to take place. We rely on that to provide the necessary space for such matters as land assembly, finance and funding to be put together.
Baroness Hamwee: Does putting funding together and so on fall within this subsection? Developers will want to know. The subsection refers to,
"the development plan and to any other material considerations".
I do not think that assembling the site and organising funding are material considerations for planning purposes.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The indications that I am getting from the box suggest that that is right. Obviously it is important that there is scope for negotiation with the local planning authority and that the issues are understood by the planning authority when a longer time period is required.
Lord Lucas: I should be very grateful for an answer to the points I made on Amendment No. 124 concerning the way in which I see the Bill as it is being used. Let us suppose that a local planning authority does not want a planning permission to succeed. It grants the planning permission with an extremely short time scale. There is no appeal under subsection (3) against that time scale because planning permission has been granted. It is not obvious to me how one then proceeds. Presumably one has to go through the whole process again. You cannot just appeal the time scale because of subsection (3). If you had a planning permission that had been granted and which had come to an end, one would have to go through the whole process again.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not have an adequate response to the noble Lord's question. If I may, I shall provide him with a note on it. However, I think that this provision will not necessarily worsen the problem he foresees. I do not want to go any further than that. I want to provide him with a proper and full answer.
Baroness Hanham: What has most impressed me about the complaints and difficulties with this clause is the number of those who have received enormous legal advice—they have lawyers sitting all over them— telling them that this clause is an absolute nightmare as regards major projects. For minor projects such as putting on roofs, three years is probably sufficient; it is certainly sufficient for the people next door who are worried about what will happen to their light and view in the future. However, I respectfully ask the Minister to think again about major projects.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I have seen a number of regeneration areas where it has taken a very long time to proceed even after planners had put together the whole scheme and obtained a perfectly proper and valid planning permission. It seems to me that developers do not have the time always to be looking over their shoulders and saying, "The two years and six months have nearly run out, after which we will have to put together and start this whole thing all over again".

833
I also do not think that it is adequate to say, "Oh, well. After three years they can put in a new application for planning permission". Major planning applications and the rest of it cost enormous sums, particularly if it is being suggested that the local development orders or local development policy may have changed in the interim and they ought to be taking account of that. I do not think that we will have any regeneration if this sword of Damocles is hanging over people' heads.
I would be interested to know what those who have made representations to us think about this after they have read Hansard and understand what the Minister said. I will make sure that they do give us feedback. I do not think that the Minister's response will measure up to the particular problem. I think that there is more to come on this. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 121A and 121B not moved.]
Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage resume not before 2.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Business of the House: Terrorism Act 2000 (Continuance of Part VII) Order 2004
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Motion in the name of the Lord President be postponed until after the Unstarred Question.
Moved, That the Motion in the name of the Lord President be postponed until after the Unstarred Question.—(Baroness Andrews.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Medical Services for Students
1.25 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how the changes in National Health Service funding have affected the provision of general medical services for students, in particular the effect on general practitioners' surgeries on university sites.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, to begin, I would ask the Minister whether he is agreeable to amending the wording of the Question to the future tense, as it is not the past that I wish to discuss. The Question would then read:
"to ask the Government how the changes in National Health Service funding will affect the provision of general medical services for students, in particular the effect on general practitioners' surgeries on university sites".
The new NHS contract for general practitioners will come into force on 1 April. Seventy-nine per cent of GPs voted in favour of this new contract and 21 per
834
cent were opposed; that is, one in five GPs. Most patients will be completely unaware of any change in their access to medical treatment, and indeed some practices will have a real opportunity to benefit from the new contract. Today I wish to bring to the attention of the House the particular and difficult situation in which some GPs—those in practices where the patients consist mainly or entirely of students— will find themselves. The Imperial College Health Centre has about 4,500 students and 500 local residents. I declare an interest as one of the 500.
The main problem for these practices is that the new GP contract changes the way in which GPs are paid from being remunerated for each patient and each service, to receiving a global sum for each practice. The Carr-Hill formula—a linchpin of the new contract— has been used as part of the calculation for the global sum. This formula assumes a certain profile for "normal" practices in that their workload will include caring for children, pregnancies, chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease and diabetes, and the elderly. I shall in general throughout this debate use the word university but I intend this to include those in higher education generally.
Most university practices have few such patients with chronic illnesses. Some dedicated student health services do not have any. Nevertheless, the demands on the health services by young adults, often away from home for the first time, are many. Their needs comprise not only of the usual health problems and anxieties, but also stem from increasing stresses and pressures, academic, financial and social. Student health services have invested a great deal of human and financial resources to provide the expertise necessary for the additional services that are essential for students. Services such as comprehensive mental health provision and sports medicine are not recognised by the new contract.
The Quality and Outcomes Framework—quoted as "one of the major new sources of income for practices"—is intended to provide opportunities for practices to earn more money. This framework does not recognise the high quality work, which includes comprehensive in-house services such as mental health, and sports medicine, done by university health services. By providing minor injury clinics the need for hospital referral or casualty attendance is replaced and it is better for students to be treated quickly and locally—and of course it saves the hospital costs.
The paradox is that at a time when the Government are seeking to widen access to university—and charge fees, thus increasing the burden of student debt and stress—they are simultaneously creating a primary care financial climate wherein many student health services will not be viable and provision of the essential services to care for and keep students in higher education will cease. In others, there will be insufficient funding to ensure continued investment and development leading to great difficulties in the recruitment of staff, including nurses and doctors.
Students cannot afford to lose time from their studies and coursework either academically or financially. Therefore, health services geared to their

835
needs try to avoid the long waits associated with hospital referral, particularly in the field of mental health. Ironically, although this good practice is one of the goals of the new contract, because of the anomalous population in student health, it will not be funded under the current scheme.
There are two areas of development where university practices might be able to obtain extra funding—sexual health services and depression. I shall not go into detail, but there are particular difficulties in providing these services and remuneration is not commensurate. Primary care trusts are under no obligation to commission these services, and many university practices report that their PCTs are not commissioning special services of any description due to insufficient funds.
Persuading primary care trusts to fund student health centres as locally enhanced special services would be another possible area of extra funding. That would involve making a business case, including patient data, evidence of need, evidence of quality and hospital cost savings. There is not enough time for that data to be collected before April. The BMA is keen for the Minister to support that as an ongoing process.
In April the new GP contract will no longer pay for each patient and each service that a practice provides. Each practice will be given a global sum which assumes that basic services are being provided to a practice with a profile of patients of all ages and needs. In replies to questions asked in the House by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and myself, the Minister has relied on the fact that if the global sum to be paid to a practice under the formula is below the current practice income, the contract will allocate a "minimum practice income guarantee"—MPIG. It will be based on practice data gathered over three-quarters of a year. That three-quarters includes the summer months. That would give a very false result, as NHS students leaving at the end of their courses come off the list in July and the replacement students do not arrive until the autumn. That means that the statistics of the number of patients of the practice being used for calculating the global sum will be distorted and will result in an inappropriate under-funding of those GPs. A practice must keep its staff and continue to operate throughout the whole year.
The MPIG is a combination of a practice's global sum, calculated on a quarterly basis, using the formula and a correction factor calculated on a once-and-for-all basis in April 2004. It is that correction factor that I would draw to the Minister's attention. The information that I have is that the PCT will decide the correction factor for each practice. PCTs should have been collecting information from practices to identify the amount of their funding allocation. Information from all of the practices in the area then goes from the PCT to the Department of Health which will in turn give PCTs their allocations.
The funding streams to PCTs have not yet happened. PCTs will soon send practices an indicative allocation. There will still be time for practices to speak to PCTs about adjustments to that allocation as the final allocation will not be made until after April 2004. The
836
delay is that the final allocation is based on figures from the quarter ending March 2004. Global sums will be adjusted quarterly once the system is up and running. As well as talking about the correction factor, I urge the Minister to ensure that PCTs take account of the fluctuating quarterly patient lists so that university practices are not penalised. A university practice's global sum income will vary according to the annual "peaks" and "troughs" in university practice populations and list sizes. There will be a particular disadvantage in relation to the July to September quarter.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the recent furore over the local government situation, where the official census figures differed widely from the local authorities' own records. We should try to avoid a similar discrepancy and its consequent recriminations occurring in the health service. Will the Minister ensure that PCTs are conscious of the particular situation of student health services and encourage them to use that correction factor to make some adjustment to offset the under-valuing of the numbers on the student health centre GP lists?
In any case, MPIG was not designed for university practices, but for those practices not in a position to make money under the new contract, primarily because of poor organisation. The assumption was that as those practices became better organised their income would increase with quality points. That will not work for university practices as their patient profile will work against them. University practices deal with young National Health Service patients. They are young adults who are as entitled to health care tailored to their needs in the same way as other groups of patients, such as children and the elderly.
The National Union of Students is running a health and welfare campaign this year, which aims to increase access to decent healthcare for students and to educate and inform students about ways to improve their overall levels of health. I quote:
"NUS is concerned that funding for sexual health services is falling. GPs' surgeries are unable to cope with the demand for sexual health screening and treatment with waiting lists often exceeding four or five weeks".
The BMA believe that the new general practitioners' contract will improve GPs' quality of care. But the BMA says:
"Compared to other practices, university practices may be financially disadvantaged under the new GP contract".
The BMA has met representatives from university practices, including representatives of the British Association of Health Services in Higher Education, and is keen to ensure that the valuable services provided to students remain at their present high level. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is concerned that there has been a progressive increase in the number of students seeking help for mental health problems.
There is no time to say more but can the Minister assure me of two things: first, that he will encourage PCTs to look at the correction factor in connection with the special situation of those practices; secondly, perhaps even more importantly, ensure that PCTs are aware of the fact that numbers of patients on university practice lists will not be consistent throughout the year, but will

837
vary between quarters. If the Minister can do that, I will be hopeful that there will be better introduction of the new GP contract in those practices.
1.36 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for having raised an important debate and raised her questions. I must declare an interest as vice-dean at the University of Wales College of Medicine and I have dealings with, and responsibility for, large numbers of students.
Student health is important and there are some specific issues for general practitioners providing general medical services to students that must be considered as the nature of the GP contract changes. First, there is of course the fluctuating workload for a practice, although that presents an opportunity for a practice to take in a term-time working partner or assistant—a position that might be ideal for a working parent of small children.
Students are by their nature concentrated in the 18 to 25 age bracket. Specific problems are psychologically and psychiatrically related, sexually related and infection linked. In that cohort of intelligent young people, the males have a particularly high incidence of schizophrenia and it is in that age-group that it manifests itself. Drug-related psychoses are prevalent in that population and, of course, acute psychiatric emergencies correlate closely with drug abuse. It has been estimated that about 40 per cent of those presenting as psychiatric emergencies are drug abuse-related overall.
I am not implying that students are drug abusers, but they are in that young, vulnerable age group. Another drug used by many students is alcohol. High risk drinking behaviour needs to be identified early and intervention focussed to detect the early alcoholic. Debt incurred from alcohol often compounds their problems.
Sexual activity in the age group makes them frequent users of post-coital contraception—the "morning after pill"—and at risk of sexually transmitted diseases. It has been estimated that one in eight of that sexually active population will be found to be chlamydia positive on testing. The long term implications are great, with the associated risks of pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy and infertility. There is a case for introducing rapid molecular diagnostic techniques in that population as a screening tool. Sweden introduced screening 25 years ago and has recently reported a decrease in prevalence of chlamydial disease and of ectopic pregnancy rates. That runs counter to the international and UK trends, where no screening programmes are in place.
Depression is also prevalent in that age group and with it the tragedy of suicide and parasuicide. Previously undisclosed abuse presents as a variety of symptoms, not only depression. The student may have felt unable to disclose to the GP at home, who is also the family doctor, but will disclose once they are away at university. Other manifestations of distress that are prevalent include anorexia and other eating disorders and those who self-harm. People who harm themselves
838
do so as a way of release from their overwhelming distress. They can benefit from specialised intervention, but the management of self-harming is often outside the experience of the ordinary GP and local general psychiatric services may not have anyone with a particular interest in these complex cases.
But there is a much more complex issue in trying to improve health in this population. The time frame for intervention is short. They are a mobile population who are poor attendees for planned appointments but often need acute short interventions. They have a very low incidence of chronic conditions, clearly outlined by the noble Baroness, although of course a few will have conditions such as diabetes or physical disabilities requiring general medical input. They present with a variety of acute sports and other injuries related to lifestyle. They need to be seen there and then.
They tend to drop in to student health services in a panic, seeking rapid intervention. Peaks and troughs in demand coincide with terms and vacations although many are slow to register with the GP when they first arrive at university. So the practice does not have the benefit of the well non-attendee on its list as calculated for in the new ordinary remuneration rates: students present and register when they have a problem and need help.
Students coming from abroad and those travelling in vacation or as part of their course may bring with them infections that are less frequent in this country. Tuberculosis is on the increase in all parts of the world. Immunisation affords only partial protection, but many have never even had a BCG immunisation.
Loneliness is a major problem for some students, away from home and facing fear of failure. Acute isolation, debt and poor living conditions conspire against such a student to drive him further down the road of despair. He may feel fearful of seeking help and stigmatised by mental health problems.
Confidentiality is a major worry for some. They do not want to encounter their friends in the waiting room, so effective services will do all they can to ensure strictly that the reception staff are sensitive to the students. The acute emergency of meningitis is a time when the practice must suddenly alter its work pattern to work with public health to contain any outbreak. Students live close to each other and it is in this group that meningitis strikes and fatalities occur.
This Government have done much in the new GP contract to ensure that the true workload for general practitioners is reflected in remuneration. However, the additional services provided from those practices with a large student population will be in mental health and in public health particularly in relation to sexual activity.
The minimum practice income guarantee should mitigate against penalising existing practices, but there is little incentive in the contract for a practice to move into the area of student health. I hope that the Minister can give some assurance that primary care organisations will be asked to monitor the commissioning of student

839
services from university practices and set standards for these to ensure that they are run by those with a particular interest in the health concerns of young adults.
The ability of the primary care organisations to commission enhanced services for those running student health services provides an excellent opportunity for the specific needs of this group to be met and to impact on sexual health, unwanted pregnancy rates and avoid, it is to be hoped, the awful incidence of suicide.
I also ask the Minister whether consideration is being given to the cost efficacy of a screening programme in under 25 year-old, non-pregnant, sexually active women to detect chlamydia. Student health services could be an ideal starting point for such an evaluation.
1.43 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for tabling the Question and giving us a further opportunity to debate the issue. It is a problem about which I feel most concerned as a head of a college at Oxford University. In that respect, I declare an interest. I declare a further interest because I am on the list of one of the practices involved as part of the college.
The Minister was kind enough to answer a Question from me a few weeks ago and I do not want to go over the ground I mentioned then. However, there have been further developments to which I want to refer. I want to underline some of the points that have been made so competently by the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner and Lady Finlay.
As has been said, the new GP contract is recognised as a considerable advance. It reflects the different needs of various sectors of the population, and the Carr-Hill formula is surely right in recognising that some sectors of the population have greater needs than others. I am advised that the rate under the formula for, for example, elderly women is six times that for young males. It makes sense, and those of us who are elderly will agree, that elderly members of the population should carry greater weight in the capitation rates for general practice. However, I am advised, and the Minister may wish to comment on this, that the similar formula in Scotland allows three times the weighting for elderly women compared with young males. Compared with the rate south of the Border, there appears to be a discrepancy.
Even if the relative weighting is right, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner and Lady Finlay, have said, there are particular problems for students living away from home compared with those in a similar age group who are living at home with their families. And the statistics show that the consultation rate among students living away from home is much higher than for young people of similar age who are living with their parents.
The reasons for that are not difficult to see. Many such young people will be living away from home for the first time. They are exposed to experiences and risks to which others in more sheltered circumstances will not be exposed. Many are foreign students and the
840
strain on them is particularly heavy. But even those who are in a familiar context are prone and vulnerable to mental stress, to the temptations which come from sexual experiences and to exposure to drugs.
Again, the Government have taken some excellent preventive initiatives in these areas and in my experience GPs dealing with such young people strongly support them. But they need funding. The preventive measures—the health education that is highly desirable and encouraged—need to be allowed for. The present formula does not allow adequately for it.
When I asked my previous Question, the Minister put a good deal of weight on the ability of the primary care trusts to provide extra funds for this purpose. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to that today. The question is whether the primary care trusts will have the funds and will be willing to recognise this particular need and to provide adequately for it. That is the unknown aspect that is creating great uncertainty in practices dealing with students.
Since I asked my previous Question, there has been a meeting between the British Association of Health Services in Higher Education and the BMA. At that meeting, the BMA recognised the problem and told the association that it had been making representations to the Government on its behalf.
The difficulty is that, as I understand it, the Carr-Hill formula will not be reviewed until 2006. By that time, a great deal of damage may have been done. The Government are saying, as the Minister said to me previously, that the formula is widely supported by the medical profession and that they are unwilling to reopen it. So there is a great deal of weight on the primary care trusts. If a solution is to be found, the first recourse must be there.
The danger I see is that it may be one of those situations where everyone acknowledges a problem and recognises a need but will be tempted to leave it to another body to solve it, so that it will not be solved. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, made some very practical suggestions of ways in which primary care trusts might be urged to take cognisance of the problem and provide for it. I warmly support her in urging those measures on the Minister and hope that he will be able to tell us that the department will encourage primary care trusts to take them seriously.
1.51 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has put her finger on a specific problem in this debate. The new run-of-the-mill way of allocating funds for health services does not serve a particular group in a particular set of circumstances—that is, students. As has been said by all those who have spoken in the debate, things such as chronic disease, heart conditions and so on will not manifest themselves in that group. However, it then becomes apparent that that group has potentially much higher needs in other areas. Thus, there is a lack of funding and specific needs go unmet.

841
Other speakers have called on the Government to try to address that by changing the way in which funds are allocated. The enhanced services being introduced by primary care organisations appear to be a way forward. I ask the Government for an assurance that encouragement will be given to ensure that those enhanced services are provided. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, listed what students will generally need. I am surprised that that was not taken into account. It is another example of how joined-up government does not really work.
Experimenting with drugs and alcohol, what is often the start of an active sex life, and sports injuries have been there as long as students have been around—let us face facts. The myths about those activities and in which combination they strike have also been universal, but let us not go into that. Everyone who has been to university since universities began would probably say the same.
The Government should ask why that was not factored in. No one has been talking to anyone; but everyone knows what goes on. The majority—indeed, the overwhelming majority—of civil servants are graduates, after all, so that is a big miss, to be perfectly honest.
Let us consider the benefits of taking those factors into account. The traditional gripe that I have against GPs concerning injuries, especially sports injuries, was that they would say, "Rest for three weeks". The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, shakes her head; I agree that this is probably an historical problem, but it did happen. I remember saying, "Doesn't that mean that I will weaken the muscle, which means that when I start playing again I will stand a greater chance of getting a worse injury that may be permanent?". A look of panic spread across the doctor's face, and he said, "Rest for four weeks". That degree of ignorance existed; it is not as bad now, but elements of it remain. The fact is that doctors are not the best people to deal with that problem; we need physiotherapists or other specialists in the field.
What tends to happen with the young is that they are fit enough to patch over the injury but there is a profound weakness that means that the health service ends up paying for a lot more treatment later. If that type of injury is dealt with in a centre of excellence, there is a facility that others can use as well. The same applies to work-based injuries of the young and not so young doing manual work. Those centres will be better organised to provide such services. That point is unanswerable. The Government should be ensuring that within their structures encouragement is given to creating such services. People will be better able to use them and, in the long term, there will be savings.
Other points were raised about depression and the temptation to experiment with drugs or binge drinking, which it is currently fashionable to discuss. As a young rugby player, I fear that the origins of that were there among young and not so young rugby players-it was encouraged. Once again, with preventive healthcare in place and now that people, we hope, have more open minds, we can establish patterns of behaviour that will benefit us in future.
842
It is worth bearing in mind that it is proposed to increase student numbers and to put increased pressure on those students by making them pay more to go to university. The mental health implications of that must be obvious. With the best will in the world on the Government's part, even if their policy is correct—I do not think it is; but that is neither here nor there—they must take into account that there will be greater pressure on students. As a greater percentage of the population will go through university, intervening early on will save resources in the long run.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has raised a real problem that must be dealt with. The waiting system must be addressed quickly. If we get it wrong, we are just saving up cost implications for later. I hope that the Government will tell us today that they are encouraging the health service and those in charge of it to ensure that specialist services are available. In the long term, that will benefit all those in society and save resources. The noble Baroness is correct: the Government should act.
1.57 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have the distinct feeling that everything worth saying in this debate has already been said, so I do not propose to speak for long. Nevertheless, not for the first time, my noble friend has raised a topic of considerable interest and importance. In preparing for the debate, I re-read the debates in Hansard on the two Starred Questions of 8 May and 15 January that related to the subject of this debate. I cannot say that I am surprised that my noble friend wanted to take a third bite of this sizeable cherry. We always receive well informed answers from the Minister, but last time, we were all left with the feeling that the issue was far from settled.
I start, as have others, with a statement of the obvious: with university students we are dealing with a vulnerable population group. They may not be vulnerable in the normal sense of that word, but they are vulnerable none the less as young adults who, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, are spreading their wings away from home, often for the first time. There are a great many of them: 2.1 million at the last count; a figure that is growing every year.
Although they are not like the frail elderly, the health requirements of students can often be more acute than those of other age groups. One has only to glance at a BMA publication from last December entitled Adolescent Health to be reminded how many undesirable conditions affect young people in the 16 to 24 age range, above all other age ranges: alcohol use and binge drinking, drug use, depression, self-harm and sexually transmitted diseases.
The BMA laid great emphasis in its report on the need for early intervention in all areas of adolescent health to help to prevent problems escalating. It rightly made the point that young people need information and support in order to be able to access health services on their own. Once they access those services, the facilities must be there. In an area such as sexual health, we are all well aware—even apart from the

843
context of this debate—how overstretched those services already are. A condition such as chlamydia is insidious because it can be asymptomatic, so screening facilities must be accessible to those at risk.
When we reflect on what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said about students suffering from mental health difficulties—as many unfortunately do—we need to think in terms of providing services that are equipped to deal with substance abuse, which can often lie at the root of those mental health problems. The role of health education is also especially important here. It is not sufficient to have skeleton medical services on university campuses. The services must be there when they are required, and they must be of a particular kind if they are to meet the needs of the local population. It is against that backdrop that my noble friend's concerns about the new GP contract should be viewed.
I have taken the opportunity to do some fairly thorough reading-up of the GP contract; and in doing so I have been considerably assisted by a briefing paper published the day before yesterday by the BMA. It leaves me in no doubt that the GP contract, for all its merits, is highly likely to put the student population at risk of inadequate medical cover. First, there is the global sum payment. This is the payment that each practice will receive for the basic services that they provide to patients, and it is expected to make up at least half of most practices' incomes. The global sum payment will be calculated by reference to a weighted capitation formula.
There are two main reasons why this formula will disadvantage university practices in comparison with others. Because the practice population is classified as young and relatively healthy, the associated multiplier in the formula in respect of patient need, workload and costs will be smaller than it would be in a practice in which the age range of patients is more spread.
The way in which populations and list sizes are calculated in university practices will produce peaks and troughs. As my noble friend said, list sizes are reported on a quarterly basis for the purposes of calculating the global sum payment. If students who graduate in a particular year are removed from the practice's registered population by 1 July, the July to September quarter's figures will reflect that. If, as may happen, new students have not registered by 1 October, the October to December quarter's figures will also be depressed. The Minister said that practices that keep their practice lists up to date should not be disadvantaged. Frankly, I do not understand how he can say that, particularly when one bears in mind that practices have precious little control over when students choose to register and deregister.
If we look at other elements of the GP contract, there is little for our comfort in them. Practices can earn points in the quality and outcomes framework, QOF, but the value of those points depends on the prevalence of given chronic diseases, such as coronary heart disease, in the patient population. Because student practices have a low prevalence of these
844
chronic diseases, payments based on QOF points will be less than they would be if the calculation of points was based solely on list size.
The Minister has laid considerable emphasis on the minimum practice income guarantee. The purpose of the MPIG is to prevent destabilisation and to protect practice income. The problem is that the MPIG is itself partly dependent on a practice's global sum calculated on the normal quarterly basis using the formula. It also includes a once and for all correction factor, to be calculated in April 2004. Like my noble friend, I would be interested to hear whether that correction factor could be specially tailored in respect of university practices.
The BMA said that, despite the MPIG, it is likely that the finances of university practices will fall relative to their colleagues elsewhere and that important enhanced services such as health promotion, treatment of sports injuries, and services for patients with eating disorders and depression are likely to suffer. These are services provided over and above the range of so-called "essential" and "additional" services. It might be thought—and the Minister has previously suggested this—that university practices will be in a good position to tender for these sorts of enhanced services, but if we look at what is actually happening on the ground, there is precious little evidence that they are being resourced in this way by the commissioning PCTs.
It is somewhat sobering to read this week's statement from the BMA calling on primary care organisations to ensure,
"that they commission an appropriate range of enhanced services for students".
There is absolutely nothing to ensure that primary care organisations will do so, and I am afraid that the BMA knows it. It is not only the BMA that is exercised. The British Association of Health Services in Higher Education have also expressed grave disquiet, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said.
Last time we debated these issues, I detected signs of a dry stone wall being erected on the other side of the Dispatch Box, so I hope that this time the Minister will be a little more forthcoming and will acknowledge, in the light of what has been said, that there is a real risk of university practices suffering cuts in staff or becoming unviable. We know that the whole situation will be reviewed after six months of operation, but can the Minister say whether in the mean time strategic health authorities will be performance-managing PCTs on this aspect of their activities? Can he also say whether in due course PMS contracts might be the answer on university campuses where doctor numbers become insufficient?
From what the BMA is now saying it is clear—at least to me—that GP practices on university campuses were simply overlooked when the GMS contract was being negotiated. That is an alarming state of affairs, and if there are unintended and detrimental consequences flowing from the contract, there is only one direction in which we can look for these to be rectified; that is, to Richmond House.
2.8 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for raising her concerns on this important issue. It provides me with an opportunity to set out the new approach to contracting for primary care services that the Government are undertaking. The noble Baroness has great knowledge, experience and commitment to the NHS, and I always pay careful attention to her observations. As a parent who has had four children go through this experience, I am well aware of the needs and vulnerabilities of students. I do not need a lot of tuition in the problems that can arise. I reassure the noble Earl that if he had ever seen any of my dry stone walls, he would not be too worried about what is being erected here.
In responding to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and others, I begin by placing the GMS contract in its proper context of higher investment in primary care. Across the UK, investment is increasing by about £1.9 billion. There is a 33 per cent increase in funding. There are more GPs in the National Health Service than ever before. Between September 1999 and June 2003, the number of GPs increased by more than 1,500, bringing the numbers in post to more than 30,000. That is the context in which the changes are taking place.
Much new equipment and facilities have been coming on stream. Up to 3,000 GP premises will be improved or replaced and 500 one-stop centres established by 2004. All that means improved access and quality of services for patients. Some of the concerns raised about resources for PCTs do not seem well founded. I will discuss that later.
With that level of increased investment, it is essential that reforms are made to how we deliver primary care so that it becomes more patient-centred with more individualised care and more choice. Alongside that, decision-making is being devolved from the centre to local areas so that the NHS can respond better to the specific needs of local communities, including those with high student populations. The new GMS contract is part of that approach. Some of the concerns expressed derive from an anxiety about how devolution of decision-making on priorities at local level will work in practice. It is important that as Ministers we resist the temptation to second-guess every set of decisions taken in this area where there is a difference of view at local level about priorities. We do not want to return to a world in which Richmond House intervenes at every instance of local unrest.
Under the new contract, the income that a practice receives to provide basic GMS services is termed the global sum. Funding for the global sum is determined by the needs of the local patients. The formula has been designed so that practices with more needy patients and that face higher costs are fairly rewarded. That is intentionally redistributive, and some practices—for example, those in affluent areas, or those with atypical populations—may see a reduction in their global sum compared to their previous income for equivalent items.
846
I must make it clear again that the new contract has not been imposed on an unwilling profession. It is the result of 18 months' negotiation between the general practice committee of the BMA and the NHS Confederation. In a ballot of GPs, nearly 80 per cent voted for acceptance of the new contract.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, raised contract comparison issues with Scotland. I will look into the point that he raised and write to him. However, I gently mention to him that health is a devolved function, and if the Scots wish to pursue a different agenda in this area they have a right to do so. They must exercise their judgment on what they think fit and suitable for the people of Scotland in their health service.
It has always been clear that the new contract will pose some transitional problems. That is why the minimum practice income guarantee has been devised with the profession to ensure that practices that might otherwise lose through the global sum will be protected. It ensures that no practice, wherever it is sited and whatever the make-up of its list, will receive less under the global sum than it did under previous equivalent funding mechanisms. There is a permanent commitment to the principle of that guarantee.
The baseline spend data on which the minimum practice income guarantee is based are collected over the 12 months from July 2002 to June 2003. That recognises the changing levels of a student population and ensures that there will be no distorting effect on the calculation of the minimum practice income guarantee that university practices are eligible to receive. The minimum practice income guarantee is designed to protect fairly all practices whose global sum funding is reduced under the new funding arrangements. That means that when the new arrangements come into operation in April there will be no drop in income for any practice.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the factors influencing funding allocations include increased funding to reflect list turnover, which will benefit university practices. That recognises the extra workload caused by higher levels of demand for services that patients, including students, usually make in their first year of registration. Many payments, including those made under the quality and outcomes framework, will be adjusted by list size quarterly to reflect the demands of a changing population throughout the year.
It is also important to recognise that the new GMS contract is being introduced in a context in which primary care trusts are responsible for ensuring that primary care services meet the needs of their local communities. That is to help the NHS become a more personal health service where meeting the needs of individual patients is paramount. PCTs will have more operational and financial freedoms, and new opportunities to develop locally based services that meet local community needs. They can, therefore, let practice-based contracts for specialised services geared to local circumstances.

847
For practices, there will thus be new opportunities to offer enhanced services to cover the specific needs of university students, for example, and to address those problems more prevalent in student populations. Where appropriate, it will be open for PCTs to commission, for example, services for sports injuries— I am sorry to hear of the previous experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in that area—stress-related health problems, sexual health services or substance abuse, if those were considered appropriate and necessary for a university population. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, outlined very authoritatively, as is her manner, some of the important health needs of some students. It is important to mention that it is only some students. We should not generalise about students and assume that they all need such specialised services.
Practices sited on university campuses may already provide those more specialised services, and the new contracting arrangements ensure that they can get paid properly for that work. They will be well placed to develop new enhanced services and thus increase their income. Several noble Lords have referred to the BMA briefing for the debate. I wish to quote one part of it:
"university practices should be in a good position to tender for some national enhanced services such as the more specialised care of patients with depression and more specialised sexual health services, as well as local enhanced services such as sports injury service or a service for the provision of prophylactic care following a meningitis outbreak".
That is from the BMA circular; it is not government-speak.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parks, mentioned the Westminster PCT in both the earlier Question and this debate. I have looked into that. The professional executive committee of Westminster decides what services to commission within that PCT. It met in December to decide on the range of services that it would commission as enhanced services. The provision of services was determined there locally by prioritisation, and sexual health services were not deemed a high priority for enhanced funding. But that was because local people made that decision on the basis of their understanding of what services were already available in that area.
The increased investment in primary care that I have mentioned will enable PCTs to commission those more bespoke local services. After all, NHS expenditure is increasing by an unprecedented 7 per cent in real terms a year over a five-year period, and PCTs now have at their disposal 75 per cent of NHS expenditure for commissioning services. But the Government have gone a little further—this will respond to some of the concerns expressed. They have identified specific and rising sums of money for enhanced services. Those are: £315 million in 2003–04, £385 million in 2004–05 and £460 million in 2005–06. Each PCT will be advised of its local floor—I emphasise, floor—for enhanced services below which it is not expected to spend. It is then down to it to decide how, when and from whom it commissions enhanced services. Local primary care practices must then convince the PCT of the local need
848
and their capacity to respond to that need. I hope that that reassures several noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. There is very specific, rising provision for enhanced services.
I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, described well the iterative nature of settling PCT and practice budgetary allocations. I certainly would not wish to quarrel with what she said. PCTs do take account of the varying nature of quarterly list sizes. I am sure that in taking forward the new contract PCTs will look at the correction factor and the fluctuating list of practices with high numbers of students.
In conclusion, let me emphasise again that the British Medical Association welcomes the new contract that it negotiated and which the profession has overwhelmingly voted for. Its briefing for this debate is consistent with what I have said. The minimum practice income guarantee will prevent any immediate drop in income for all practices. We have also agreed with the profession that the funding allocation formula will be kept under review. This review will begin in October 2004 and any changes to the formula are unlikely to lead to a different resource distribution before 2006–07. Even then, the commitment that practices will not be destabilised will remain. It is down to local primary care organisations to use the growing volume of resources for enhanced services to meet local needs and to university medical practices to demonstrate locally the value of their local services. This is not a matter to be settled centrally. I am sure PCTs will study the concerns expressed in this debate.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is quite right. The SHAs do have a responsibility to monitor performance in their areas and respond to any concerns. It is open to other people on GMS contracts to move to PMS contracts—a salaried service, if you like—if they think that meets their particular circumstances. This could be a helpful way to respond to a local situation. This contract constitutes an essential reform to match this Government's unprecedented financial investment in the NHS. It will provide new, more autonomous, local service delivery geared to local circumstances that better meets the needs of patients and with the support of the great majority of GPs.
Encouraged by my noble friend to my left, I shall keep going. This will give me an opportunity to respond to a particular point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The cavalry is at hand, by the looks of it. Her point related to screening for sexual health services. We believe that an additional service will be set up to target women from the age of 25 to 64 for cervical cytology screening. But I will write to her in more detail to set out some of the thinking taking place in this area. I am grateful to my noble friend for his arrival. That ends my contribution to this debate.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 2.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sifting was suspended from 2.23 to 2.25 p.m.]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 50.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 121C:
Page 38, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: These amendments would remove the provisions to extend the life of a planning permission or listed building consent if legal proceedings are brought against it. These provisions in the Bill are entirely novel. Since time limits were introduced in the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 there has been no provision which extends time for implementation because legal proceedings have been brought. I will explain why this provision is undesirable and unnecessary.
First, undesirability. Take as an example a planning permission granted in 2004, subject to a three year period for implementation. Judicial review proceedings are brought to quash the consent, and let us assume that they take the exceptionally long period of three years to be concluded. The implementation period would thereby be extended to 2010. If planning policy had changed in 2006 to make the project undesirable, the consequence would be that the development could be started four years after planning policy had opposed it. Without this extension period, the developer would have had to implement the permission or apply for a renewal of the planning permission. This is a mirror to the amendment we discussed earlier. The public would be consulted and environmental information would have to be updated. The local authority and the Secretary of State would be able to consider the new application in the light of the change in policy. They could refuse planning permission.
The effect of the extension provision will be to enable development to take place at times when local authorities and Ministers consider it to be undesirable. It overrides planning merits and policy and hinders good planning.
Time for appealing a court decision runs from the date when the court order is made, not when judgment is handed down. So appeal times can only be calculated by seeing the order, not from finding out when the judgment was delivered. Indeed many planning challenges are concluded without a judgment when proceedings are settled.
There are difficulties with the drafting of the Bill's provisions in any event. First, subsection (3B)(a) provides that proceedings are to be concluded
"when permission to apply for judicial review has been refused and no further application may be made."
An application for permission is considered first of all by a judge on the papers. If that is refused, the applicant may ask for the decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing. That is not a further application.
850
The Bill is unclear about whether applications for permission are concluded at the paper stage or the oral hearing.
Secondly, the time for bringing judicial review proceedings is uncertain in any event. Applications should be brought promptly and in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make t he claim first arose under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 54. Because of the promptness required, the time for making an application may expire before the three-month period is up. This issue has caused huge uncertainties among judges and lawyers. It is impossible for specialist lawyers, let alone the public, to say with certainty when no further application may be made. Additionally, the court may grant an extension of time for applying for permission. Again, it cannot be said when no further application can be made. The exclusion in subsection (3D) of any ability to grant permission to appeal out of time does not apply to an application for permission to apply for judicial review.
A challenge, as referred to in subsection (3A), to a local authority's action will be a judicial review of the grant of planning permission, not to the decision to grant planning permission, which may be a much earlier resolution of the authority. So subsection (3A) might not apply to those decisions. It is also uncertain whether proceedings against a later decision—for example, to grant reserved matters approval—which implicitly say that an error was made in granting planning permission in the first place, is a challenge for the purposes of subsection (3A). Our legal advice is that that is a real issue in environmental impact assessment cases where there can be challenges to reserved matters approvals which involve the original permission being unlawful.
Does subsection (3E) saying that development is not prevented before the proceedings are concluded affect the ability of a court to grant an interim injunction preventing development being carried out when a planning permission is being challenged? Finally, the provisions do not address cases being brought before the European Court of Human Rights.
Section 288 applications are challenges to the Secretary of State's decisions on planning appeals and call-in inquiries. About 160 such cases are brought each year, of which about 60 will be successful. Most Section 288 applications are brought by developers challenging the refusal of planning permission. Local authorities and third parties are less likely to challenge the grant of planning permission. It is likely that no more than 40 unsuccessful challenges to planning permission are brought by that route each year. Section 288 challenges are usually resolved more quickly than judicial reviews as they are one-stage processes. Permission to apply is not required and they can reasonably be over in three months.
Therefore, this provision will benefit perhaps 120 schemes a year, for periods averaging much less than nine months. However, the extended periods will be extremely difficult for even expert lawyers to calculate. They will allow some development to be

851
carried out in the extended period, which would be refused under the new policy or circumstances. I beg to move.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: These are not amendments with which we can agree. Amendments Nos. 121C and 125B would remove amendments proposed by the Government that permit the validity period to start after any judicial review proceedings have been completed. As I understand it, originally those amendments were laid in response to concerns raised by developers at the shorter validity period, coupled with the removal of the provision that enabled developers to seek to extend the life of the consent and could mean that the validity period had expired before judicial review proceedings had been completed.
We take the view that if the consent is not quashed as a result of the judicial review, there is little justification for requiring the developer to submit a fresh application simply because the validity period expired during the judicial review proceedings. For those reasons, we cannot see why that provision in the Bill should be removed.
The noble Baroness made a number of other points on which she had received legal advice and guidance. Today, at the Dispatch Box, I am not in a position to take those points. They are matters on which we should like to reflect carefully. If the noble Baroness is content to withdraw her amendment, we will happily address the more complex matters that she raised in correspondence and share that with other Members of the Committee.
Baroness Hanham: That is a fair response. Clearly, it is a complicated matter which is causing legal questions. I shall ensure that Hansard has my notes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 122 to 126ZA not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Cobbold: Following our discussions, I withdraw my objection.
Clause 50 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 126A not moved.]
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 126B:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—
"CONTROL OVER DEVELOPMENT
In Part III (meaning of development) of the principal Act in section 55(2), there is inserted after paragraph (a)(ii)—
"(iii) do not materially increase the overall retail sales floor area of the building by more than 10 per cent,"."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 126B is a probing amendment that follows discussions in another place and in this Chamber at Second Reading
852
on the issue of internal superstore expansions. The purpose of the amendment—I recognise that this amendment may not be fit for the purpose—is to ensure that where planning permission has been given in the past, particularly for out-of-town superstores, a material increase in the internal retail floor space cannot take place without further permission. That would ensure an opportunity to assess other important local factors that would change if a store increased its size hugely, such as traffic flows and the viability of other shopping facilities in the area.
I am grateful to Friends of the Earth, which has taken up the issue and has carried out a survey. Much of my evidence comes from Friends of the Earth. Its survey of local authorities reveals that supermarkets and other big retailers are building big internal extensions. That is a problem for local authorities, particularly where they are trying to ensure that their town centres are sustainable. It would seem that under original planning terms, it is easy to do this. There has been a habit in England that where planning permission is obtained further external development may need more permission, but further internal development does not.
As I said, there is considerable evidence of significant impact from those types of expansions around the country. That should be set against the fact that more than 13,000 specialist stores, including butchers, bakers, fishmongers and newsagents closed between 1997 and 2002, making a big difference to the viability of local shopping centres. The Government recognised that that was happening. It is not a simple problem. We are referring to planning permissions previously given. The Minister promised to look at the matter, and I hope that he will be able to report on his findings today.
Perhaps I may give just a few more examples of problems. I understand that Asda Wal-Mart plan to build 40 mezzanine floors in the United Kingdom. Much of that space will be used for non-food goods, which completely changes the nature of the store. Potentially, that is a threat to existing town centre stores. There is a particular problem with a store in Tamworth. In the survey carried out by Friends of the Earth, it spoke to a great number of local authorities, many of which realised the problems and have tried to deal with them. Even where conditions have been put on to a planning permission, local authorities were finding it difficult to make them stick. That is particularly the case with the store in Tamworth. There was a condition on the outline permission restricting the floor space, but it was allowed on appeal. The inspector concluded that the condition was not applicable because it did not specifically refer to the internal space.
There are other places, too, where that is happening. For example, in Norwich, Aldiss plans to build 3,000 square metres inside its store; at Chorley, there are plans for a further 1,850 square metres in a store; and at Warrington, 2,000 square metres have been installed. At Eastleigh Borough Council—an area that I know— there is a large out-of-town development at Hedge End that has been there for some years where Marks amp;

853
Spencer wants to increase its area by more than 2,000 square metres. Permission for an extension to the building had previously been refused, so Marks & Spencer was actually getting its extension inside the building. The same thing is happening within the same borough, at Chandler's Ford. It is an Asda store, which I know well. It is already a huge bottleneck. Goodness knows what might happen.
The Minister may well be aware that his honourable friend Clive Betts, in another place, has raised the issue in Sheffield. I know that in York, Asda has actually boasted that its mezzanine-enhanced store will bring traffic from even further afield into the area.
When planning permissions were granted some years ago, I do not think anyone envisaged how matters might develop. As I said, it has been fairly standard that people have been able to change the insides of buildings. There is a widespread view that we need to get the balance right between out-of-town shopping and town centre shopping.
I recognise that this amendment is not the perfect answer, but we need to ensure that we have a planning system which guards against unforeseen developments that cause difficulties in the area.
Many Committee Members will have received the same letter that I received from Investors in Retail which was concerned that my amendment was a catch-all and worried that the Government might accept it. I explained how the Committee stage works and that it is rare for the Government to accept an amendment. It has happened to me in the past but I said it was most unlikely that this would happen; that it was a probing amendment; and that if the amendment was a catch-all the Government would certainly not accept it.
I hope that with that information and comments, and especially my opening and closing remarks about the nature of the amendment, the Minister can enlighten us a little as to how we can at least ensure that we do not lay ourselves open to this type of development. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I find myself very sympathetic to this amendment. I do not think it works, because Clause 55(2) of the old Bill is an "or" joined clause. I do not think that the formulation that the noble Baroness proposed works with that. Furthermore, it is too easy to get round because you would just have a succession of developments under the threshold, and there is no way under this amendment of dealing with that.
As to her objective—in the cause of building and maintaining sustainable towns and cities to enable the planning authorities to have a voice in what happens in existing out-of-town centres—I am quite happy with that. But if you apply the same percentage to an enormous development out of town and to a heel bar in the middle of town you are going to cause a lot of problems for the small shopkeepers who want to move their counter back a foot. The amendment requires some thought. I hope the Government have been giving it some thought.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, does not know how close I have come to saying "We will accept this, put it at Committee stage and get the draftsman to sort it out on Report" because that would be the firmest possible signal to send to the spivs in the retail industry, all of whom the noble Baroness listed, who do not care about rebuilding our city centres. Every single company that was mentioned by the noble Baroness has tried to get round planning policy guidance 6. They do not care about rebuilding vibrant city centres. They are hell bent on remaining out of town and will use anything they can to do it.
There is one exceptional firm that the noble Baroness did not mention, John Lewis, which has a good record of wanting to be part and parcel of rebuilding our city centres. So far as I am concerned it would be nice to accept the amendment, but there are so many technical difficulties with it that we could cause ourselves problems on Report. However, as I indicated at Second Reading, we are seriously seized of the issue and there is a case for action. There is no question about that. I cannot say whether it is required on the face of the Bill, but most of the major retail permissions since 1996, when the policy was reversed by John Gummer—much to his credit—specify maximum floor spaces in the conditions, and one can cope with that. Therefore planning authorities have the powers to control mezzanines in those circumstances.
That is well known—we recently publicised it through the draft planning policy statement 6, which we published before Christmas. We know there is still a problem with the pre-1996 consent. The 1996 policy has only just begun to bite in the past couple of years because of banking all those planning permissions; the companies suddenly realised and claimed that we had changed the policy but we had not.
We have commissioned a survey to assess the extent of the issue and the possible consequences. I want to take this amendment away and give it serious consideration. Ideally you have got to hit these companies so that they know you are serious, and that means doing it in primary legislation. On the other hand it may be more effective, and faster, to use secondary legislation, because they are moving ahead now and there is nothing we can do today to stop what is going on out there. They do not care about rebuilding the city centres because otherwise they would not be doing this. They pay lip service to their community involvement. I hope that all those companies mentioned by the noble Baroness will read what has been said here today.
Baroness Hamwee: I expect that the company mentioned with praise by the Minister will read this as well!
If we can propose an amendment along the lines of "the Secretary of State may make regulations" which will be helpful to the Government in taking this forward at the next stage, I hope that they will let us know, because I appreciate that if they are not quite

855
able to firm up at the next stage but would like a further opportunity, we will be happy to provide that platform.
Baroness Maddock: I thank my noble friend for her helpful intervention, and the Minister for what he has said. I knew from Second Reading that he was sympathetic to the issue and I hope that we can do a little more at the next stage, if that proves to be most appropriate. In my opening comments I admitted that I was fairly sure that the amendment was not quite fit for purpose but it has raised the issue and the Minister has given me a very full reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 [Fees and charges]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 40, line 19, at end insert—

"() that fees should be set to generate a prescribed degree of revenue in excess of costs for a local planning authority;

() that to a prescribed extent fees payable should be dependent on the performance of a local planning authority."

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 128. These two amendments address completely different matters, but none the less they are grouped together.
The first amendment, which I am sure is entirely unnecessary because it involves the power to do something that the Government can do if they want to, seeks to encourage the Government to set planning fees at a much higher level. In all the discussions that I have had with developers I have asked them whether they would be happy if planning fees were raised by a factor of five. I hope that the Government will take that attitude into account and find ways of turning the planning departments of local authorities into something resembling profit centres. If the department is run right, ultimately it should be able to make a cash contribution to the operation of the rest of the authority. To go down that road would be much welcomed by the development industry.
My only caveat is that if we are seriously to pursue the cash contribution element, some of that will have to be made conditional on performance. That is difficult to formulate and I would not dream of trying to do so in primary legislation. Setting a target number of applications dealt with within the target timescale should be considered, but to specify right down to the level of individual planning applications would probably be to invite abuse. Allowing those planning authorities which are generally prompt to charge more might be a better approach. For example, if a target is met, the fee charged could be 4 rather than 3. Ways may be found to encourage and reward good performance, making the planning department an area of the authority to be regarded as one that does well and is something to be proud of. If authorities ensure that their departments are run with the best possible staff in the best possible way, that would be to everyone's benefit.
Amendment No. 128 has been tabled in response to what I understand to be a change made in this Bill that will widen the ability of planning authorities to charge for the services they provide; that is, if authorities have a duty to do something, in general they can charge for it. One area in which local planning authorities are heavily involved is in giving advice before application. A developer can find it extremely valuable to sit down and work through with planning personnel what kind of application would be welcomed by the authority. However, the present difficulty for developers is that, although extensive evidence and correspondence may be submitted at that stage, when the application is finally presented, all the work and documentation is disregarded in the consideration of the planning application.
All that Amendment No. 128 seeks to do is to ensure that if a developer has paid for something, that something should have a value. It should be taken into account when the planning application comes to be granted or refused. It should not be the case that, having paid tens of thousands of pounds up front for all that work, consideration and documentation, it then counts for nothing. That would be the case in many instances if current procedures were followed. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not sure that I would go as far as to recommend making planning departments centres of profit. Perhaps that is pushing it too far in the sense that I understood the point being made by the noble Lord. We have touched previously on a suggestion that performance should be judged in terms of targets in the treatment of local planning authorities by the ODPM. However, the noble Lord's general point about setting realistic fees is one that I certainly want to be heard to support.
Lord Rooker: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for introducing his amendments. As he said, Amendment No. 127 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to prescribe by regulations under Section 303 of the principal Act charges or fees that might exceed the cost of delivering the service for which the charge or fee is levied, and that the charge or fee might in part be related to the performance of the local planning authority. Amendment No. 128 seeks to set out the relationship between authorities' fee earning activities and the documents to which those fees relate.
The addition of the words on creating profit centres is not necessary. I understand the term, but the clause as drafted would permit this, and it is unnecessary to spell that out in this particular form of prescription. This is a policy question on whether we should allow planning services to operate at a profit in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We have not yet decided exactly how we want to use the power in Clause 51, so I shall return later to some of the factors that we intend to address.

857
The words of Amendment No. 128 would link the fee earning activities and the documentation in a new fee regime. We are not sure whether this would be a valid connection, but if it were, new subsection (2) to Section 303 of the principal Act—that subsection will be introduced by Clause 51 of this Bill—gives the Secretary of State wide powers of prescription in respect of charges and fees. These could include a policy of the kind put forward by the noble Lord.
The words in Amendment No. 127 on a performance relationship for fees raise an interesting concept. It is one that we want to explore and we are grateful to the noble Lord for suggesting it. We want to take it away and consider it further to see whether the existing draft of Clause 51 covers the point. The implication is that it does not. If we are positive about it, I hope to come back on Report with an amendment.
I have to say the following because the Bill is replete with regulations. Any regulations to make any prescription of fees or charges for planning would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of your Lordships' House and the other place. This will provide ample opportunity to debate those charges.
While my undertaking to take the amendments away and look at them sounds like a positive ministerial response, I can be more positive than that because we have been considering this issue. As preparation for a new charges and fees regime under the amended Section 303, the ODPM commissioned consultants to review the options open to us on the basis that nothing was to be ruled in and nothing ruled out. On 20 January we published their report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. I hope that what I havejust said is right, given that it has been published for only such a short time. Among other things, the consultants looked at whether the current ceilings on fees for the biggest applications should be raised, if fees might be set locally rather than nationally, and whether more of the planning activity should attract the fee. a point referred to by the noble Lord.
The report concludes that fees should continue to be levied when applications are made, but not on other aspects of planning services; namely, on the implication of giving advice beforehand. It suggests that significant increases in fees are justified for three reasons. First, the basis of earlier assessments of authorities' planning costs has not properly taken into account the overheads borne by authorities. Secondly, a wider range of activities and types of applications could legitimately attract fees. Finally, the fee cap for the largest applications is currently too low and starves authorities of the proper resources to do the job. It also sets out a broad policy and more detailed prescription issues in taking forward a new fee regime.
I give one example of that concerning a matter I discussed this morning with our advisers at a meeting of external developers and local authorities. We have been considering for some time the failure to deliver RPG9 figures on housing for the wider south-east. There is a real problem with large sites. Any site over 500 dwellings presents a real capacity problem in terms
858
of planning. That is a serious issue which we have to address. The resources required are a major problem and that is one area where more resources ought to be delivered. Large sites are the ones we want to develop. I should add that many of these are brownfield rather than greenfield sites.
However, as I said earlier, at this stage we have not taken a view about the way forward, in particular whether the fees should increase under the new provisions. There is a relationship to the service that is delivered by authorities and the fees they can charge. This is related to the extra assistance we are giving authorities through the planning delivery grant, which is the money achieved under the current spending round. We are coming to the end of the first year during which we dispensed only some £50 million to £60 million of the £350 million available. Moreover, there are issues surrounding the fact that planning is for the public good, so there has to be some element of the taxpayer supporting the system, not only those who use it.
Our long-standing policy, and that of the previous administration, was to set planning fees to recover the full aggregate costs, but no more, of the services to which the fees relate. In deciding how to proceed, we will take the noble Lord's well argued points into account, along with those of our consultants. I am happy to reassure the Committee that we would undertake full consultation with stakeholders before any charges were made.
I mentioned the £350 million planning grant, which is based on performance and is not ring-fenced. It is paid to the authority on the basis of performance but when it gets the money it can do what it wants with it. We have achieved our objective: a better planning performance based on a matrix of issues. It is not ring-fenced but it has the purpose that we were after, which is increased planning performance.
The grant is due to increase resources in the year 2004–05 by £130 million. That will take account of what we have paid out this year, which is £60 million approximately—so a figure of some £200 million— leaving some £150 million for the final year of the present spending round. It is designed to drive up performance and increase the quality of decision-making, raise the esteem of planners and to deal with some of the loss of resources for planning that occurred in the previous four or five years. The figure we had was that about a third of the planning resources was lost to local authorities, which caused considerable problems, as we know.
On the basis of those assurances, I hope that: the noble Lord will not press the amendments; I am certain he will not. I hope to come back with a report in due course.
Lord Lucas: I am encouraged and grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Duty to respond to consultation]:
3 p.m.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 128A:
Page 40, line 34, at end insert "; and
(c) shall not include any requirement to consult members of the public or persons by reason of their proximity to the development"
The noble Baroness said: Clause 52 sets out a duty to respond to consultation. Depending on how broadly the Government envisage the limit of this duty to be drawn, this clause could have far-reaching consequences. Amendments Nos. 128A to 128D are intended to press the Government on this matter.
Subsection (2) requires consulteeswho are prescribed by development order—to respond to a consultation. Amendment No. 128A would prevent the obligation being applied to the consultation requirements on members of the public or neighbours. An obligation should not be imposed on private individuals.
Subsection (3) allows anyone to consult a consultee about a proposed development before an application is made. They do not have to be a person who might make an application. A person, under subsection (3), may be opposed to development. The costs and workload implications for consultees may therefore be substantial. The recovery of costs will allow those implications to be better absorbed and will discourage excessive pre-application consultations. That is the purpose of Amendment 128B.
Amendment No. 128C is a probing amendment to find out what consequence the Government expect if the consultees do not respond. Can planning permission be lawfully granted if someone, or a body, that is consulted has unlawfully failed to give a substantive response? This needs to be resolved because the consequences for local authorities, developers, other consultees, the public at large and even the Secretary of State could be severe.
This clause will impose obligations to respond. The responses must be substantive and the various requirements of information to be provided may be prescribed by a development order. Amendment No. 128D requires consultees to be adequately funded for this purpose. Many are local authority departments—for example, highway authorities—and others are government agencies such as English Heritage or the Environment Agency. They should still be properly resourced for having to do this. Some are interest groups, such as the Victorian Society, the 20th Century Society and the Theatres Trust. They receive some funding for dealing with consultations, but generally have a small staff and limited resources. If they had to respond to all consultations on applications, and to pre-application consultations, within tight timescales the implications might be harsh. There may be an additional obligation to report their compliance with these requirements to the Secretary of State or Assembly, under subsection (7).
The amendment ensures that the Secretary of State or National Assembly fund the bodies to discharge these obligations. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I believe can satisfy the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
Amendment No. 128A is straightforward. This clause does not apply to members of the public. They, and the adjoining owners and occupiers, are not persons who exercise functions for the purpose of an enactment and are not, therefore, consultees for the purposes of this clause. We cannot place a duty to respond on members of the public who happen to live close to a proposed development.
In respect of Amendment No. 128B, the proposal to allow statutory consultees to charge for advice given to any person or persons before they submit an application was mooted in the planning Green Paper and rejected. I have said that we will listen to any new arguments regarding charging, although that related to the planning authorities. We will listen to arguments in favour of charging, but consultation showed that there was no great demand for charging. It was considered that charging a fee would discourage applicants from seeking pre-application advice. That is why we came to the conclusion, as the consultation suggested, that the charge should be levied on the application. Many of the key statutory consultees were also against its introduction.
I shall take a little longer on Amendment No. 128C, but it is worth having it on the record. We do not see a need to introduce a requirement for a local planning authority to wait for a response from a statutory consultee. The introduction of a duty to respond within a prescribed timetable, and the requirement for a statutory consultee to provide a report on its performance, is intended to address concerns that statutory consultees cause delays or do not respond to consultation requests.
We recognise that in some cases there may be genuine reasons for extending the deadline, for instance, where the environmental impact assessment is needed. It may be noticed that there is a caveat in the draft amendments to the General Development Procedure Order to the effect that the local planning authority can agree to extend the deadline. The draft guidance we issued alongside the draft statutory instrument advises local planning authorities to consider such requests favourably.
We have already enabled statutory consultees to provide local authorities with what we call standing advice. This enables the consultee to provide pre-written advice on applications of a minor nature or where they provide the same advice over and over again. The local planning authority consults the standing advice instead of the consultee. with the result that the process is speeded up. The consultee gets a reduction in the number of applications and is then freed to deal with the ones they should spend time on.
We accept that the order provides that a local planning authority can determine an application 14 days after it has sought advice from a consultee. It is

861
not likely to do so where the advice it seeks would be a material consideration in the determination of the application. To ignore such advice could result in the decision being subject to judicial review.
Statutory consultees will also be required to provide a report to the Secretary of State on their performance, which will be published. This will enable us to judge whether there are real concerns about the performance of statutory consultees.
On Amendment No. 128D, we do not agree that the statutory consultee should be funded separately for providing advice. Most of the statutory consultees are publicly funded and their funding should be a matter between them and their sponsoring department. I hope that that is an answer to the four amendments, which are slightly separate but useful to have had raised.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification. It is clear that Amendment No. 128 does not require persons to reply. The only concern I have relates to Amendment No. 128C. I understood the Minister to say that a local planning authority has to await the outcome of a consultation before it considers an application. But what would happen if the material consultation, which is part of what a consultee might provide, should have been taken into account in the planning application? It seems we have a chicken and egg situation.
Lord Rooker: Consultees do not have to wait for the outcome and in some cases they will not. If they are waiting for a material consideration to the application and they make a decision which later becomes the subject of appeals, they leave themselves open to judicial review That is because they made the decision in the absence of the consultee's advice on what would have been a material consideration. It may be that they took a view that a particular example was not a material consideration, then got fed up with waiting and made the decision and everyone was happy with that decision. But there will be times when, although they can make a decision, they will not do so in the absence of the information because it is so vital to the making of the decision in any event.
Baroness Hanham: That is another helpful clarification. I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 128B to 128D not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 129:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
"Prevention of activities required to cease by enforcement notices and slop notices
(1) For section 178(1) of the principal Act (execution and cost of works required by enforcement notice) there is substituted the following subsection—
862

"(1) Where any steps required by an enforcement notice to be taken are not taken or activities required by such a notice to cease have not ceased within the period for compliance with the notice, the local planning authority may—

(a)enter the land and take the steps or remove any moveable objects which appear to them to be used for the activities; and

(b)recover from the person who is then the owner of the land any expenses reasonably incurred by them in doing so."

(2) In section 178(2) of the principal Act after "taken" there is inserted "or removing objects".

(3) In section 178(3) of the principal Act at the end there is inserted "or activities required by such a notice to cease".

(4) In section 184(6) of the principal Act (stop notices: supplementary provisions) for "section 187" there is substituted "sections 186Aand 187".

(5)In the principal Act there is inserted after section 186 (compensation for loss due to stop notice)—

"186A ENFORCEMENT OF STOP NOTICE

(1)Where any activities required by a stop notice to cease have not ceased before the notice takes effect, the local planning authority may—

(a)enter the land and remove any moveable objects which appear to them to be used for the activities; and

(b)recover from the person who is then the owner or occupier of the land any expenses reasonably incurred by them in doing so.

(2)Where a stop notice has been served or a site notice displayed in respect of any breach of planning control—

(a)any expenses incurred by the owner or occupier of any land for the purpose of complying with the notice, and

(b)any sums paid by the owner or occupier of any land under subsection (1) in respect of expenses incurred by the local planning authority in removing objects,

shall be deemed to be incurred or paid for the use and at the request of the person by whom the breach of planning control was committed.

(3)Regulations made under this section may provide that—

(a)section 276 of the Public Health Act 1936 (c. 49) (power of local authorities to sell materials removed in executing works under that Act subject to accounting for the proceeds of sale): and

(b)section 294 of that Act (limit on liability of persons holding premises as agents or trustees in respect of the expenses recoverable under that Act),

shall apply, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the regulations, in relation to any activities required by a stop notice to cease.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) applying section 289 of the Public Health Act 1936 may include adaptations and modifications for the purpose of giving the owner of land to which stop notice relates the right, as against all other persons interested in the land, to comply with the requirements of the stop notice.

(5) Regulations under subsection (3) may also provide for the charging on the land of any expenses recoverable by a local planning authority under subsection (1).

(6) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of powers under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.""

The noble Baroness said: I ask for the Committee's forgiveness because I need to outline the amendment in some detail. It is one which was moved in the other place, I think by my honourable friend Philip Hammond—it has certainly been around—and the issue to which it relates is the subject of a Private Member's Bill of my honourable friend Eric Pickles.
The amendment is tabled as a result of the problem caused by landowners who defy the planning system by sanctioning the unlawful stationing and occupation of residential caravans on lands they own, and then playing the appeals system for time in the full knowledge that they will eventually have to cease the activity but only after having had, perhaps, at least a couple of years of unlawful use.
The new clause is intended to provide local authorities with new enforcement powers so that they can achieve a rapid cessation of use of land in breach of planning controls. One of the occasions on which this will be most useful is when the land is being used for the stationing of residential caravans with the consent of the owner or tenant of the land.
At present, in the event of a development going ahead without planning permission, local planning authorities are able to issue enforcement and stop notices, but have little power to act further if these notices are breached. An enforcement notice calls for steps to be taken or for activities to cease. Unfortunately, this process can be extremely lengthy. There is a minimum of 28 days before it can take effect and usually a period for compliance thereafter which can, I know from experience, run into months. The notices can be appealed to the Secretary of State, taking up further time, and they do not take effect until after such an appeal has been finally determined. Breach of an enforcement notice after the period for compliance has passed is a criminal offence. If the steps required have not been carried out at the end of this period, the local planning authority may enter the land and carry out those steps.
When an enforcement notice is issued, the local planning authority may also serve a stop notice, which prohibits the carrying out of any activity required by the enforcement notice to cease, or any activity carried out as part of that activity or associated with it. For example, if the enforcement notice prohibits the use of land for residential caravans, a stop notice can also prohibit that activity. A stop notice can be effective immediately, cannot be appealed and is not suspended by an appeal against the underlying enforcement notice. Breach of a stop notice is an offence.
The effect of the new clauses would be to give local planning authorities a power to remove any objects that can be moved—it does not include buildings— which are being used for an activity prohibited by an enforcement or stop notice. For example, caravans could be removed or, where the activity is the unlawful construction of a building, the builders' equipment could be removed. It applies only in circumstances in which criminal offences are committed, although there is no need to bring a criminal prosecution.
Therefore if caravans, for example, are moved on to a site in breach of planning controls, the local planning authority can serve an enforcement notice and a stop notice. The amendment allows the authority to remove the caravans if the notice is not complied with.
The new stop notice clause, proposed new Section 186A, is the most important provision. If a stop notice is breached, the local planning authority cannot go on to the land under Section 178 and stop the activity until after any enforcement notice appeal has been concluded—and that could be nine months, or more, after a stop notice was issued. So Section 178 does not provide an adequate remedy in such cases, although I believe that the Minister in the other place, Mr Keith Hill, in a reply by letter to my honourable friend Philip Hammond, suggested that it did. Our argument is that it does not.
Planning injunctions can be sought under Section 187B in respect of any breach of planning control. Such injunctions are sought relatively infrequently, and usually after criminal proceedings have been brought. There is a cost to local authorities in seeking them which, in practice, may not be recoverable; and, again, hearings can take time to come on. Additionally, injunctions would be granted only where the court was prepared to gaol a person who breaches the injunction for contempt of court.
The availability of injunctions does not make enforcement notices or stop notices unnecessary or duplications. The planning Act contains all these remedies. It also does not answer the need for effective, quick on-site enforcement mechanisms for stop notices. Rather than pursue slow criminal or civil proceedings when a stop notice is breached, the local authority should be able to take steps to remove objects and to shut down the activities.
The amendments to Section 178 are largely consequential. Stop notices prohibit activities, whereas Section 178 action can be only to carry out steps required by enforcement notices. The new stop notice power has therefore had to be drafted against objects used in the specified activities. An enforcement notice may explicitly require objects to be removed from land, but it may alternatively simply require activities to cease. In the latter case, Section 178 cannot be used to remove objects which facilitate that activity. The amendment means that the Section 178 power will be able to be used against the same objects that the stop notice power could be used against, even if their removal was not referred to as one of the steps required by the enforcement notice.
The detail of the proposed new clause is as follows. Subsections (1) to (3) amend the Section 178 power for enforcement notices to allow the removal of items used for activities which are required to cease. The steps required by the notice may include the removal of such items, but the amendment ensures that the Section 178 power is not narrower than the new stop notice power.
Subsection (4) is a consequential amendment to Section 184(6). Subsection (5) introduces a new Section 186A which empowers the local planning authority to enter land and remove any moveable object used for any activity prohibited by a stop notice if that activity has not ceased. The provision is based on Section 178. Compensation is payable if a stop notice prohibits activities which are in fact lawful— Section 186—and this compensation provision will apply to Section 186A costs as well.
The references to the Public Health Act 1936, two of which are also in Section 178, allow the authority to sell any materials removed to cover their costs— Section 276—and limits the liability of an owner who is an agent or trustee to the sums available to him from the property.
Section 289 of the Public Health Act allows an owner to go to court to require another person interested in the land to permit him to take steps. This is not required for the stop notice provision, which is concerned only with activities.
I and my honourable friends in another place believe that there is a real need to give local authorities the power to react immediately and take action, rather than being forced to stand back and watch as the notices they have issued are openly flouted. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I am not sure whether I support my noble friend's amendment. I understand the nuisance she is aiming at but one has to be very careful to ensure—particularly if this is applied to any of the Traveller communities—that the local authority in question is providing more than enough proper sites for the use of such communities.
If Section 183 of the 1990 Act remains as it was when it was originally drafted—it is very difficult to know because there have been several subsequent amendments to the Act and there is no consolidated, easily portable version of it available—this cannot be applied t0o a caravan if it is a person's main or only residence. If that is still the case, I am content with the way in which the amendment is drafted. If subsequent amendments remove that provision and the amendment would apply to Traveller communities I should not support it. I believe that there is a duty which many local authorities do not live up to: to provide proper accommodation for Traveller communities.
There is a long-standing prejudice. To my shame, I see it again today in a headline about Gypsies in one of the tabloid newspapers. It is the old prejudice of the settled folk against the Traveller; it has been present ever since people started farming. Those communities are few enough in number to enable us simply to say that we shall recognise and honour their differences and provide for them; and that we shall not set out on a course of action, however much trouble we may get from the tabloid press, which eases that pressure at the cost of harassing what I regard as a valuable part of the human community.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. He refers to an issue which has been raised a number of times in debates on this and other Bills, sometimes in concert with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I have a good deal of sympathy for his view although I recognise, from a personal perspective, that Traveller communities can and do cause difficulties for settled communities. Sometimes they react in a way which is unreasonable.
866
On the underlying cause of the amendment, the noble Baroness seeks to beef up, in her view, the way in which Section 178 operates and to give added effect to it. We believe—I shall go through the points raised—that Section 178 is fit for purpose. We recognise that there are enforcement concerns. It is an issue we intend to address.
It is important to place on record how Section 178 operates. Under Section 178 a local planning authority may itself secure compliance with an enforcement notice once the period for compliance has expired. The power is exercisable in respect of any step required by the notice. So local planning authorities may enter the land and carry out the remedial action specified in the notice. It is a matter for discretion. They can also recover the reasonable costs of taking this action— again I appreciate that there can be problems in doing so—from the persons who then control the land.
Regulations may allow unrecovered local planning authority expenses (which arise from having entered the land) to be charged on the land.
Section 178 also provides that it is a criminal offence— the noble Baroness made this point—to obstruct a person from exercising his or her powers of entry and to take the steps necessary under the notice. The intention underlying the amendment seems twofold. First, it is designed to extend the current provisions of Section 178(1) in terms of non-compliance with an enforcement notice, by referring to activities required by a notice to cease and the removal of moveable objects. Section 178(1) already allows local planning authorities to be able to,
"enter the land and take the steps",
required by the notice.
We believe that it is unnecessary to extend the powers in Section 178(1) in the way the amendment suggests as the current powers can be used in connection with any step required by the enforcement notice to be taken. That includes steps to be taken to remedy the breach (including the removal of objects), to remedy any injury to amenity and to ensure discontinuance or the ending of a particular activity.
Secondly, the amendment seeks, mainly through a new clause, to give local planning authorities similar powers in respect of enforcement of a stop notice as they already have for seeking compliance with and taking remedial action in respect of an enforcement notice. Again, we do not believe that this is necessary. When a breach of planning control takes place, the local planning authority may take action to remedy the situation by serving an enforcement notice on the owner or occupier of the site where the breach has taken place.
In circumstances where there has been an extremely serious breach of planning control, a local planning authority can serve a stop notice under Section 183. Contravention of a stop notice is a criminal offence. However, the stop notice can be served only after or at the same time as the enforcement notice.

867
Although both the enforcement notice and the stop notice set out the details of the activity or development which must cease, it is the enforcement notice which gives details of the remedial action which must be taken, not the stop notice.
As I have already said, local planning authorities have powers under Section 178 of the 1990 Act to enter land and take the steps required to enforce the notice and to remedy the situation. A stop notice can be served only on the back of an enforcement notice and must relate to the activity prohibited. Breach of that notice will mean in most instances that the enforcement notice has also been breached, and the powers of entry which were associated with the enforcement notice will be available, therefore, to the planning authority.
In addition, Section 187B already gives an express statutory power to serve an injunction in support of other enforcement functions. Therefore, an injunction can be used to enforce a stop notice's provisions where there has been a deliberate and flagrant flouting of the law.
It is also worth pointing out that the majority of those responding to our review of the planning enforcement system—there were over 500 of them; it was a well supported consultation—agreed that the range of enforcement powers currently available to local planning authorities gives them the right and appropriate tools to enforce planning control. But they did suggest a range of ideas and proposals on how to make planning enforcement more effective. The department continues to assess the issue of strengthening enforcement in respect of breaches of planning control and to consider whether any new powers are needed. These issues are being discussed currently by Ministers.
We recognise that while the regime may be right, fit for purpose and functioning well, it may require some things to be done to improve enforceability.
We believe that we have got the balance right. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made the point that we have to tread carefully. We recognise that there are some shortcomings. We think that the legislation is fine. We intend further to consider the issue of its operation. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider this a positive response to what I recognise is a serious issue and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: Although I speak after the Minister's reply, perhaps I may be allowed to ask this of the noble Lord. Does he understand the problem addressed by the amendment to refer to people who would like to have acted under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 if they could have obtained the requisite permissions in attempting to develop sites for occupation of residents? Alternatively, is the evil which the noble Baroness seeks to address primarily that of local authorities who find that their powers are insufficient to cause Travellers obtaining land and stationing caravans on it to cease those activities?
As the noble Lord is aware, the Minister, Yvette Cooper, has already said that Circular 1/94 is to be withdrawn and replaced by different provisions. On 1
868
January, the first day in Committee, we discussed that in a preliminary way. No doubt we shall return to the matter later. We cannot quite understand how those provisions will work when the scheme comes into operation.
However, we are faced with a gap in between. Manifestly, there are 3,000 fewer sites in the country than there are Gypsies and Travellers living in caravans. Therefore, there are incentives for Gypsies to buy land, station caravans on it without authority, seek planning permission and, if planning permission is refused—as it is in nine cases out of 10—to go to appeal, and if they fail on appeal to remain on the land thereafter. We have a problem and we have a period of uncertainty, between now and the new system coming into operation, when no one knows how it is going to work. I am anxious that Section 178 powers should not be used wilfully against Gypsies in the interim period. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, may be aware, the Traveller Law Reform Coalition is asking for there to be a moratorium on the removal of Travellers occupying caravans on land that has not been given planning permission, especially in cases where they are not disturbing any public purpose for which the land might otherwise be used.
When the noble Lord says that the department is satisfied that Section 178 gives local authorities all the powers that they need to deal with the unauthorised use of land in this way, I am anxious that the department should enjoin local authorities not to use those powers needlessly when we are, we hope, approaching a solution to the problem of Traveller accommodation, but we have not quite got there. It would be unreasonable and, if I may say so, stupid to continue to harry Gypsies from one place to another when we hope that we are about to arrive at a permanent solution to the problem.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I hesitate to intervene at this stage as I have not done so at any earlier stage of the Bill because I was abroad. I have listened to this debate with interest and I rise to seek clarification. I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Lucas, said about Travellers in the sense of traditional Gypsies. However, I look back to my time as a constituency Member of Parliament in Pembrokeshire, which was a very long time ago. The problem was not with the Travellers, in that sense, with or the Gypsies, it was with groups that were described in contemporary circles as "mutants".
They were not traditional Gypsies. They were travellers of a quite different kind who very often gathered into their groups criminal elements who found that they could shelter within these communities that arrived and very often did great damage to property. They created a situation that the police were very often unable to deal with effectively because they found that if they tried to enter these gatherings they were often attacked. We had cases of police cars being damaged and destroyed. That was followed by my attempt to pass a Private Member's Bill to deal with the problem. I did not succeed in that effort. To this

869
day. if one goes down to west Wales one will see huge boulders blocking off areas alongside roads in an attempt to keep this kind of nuisance away.
In intervening, I am seeking clarification. Time has passed and I am not up to date with changes in the law, as other noble Lords are. I enquire whether this particular problem is being dealt with effectively nowadays. Certainly in Pembrokeshire in those days there were good, well provided Gypsy sites and every effort was made to make sure that there were adequate sites and that genuine Travellers were dealt with. Are we satisfied that the law as it stands enables us to deal with the far less attractive form of travelling that I have described to the House?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is very much off-script. I was not exactly sure how the noble Baroness was inspired to move these amendments, perhaps with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Perhaps the Traveller issue and the issue of Gypsies and non-settled communities may have inspired part of her desire to strengthen the enforcement regime in Section 178 of the 1990 Act. We have had some wide-ranging commentary on that.
It is not for me this afternoon to say on behalf of the Government that local authorities should have a moratorium on using Section 178, although I was being pointed in that direction by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Section 178 is there for many good reasons and for a wide range of enforcement activities that may, or may not, relate to Travellers and Gypsies so that is not something that I can subscribe to.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right that a new look is being taken at some of the problems that have arisen from the lack of provision of sites. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has touched on that very usefully. As to whether there is a generalised view on enforcement for what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, describes as a "mutant" travelling community, I can talk only from personal experience. I am not prepared to do that to set out a Government position. There are some issues and concerns there and local authorities are often found to be lobbying on them. By and large it is thought that, so far as enforcement and travelling communities are concerned, all the powers that are required are in place, if it is felt appropriate to use them.
Therein lies the heart of the problem. It is something that is best left to local discretion. Coming back to the issue that prompted the debate, we think that Section 178 is about right and that it is part of a battery of powers that have worked well in general. How the enforcement is undertaken is more at issue and is being looked at and addressed by Ministers as I speak. That is where it is. I hope that, having said that, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hanham: I think that I made it clear when I moved this amendment that it was inspired in the other place by my honourable friend Philip Hammond. It is also the subject of a Private Member's Bill by my honourable friend Eric Pickles. It did not get an airing in the other place, so I said that I was quite happy to air it here.
870
I want to make it clear from the outset that I understand that this is a sensitive area. Whether Gypsy families have a right to move around the country and to decide where they want to stay when they have the ability to move is one thing. I do not think that anyone is disputing that. What we are disputing is the quickest way of dealing with cases where the siting of caravans is in breach of the law or regulations that already exist. I laid out in my speech the difficulties that are encountered with the present system. I acknowledge that the Minister said that an injunction can be obtained. One of the purposes of the amendment is to enable local authorities to take action immediately upon a stop notice. The Minister has given a fairly full reply. I have given a very detailed outline of the amendment. Therefore, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 129A:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause
"CONDUCT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEMBERS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT CONTROL DECISIONS

(1) The provisions of Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (conduct of local government members and employees), the Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (England) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/3575) and any codes of conduct and other decisions made by local authorities or the Local Government Ombudsman, shall not prevent local government members taking part in discussion and voting on development control decisions in circumstances in which any conflict of interest only arises from one or more of the circumstances set out in subsection (2).

(2) The circumstances to which subsection (1) refers are—

(a)the simultaneous membership by one person of two or more councils when one of the councils is consulted on the decision by the council making the decision;

(b)representing a ward or division in which the planning application or other subject of the decision is located;

(c)discussing the planning application or other matter with local residents' third party groups;

(d)discussing the planning application or other matter with applicants or objectors;

(e)membership or former membership of third party organisations which are not applicants or directly involved with applicants, but which make formal comment on the matter which is the subject of the decision;

(f)membership or former membership of a national organisation whose local branch or branches make formal comment on the matter which is the subject of the decision;

(g)publication by a political party or election agent of comments in a leaflet, on a website or by any other means, on the matter that is the subject of the decision, or being the election agent who published such material;

(h) membership of a political group linked to a political party which has commented on the matter which is the subject of the decision in a manifesto or website or by any other means;

(i) any other circumstance which does not in itself result in the member having a personal and prejudicial interest within the meaning of Part 2 of The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (England) Order 2001.

871

(2) Nothing in this section shall prevent a local authority from including in its code of conduct a requirement that a member must disclose any of the circumstances set out in subsection (2), or from setting out reasonable guidelines for the conduct of members in their discussion of planning applications with third parties.

(3) Nothing in this section shall absolve a member from the duty to declare a personal interest within the meaning of Part 2 of The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (England) Order 2001."

The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 129A, which is about a subject that is a matter of great discussion among councillors involved with development control at the moment. It is generally known as "fettering discretion". This amendment does not claim to be a finely honed piece of writing that would fit neatly into the Bill. It is here to raise the issue, to set out the problem and to sponsor a debate. I shall seek leave to withdraw it at the end of the debate.
There are many councillors today who are on development control committees, whether they are small committees or committees of all the councillors in the area, who find themselves being instructed—I use the word "instructed" advisedly, although technically it is advice—that they are not allowed to take part in debate and decisions in committees under many circumstances. The matter has gathered in intensity in the past 10 years. No one had heard of the problem 10 years ago. In the past 10 years it has grown like Topsy, without any deliberate intent, and as a consequence of a number of factors. It is not a clear result as far as I can see of any particular planning statute.
The first factor is the intervention of the Local Government Ombudsman in many planning issues where it has been found that councillors ought not to have taken part because—I use the words again—they had fettered their discretion before the debate and maladministration had been found. Secondly, that has been compounded by appeal decisions where costs have been awarded against local authorities, again because it was thought that councillors had taken part in decisions when they should not have. The third factor is the whole recent development of rules governing probity within local government—the model code of conduct at national level, the codes of conduct and standards boards at local level, and so on—which have been used, not in every case, but in many cases to impose what may be seen to be unduly harsh restrictions on members taking development control from the application decisions.
I believe that, in many ways, the way in which this has developed is a good example of the law of unintended consequences. There is a major problem in many parts of the country and it needs looking at. It is all related to the doctrine that decisions on planning applications are quasi-judicial—another word that has crept in; I do not think that anyone had heard of it 10 years ago—rather than ordinary council decisions. In many cases, that is putting restrictions on locally elected representatives which is making it very difficult for them to balance the need to take planning decisions
872
in a fair and open way and against their genuine and legitimate role as elected representatives of the people in their wards and throughout their local authority.
In the worst cases councillors are being told that they are acting as judges and should apply to themselves the kind of restrictions and conditions that judges would apply to themselves when they are adjudicating in court. I think that that is entirely wrong, but nevertheless it is something that crops up in many cases.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the position is very different in different local authorities. There is a huge variation from council to council as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. Some councils are still very relaxed about it. As long as people do not behave outrageously and there is still open political and democratic debate in the community, councillors are able to take part in this. Others have come to terms with what they see as very restrictive rules by working out a sensible balance and sensible working arrangements. In other councils the position is ludicrously strict.
One of those is the London Borough of Hackney. I have a copy of their rules, entitled the "Planning code for councillors". Its consequence is that the minority of councillors on the development control committee—the planning sub-committee, as they call it—have to go into purdah in order to carry out their job of determining planning applications. It is quite astonishing what they are not allowed to do. For example, they are not allowed to talk to other councillors about planning applications under any circumstances, at any time. Just imagine that you are canvassing in the local election and there is a big planning application problem in the area. You are knocking on doors and your candidate says, "Sorry; I cannot talk about this". There is a real conflict between what the Minister described earlier as the legitimate role of councillors and local politicians and the belief that they have to be stuck in an ivory tower like a judge, if that is where judges are stuck.
Those councillors are not allowed to read any post that refers to a particular planning application. I do not know how they will know not to read it before they have read it, but that is what the rules say. Where they receive such things, their post has to be handed to a council official and cannot be dealt with by a councillor. The rules continue:
"By becoming involved in a planning application"—
that means doing anything at all; talking to anyone about it—
"prior to the committee meeting other than to read the Planning Officer's report and to attend a Site Visit accompanied by the Planning Officers, the Member risks forfeiting his or her right to take part in the discussion or vote on that particular item".
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, that seems draconian and well over the top. There is much more on that, but I do not have the time to go into it now.
I realised that there was a problem when I tabled the amendment. Before I tabled it I put out feelers through colleagues in the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors and in the Local Government Association.

873
In a very short time I received more than 40 examples of different kinds of problems relating to this fettering of discretion. Some are set out in the amendment. Subsection (2)(a) highlights that there is a real problem, real confusion and real anguish among people who are district councillors and are also members of parish councils, or who go as district councillors to parish councils to give help and advice as part of their normal ward work.
Again, the practice is very different in different places. In some places, having been consulted on a planning application, it is okay for people to take part in the debate and decision in the parish council if they make it clear that the district council will have to reconsider the matter and may take a different view. So that can be dealt with in two places. Elsewhere, people can take part in the parish discussion only if they are providing information and not giving views. In other places that is banned entirely; if you open you mouth on the parish, you are banned from the decision in the district. I have lots of examples of that.
As for paragraph (b), I gather that councillors on the development control committee in Birmingham were told that they could not take part in determining planning applications in their own wards because being a councillor and representing a place was thought to fetter their discretion. Surely that is nonsense.
The next few provisions talk about the role of a councillor in the community. On the one hand we have a Government who are quite rightly saying to councillors, "Get more involved in your community. Talk to people in the community. Go to the local community groups. Get involved in them. Represent them on the council". On the other hand, those same people are being told, "If you go to your local community association or residents' group and discuss a planning application, when it comes to the full council—sorry—you will have to declare an interest, leave, and take no part in it". Residents involved in the planning application cannot understand that. They say, "We elected those people to help to represent our views and yet they are being kicked out because they are trying to do exactly that". There is huge confusion and it needs clearing up.
On paragraph (d), a colleague of mine, a councillor in Hertfordshire who was chairman of a development control sub-committee, had to declare an interest and leave because there were representations from the local branch of the RSPB of which she was a member nationally. She was told that that fettered her discretion. That is the type of thing that is happening and some kind of advice needs to be available.
If you are representing an area and taking part in an election campaign when a big planning application is under consideration, how can you stop talking about that big issue when you go round knocking on doors and distributing leaflets? If you do not talk about that big issue then the other candidate, who is talking about it, will be elected. Having been elected, they will be told, "Sorry; you were elected on this issue but now
874
you have to be silenced". There is a real conflict there between democratic representation and dealing with planning applications and it is not being sorted at all.
My honourable friend Matthew Green has talked in the House of Commons about the problems they had in Bridgenorth District Council where the Liberal Democrats put out a manifesto containing a very mild and fairly inoffensive comment about a planning application that was a major issue in the town. As a result of that, all the Liberal Democrats on the council, after that all-out election, were told that they could not take part in that debate because the party had mentioned the issue in its election campaign. Surely, if local democracy means anything at all, that cannot be right.
Finally, the issue of fettering discretion is giving a weapon to developers to knock out people who they think are opponents. All one has to do is to go along to a public meeting where an issue is being discussed. The particular councillor sits there saying nothing, and someone stands up to say, "You represent this ward. You sat there saying nothing. How about standing up and telling us what you think?". Even if people simply stand up and say, "I have to be careful what I say; I have to remain balanced and keep an open mind when I go to the committee, but this is how I see the matter". Even saying things like that is being used to knock people out. It is difficult for a councillor not to respond in a public meeting like that because the room is full of the people who elected him. They expect him to represent them. And yet the councillor is then told, "Sorry, you fettered your discretion. You cannot do anything about it".
My friend and colleague, Councillor Gordon Birtwistle, who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats on Burnley Borough Council, was sent a questionnaire by officers on the council asking for his views on wind farms. A few weeks or months later a planning application came in for a wind farm on the moors above the part of Burnley that he represents. He was told, "Sorry, you filled in our form and sent it back to us. You have told us what you think about wind farms. You have fettered your discretion. You cannot take part in the planning application".
I have a long list of examples with which I will take up no more of the time of the House, but having gathered all of that information I shall put it all together into what is now called a "dossier", although that may not now be an appropriate word to use. I will make that available to the Minister and I shall be asking him if he will spare me a few minutes to see me and talk about it. What can the Minister do now to make me happy about the amendment?
First, he can tell me that development control will remain, in the first instance, with local democratically elected councillors. The Bill does that and I think he will tell me that. Secondly, I hope that he will tell me that planning, including development control, is part of the local democratic process, including local political debate involving elected local representatives, who can represent their constituents; and that some sensible balance has to be reached without councillors

875
being silenced in the way that is happening in many places—often being bullied by officers. Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will recognise that fettered discretion is causing real problems and needs to be looked at long and hard—and that a system, perhaps national advice, needs to be produced that results in fairness in the planning system and clarity about councillors' roles, because that is not there at the moment. People in different places are being told different things. There should be acceptance of the legitimate role of local representatives and an understanding that councillors are not judges.
Whatever the system is for dealing with planning applications, it is not like a court and there should be further rights of appeal that can guarantee applicants the ability for them to go further if clearly wrong decisions are made. The issue is a real problem. The existing system of involving local representatives in planning decisions is becoming untenable in parts of the country. I ask the Government, not necessarily through the amendment or even the Bill, to look at the matter with the LGA and come up with a proposal that makes more sense than what we have now. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: I rise to support, not necessarily the exact wording of the amendment, but its thrust and purpose. All of us can quote various cases. I can, particularly with regard to my own county of Essex, where there is the enormous issue of Stansted airport. Because the airport covers several electoral divisions, it stops democratically elected people who happen to live in the area from talking about Stansted. They have no financial interest, although some may have their houses compulsorily purchased at a later stage, but at the moment they cannot talk about the issue.
Local councillors have appealed to me that it is unfair that they have been democratically elected by people in the area's villages and now cannot talk about the airport. They are even barred at county council meetings. A county council is only a consultee, it does not make the ultimate planning decision. I have brought the matter up with our monitoring officer and I have also been at a conference where I talked to a group of local authority monitoring officers. There were variations in the way that they were dealing with such issues. In the end, a council's monitoring officer is often not sure what to do, so he goes to the council, which then gives a different decision.
Even if we cannot tackle the issue now, it is time that the Government gave some thought to clarifying the position so that local people who are elected to represent their constituents can make comments about some of the planning applications. I support the thrust of the amendment.
Baroness Maddock: I rise not necessarily in support of the amendment or otherwise but to give information to the House. I was recently appointed as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—formerly the Nolan committee and now the Wicks committee— replacing the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Standards boards were set up partly as result of trying to ensure that we had good standards in public life.
876
The 10th report of the committee will report on investigations over the next few months into how issues such as standards boards are working in local government, as well as many other matters in public life. That will happen and we will take evidence. It would be helpful for the committee if planning matters, which is where we see some of the greater difficulties among others, could be clarified along with the definition of local government law and the roles of standards boards. The subject has been drawn to our attention and one of the reasons why we are revisiting such areas is to ensure that what happens is proportionate to the matters in hand.
Such matters as those my noble friend Lord Greaves has brought to our attention show that sometimes the steps we are taking are totally out of proportion to the matters and irregularities that we are trying to deal with. My comments are for information and I hope that the Government realise that it would be helpful for them to provide some guidance on planning law to the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I rise to support the thrust of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I speak as a former member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, from which I have just retired. I am grateful that the committee is taking on such issues in its 10th report, because I have felt for a long time that to some extent in some areas the issue is out of balance and defies common sense. One example is the declarations of interest that parish councillors now have to make. It often struck me when I was a Member of the other place that as MPs we all knew that planning issues could be among the most contentious and those to which one's constituents most turn.
I remember one of the largest public meetings that I ever had was on a proposal to build a wind farm close to many rural villages. I was astonished at the number of people who turned up—much more than would ever go to a political meeting—but it indicated their strength of feeling. I have always though it odd that the people who are most prevented from expressing a view on such issues are precisely the people who the electorate thought they should turn to most.
I do not suggest that every part of the amendment is correct, but it raises a real issue. In the case of the balance between a democratic member who represents a community and a member of a planning authority, the conflict of interest ought to be where that person has a financial or other interest himself. But to be unable to represent his constituents at all seems to have gone too far. I support the thrust of the amendment and I hope that the Government will look upon it sympathetically.
4 p.m.
Lord Rooker: This has been a useful debate and some good points have been raised. I could give several examples. It may be an accident of circumstance that a councillor ends up on the development control committee. Why should he have a greater right than any other councillor who may represent that particular

877
ward to take the executive decision? That is the difference—councillors are taking executive decisions, unlike Members of the other place. I will give another example of that paradox, but you cannot have it both ways.
I suspect that if, for example, the current planning Minister, Keith Hill, Member of Parliament for Streatham, was taking planning decisions in London or his own constituency, there would be uproar—and quite right, too. You cannot have it both ways. The rules seem to work. Because a councillor gets on a particular committee, that should give him no greater rights than other councillors to do his bit for his own ward—and in most wards there is more than one councillor anyway. They would not both be on the development control committee, so what is the problem with one making the speech and the other making the decision?
There are real dilemmas and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was right to raise the issue. He singled out Birmingham, but I imagine that that rule applies everywhere. If it does not, it should, in my view, because the rule fits with public confidence in the system. I know it is difficult because I have been at public meetings when people have yelled at councillors—or, indeed, yelled at me as the MP asking why I could not tell the council what to do because I was in charge of planning. Most people believe that there is a hierarchy and they have to be wised up to the fact that there is not. You have to be level with people.
Because of the provisions of the Bill in terms of more openness and transparency, and people becoming involved earlier on, such confusion is less likely. The issue was addressed in the past and I have no doubt that it will be addressed in the future. It is a crucial one of propriety. All these rules can be traced back to particular cases and circumstances that were scandals of the day when everyone said, including Members of this House and the other place, "Something's got to be done about this!".
Much of it came down to pecuniary interests. That is where some of the major scandals have arisen. I will not list them because we can all think of them. Something had to be done to raise the level of standards and probity, both in local and central government. There is a list of rules about what Ministers can and cannot do in matters relating to their own constituency. Former members of the Cabinet will know that I am right. That way, one stands back and the people who make the decision are disinterested in the sense of electoral popularity on the one hand and financial interest on the other—but we are not discussing those issues because they would be wrong. We are looking at the other aspect of the system, but that is not to say we have it word perfect.
Applicants, developers and local residents may not have confidence in the ability of members of the local planning authorities to reach decisions objectively without bias, including, let us say, the threat of deselection or loss of their seat. That is a bias in the same way as others. We must say that it is an honest view that cannot be contradicted, but it is very difficult
878
to explain to the public who are annoyed about a planning application when they have elected councillors and a Member of Parliament to represent their interests. If there is a bias in the decision, it would not be an objective decision based on all the material considerations of the issue and the whole system would be undermined. That must be the case and we know deep down that the system would be undermined. Cases would then come to public notice and this House and the other place would have to look at these issues again.
The Local Government Association has produced guidance on probity in planning in response to its 2000 codes of conduct, and any revisions and updating of the guidance will be a matter for the association. It is being treated at the highest level by local government It may be true that none of the circumstances listed in the clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would automatically result in any impropriety or conflict of interest by a member in a development control case. That is conceivable. However, it would give rise to public concern that there was something improper about it or that there was some perceived interest.
That is the point. It is not a question of getting it right; it must be seen to be right. Perception is important and I plead with colleagues to take that seriously on board. When cases arise, it will be difficult to argue that there was nothing wrong. If it can be done as it is done now, at least you can take a robust case to angry members of the public showing that there is a process and it is undertaken by people whom they did not elect. I realise that the position is tougher on councillors than it is on Members of Parliament, because MPs outside the Government are not required to take executive decisions on specific issues.
The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (England) Order, which the proposed new clause seeks to amend, provides for the adoption of codes of conduct by all local authorities setting out the basic principles by which members of local councils must conduct themselves in order to provide their electors with assurances of their integrity. The code provides for the registration and declaration of interests, and specifically excludes members from attending meetings, including those of planning committees, where it may be perceived that they have a personal and prejudicial interest. "Prejudicial" is used in a legal sense and it would be biased in respect of elected representatives. The standards board for England has been set up with the task of providing councillors with advice on the code, and powers to investigate breaches which, if serious, can lead to disqualification. The Government take the view that it is important that the electorate should be confident that their elected members are acting with propriety in carrying out their public duties. The code provides that assurance, which we do not believe should be diluted by providing for exceptions.
I shall return to the matter—which is not to say that we will take it away and consider it, but I cannot control what appears on the Marshalled List. Perhaps a more narrow aspect of the matter can be considered

879
on Report. I would warn against it because the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is very seductive. I can agree with many of the points—they are very seductive—but it would be a very dangerous road to go down.
Lord Hanningfield: The point I made about Stansted is that we are only a consultee; we do not make any decisions on it. We do not have a development control committee that will take the decisions on Essex county council, yet members are barred from talking about it just because they happen to live in the area. That is most unfair on them, because they cannot represent their electorate.
Lord Rooker: That might be the case, but if the same situation applied at a different level—if, say, the matter was being taken forward by private legislation, Members of Parliament for the area in the other place would be denied membership of the committee that dealt with the Bill. In fact, Members representing that region would be denied membership of the private Bill committee. The procedure is incredibly restrictive, in order to maintain the perception that decisions are arrived at objectively. That is how the system works. If we can find odd examples in which we could change and the system would remain as safe as it is, that would be fine.
I ask the Committee to think about the matter. Every one of the rules was, by and large, introduced after a scandal—the Committee knows what I mean: after something occurred that it was thought should be put right and prevented to reinforce public confidence and develop confidence that decisions were being made on an objective basis, not a prejudicial one. "Prejudicial" includes being the elected representative for the area. In certain circumstances, that applies equally to Members of Parliament and councillors.
Lord Bradshaw: Does the noble Lord accept that there is a movement among local councils to push the restrictions to which my noble friend referred further and further? This week, I was told that a colleague of mine, who is leader of a neighbouring district council, has now had to submit to the appropriate officer of that council a full list of all the charities to which he contributes throughout the year. Being a fairly generous person, that will rule out whole gamuts of areas—medicine, the protection of birds and the National Trust. Before long, we will turn councillors into eunuchs; or, worse still, people who want to represent their communities will be unable to do so.
Lord Rooker: Well, if that happened to me, I would tell them to mind their own business.
Lord Monson: Does not the Minister agree that there is a certain proportion of the electorate—I would guess between 5 and 10 per cent—that is absolutely convinced that all politicians, be they in national or local government, are self-serving and corrupt and that nothing that the Government do by way of
880
legislation will change their minds? It is not worth dismissing all the problems about which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, told us, merely to try to satisfy that 5 or 10 percent when nothing that can be done will satisfy or convince them that politicians are 99 per cent honest and totally devoid of corruption.
Lord Rooker: I just think that that is a dangerous road down which to go. It would just make matters worse. As I said, the rules are there because of past practices; they are there to ensure that those things do not happen again.
Lord Greaves: I thank all the Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate; listening to them has convinced me that it is an important issue. Frankly, I am disappointed by what the Minister said. I must not have communicated adequately with him, which is no doubt my fault; I shall continue to try to do so in future. He said that what I propose is very seductive and dangerous. Well, for many years in the 1980s and 1990s, I was chairman of various development control committees. None of those restrictions existed, but I do not think that the decisions that we took then were seductive, dangerous, wrong or anything of the sort. They were taken sensibly, within the rules and involving the public and their elected representatives. That is what is now being made extremely difficult.
The Minister said that being made a member of the development control committee is an accident and that only a few councillors are involved. Actually, quite a few councils now have an area committee system, under which planning applications go to the area committee. All the members of the council are therefore on development control committees. That certainly applies in Pendle, where I live. I was involved in introducing that and chaired the area committee in Colne. All the councillors are involved in taking planning decisions.
I must say that that concentrates people's minds, because it stops the basic dishonesty of councillors who are not on the development committee pretending that they are against an application when they know that their friends on the committee will pass it. They must face up to the issue. That is a much better system. Everyone is on a committee, so there is no question of some councillors having greater rights than others; the question is what is the best way to involve the public and their representatives.
I am sorry that I raised the issue of Birmingham; I might have known that the Minister would think it a personal attack on him, which it was not intended to be. I do not know of any other county in the country that imposes that rule—there may be one or two, but it is extremely unusual. Everyone else would think it ludicrous.
The Minister kept saying that the rules exist because of what happened in the past—that these are the rules. In many cases the rules do not work, and the system is in considerable crisis, but there are no rules that apply across the country.

881
I am not talking about the need for councillors to declare personal and prejudicial interests on planning applications, just as they do on everything else that they look at. I am talking about all these extra rules and impositions that are being invented locally and imposed by council officials. On one council they will be imposed very strictly, another council will have a more balanced view, and another will have hardly any rules at all. Those are the facts on the ground. That is one reason why it is so difficult.
I had to laugh at one thing that was raised by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw and that is typical of what is said. It was the ludicrous suggestion that people had to make a list of all the charities that they donate to. That is exactly the sort of the thing that is going on. The Minister said,
"I would tell them to mind their own business".
The problem is that most of the councillors who are being put in this position are not as thick-skinned as I would be, or as the Minister would be, to have the confidence to say that. Most of them believe that the rules are the same everywhere. That is what they are being told—by their council officers, the legal officer, the monitoring officer, the planning officer or whoever. They believe that they must abide by those rules.
The Minister, on reflection, might consider that planning is a system—as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said earlier today—that councillors must operate within. However, in a wider sense, and with a small "p", planning is the most political issue that arises in an area. To exclude elected representatives from the debate, the meetings, the discussions, the lobbying, the information-gathering, is frankly ludicrous. The logical result of all this will be that democratic local representatives—councillors—will no longer be responsible for determining planning applications. The logic of the movement that is happening is to take it away from councillors and give it to some sort of "objective" panels or people, or judges. That would be unfortunate, but that is the way things are going.
I promise the Minister that I will be asking him to talk it over with me when I have a lot more facts written down on paper. Perhaps we can look at this a bit more objectively than we can in the slight argy-bargy across the Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 129B:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
"RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING CONSENT
Where an application is made for planning consent after the work has been commenced (retrospectively) the planning authority involved may charge a fee for granting consent of up to three times the level for an application which has been made with proper notice."
The noble Lord said: I hope that this will be a fairly brief amendment. Its purpose is to establish what progress is being made on the subject of enforcement, which I believe is the subject of consultation that is in hand. The amendment deals with the question of
882
retrospective planning consent. There are people who inadvertently fail to make a planning application. I am not trying to make a set at them. It is often a small breach, possibly born of ignorance about what they should do.
I was concerned in the amendment to draw attention to those people who consistently breach planning consents, who take a chance and go on building housing estates and odd extensions here and there, extending their factories and so on. Subsequently, when they are told to do so, they apply for planning consent—often after the local authority has been involved in considerable expense in various site visits, arguments, correspondence and all sorts of things in the hope of getting the breach put right, or at least having it brought within the planning system.
This amendment seeks to allow a local authority— not compel it—to make a charge above the normal planning charge when a consent is sought retrospectively. Of course, we are interested in what the Government think. A breach of planning ought to be an offence punishable not simply by having to pay some money, but by a proper fine, or in the most extreme cases, by a sentence of imprisonment. The penalties should be significantly increased for breaches of planning law, because people are making financial gains by ignoring planning law. We should seek to negative any gains that they make, and we should seek to remove the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against enforcement action. As the Minister knows, people use the mechanism of appeal to the Secretary of State as a means of stringing out the process while they make more money.
In moving the amendment, I seek an indication from the Minister on the Government's thinking on enforcement, and whether we might look forward to government amendments on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I confess that I spotted this amendment onlyjust over half an hour ago, but it seems wholly admirable. We all know of developers who are cynical chancers, and who reckon that in practice, even if not in theory, they will more often than not get away with an unauthorised development retrospectively. When they get away with it retrospectively, surely it is right that they should pay over the odds for retrospective planning permission.
If retrospection involves an ordinary householder who, for example, installs a dormer window in his roof without realising that planning permission is needed. perhaps a much lesser multiple would suffice, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, willingly conceded. The amendment permits that, as it uses the word "may" rather than "must", and allows flexibility in the multiple to be applied. It is the view of many of us that dodgy developers should be hit hard; indeed, a fee five times larger than normal might not be excessive.
Lord Rooker: I think that I have a reasonable answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but not so much to the enforcement aspect that he raised. There is clearly a problem with developments carried out without permission. If that happens, the

883
local authority has three choices. It can invite an application for retrospective permission; issue an enforcement notice; or decide to take no action, which in itself can cause problems later. If the development is likely to be acceptable subject to conditions, retrospective permission is the sensible route. If it is likely to be acceptable without conditions, it might be sensible not to take the matter further. But if it is unacceptable, enforcement is the right route to follow.
I have criticised enforcement, when one of my constituents had to take down the front of his house. He had installed panelling and a bay window that were way out of line with regulations. It was terrible but it had to be done. The authority went to town on that case, but there were good reasons for doing so, although my constituent did not think so. I had to persuade him to get a contractor to carry out the work. So enforcement does happen.
On the other hand, getting retrospective planning permission can be useful. The research report The Planning Service: Costs and Fees, which was mentioned earlier when we discussed fees, notes that,
"there have been suggestions from consultees that the normal fee should be increased [for retrospective applications)".
The report adds:
"this would be a largely punitive charge and could be difficult to justify in terms of costs of processing which may be similar to other applications".
The power in Clause 51 would enable that to happen, so in that sense the amendment is unnecessary. We have not yet decided our approach on fees, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and we will publish our own consultation paper later in the year.
However, it would not make sense to discourage people from making retrospective applications. If a development is acceptable in principle, planning permissioneven permission obtained retrospectively can impose controls through conditions. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, this relates more to domestic developments than commercial ones. At least it would give legal status to the development so that for any subsequent owner or occupier the full security of the property is lawful.
Recently, I read correspondence to the department from someone who had purchased a property in the north of England under the category of "dwelling" and had extensions added without obtaining the necessary planning permission. Now on the one hand, the home condition reportthe old seller's packwill solve this problem because people would buy a property only in the full knowledge that all the necessary permissions were there. That is a good security for them. But the argument was about who should apply for the retrospective planning application, should it be the former or the current owner? In this case the estate agents had sold the property. The solicitors had done the searches and all the legal bits and the ownership was transferred. But there was no planning permission for this room.
Getting retrospective planning permission in a non-punitive way at least gives security for the new owner. The home information report that will come in
884
through the housing legislation currently going through the other place should take care of that in future. It is a not unimportant point. We will need a good relationship between authorities and their communities. The punitive charge sounds okay but it would put off the making of retrospective applications so that would be a problem. The alternative is for the authority to serve an enforcement notice. When the developer appeals to the Secretary of State, they can argue for the grant of permission subject to conditions. However, that is incredibly wasteful of resources all the way up. It is an important point because there are people who go round deliberately flouting the law to cut corners and we do have to deal with them.
I hope that the home information report will deal with dwellings. We do not believe that that is the way to proceed at present but we will be coming forward with a consultation paper on fees and charges. I cannot promise whether or not we will levy higher charges. The policy intent would be not to put people off but to encourage them to get retrospective permission.
Lord Monson: The Minister argues that the higher charge for retrospective permission would be punitive. But would it not be vastly less punitive by a factor of about 10 times than ordering the individual to demolish the garage or the extension?
Lord Rooker: That would not be the alternative. The whole point is that if there is an enforcement notice and the conditions cannot be applied and whatever has been built has to be taken down, no amount of planning permission or punitive charges will alter that fact. If it has to come down, it has to come down. So I do not see this as an alternative. The issue also is how the matter becomes known to the local authority in the first place. People might say, "Oh, I didn't realise. I've chatted to the neighbours. I've got to have planning permission for this".
That is not generally the way it comes about. It comes through a complaint to the authorityhas this builder got planning permission for their work? In most cases they will have planning permission but in some they will not, so people ask those questions. Or it could come about with a change of ownership. If legal searches have not been done properly as in the case I referred to, that becomes an issue. It may come to light on the sale of the property when searches reveal something done without planning permission. It depends on how the knowledge comes to the planning authorities. If they decide to take action with conditions that is fine if those conditions can be met. But if an enforcement action is required to modify or remove whatever has been built, that is a serious issue and no amount of extra conditions would satisfy that.
Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply as far as it goes. I said at the beginning that I am not out to get the person who inadvertently fails to get planning permission and who subsequently gets it with conditions and agrees to abide by them. I am out to get the person who chances his arm repeatedly. In such a case, the Minister will acknowledge that the local

885
authority does have considerable costs which can involve many site visits, meetings and arguments and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, remarked, the planning system is hopelessly under-funded. While the Minister may describe my suggestion as an argument for punitive charges, I certainly believe those charges should meet the costs which the local authority legitimately incurs in dealing with retrospective applications. But I hope that when the scale of charges is revised that will be taken into account. As a result of the consultation on enforcement, I hope that we will be able to look forward to a better standard of enforcement in future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 54 [Correction of errors in decisions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 54 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hanham: This small provision should not take long. Why do we need four clauses to correct errors? Currently, there is a fairly well tried and tested procedure that enables anyone to make a submission to a judge. The error is changed, date stamped and all finished and done with.
Here we seem to be expecting the inspectors to make mistakes constantly. There would be a whole process of four pages to decide how the matter should be dealt with. Why do we not leave things well alone when they can be and not mess around with them?
Lord Rooker: That is a good question, but perhaps it should be directed to parliamentary counsel and not to the Minister. Clause 54 provides for the introduction of a "slip rule" for certain decisions made by the Secretary of State or an inspector under various planning rules. The Secretary of State or planning inspectors will have power, subject to various conditions, to correct specified types of errors contained in decision letters.
I assure the noble Baroness that a small error in a decision letter from the Secretary of State, which is abused and misused by the legal profession and those who agreed at the decision, even when the actual substance of the error has nothing to do with the main decision, causes us considerable difficulties and problems. That is a serious issue, which therefore probably justifies the four clauses.
Clause 54 sets out how the "slip rule" may be applied for this purpose. It is a simple reform that will allow for better administration and will avoid having to involve the courts on trifling matters. We are dealing only with trifling matters. This measure could be used to correct obvious clerical errors, typographical errors, omissions or accidental slips, which are obvious errors to the parties concerned. The system is abused because of a clerical error in a decision letter. The errors would not be material errors going to the substance of the decision, and would not enable the Secretary of State or an inspector to alter or vary a decision.
886
But if those errors get in and the lawyers get at them, before we know it, we have to go to court to get it changed. In terms of time and resources, the amount taken up is astonishing. If desired, I can also detail Clauses 55, 56 and 57. However, there are good reasons why our excellent parliamentary counsel has drafted the clauses for the benefit of the House and the better conduct of public business. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hanham: I withdraw my objection.
Clause 54 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill):
Does the noble Baroness wish to speak to the subsequent clauses grouped with Clause 54?
Baroness Hanham: No.
Clauses 55 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Wales Spatial Plan]:
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 130A:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
"LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS

(1) Part 2 of this Act shall apply to Wales with the modifications provided by this section.

(2) Sections 12(6); 13; 15; 18(2)(c) and (e); 23(3)(a), (4), (7) to (9); 27(4) and (5); 28 to 30; and 36(3) to (6) shall not apply.

(3) For "RSS" substitute "Wales Spatial Plan" wherever it appears.

(4) For "Secretary of State" substitute "the Assembly".

(5)For "the RPB" substitute "the Assembly".

(6)For section 18(2)(b) substitute "Wales Spatial Plan".

(7)For section 23(a) and (b) substitute "the Wales Spatial Plan".

(8)For section 23(2) substitute— "(2) A local planning authority—

(a)must request the opinion in writing of the Assembly as to the general conformity of a development plan document with the Wales Spatial Strategy;

(b)may request the opinion in writing of the Assembly as to the general conformity of any other local development document with the Wales Spatial Strategy."

(9) For section 23(5) substitute—

"(5) Whether or not the local planning authority make a request mentioned in subsection (2), the Assembly may give an opinion as to the general conformity of a local development document with the Wales Spatial Strategy.""

The noble Lord said: In introducing this amendment, perhaps I may say immediately that we are not trying to sabotage the planning system in Wales, although it may seem as if we are. Amendment No. 130A gives the Government another opportunity to justify their proposals for local development, as set out in Part 2 of the Bill. Specifically, we hope that the Minister will explain why, if something is good enough for England, it is not good enough for Wales. We do not begrudge

887
Wales a decent planning system, but we are extremely unhappy that for some reason England has ended up with an unnecessarily complex set of arrangements.
As I have said throughout the Bill's passage, we support the Government's aims to streamline the planning system without compromising its effectiveness. However, there is no way that their proposals for local development schemes in England will achieve that aim. They are far too complex. District, borough and unitary councils will not know what they have done to deserve having such an unremitting, bureaucratic approach to local development thrust upon them.
The Bill is confused in relation to local development. An advantage of the present system is that each local planning authority has a single development plan. If we do not bring the logic of the Welsh system to the proposals for England, there will be widespread confusion about the weight of importance to be attached to all the various local development documents, not all of which will have the status of a development plan document.
In the other place, the Government agreed that in relation to local development documents it was essential for local authorities to achieve some common standards of form, content, timing and status. I hope that the Minister can explain how the Government reconcile this wish for a common standard within England with their proposals to have two standards within the United Kingdom.
Forgive me for reiterating this, but it is crucial. The main objective of this legislation is to speed up the planning process. My conclusion is that the proposals for local development in England will do nothing to simplify, speed up or make more transparent the plan-making regime, compared with the unitary development and local plans we have now.
The system proposed for Wales, by comparison, is based on a single development plan. It is simpler, and less likely to lead to confusion and delay through the creation of a new system. Businesses and the public will not be bewildered by the differences between statutory and non-statutory documents, nor by those between live and out-of-date planning documents.
The proposals for local development in England have been widely criticised. The simpler system of a Wales-style local development plan for each authority was supported by around 60 per cent of local authorities in a sample survey carried out by the Town and Country Planning Association. It is also supported by many other interested organisations, because the system in Wales has a quality that is becoming increasingly precious in proposed legislation—common sense.
I know that I have said it before, but I must ask again: if the Government support a single system for Wales, why not for England? I do not accept the response, "it is because of devolution". Devolution should not mean that the Government decide to do things better in Wales than in England. I am genuinely happy for Wales. They have less central diktat to respond to than in England.
Neither do I accept that it is because Wales has only two unitary authorities. I have heard that that somehow justifies English local authorities having to navigate a hugely complicated system, with the Secretary of State perennially lurking over their shoulders. That would be an excuse rather than a legitimate reason. We have unitary authorities in England. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.
So why is there broad support in Wales for the proposals dealing with Welsh plans? Why do the Welsh feel that they are making the necessary changes without going to such radical lengths as we are in England? It is because a single development plan at the local level as proposed for Wales would deliver greater simplicity and efficiency for the benefit of the public and developers alike in England.
If nothing else were to be achieved in this debate, could the Minister answer one simple question? Does he think that Wales will have a simpler, and presumably quicker, planning system than England? I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: To return from Mexico, where I have been for some time, to hear that things are being done so much better in Wales than in England is a considerable pleasure for a Welshman and someone who has a home in Wales. I hope that those comments prove to be correct.
I want to make one observation based on experience which applies, I think, both to England and Wales. Simplicity is certainly a virtue, but one other requirement is particularly valuable and is set out in Clause 58 on the Wales spatial plan, agreed to earlier. Subsection (3) states that the Assembly must be prepared to,

(a) keep under review the Plan;

(b) consider from time to time whether it should be revised".

I want to emphasise how important the review process is in every country.
When I became Secretary of State for Wales in 1979, I arrived just at the point when the development plans for Wales had reached the end of a long and painful process of approval. It had been going on for months, if not years, involving public inquiries, inspectors' reports, and so forth. Most were signed off by my predecessor, but I may have had to put my signature to one or two.
Just at that moment, two things happened that no one—none of those engaged in the consultation, none of the planning inspectors and no one who had given evidence—had anticipated. First, no one had foreseen that the coal industry, which had been in gradual decline for half a century, might disappear over a matter of years. The possibility had not even been considered.
Secondly, no one had envisaged that anyone would ever again require a very large industrial site. No provision was made for a site of 20,000 acres in any of those plans. What happened? The Nissan company

889
wanted to set up a large motor car manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom and, naturally, Wales wanted to compete. A desperate revision of the development plans was required to make it possible for Welsh local authorities in both north and south Wales to present submissions to Nissan.
I make those points only to emphasise that, while simplicity is a virtue—and I hope that we achieve it for England as well as, apparently, it has been achieved in Wales, although the proof of the pudding will be in the eating—let us also ensure that all local authorities, in preparing plans, understand that in this fast-changing modern world it is very difficult to forecast the future. It is therefore imperative that all those involved at every level in the planning process keep their plans under continual review and, if necessary, adapt them to change.
Baroness Hamwee: I have much sympathy with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. However, perhaps I misunderstood the amendment, but it seems to apply the English process to Wales rather than vice versa.
I have tabled five minor amendments in this group. Amendment No. 131A seeks to leave out Clause 62(2)(b) in order to remove the possibility that local planning authorities in Wales could simply delay submission of the local development plan to the Assembly by arguing that, in their opinion, it is never "ready", to use the term in the Bill.
Having made a sideswipe at the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for which I apologise, I think that he would be justified at making one at me. I am not convinced that this amendment succeeds. It deletes a negative without inserting a positive. However, this was not a point for discussion when we dealt with the English part of the Bill. I have learnt over the years that, sometimes, when one is minded not to move an amendment but one does so, the reply is often worth hearing, thus adding to the sum of human knowledge. You never know what might come out.
Amendment No. 131B returns to the term "sound", by seeking to add to Clause 62(5)(b) the words, "in all material respects". We spent a little time discussing this when considering the English part. The Minister argued quite robustly that no qualification was required for the term, but did undertake to check its previous uses. We may hear today that he has been able to do that.
Amendment No. 131C would add a new subsection (6) to Clause 62 to widen the range of people and bodies entitled to appear at the examination into the local development plan. As drafted, only objectors have a right to appear rather than anyone who has not previously objected. Can the Minister confirm that the provision does not exclude people who have not previously made an objection? I hope that is so. Will the Minister confirm that the Assembly has the power so to prescribe and that the inspector has the power to decide to hear the objectors?
890
Amendment No. 13ID substitutes a new subsection (4) to enable a local development plan, agreed by the local planning authority but subject to a direction by the Assembly, to be treated as a material consideration for development control purposes pending the Assembly's final decision. We debated this matter in the English context and the Government rejected an equivalent proposal, saying that it would be wrong to consider an application with policies which the Secretary of State later rejects.
I understand that draft local development documents constitute material consideration for development control purposes. The weight attached to them increases as they come closer to adoption. Can the Minister say whether a plan ceases to be a material consideration once it is called in—or it is not a material consideration having been called in?
Finally, Amendment No. 131E would impose a duty on local planning authorities to carry out appropriate consultations at the time of a local development plan review, to which reference was just made. The Minister may say this is unnecessary, but so much is listed for prescription by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, the more one focuses on items which are not listed to be prescribed and one wonders why they are not there.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I ought to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on putting up what is a wrecking amendment to provoke the debate, although he did say he was not trying to wreck the Bill.
Part 6 shares the objective of the Bill as a whole, which is delivering simpler, clearer and more transparent local planning that is faster, more flexible and with which the community can become more easily involved. The core of the argument is that the particular circumstances of Wales mean that this common objective is best achieved in relation to Wales in a way which, because of those different circumstances, differs from that which is proposed for England. It comes down to that.
Of great importance in understanding and explaining the difference of approach is the impact of devolution, whether the noble Lord likes that or not. Part 6 is a good example of devolution in action. Under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999, the powers of the Secretary of State on town and country planning matters in Wales were transferred to the Assembly, as the noble Lord knows. The Assembly is now entrusted with overseeing the operation of the planning system.
In accordance with the settlement, the provisions of Part 6 have been developed through close co-operation between the United Kingdom Government and the Assembly with the goal of achieving planning reform in a way that reflects the Assembly's aspirations as to how the planning system should operate in Wales. I am sure the noble Lord knows that as Part 6 stands, it enjoys enthusiastic, all-party support in Wales. That includes the support of Assembly representatives of a party that the amendment's proposers represent here.

891
Part 6 has been unanimously endorsed more than once by the Assembly's all-party Environment, Planning and Countryside Committee, as recently as 14 January this year.
Furthermore, the Assembly's public consultation on distinct proposals for development plans in Wales, outlined in Planning; Delivering for Wales 2002, revealed widespread public support in Wales for changes to the development plan procedures to improve the speed and quality of plan preparation which, at the same time, would recognise the distinctive institutional framework, geography and culture of Wales.
The differences between the development plan systems proposed for England and Wales reflect real and existing differences from England in the structures of local government and in the history of legislation on development plans. Wales has a uniform single-tier system of local planning authorities instead of the mixture of single-tier and two-tier arrangements which at present apply in England. As a consequence, Wales therefore also has a uniform system of unitary development plans.
This present system of single-tier local planning authorities and unitary development plans was put in place, as the noble Lord knows, only relatively recently. It was established under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. The reform, which builds very much on the present system, established less than 10 years ago, suits Wales better at this stage. The Welsh reforms are tailored to the particular challenges of plan making in Wales. They are different from those in England and, in our view, require different solutions.
As in England, we need development plans that are relevant and up to date and, as in England, we believe that the way to do this is to ensure that plans are prepared and adopted more quickly. It would be wrong, however, to ignore the fact that in Wales we are starting with a different local government structure and a system of development plans that is different from that which apply in England.
It is widely acknowledged that there has been a great deal of progress in Wales in implementing the reforms required by the 1994 legislation, and all local planning authorities have either adopted or are making good progress towards adopting their unitary development plan. But there is also no doubt that the development plans produced by local planning authorities in Wales need to be more focused and to be prepared more quickly. Moving to the system of local development plans proposed in Part 6 will achieve this for Wales.
The proposed new clause is therefore neither appropriate nor necessary. As the noble Lord knows, it would impose on the planning system for Wales provisions designed for the quite different position in England. The Bill provides for two different systems, each fit for purpose and right for their respective jurisdictions.
892
The noble Lord's major charge was that the English system was too complicated. That is not the case. It gives England the right system for its pattern of communities, its system of local government and the way in which local government knits together. It will be quite clear what is in each local authority's local development framework and what its status is, and the regulations and guidance under Part 2 will achieve exactly that.
We have had a great deal of feedback on the system for England. By and large, English local planning authorities have welcomed the new system. The new local plan system has been widely supported and in seminars and regional presentations local planning authorities have been able to set out their ideas and their visions of how the system will work. There has been a welcome for the introduction of a spatial approach; there has been support for front loading in plan preparation; and support for the pattern and process of community involvement that we have discussed. Some have described it as visionary; others have embraced it enthusiastically.
The SCI builds on the good practice that is already there in local planning authorities. I am sure the noble Lord knows more about that than I do. Statements of community involvement are part of the currency of local government. They have developed over the past few years and the noble Lord has played a leading role in that development.
We are happy with the way in which we are making progress. We will just have to accept that, as far as planning is concerned, each part of the United Kingdom operates in a different way. We are not convinced that you can easily transpose one system exactly into another given the different structures of local government.
Let me pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about the importance of review. It is a very good point. Certainly my experience in local government has taught me that plans need to be constantly kept up to date and almost in a perpetual state of review—not least because of changes which can happen in the national economy and the way that can have a micro-effect in a locality. You have to be realistic and deal with what is in front of you.
I do not need to say too much on Amendment No. 131. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was not terribly convinced by her own amendment. We think that seeking to delete the restriction in subsection (2)(b)—that a planning authority may not submit a local development plan in the way in which she suggested—is unwise. The requirement is an important one. It ensures that the local planning authority, before submitting a plan for independent examination, has to consider not only whether all procedural requirements have been observed, but also whether the plan is in substance ready for examination.
On Amendment No. 13IB, the noble Baroness asked whether we had checked on the use of the phrase, "sound in all material respects". I am unable to respond to the noble Baroness on that. However, I undertake to correspond on that and similar legal points.

893
I shall go through Amendment No. 131C in some detail. The amendment seeks to enable the classes of persons who can demand a public inquiry or informal hearing and can insist on appearing before the inspector to be extended. The clause as drafted limits the persons who have those rights to those who have made a representation to change the local development plan—in other words, to objectors; to say "the usual suspects" is unfair and pejorative—to some aspect of the plan as prepared. There is no reason why the local planning authority or a person who does not want the plan to be changed should have the right to demand that there should be an inquiry or hearing. We think that that right would be pointless.
If, because there are objections, an inquiry or hearing has to be held, the inspector who holds the hearing will, in addition to hearing from those who have a right to appear, have a discretion to permit others to take part. That may satisfy the noble Baroness's point.
Amendment No. 131D seeks to give the provisions of a development plan which has been prepared by a local planning authority but called in for approval by the Assembly, the status of a material consideration in relation to development control decisions, in advance of the Assembly's decision whether to approve the plan. I believe that the issue was prompted by a question as to whether a plan is a material consideration when it has been called in. I think that the answer is no. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
We think that Amendment No. 131E is unnecessary because it adds nothing to provisions which are already in the Bill. Clause 75(2)(e) empowers the Assembly to make regulations which make provision as to,
"the nature and extent of consultation with and participation by the public in anything done under [Part 6]".
Where the Assembly makes such regulations in relation to reviews of local development plans, local planning authorities will be bound by them. The words which the amendment would add to Clause 67 would have no additional practical effect. That makes the amendment unnecessary.
I have spent some time on the points raised. I hope that it has been helpful.
Lord Crickhowell: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask one question while we are considering the Welsh clauses and local planning authority decisions. I cannot see from the proceedings that my question was answered at an earlier stage when the subject of major infrastructure projects was discussed. New powers were taken for the Secretary of State to be able to call in and appoint inspectors, and so on, on major infrastructure projects. That does not apply to Wales.
I accept that the situation is different in England and Wales and understand exactly what the noble Lord said earlier. However, perhaps at some stage, if not now, he could explain to me what equivalent power, if any, exists for the Assembly in Wales, or why no
894
provision has been made for major infrastructure projects to be covered by the Assembly in the same way as by the Secretary of State. I should then be happier that the Bill adequately gives the Assembly what it wants. It probably does but I do not see that that has been covered.
5 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My noble friend Lord Rooker says that the issue was not seen as a particular problem in Wales and that it arose partly in relation to issues emerging from consideration of Terminal 5. I do not want to give more of an explanation than that from the Dispatch Box this afternoon; I shall take the point away for further consideration. In fact, it would probably be better if I wrote to the noble Lord on the matter.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously, we tabled the amendment not wishing any change in Wales but wishing to find out from the Minister why the Government feel that the Welsh should have a simpler and more understand able system than the one we are getting in England.
The Minister said that people in England generally accepted and welcomed the proposals, but I do not believe that many of the average people participating in the day-to-day planning decisions in England are really aware of what is to come. Okay, some planning officers may know of the proposals, but I do not believe that councillors and others are aware as yet of exactly what is happening in England. When we come to the later stages of the Bill, we shall probably want to rewrite the amendment in a different way to see whether we can introduce some of the simplicity that they are getting in Wales into the English system. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Local development plan]:
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Independent examination]:
[Amendments Nos. 131A to 131C not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Intervention by Assembly]:
[Amendment No. 131D not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Review of local development plan]:
[Amendment No. 131E not moved.]
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clauses 68 to 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Interpretations]:
[Amendment No. 13 IE A not moved.]
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Crown application]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 131EB:
Page 110, line 12, leave out from "After" to "Applications" in line 14 and insert "section 31 of the hazardous substances Act (exercise of powers in relation to Crown land) there is inserted the following section—
"31 A"
The noble Lord said: This is a large group of government amendments, most of which have a technical application. It also contains an opposition amendment. I shall move our amendment and enable the noble Baroness to speak to her amendment. I shall then respond to her.
These 13 government amendments seek to improve the Crown application and the associated provisions by clarifying some points, completing others and correcting some errors. My understanding is that the Opposition amendment does not do much of that, but I shall come to that later. I shall move my amendments in this simple way, unless noble Lords have any particular queries or questions on them. I shall move the government amendments and, having given way so that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, can speak to Amendment No. 131EE, I shall respond. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 131EE would insert a new paragraph in Clause 89, which is entitled,
"Special provision for certain circumstances where disclosure of information as to national security may occur: Scotland".
Subsection (5) states:
"The Lord Advocate may appoint a person to represent the interests of any person who",
is forbidden for security reasons from attending a hearing or giving evidence. The Bill as it stands does not provide any detail on the nature and qualifications of the individual and the relationship to the person he or she represents. This amendment would require the person to be an advocate or solicitor of not less than five years' standing and to act in the best interests of the individual he or she represents. It would also be important that if the Lord Advocate appoints someone, he should be responsible for the remuneration of the person appointed and the amendment makes provision for this.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is my understanding that this amendment has been inspired by the Law Society of Scotland—I did not think that the noble Baroness would be too shocked if I revealed that important ingredient.
The amendment has three elements. The first is that special advocates should be legally qualified. Noble Lords who have been following the progress of the Crown application provisions in another place will know that the original clauses on national security required special advocates to be legally qualified. However, the Opposition spokesman, Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, argued that this was too restrictive as it would prevent planning experts, who might be better qualified in certain cases, being appointed. He cited representations from the Law Society to support
896
this view. Mr Matthew Green for the Liberal Democrats agreed with him. The Government also agreed and we brought forward an amendment at Report in the other place, which was well received by Opposition parties. Since that moment, there appears to have been a breakdown of communications between the Law Society in Scotland and in England and between the Conservatives in this House and in another place.
The second element is that the special advocate should act in the best interests of his clients. Section 265A of the 1997 Act gives the Scottish Ministers power to make provision by subordinate legislation as to the functions of a person appointed as a special advocate. We do not therefore consider it necessary to make provision about that on the face of the Bill. Further, the detailed relationship between a special advocate and the person on whose behalf that advocate has been appointed may vary from case to case depending on such things as the purpose of the appointment and the professional qualifications, whether legal, planning or otherwise, of the special advocate in question. Therefore, in our view, it is desirable to allow some flexibility in dealing with such matters. We believe that our proposed approach provides that. Scottish Ministers have undertaken to consult interested parties before making the relevant subordinate legislation, so this legislation can be rehearsed again in its appropriate jurisdiction.
The third element of the amendments is that the Lord Advocate should pay the fees and expenses of special advocates. That raises an important point. The Government's policy is that the Crown body which triggers the need for a Section 265A direction in Scotland should pay for the special advocate. We think that it is right that the developing department should pay. In any case, it would be difficult for the Lord Advocate to set a reliable budget as he would have little idea of how many cases might arise in any year. It is much more sensible for the developing department to pay as it will be able to budget for the special advocate in its scheme costs. That seems a logical way of dealing with that problem.
The important point is whether this policy should be expressed explicitly and, if so, whether it should be on the face of the Bill or in subordinate legislation. Fees and charges in planning are—as I am sure we all understand, and the noble Baroness will know better than most—delicate matters. So the Government will think about the issue and return to it at a later stage. We think that there are more discussions and debates to be had on it. In some regards we are on common ground. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 78 to 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Tree preservation orders: Forestry Commissioners]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 131EC:
Page 61, line 37, leave out from "with" to end of line 42 and insert "a relevant plan which is for the time being in force.

897
() A relevant plan is a plan of operations or other working plan approved by the Forestry Commissioners under—

(a)a forestry dedication covenant within the meaning of section 5 of the Forestry Act 1967, or

(b)conditions of a grant or loan made under section 1 of the Forestry Act 1979."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 84 to 87 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 88 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Special provision for certain circumstances where disclosure of information as to national security may occur: Scotland]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 131 ED:
Page 65, line 8, leave out "under" and insert "by virtue of"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 131EE not moved.]
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 90 to 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Tree preservation orders: Scotland]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 131EF:
Page 70, line 36, leave out from "with" to end of line 41 and insert "a relevant plan which is for the time being in force.
() A relevant plan is a plan of operations or other working plan approved by the Forestry Commissioners under—

(a)a forestry dedication agreement within the meaning of section 5 of the Forestry Act 1967, or

(b)conditions of a grant or loan made under section 1 of the Forestry Act 1979."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 94 to 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Compulsory acquisition of land for development etc]:
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee movedAmendment No. 131F:
""(a) if in their opinion the acquisition of such land will facilitate the carrying out of development, re-development or improvement on or in relation to the land, or";"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall not speak to Amendment No. 131G in the same group. I have a short question. Clause 97(2)(b) substitutes a new paragraph (a) in the section of the principal Act that is referred to. The paragraph which is being substituted ends with the word "or". Has that been lost or is it merely a matter of drafting that that word is not part of the paragraph in the language of parliamentary counsel? I beg to move.
Lord Monson: It is interesting that the Bill contains 121 clauses, only 11 of which—about 9 per cent— relate to compulsory purchase. Yet the Bill is entitled, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, giving equal weight to both planning and compulsory
898
purchase, which is as it should be. Compulsory purchase has always been an emotive and controversial subject. That applies even when property is acquired at full market value, plus a little extra to compensate for disturbance, because no compensation is given for emotional or sentimental loss. It is hard to see how such compensation could be given in practice Therefore, it follows that compulsory purchase should be employed as sparingly as possible, but the Bill weakens that principle to some extent.
I was wondering whether I should declare a potential interest as a landowner, but I reflected that virtually all of us in the House must be landowners to a greater or lesser degree. Even if one owned no more than an eighth of an acre, with or without a house on it, one is still theoretically at risk from compulsory purchase. So I wish all the amendments to Part 8 well—minor though their ameliorating effects will be.
Lord Rooker: If the point that the noble Baroness made about Amendment No. 13IF is about the use of the word "or", then I shall limit my answer to that. I must also point out that it will assume that I have made 10 or 12 paragraphs of speech, which I have not. The "or" which the amendment seeks to insert is superfluous, as Clause 97 does not remove the existing "or" between paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 226 (1). That is the answer.
Baroness Hamwee: A paragraph becomes different when it appears in a Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 131G not moved.]
Clause 97 agreed to.
Clause 98 [Procedure for authorisation by authority other than a Minister]:
[Amendment No. 131GA not moved.]
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clauses 99 to 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Basic loss payment]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 131H:
Page 88, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—

"() This section applies to a person who is displaced from land—

() if he has a qualifying interest in that land, and"

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 131H, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 131J, 131K and 131L. Amendment No. 131H is tabled in order to clarify the persons eligible for the additional basic loss payment. The amendment provides that to be eligible the person be displaced from land as well as having a qualifying interest in it. I expect to hear that that is unnecessary or implicit and look forward to hearing why.
Amendment No. 131J adds a description to the reference to "interest" to clarify the basis on which the value of a person's interest is calculated. That calculation is related to subsection (6), which provides such basis.
Amendment No. 131K clarifies that a loss payment is not to be made to someone whose tenancy was granted after the compulsory purchase order had been made. The new section 33A(4) seems to be unclear as to whether it is intended that a loss payment could be made to someone whose tenancy is granted after the CPO, nor is the meaning of "subsist" made clear, especially when applied to a freehold. The amendment is designed to clarify the qualifying interest in land to be acquired compulsorily. The amendment would enable the freeholder and the lessee with at least three years' unexpired lease to benefit from the new right to basic loss payment.
Finally, Amendment No. 131L is a probing amendment—as are the others—to establish whether compensation for severance, injurious affection and disturbance is included or not. The amendment asks the Government to specify whether the term "amount of compensation" includes compensation for those matters. If not, presumably they are excluded and that should be made clear in terms. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: We support the amendments.
Lord Rooker: I am interested to hear that. Noble Lords opposite should know that the combined effect of these amendments is severely to restrict the number of people able to claim under the new loss payments system but to give the lucky few much more money. They should understand that that is the combined effect of their amendments—to restrict severely the number of people able to claim the new loss payments under the system but give a lucky few a lot more money. If they want to withdraw them now, I shall not go through everything—
Lord Hanningfield: Explain it!
Lord Rooker: Well, that is okay but I do not want to be accused of being party-political. That is the point. Amendments Nos. 131H, 131J and 131L—and this is part of the problem—are similar to amendments tabled at the second Committee sitting in October in the other place but not reached. They spent too much time on other parts of the Bill. Amendment No. 131K is new.
Under Amendment No. 131H, owners of property who do not occupy it would not be eligible for homeless payments. That substantially defeats the point of providing a two-element loss payment system. The aim of the new scheme is to make some allowance for the inconvenience and disruption of being required to leave a property, or give up an interest in it, at a time not of the owner or the tenant's choosing, whether that person is in occupation or not. The intention behind the new provision is to encourage people to be more willing to co-operate in land assembly projects involving the potential use of compulsory purchase powers by providing this extra payment to sweeten the pill. This is an extra payment to sweeten the pill that Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are opposing by tabling these amendments.
900
Those with qualifying interests in property but who are not in occupation would not be entitled to receive compensation for the inconvenience of giving up their property to compulsory purchase. They would therefore have no extra incentive to co-operate with the acquiring authority. The clauses are designed not to confiscate, or anything like that, but to ease compulsory purchase—in effect, by being more generous with payments.
That is the overall concept of the package, which, I admit, was not originally in the Bill. I think we had two clauses on compulsory purchase; the powers that be would not let us include the first few. When we got the Bill referred back to Standing Committee, we took the opportunity to include the rest of the package. It is now much more cohesive.
Amendment No. 131J appears to be a paving amendment for Amendment No. 131L. The extra cross-reference proposed by Amendment No. 131J is unnecessary, because the structure of new Section 33 A in the principal Acts is such that the meaning of the words "value of an interest" unfolds later on in the section. I am told that that is consistent with modern drafting methods.
Amendment No. 131K, like Amendment No. 131H, severely restricts the number of people who would be able to claim a new loss payment. I cannot believe that I am reading this out. The amendments are designed to stop people getting money that the Government want to give them. We must be serious about this.
The current definition in Clause 104 will include tenants on successive annual tenancies. Apparently, many Members of the Committee will be familiar with practice in the agricultural sector—although I do not see many of them around at the moment—where such tenancies are well known.
Amendment No. 131K would render such tenants ineligible, as the definition in Section 2(4) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 excludes them. The relevant words are,
"a tenancy thereof granted or extended for a term of years certain of which … not less than three years remain unexpired".
That means that only those whose leases were for a fixed number of years of which at least three remain will be able to claim.
That is very unfair. The amendments are unfair to the farming community in rural areas, but they have been tabled by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. They are unfair not only in the agricultural but also in the commercial sector. A business that has a 25-year lease nearing the end of its term—with, say, two years to run—would be unable to claim. That takes no account of tenants' rights to have a new lease or to hold over under landlord and tenant legislation.
Amendment No. 131L would increase the amount payable by calculating it on the full compensation package instead of only on the value of the land taken. It is not intended that compensation for severance or injurious affection should be added when making those calculations, because such compensation relates to the depreciation in value of the retained land, not the land that is being acquired.

901
Similarly, disturbance payments are not compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of land, as they are intended to compensate occupiers for expenses that are consequential to the acquisition— expenses arising from the practical aspects of being forced to move, such as curtains, fixtures and fittings. The effect of the amendments would be to increase loss payments for the lucky few left able to claim once the effects of Amendments Nos. 131H and 131K had been taken into account, because they would be calculated on the basis of aggregated compensation, rather than solely on the market value of the land taken.
The loss payments system is designed to complement the Home Loss Payments Scheme, which is already part of the Land Compensation Act 1973. It has been firmly established for 30 years that home loss payments are calculated as a percentage of the figure representing the market value of the land acquired, excluding any compensation payable for disturbance. By adding payments for disturbance and injurious affection to the figure used as the basis for the calculation, the balance between, on the one hand, giving a fair measure of compensation to claimants and, on the other, not placing an excessive burden on acquiring authorities, would be upset.
Including those other elements of compensation might conceivably double the loss payment payable to some owners—a few—and give a disproportionate benefit to those occupiers who do not have a valuable interest in the land. The object is to compensate claimants for their inconvenience, not to provide them with a windfall that could compromise the financial viability of the scheme for which the land has been taken. The combined effect of the amendments, by restricting the number of claimants but increasing the payments fundamentally, changes the scheme of the new loss payments regime.
I hope that my explanations have convinced the noble Lords opposite that their amendments are in direct contradiction to the aims of both their political parties at any forthcoming election and would be very unfair on the claimants. Therefore, I hope that they will not proceed with these amendments.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I really look forward to reading that. I cannot help but feel that the Minister is a bit demob happy as the end of the Bill comes into sight. I do not blame him for using all of that, because it was no doubt written for the rough and tumble of the Committee at the other end. Perhaps we can seek some masterclasses in how to probe the meaning of provisions in Bills without risking being told that we are completely upsetting the scheme of things. These were probing amendments. I am sure that the Minister would have even more fun if we put some objections to clause stand part in this part of the Bill. I thank him for his explanation—
Lord Rooker: For the avoidance of doubt, because of what the noble Baroness said when she stood up, I would not want anyone to think that civil servants wrote any of that political knockabout in my notes.
902
That was all added as I went along. I assure noble Lords that civil servants do not do that kind of thing, that is left to jerks like me who seek to make a cheap party point at the end of the Committee stage.
Baroness Hamwee: I wish that I could be fast enough to find a cheap party point to make somewhere in the remaining bit of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13U to 131L not moved.]
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clause 106 [Loss payments: exclusions]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 131M:
Page 92, line 11, leave out "falling within subsection (4)" and insert "to which subsection (4) applies"
The noble Baroness said: The Minister has just referred to using more modern styles of drafting. The purpose of this amendment and the two others grouped with it, Amendments Nos. 13IN and 1311', is really just to ask whether there is some sort of style guide that parliamentary draftsmen are using to modernise language. Does the parliamentary counsel—I appreciate that the Minster may feel that he needs a shadow with him on the Bench—feel that lit is appropriate to use modern language inserted into an older-style Bill? Once this Bill is passed, we will have other legislation that moves from old to new and back again. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: I rise to support the amendments, but I am a bit frightened to do so in case we get the same sort of answer from the Minister as we did the last time.
Lord Rooker: I have a perfectly good explanation for this. I sometimes think that we need separate notes from parliamentary counsel, because if there is a point about stylistic and modern drafting methods, I am unaware of it. The amendments in this group all appear to have been tabled with the intention of making minor changes to the drafting of Clause 106 without affecting its substance. They are superfluous, but as a group they are also deficient and defective. I will briefly explain why.
Amendments Nos. 131M and 131 N are a pair, which propose an alternative cross-reference to subsection (4) of the new Section 33D. It is not helpful to state that a notice is one to which subsection (4) applies. As it stands at the moment, the drafting of the new Section 33D is perfectly clear to readers and there is no reason to change it.
Amendment No. 13 IP is the second half of another pair of amendments, which would seek a similar effect for subsection (5) as Amendments Nos. 131M and 131N do for subsection (4) of the new Section 33D. The equivalent amendment to Amendment No. 131M has not been tabled—that is the deficiency. I said that it was one half of a pair, but the other half is not there. Amendment No. 131P is the same as Amendment

903
No. 131N in referring to "the notices" instead of "the orders", that is why they are defective. I hope that explanation will find favour with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: My question was about style. It will be confusing for practitioners when, in a year or two, they look at what has made its way into the old legislation. I have made the point. No doubt, within the next two or three months, someone will tell me that my drafting is old-fashioned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 131N and 131P not moved.]
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 [Loss payments: supplementary]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 131Q:
Page 95, line 26, at beginning insert "Except as provided in the following provisions of this section,"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 131R, 131S, 139, 141 and 142.
This group of amendments is a positive response to criticisms raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its fourth report. Amendments Nos. 131Q and 131R together make changes to Clause 107, which inserts Section 33K into the Land Compensation Act 1973. New Section 33A, in Clause 104, and Section 33B, contained in Clause 105, of the 1973 Act established a right for those whose property has been compulsorily required to receive loss payments. New Section 33K currently provides for regulations to be made under the negative resolution procedure to alter the amounts and percentages specified in those sections.
The Government accept the committee's view that, because the power of the Secretary of State to increase the percentages could be very significant in policy terms, there should be an opportunity for such changes to be considered by Parliament. These two amendments, therefore, reflect the committee's recommendation that the negative procedure is appropriate only where the power in new Section 33K(2) is used by the Secretary of State only to reflect changes in the value of money or land. We also explicitly provide for any regulation made under Section 33K to make different provision for different purposes. As the Land Compensation Act 1973 has already been devolved in its entirety without qualification in the Transfer of Functions Order, the National Assembly for Wales will have the same power as the Secretary of State to make regulations, but subject to Assembly procedure.
Amendment No. 131S inserts a new clause giving the Secretary of State a contingent power to make an order amending any enactment to bring it in line with the provisions relating to compulsory purchase procedures in Part 8. Amendments Nos. 139 and 141 disapply the negative resolution procedure and apply the affirmative resolution procedure to orders made by
904
the Secretary of State under the new power. Amendment No. 142, when taken with Amendment No. 141, also applies the affirmative and not the negative resolution procedure to statutory instruments which amend or repeal enactments, and which are made by the Secretary of State under powers in the Bill. That follows the committee's recommendations. Here endeth my epistle. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: With this amendment, we wish to test the Government's thinking on the Crichel Down rules. The general principle underlying the rules is that, when land has been acquired compulsorily or under threat of compulsion, and the acquiring body no longer needs the land as originally envisaged or for any other public purpose for which the land could have been compulsorily purchased, the original owner or his or her successor should be offered the opportunity to buy back the property at its current market value. As such, the rules provide some comfort for the dispossessed landowner. However, at present, the rules are nonstatutory and this fact helps explain the confusion that surrounds the application of the Crichel Down rules.
In the absence of formal legislation, it is not clear which organisations fall within the ambit of the rules. Clearly, the rules apply to all government departments, but they are discretionary for local authorities and inconsistently applied. A similar lack of clarity relates to the application of the rules to particular sites. The origin of the rules in relation to Crichel Down itself and the privileged position of agricultural land in the legislative framework led to an emphasis on agricultural land. The legacy of that has been to create confusion, as the application of the rules has been extended to cover urbanised land.
Finally, there appears to be conflict between the rules, both in principle and in operation, and other primary legislation, regulation and guidance. Having considered the various options for the future of the rules, the Government took the view that the most appropriate way forward was for the rules to be made statutory and to apply them to all land acquired or under threat of compulsion.
The deadline for responses on the Government's consultation on the proposed changes to the current nonstatutory rules and the proposal for statutory rules was 19 December 2003. Can the Minister explain why the Government do not see the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill as the ideal legislative opportunity to introduce the necessary order-making powers in primary legislation for the statutory rules? This amendment is the logical next step in the Government's reform agenda for compulsory purchase. I do not understand why the Government would not want to take this opportunity to signal their commitment to a fairer and more consistent approach to the Crichel Down rules. This amendment would not prejudice the results of the consultation exercise, which concerns the content and format of the rules themselves. The precise configuration of the rules could be dealt with in secondary legislation after the Government have analysed the results of this consultation.

905
Without this amendment I wonder how long it will be before the Crichel Down rules make it to the statute book? The sooner we have statutory force to the rules, the sooner we will have a clearer, fairer system.
Baroness Hamwee: I think we are all a little confused. Is this Amendment No. 131T?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Is the noble Lord seeking to group his amendment with those of the Government. He has spoken to them in the group. Is that correct?
Lord Hanningfield: Yes, I was also considering a further amendment which I have already talked to the Minister about. The noble Baroness has probably come to a sensible answer. Let me group it with the other amendments and then the Minister can reply.
Lord Rooker: Let me be clear. I am speaking exclusively to Amendment No. 13IT. I am glad to know I was not the only one who was confused. At present, although the Crichel Down rules set out arrangements under which the former owners of such land are to be given the first opportunity to buy it back, those rules are not statutory and are only mandatory for government departments and some agencies and non-governmental public bodies.
The current rules extend further than the proposed regulation-making power suggests. For instance, they apply in the case of land that has been acquired under the blight provisions in Chapter II of, and Schedule 13 to, the Town and Country Planning Act. Moreover, they cover the offering back of land not only to former owners in the strict sense but also their successors. They also provide for a house being offered to sitting tenants in the first place, rather than the former owner. So the proposed regulation-making power does not go wide enough.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently undertaken a consultation exercise, to which the noble Lord referred. That included proposals for changes to the existing rules and their accompanying guidance on a separate proposal to put the rules on a statutory basis. The results are currently being analysed. They have not yet been put to Ministers. Therefore it would be premature to accept the amendment even if parliamentary counsel would have accepted it. We are limited in the number of clauses that can be included in the Bill. We must keep an open mind on this issue. We have not yet announced what we intend to do.
Lord Hanningfield: The Government announced five or more years ago that they thought the Crichel Down rules should be changed. This might have been an opportunity to get something in this legislation that might have taken the process forward without prejudicing the result of the consultation. I hope the Minister will consider this. A compulsory purchase Bill would be the ideal vehicle to contain such a measure. However, I shall not move my amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I can say only that I do not know anything about the detail. This is only Committee stage. I do not know the timetable for the assessment of the consultation, how long it will be before matters come before Ministers and whether there will be time to make decisions, but it is still some weeks to Report. I shall certainly get further and better particulars about the issue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 131R:
Page 95, leave out lines 29 to 33 and insert—

"(4) This subsection applies to regulations under subsection (2) which substitute—

(a) a percentage figure, or

(b) an amount, in a case where the change in value condilion is not satisfied.

(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations to which subsection (4) applies must not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(6) The change in value condition is satisfied if the Secretary of State thinks that in the case of the substitution of an amount it is expedient to make the substitution in consequence of changes in the value of money or land.

(7)Regulations under subsection (2) may make different provision for different purposes.""

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 131S:
After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
"CORRESPONDING AMENDMENTS OF OTHER ENACTMENTS

(1)This section applies to any enactment passed or made before or in the same session as the passing of this Act (other than an enactment amended by this Part) which makes provision—

(a)in connection with the compulsory acquisition of an interest in land,

(b)creating a power which permits the interference with or affectation of any right in relation to land, or

(c) for the payment of any sum in connection with the acquisition, interference or affectation.

(2)The Secretary of State may by order amend an enactment to which this section applies for the purpose of making provision which—

(a) corresponds to provision made by this Part, or

(b) applies any such provision or corresponding provision."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 13 IT not moved.]
Clause 108 agreed to.
Lord Rooker movedAmendment No. 131U:
After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—
"PARLIAMENT The Planning Acts and this Act have effect despite any rule of law relating to Parliament or the law and practice of Parliament."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 109 and 110 agreed to.
Clause 111 [Grants for advice and assistance]:
Baroness Wilkins Baroness Wilkins moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 97, line 27, leave out "the public" and insert "any other person"
The noble Baroness said: First, perhaps I may apologise to Members of the Committee; illness prevented me from speaking to the two previous amendments standing in my name. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to other noble Lords for speaking to those amendments perhaps more eloquently than I would have done. I thank the Minister, too, for his response. I look forward to returning to those issues at a later stage.
Amendment No. 132 is a probing amendment to ascertain whether the wording of Clause 111 would allow the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to give grants to local access groups as well as to bodies such as Planning Aid. The wording may preclude that, and I ask for clarification. I would also welcome a statement from the Minister about how the Government intend to ensure a sustainable future for local access groups of disabled people, which many planning authorities and developers rely upon for expert advice on access issues, including advice on individual planning applications.
Although many local authorities already support local access groups, either by providing small amounts of funds—usually a few hundred pounds a year—or by providing support in kind, such as a meeting space or secretariat, they usually run on "fresh air and enthusiasm" with many members having to fund participation from their own pockets.
No central government funding is currently available to ensure a well-resourced, sustainable network of local access groups in every locality. The Government used to provide core funding and project funding to the Access Committee for England but withdrew that in 1998. Extra funding is required to enable local access groups to grow and develop in a sustainable way. A central government funding stream would be highly desirable to build the capacity of local access groups, to enable groups to be set up in areas currently deprived of such a vital source of advice, and to ensure that regional access groups are in place to inform regional spatial strategies.
The Government have suggested that funding for Planning Aid is the way they plan to facilitate disabled people's participation in planning. While funding for Planning Aid is very welcome, it will not address the need to give disabled people an effective voice in the planning system. As I understand it, the two have quite different functions. If disabled people need personal planning advice they can go to Planning Aid for assistance. They may also take part in consultation on development plans arranged by Planning Aid. Planning Aid confirms that its remit is not to provide support to access groups or specialist access advice. However, local access groups
908
exist to provide this expert advice and to provide direct input into the planning and development control system for disabled people.
The Disability Rights Commission is undertaking research scoping the location, resources and experiences of existing local access groups which will include recommendations on funding needs. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that serious consideration will be given to implementing any recommendations on funding that stems from this research?
Finally, would the Minister agree that should the current wording of Clause 111 preclude central funding for local access groups, it would be wise to amend it now to allow for future funding recommendations to be acted upon? I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am getting advice on one particular aspect, but this is where the play on language comes in. The noble Baroness's amendment would end up with the perverse effect of allowing local authorities to get money from Planning Aid. I have started off with my final point because otherwise it looks as if I am being negative and I do not want to appear that way.
Clause 111 is intended to allow the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to help financially bodies such as Planning Aid, which provide advice and assistance to members of the public who cannot afford to pay for advice on the planning process.
It will enable Planning Aid to become more proactive, as I mentioned earlier, and develop a greater role in targeting communities which traditionally do not get involved in the planning system, particularly groups in disadvantaged areas or groups representing the socially excluded. This includes people on low incomes; unemployed people; minority ethnic communities; disabled people and disability groups; tenants and community groups; and voluntary organisations and action groups.
As I have said, the effect of Amendment No. 132 would be to allow access to Planning Aid to bodies such as local authorities, because they come under the legal term, "any other person", whereas they are not normally thought of as "the public". That is where the distinction comes. We believe "the public" should have wide access to Planning Aid, but we certainly do not want—and it is not our intention—to provide help to such bodies which already have the resources and expertise to manage planning issues.
Although my notes say "bodies such as Planning Aid", this involves only Planning Aid. My assumption has been that the extra money has gone to Planning Aid, although not defined as such in the Bill. I do not know if there are any other bodies. If Planning Aid works with the groups that the noble Baroness is describing, and is proactive on their behalf, that would make a tremendous difference. Therefore not accepting the amendment does not mean I am not accepting the spirit behind the amendment. It is just that play on words—"any other person"would

909
include local authorities and we need to say "the public" in order to exclude local authorities from getting their hands on this money. They have enough of their own as it is!
Baroness Hamwee: I wonder if the Minister can tell the Committee how many people are needed to make up the public for that purpose. Do you know when you see them? Presumably there is a point at which a small group of people covers a wide enough subject area to become "the public" for the purpose of this provision. I am happy to wait for an answer.
Baroness Wilkins: I thank the Minister for his reply. This matter obviously needs considerably further thought. I would be grateful for discussions with him and for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clauses 112 to 114 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Amendments of the planning Acts]:
Lord Rooker movedAmendment No. 132ZA:
Page 125, line 14, at end insert
"In section 55(2)(b) (meaning of development) the word "local" is omitted."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 132A and 132B not moved.]
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendments of other enactments]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 132BA:
Page 134, line 2, at end insert—
"(6A) In Schedule 26 (urban development corporations), in paragraph 1, leave out "11" and insert "15"."
The noble Lord said: This amendment has proved to be difficult because I have been advised that technically it is not possible to move it on this piece of legislation. However, I have discussed it with the Minister and I am now moving it so that he will be able to respond.
Concerns have been expressed about the competition and the ability of local authorities to be represented on UDCs. Given all the partners, the earlier legislation specifying numbers has proved insufficient. We shall refer to UDCs consistently throughout this Bill and on the important part they play in the planning process. I had hoped, therefore, that my amendment would be appropriate. However, I have been told that it is not. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: The Public Bill Office allowed the amendment to be tabled and so I feel free to say a word about it. I congratulate the noble Lord on spotting what I thought was a good opportunity. I am aware that the consultation on the proposed UDC for the Thames Gateway comes to an end tomorrow and that one of the issues in that consultation has been that
910
many local authorities have legitimate claims to be represented on the new UDC. That is if one accepts that this is the right way to go; I do not, but for the purpose of this amendment I shall leave that to one side.
I understand that this will rely on an order dependent on primary legislation, so the noble Lord has raised an extremely good point. If this is not the way, then I hope that we shall be able to find a means of achieving the objective within the Bill. Again, I congratulate the noble Lord.
Lord Rooker: I am reliably advised that we should not be debating this amendment because it should not be on the Order Paper. To be honest, I thought that this was a government amendment that we had given to the Opposition. A government amendment like this has been on my mind for months. We need to allow flexibility to increase the size of the UDCs because of what we plan to do with the sustainable communities plan and the growth areas where multiple local authorities are involved. We have made it clear that, as our partners, we want good stakeholder representation.
At the moment I know that we have some difficulties in one of the gateway UDCs which is not ready at the moment. Thurrock is ready, as is the Thames Gateway. Northampton and Milton Keynes are already out for consultation. So far as I know, all is well.
Earlier I was told that we do not need the amendment to achieve what we want, notwithstanding that it should not have been on the Order Paper. I was unaware that it had been ruled out in the Commons because to the best of my knowledge I have had no paperwork about it.
It has always been the Government's intention to use the opportunity provided by this Bill to make a modest change to enable us to increase the maximum number of people serving on urban development corporations. Apparently, however, it cannot be done because it is beyond the scope of the Bill. It will be dealt with in a regulatory reform order. Either way, I want to make it clear that this will be done. I am not prepared to stand here and be told that it cannot be done.
People outside in local government who we are desperately trying to keep as our partners on these issues, both in the market renewal housing pathfinders in the midlands and the north where UDCs may be the order of the day, and the Thames Gateway and the other growth areas of the south-east, would think that I am speaking with a forked tongue. All parties are involved, trying to work together in consensual arrangement. I am making it clear: we are not imposing anything. We will have full consultation and provide a good stake for the stakeholders. They can work it out just as I can. If we have to have a majority of independents, there will not be enough room for all the local authorities to be represented.

911
I want to make it clear again that just because it has not been done during this stage, it does not mean that the Government will not honour their commitment to ensuring that those stakeholders are fully represented on the urban development corporations.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister. Considering that this matter was not supposed to be raised, we have had it reported fairly well and I am grateful for that. We are unanimous on this point and I hope that the Government can achieve it as soon as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 132C:
Page 137, line 5, at end insert—
"() In section 26(2)(b) (meaning of "development"), for "local roads authority" there is substituted "roads authority (as defined by section 151(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984).""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Transitionalprovisions: Parts 1 and 2]:
[Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved]
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 134ZA:
Page 144, line 20, column 2, at end insert—
"In section 55(2)(b) the word "local"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 134A and 135 not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 145, line 14, column 2, at end insert—
"In section 92(2)(a), "83, 84,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 117 [Commencement]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 137 and 138:
Page 99, line 21, at end insert—
"() in Part 7, Chapter 1;"
Page 99, line 24, after "Schedules" insert "3, 4,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 118 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 139 to 143:
Page 100, line 5, at end insert—
"(aa) an order under section (Corresponding amendments of other enactments)(2);"
Page 100, line 6, after "section" insert "96,"
Page 100, line 7, at end insert—
"(ca) provision amending or repealing an enactment contained in an Act;"
912
Page 100, line 9, leave out from "instrument" to "has" in line 10 and insert "mentioned in subsection (5)(a), (aa) or (ca) must not be made unless a draft of the instrument"
Page 100, line 12, after "section" insert "96 or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Continuance of Part VII) Order 2004
6.5 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15 January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order was laid before the House on 15 January 2004 and will renew all but one of the Part VII powers currently in force. The 2003 continuance order renewed the Part VII powers up to and including 18 February 2004. The present order provides that the provisions should remain in force for a further period of 12 months.
A report on the operation of Part VII in 2003 by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, has been published. The Government have considered his views and are grateful that he has once again provided a well informed report.
In consideration of the prevailing security environment in Northern Ireland, the Government believe that it is necessary to retain the vast majority of the Part VII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, agrees with this conclusion. Intimidation, so-called punishment beatings and the threat from dissident groups opposed to the peace process remain in Northern Ireland. It is clear that the Part VII powers are necessary to combat such activity and to ensure that the rule of law—not the rule of the paramilitaries—is maintained.
I take no pleasure in recommending the renewal of Part VII for a further year. Indeed, I look forward to a time when it will no longer be required. The Government are committed to the ultimate removal of the Part VII powers when the security situation allows. But the Government also have a duty to protect the people of Northern Ireland from continued terrorist activity. We will therefore act responsibly in respect of this duty and ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are, at all times, given the security and protection they need. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15 January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Lord President of the Council for bringing the order before the House. I entirely agree that it is sad that we have to continue the order today. We, too, are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for this report and for his previous reports over the years.

913
But we have to be realistic. The noble Lord points out that high levels of sophisticated crime, syndicated crime, paramilitary connections and intimidation still exist and that the control that paramilitary organisations exert over communities continues. It is the noble Lord's view that political progress and moves towards greater security and normalisation in Northern Ireland are dependent on a complete end to all forms of paramilitary activity by both republican and loyalist groups.
That central issue must be addressed in the forthcoming review of the Belfast agreement. Let us hope, yet again, that we will see an end to violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland. In the mean time, I support the order.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the Lord President of the Council for introducing the order. Like her, I regret that we have to continue with it for yet another year. I welcome the report of my noble friend Lord Carlile and I thank him for compiling such a thorough, clear and accessible document. We are pleased that the Government have taken on board his recommendations that Section 97(3) should now lapse.
However, my noble friend also recommended that consideration should be given to the repeal of Section 67(3) in paragraph 3.17 of the report and that very serious consideration should be given to the repeal of Section 108. He also stated that paragraph 37 of Schedule 4 is now redundant in its application to paragraph 36, which was repealed last year, and that there could be procedural problems in the relationship between paragraph 37 and Section 112.
I have given the Minister notice of this question. Can the noble Baroness reassure the House that the Government are considering repeal of Sections 67(3) and 108? Does the Minister believe that further clarification of paragraph 37 of Schedule 4 is needed; and, if so, when might the legislative changes be made?
My further question refers to the Diplock courts. My noble friend Lord Carlile suggested that consideration should be given to a three-judge court instead of a single judge court and that that might help towards the normalisation process. Is that recommendation by my noble friend likely to be considered?
We support the continuation of the order.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I agree with him that we all want to see a complete end to all forms of paramilitary activity. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for giving me notice of the questions he raised.
On the repeal of Section 67(3), there is little doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, presented a strong case for allowing Section 67(3) to lapse. He believes that judges apply the same test to schedule cases as to non-schedule cases in line with the convention. We
914
have undertaken internal consultation on this matter and received helpful and informative responses from key stakeholders. We intend to launch a wide-ranging and comprehensive formal consultation exercise. I hope that any concerns relating to retention or repeal of the provision will be submitted and examined through that process. I hope that that addresses the concern raised by the noble Lord.
On the repeal of Section 108, noble Lords will be aware of the tragic circumstances that preceded the introduction of this provision in 1998. The House had the opportunity to debate the retention of the provision in the Terrorism Act and it is only this year that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. has recommended repeal. I believe that the provision still has some utility and the convictions of Real IRA members in the Republic with the assistance of a similar provision reinforces this view. But we shall give careful consideration to the noble Lord's comments on Section 108. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, made clear, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is clear and accessible.
As regards the intentions of paragraph 37 of Schedule 4, last year we said that we would consider the utility of paragraph 37 of Schedule 4. Although Schedule 4 is a permanent UK schedule to the Terrorism Act, paragraph 37 is treated as a Part VII provision by virtue of Section 112(5)(a). On advice from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, we did not renew paragraph 36 of Schedule 4 last time round. Paragraph 36 enables the Secretary of State to make a restraint order in the place of the courts. Paragraph 37 creates an offence of contravening a restraint order and, logically, should fall away with paragraph 36. However, on further examination, the paragraph 37 offence applies also to restraint orders issued by the courts in Northern Ireland under paragraph 33 of the schedule. So if paragraph 37 is not renewed it would render unenforceable court restraint orders. On careful reflection, we conclude that paragraph 37 must be renewed.
As regards the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in relation to the three-judge courts, it is inevitable that the move to three-judge courts would have significant cost and resource implications. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is in his place. Paragraph 5.17 of his report states that,
"the present single-judge courts continue to offer a high standard of justice: there is no evidence of any deficit in the quality of single-judge courts".
My right honourable friend Jane Kennedy said in another place this morning that she would give careful consideration this year, along with Ministers responsible for criminal justice, to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The noble Lord recognises that there are a number of issues to weigh in the balance.
With those assurances that we shall give careful consideration to these matters, I hope that noble Lords feel able to support the order.
On Motion, Question agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
  (Fifth Day)
  Thursday, 5 February 2004.
  The Committee met at a quarter past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Hooper) in the Chair.]
  Clause 13 [Code of practice for victims]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 8, line 21, after "provided" insert "by criminal justice agencies"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 62, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 63. We have now reached Part 3 of the Bill, which sets out the new victims' code and creates a Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses. My amendments relate specifically to the code of practice which will be issued by the Secretary of State. They have been tabled in order to probe the thinking of the Government regarding the code and more specifically exactly to whom the new victims' code should apply and which organisations, either statutory or voluntary, would be bound to operate the code.
  We have referred on previous occasions to the very helpful briefing by the Minister before the Grand Committee stage. At that meeting, I asked the Minister to explain which organisations would be covered in subsection (l)(b) of Clause 13. Clause 13(1) states:
  "The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice as to the services to be provided to a victim of criminal conduct by persons appearing to him to have functions relating to—

  (a) victims of criminal conduct, or

  (b) any aspect of the criminal justice system".

  The Minister said that the measure covered criminal justice agencies. I have "pinched" that wording and included it in my amendment. Will the Minister state more fully which organisations are covered?
  We have made it clear that we support the code's intention. It has clearly been drawn up first and foremost in the best interests of the vulnerable. It is certainly clear from the statistics that we have that the criminal justice system does not work best when a witness feels that for one reason or another he or she cannot give evidence in court. It is important to know how the code will be operated and by whom.
  The indicative code was published at the same time as the Bill and placed in the Printed Paper Office. It mentions Victim Support as one of the agencies with responsibilities regarding victims of crime. I am
  GC 410
  grateful to representatives of Victim Support for coming to the House a couple of weeks ago to brief me fully before Grand Committee. As an organisation, it had considered very carefully whether it should be included in the measure. After that careful consideration, it decided that it should be included but in the full knowledge of the responsibilities that such a course of action would impose. I am advised that they it also took great care to ensure that participation did not prejudice its charitable status. It decided to be included because it believes that victims of crime have a statutory right to its services.
  Victim Support points out that the Bill allows for the code to be expanded over time to add obligations for agencies and departments outside the criminal justice system. That is indeed why I tabled the amendment—to find out what the situation is now and how the Government see it developing in the future against a background of amendments that we shall debate when discussing Clause 15 where we look at the implications for an organisation of being subject to operating the code.
  Do the Government accept that it could be very difficult for some smaller organisations to be bound by the code? There may be implications for their administration that pose difficulties. It may, indeed, in some circumstances, cut across their charitable status. One would have to consider each case on its merits to decide whether inclusion in the measure was appropriate.
  I ought to mention another matter. On a previous occasion, there was a query regarding whether my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow was in order to refer matters to the Minister regarding a clause stand part debate, when he had not given formal notice of that in advance. I mention it because as a result of that debate I gave notice to the Public Bill Office—I refer to the relevant notices of intention in the Marshalled List—that I wished to oppose every clause and schedule that appears on the Marshalled List. I did so to give the usual channels an opportunity to sort out the issue. I understand that it has now been sorted out. I have been advised that my noble friend Lord Carlisle was completely in order, as I had always expected to be the case. I have left those down simply because of the extra cost of reprinting the Marshalled List.
  I can now give notice that I shall most definitely wish to speak on Clauses 15 and 18. There may be one or two others where I have peripheral matters, but that is most unlikely. I know that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has already given advance notice to the Chairman of those clauses on which he wishes to speak. I beg to move.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her helpful exposition on the Question of whether the clause stands part. I understand why she did that. I thank her for her courtesy in indicating the clauses upon which she wishes to speak.

  GC 411
  I also thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she introduced the amendment. She made it clear that the purpose of the amendment was to achieve clarity and obtain an explanation of why the original clause was drafted as it was.
  The original clause was drafted in this way so that agencies and organisations that had significant contact with victims of crime but fell outside the remit of the criminal justice system might also have an opportunity for inclusion. The noble Baroness will know that many voluntary organisations were anxious that they should be considered where appropriate. Victim Support, which is, as the noble Baroness rightly indicated, the national charity that provides support and advice for victims of crime, has already given us its agreement to deliver service obligations under the code. That is reflected in the illustrative draft of the code, which I hope the Committee will have had an opportunity to see. A copy of it was placed in the Library of the House after the Bill was published in December.
  The proposed amendment would exclude voluntary organisations, such as Victim Support, from delivering obligations under the code. It is significant that Victim Support was included as a result of its assent. Similarly, in future we might wish to bring within the code other voluntary or government organisations with significant contact with victims of crime. This is in effect a code of good practice. Many organisations have felt it is very helpful because it will be a thumbprint or a baseline from which they can work. Having clarified that issue, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful for that clarification. The noble Baroness properly said that Victim Support had been included with its assent. She referred to the fact that in future it may well be that the Government would wish to include other government departments, agencies and voluntary organisations. Is one to understand that non-governmental organisations would be included only after consultation and with their consent?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That must be right because they of course are voluntary agencies. They cannot be compellable. The noble Baroness will know that the code will be used as a benchmark against which service provision by statutory organisations can be judged on whether they follow what is in essence good practice. We would of course hope that voluntary agencies not specifically included in the code would find it a useful document on what they could or should aspire to provide in terms of support for victims and/or witnesses as appropriate.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 64:
  Page 8, line 21, leave out "appearing to him to" and insert "who he has reason to believe"
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 65, 92 and 95. As will be apparent, there is a common theme to the amendments; namely, to ask the Government to justify the drafting of this part of the Bill, which gives the Secretary of State the right to make decisions on a subjective rather than, as I would prefer, an objective basis. That reflects some of the debates that we have had on Bills over the past year or so when, certainly on occasions, the Government have decided that slightly different wording would be more appropriate.
  The Government's preferred drafting is that the Secretary of State should make decisions when something or someone appears to him to qualify for his grants or attention. It is the "appearing to him" to which I object. My amendments would introduce the objective test of requiring the Secretary of State to base his decision on having "reason to believe" that it is right for him to take action. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 relate to the operation of Clause 13, which sets out provisions relating to the issuing of the victims' code and its application to the specified organisations or persons who have functions relevant to the operation of the code.
  The noble Baroness has already given the Committee her own assurance or understanding that the Secretary of State would not specify someone or an organisation against his or its wishes. It would make sense, as she put it, to have consultation and their consent. I appreciate that it would also be vital for the Government to be sure that the funding and administrative competence of the organisations were both robust enough to ensure that they could comply with the code. Therefore, I am really asking why the Government need to leave the drafting in the subjective sense when it seems plain that the Secretary of State would need to apply an objective assessment before he or she then included an organisation.
  Amendment No. 92 would change the wording of Clause 22, which gives a list of the authorities that will be within the remit of the new commissioner. The Secretary of State may amend that list by adding another authority that appears to him,
  "to exercise functions of a public nature".
  Will the Minister explain how that would work in practice? Schedule 3 contains what seems to be a comprehensive list of authorities. Do the Government envisage adding authorities after the passing of the Bill and, if so, which? We are not sure which authorities are left. The list is put under subject headings. Could the Government introduce a completely new category of authority to the list under a new subject heading, or would they simply expand it by adding bodies that correspond to the existing category headings?
  Amendment No. 95 concerns Clause 23. The Bill states that a person may disclose information to relevant authorities, which may include probation

  GC 413
  boards, and to the commissioner and an authority within the commissioner's remit. In order for the information to be released, there must be a purpose as defined by Clause 23(2). Currently, the Secretary of State is allowed to add a purpose to the list if it appears to him to be connected with the assistance of victims or witnesses. That seems a very wide power involving a subjective decision.
  As will be debated later when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, moves amendments to Clause 23, disclosure is a subject that has to be treated with great care and sensitivity. That is why we think that an objective test would be more appropriate in this case. I beg to move.
  Lord Borrie: Even before the noble Baroness spoke, I had a sense of deja vu from debates last Session on the Criminal Justice Bill. She never mentioned the magic phrase, "judicial review", which seems very relevant. The wording that she wishes to insert with the amendments would ensure the greater possibility, likelihood and feasibility of the decision being challenged by way of judicial review, and I do not really see the need for that. I do not see that she has made out a case for it. The matters are very much administrative ones, are they not? To require some objective test instead of what appears to the Minister to be suitable seems to be going too far. Judicial review is a hugely valuable device to keep Ministers and government officials on the straight and narrow, but I very much doubt that such is needed here.
  3.30 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to my noble friend for having stolen my thunder and for putting the issues so succinctly. I should like to reinforce some of the things he said.
  Of course I understand the purpose of the noble Baroness's amendments: she is seeking to clarify whether we will act reasonably. My reason, therefore, for resisting the amendments is that they will make no significant difference. The Secretary of State is bound to act reasonably under the general principles of public law. That would mean that he would have to have good reason for deciding that, for example, a particular purpose appeared to him to be connected to a victim and witnesses. We see no need, therefore, to introduce an alternative test, when the actions he takes under these clauses are subject to challenge as they stand. I know the noble Baroness would want me to say that, so that the lawyers who read it will understand its purport.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I think this is a case of "Enter, stage right". The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, who has just joined us, has managed to avoid hearing a repeat of an argument I put during the Energy Bill proceedings. He will be extremely pleased to know that somewhere in government there is some joined-up thinking, although not a lot. The Minister gave pretty much the same answer as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did regarding the setting-up of the Civil Nuclear Police Authority.
  GC 414
  The reassurance the Minister has given us is that there is a way of challenging the decision. As we discussed in another Bill, the difficulty is how easy it would be for someone who had a complaint to launch their action against the Secretary of State. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is well aware, judicial review is a useful tool and is a lot easier to use than any other review of the Secretary of State's action.
  I am prepared to accept, however, that within the limited aspect of three of the four amendments in the group, it would be heavy-handed to have judicial review as a recourse. There may be some scope for thinking again with regard to the use of data. I will have to look at that particular aspect.
  I was a little concerned to hear the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, say that we were talking only about administrative matters here so we did not need to worry about judicial review. I shall look at his response when we reach Clause 10 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill; the Government are saying that it is an administrative law, judicial review can be abolished and the tiers can be collapsed into one for appeal.
  Lord Borrie: The noble Baroness is taking what I said rather further than I hoped or intended.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I will certainly greatly welcome the noble Lord's participation in the asylum Bill, as I do in every Home Office Bill. I shall be withdrawing the amendment.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I shall give her some further reassurance. She also asked me whether we had any plans to add anything after Royal Assent. There is a power to do so in future. We could only add an authority that exercised public functions. We could, in theory, add a new category, and that might be appropriate if, for example, it became apparent that an authority's functions were becoming important to victims and witnesses and/or if the authority changed and we wanted to give the new authority identified a similar opportunity.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for that. I am not hostile to the idea of the list being extended where it is appropriate to do so, after consultation and consent, nor, indeed, to new headings. One hopes that, unlike many government Bills, this will be the last on the subject for a long time and we will not have to revisit it. It makes sense to have some flexibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No 66:
  Page 8, line 38, after '"different" insert "criminal justice"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 66 concerns a different aspect of Clause 13. The Bill allows the code to make provision for different

  GC 415
  purposes. It states that there can be different provision for different descriptions of victims, perhaps special cases with regard to sexual offences, persons who have different functions or descriptions of functions and different areas. That is very broad and is not even a definition. It is such broad drafting it is difficult to have an idea of what the Government mean by that.
  Amendment No. 66 addresses the last category. Can the Minister explain what the Government mean by the phrase "different areas"? That can mean anything to anyone. I am confused. Are they referring to different parishes, different regions, or different police areas? The noble Baroness and I lived through the Courts Bill, some time ago now, although it does not seem it. With regard to that Bill, we spoke of the importance of having 42 local justice areas. Is that what is referred to? What do the Government mean by this? I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Our intention is that the victims' code of practice will be sufficiently flexible to reflect local practices. For example, it may be that in one area it is the responsibility of the police to notify victims of a trial date, while in another it may be the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service. As long as the service is provided and victims are fully aware of where responsibility for service lies in their area, the requirements of the code will be met.
  The noble Baroness is right to say that the Courts Act 2003 refers to local justice areas. We have also created local criminal justice boards. We do not have formal criminal justice areas; we have 42 or 43 police areas. "Areas" is a more easily identifiable word which could apply, as appropriate. The amendment would lead to uncertainty rather than clarification of the clause. I am sure that is not the intention of the noble Baroness. As the noble Baroness will know, criminal justice areas have no legal status and could theoretically be changed in future. Additionally, many of the service providers are not organised by criminal justice areas. Therefore, we want to keep the definition of "area", which is as broad and simple as possible and has sufficient flexibility to address the needs of victims and witnesses who will be covered by the code. It is for those reasons that I cannot accept the amendment.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Might not the word "localities" meet everyone's interests?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No. "Localities" can be interpreted in many ways. One needs to consider how the police boundaries are set up. The question is whether a police area is a locality. The noble and learned Lord will know that some police areas can be rather large. The area covered by the justice boards may differ slightly. We have tried with the local criminal justice boards, the courts boards and, for instance, the crime and disorder partnerships to keep within a similar area. However, we may soon go
  GC 416
  through major or minor re-organisation, and we are not quite sure how they will then be described. "Area", is a neutral term and can cover a multiplicity of things.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with her amendment, will the Minister confirm that, in her explanation of how services were delivered, she was not suggesting that any difference in the standard of service delivery would be acceptable?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, we are not suggesting for a moment that there is a difference of standards. However, we have accepted that one size does not fit all. We want to see similar outcomes, but we accept that they may be delivered in different ways in different areas in order to meet the needs of the people in that area. That is why we phrased the clause in that way, but there is absolutely no suggestion of a difference in the standard of service that we would aspire to deliver to people across the country.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister, and I understand her wanting enough flexibility to ensure that each area receives what is right for it. However, two issues raised by noble Lords cause me concern. The latter was just mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and related to the standard of delivery.
  National organisations have said to me that they are concerned that organisations that have a locus in a particular area of the country and operate the code there, but not elsewhere, will be expected to deliver the same kind of service as a very different organisation elsewhere. Concern has been expressed that unless there is some kind of—I hate the phrase—national standard, or some way of ensuring that standards are appropriate throughout the country, some areas could miss out. There could be a problem there. That feeling has been expressed.
  Having worked with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux for so many years, I understand the tension between local organisations that love their autonomy, are devoted to the delivery of service and do not like to have Big Brother or Big Sister looking over their shoulder, and national organisations that know they have to maintain a high standard of service if they are to preserve credibility nationally and indeed to preserve the credibility of the local organisation. That is difficult in itself. It becomes even more so if stand-alone, local organisations are going to operate the code, so I shall need to consider that.
  My second concern is a geographical and sociological one, raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. He proposed the word "localities" as a solution. I understand the noble Baroness's hesitancy about that word, but I am trying to get at the same point as my noble and learned friend. I am trying to ensure that when the Government say that they want flexibility, all areas are not simply merged into one and the system becomes insufficiently responsive to the smaller areas. It is not just responsiveness to local rural areas that is important—

  GC 417
  important though that is—but also to large conurbations. Within those, areas vary enormously and may need a different kind of delivery of service while maintaining the quality. Will the noble Baroness respond to that point?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I absolutely understand why the noble Baroness would say that. She will know that we have created two new vehicles. In April of last year, the National Criminal Justice Board was created. That board brings together all the criminal justice agencies to try to look in a holistic way at the delivery of criminal justice. In addition, we created the local criminal justice boards, which mirror the agencies that sit at national level. Those local criminal justice boards will be charged with dealing with a number of issues for their area, so that we will see a more holistic response to their areas' needs. They will identify the needs of victims and witnesses in their area and look at the justice gap; namely, at how many offenders are brought to justice and who is doing what with whom.
  In the past few months since April, we have been able to do something quite extraordinary. Whereas before, the criminal justice agencies had a tendency to work in silos, we now have a framework that interweaves the different responsibilities in a way that enables the response to local needs to be very different. It means that the new structure, together with the strategic partnerships in the local authority, the community legal service partnerships and the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, will provide a far better understanding of the local needs.
  The framework and the standards will continue to be set because we aspire to a similar response right across the country. The noble Baroness will remember the work that we did in setting standards in relation to the Sentencing Guidelines Council. She should also bear in mind the work that we shall do, once we put the unified courts arrangements in place, and the hard work that we did together in relation to the Courts Bill. All those tools will be available for an area to craft something which better meets the needs of the people of that area.
  Therefore, we shall not be abandoning standards and outcomes. We hope that, by doing this, we shall enhance the opportunity to raise the standards to a level where we can all feel a better sense of satisfaction that the coherence that we would like to see is being delivered.
  3.45 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Baroness because in her further answer she has given me more reassurance. Her continued use of the word "local" underlines what is important here. There had been concern that suddenly some form of regional organisation would impose its will on local areas. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 9, line 7, at end insert—
  ""services" means protection, support or information and explanation about the progress of a case provided under the code to a victim of criminal conduct by persons appearing to the Secretary of State as having the functions mentioned in subsection (1);"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 67, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 71A, albeit briefly, as I know that the Minister will speak to that at greater length, and Amendment No. 72.
  I tabled the amendments as a consequence of the briefing that I mentioned from Victim Support. I am certainly grateful to that organisation for its advice. I am grateful, too, for the support for my amendments given by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood.
  Victim Support makes the point that the rights of victims of crime are not listed as such in the Bill. It therefore suggested Amendment No. 67 to ensure that there is in the Bill a definition of "services" to which victims have a right.
  In July 2003, the Government's strategy, A Better Deal for Victims and Witnesses, recognised that the majority of victims have needs outside the criminal justice system. In fact, Victim Support has calculated that only 3 per cent of victims go through the court process. An additional 1 per cent receive criminal injuries compensation—we shall certainly return to that on a later occasion when the Government "Christmas tree" the Bill. Therefore, Victim Support argues, everything in the draft code currently is only for those 4 per cent.
  Many victims have other needs, such as those relating to health, housing insurance, financial, employment or education issues. The Government have said that they wish to take this further and that they want to improve matters in this area. In the Bill, they create the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, who is responsible for a range of departments beyond those dealing only with criminal justice. Therefore, Victim Support's hope is that, in future, the victims' code remit will be extended to those departments.
  However, they want to ensure that everyone knows what kind of services should be involved. Therefore, Amendment No. 67 begins by clarifying what the services set out in the code should be—that is,
  "protection, support or information and explanation about the progress of a case".
  I should add that, in further conversations, Victim Support made it clear that when it refers to "support", it should be taken to mean personal support and not financial support. The organisation has in mind, in particular, the services which it offers, and I believe that it is worth placing them on the record because it will flesh out what Victim Support considers "services" to comprise.
  Victim Support states that it provides services in the following ways. It contacts people by letter, telephone or visit; it will arrange for a trained volunteer to see

  GC 419
  people in their home or wherever is more convenient; the volunteer will provide people with time—always a valuable commodity—and will listen while people confide their reaction to the crime; the volunteer will help to identify the help and support that will be best adapted for the use of a person's needs and expectations; and, if practical help is needed, Victim Support will try to arrange that. Above all, it will help people to obtain information, and it can arrange support at a court through the witness service. Therefore, the word "support" covers a broad range of services.
  After I tabled that amendment and Amendment No. 72, I was very glad to see that the Government tabled Amendment No. 71A, which I welcome, as it appears to meet in almost every respect the point of my Amendment No. 72. The basis for my tabling that amendment was that Victim Support was concerned that, in future changes introduced by statutory instrument, someone—obviously not this Government or this Secretary of State, but perhaps someone in 100 years' time—might want to reduce the level of services rather than improve them. We were looking at the general objective of saying, "Whatever you do in future by statutory instrument, at least have an equivalent service or better". That appears to be what the Minister's amendment tries to do.
  I contacted Victim Support to ask what it thought about Amendment No. 71A. It welcomed it, although it is still concerned about Amendment No. 67 and wants it pursued. With regard to the government amendment, it said, "Happy, but". Either today or before Report, Victim Support wants the Minister to consider and respond to it on "quality and extent", a phrase used in proposed new subsection (9)(a) in Amendment No. 71A about which it is concerned. It would like that to be replaced with "quality or extent", or to delete "or extent", because it understands that the extent of any revision is covered by proposed new subsection (9)(b), which talks about restricting people to whom the code applies.
  Victim Support is even more cynical than me, or perhaps more worldly-wise, in that it says that it understands that the Government's intention is not that a future Secretary of State could misinterpret the clause and think that, if the quality of the code was changed but not the extent, or the extent was changed but not the quality, they might be able to squeak by with doing something heinous. We would never think that the case, of course, but I would be grateful for the Minister's explanation about why that phraseology is needed, and perhaps for her assurances that people more worldly-wise than me should not be so concerned about it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We were happy to support the amendment, very much on the grounds about which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, told us in her comprehensive introduction. I do not want to add much more. I understand very well both the Minister's amendment and the rather subtly expressed
  GC 420
  doubt that people might have about it. so I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say on that.
  I am sure that the Minister does not need me to, but I want to draw attention to the very wide range of provision that might come under "services". For example, Refuge points out in one of its submissions that there may be a need for public funding for some victims of domestic abuse because, when they leave their homes, they leave their sources of income. They may not be able to afford to pay for the refuge accommodation, even if it is available.
  Other people have pointed out that there may be a need for refuges for men. That is a new concept but if we are covering the whole of crime, I obviously see how that might be important. Liberty felt that the Bill was a welcome first step, but that victims' rights should be firmly enshrined in statute. Does the Minister think that the Bill does that? I shall not go on, because she will have read all the briefs or had them gutted for her, and will know that many people are thinking about the issue of victim support and trying to contribute to debate on it.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas of Walliswood and Lady Anelay of St Johns, for their thanks for our amendment.
  Amendment No. 67 would define the services that are delivered to the victims of crime by the agencies covered by the code. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said about the amendment. Although it is an attempt to clarify what a service may be, it may be too prescriptive. It does not embrace every type of service that could be provided. For instance, it does not cover the right to give personal information—currently done through a victim personal statement—nor will it provide sufficient flexibility when the code comes to be revised in the future. There is more opportunity to develop new and innovative services for victims, if we do not provide an over-prescriptive definition at the outset.
  Noble Lords will know that I chair the Victims' Advisory Panel. We are examining carefully the broad range of support that may be provided for victims, which stands outside what would usually be encompassed within the criminal justice system. I take on board what was said by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns: only a limited number of victims comes through the criminal justice system.
  I support the principle behind Amendment No. 72, which is why I have tabled Amendment No. 71A. I agree wholeheartedly that any future alterations to the code should not reduce the rights of victims and the quality of the services to which they are entitled. However, the wording of Amendment No. 72 would make it difficult to implement, as it effectively sets the problematic task of defining a reduction in the quality of services.
  With the amendment that I tabled, it will be up to the Secretary of State to exercise his judgement as to whether revisions of the code reduce the services

  GC 421
  provided to victims. It also contains the safeguard in Amendment No. 72 against any restriction of the type of victim to whom the code would be applicable. By that, I mean that I would not wish victims of a specific crime—burglary, for example—to be affected by a future Secretary of State excluding them from the protection of the code. Of course, in deciding whether a revision of the code reduces services to victims, the Secretary of State will be bound by the usual public law principles. He will have to act reasonably and on proper evidence. I hope that that will be the case, even in 100 years' time.
  Amendment No. 71A makes a valuable addition to the Bill. I do not believe that it is necessary or helpful to the objective of ensuring that victims receive premium care to provide a definition of services, as is proposed in Amendment No. 67.
  The noble Baroness asked about phraseology. There are several complex arguments for why the phraseology that we have preferred is better. If the noble Baroness wants to have them, I will be happy to write to her and, indeed, to share that with the Committee. Bearing in mind that we have an aspiration to pull stumps at six, it might be better if she were to read it, rather than my reading it into the record.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am happy for it to be part of a letter. As the matter was raised directly by Victim Support, I want to ensure that it is suitably satisfied. If it is, I shall take the matter no further. As an old soldier who has been through the "and/or" debate on more than one occasion, I know that, whether it is conjunctive or disjunctive, it can be construed in different ways on different occasions. I should be grateful for the Minister's explanation.
  Otherwise, I accept that the drafting of the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 71A, is superior to that of Amendment No. 72, for the reasons that she gave. I shall also consider carefully what she said about Amendment No. 67. As I indicated even after it was tabled, Victim Support noticed that the amendment did not quite convey the whole flavour of the issue that it wanted to be raised today. I shall discuss the noble Baroness's response with Victim Support to see whether it is necessary to return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
  4 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the opposition to Clause 13 standing part of the Bill. I also beg leave to support the opposition to Clauses 14 and 15 standing part of the Bill.
  The three clauses are interdependent, howsoever amended. If one card—card 13, for example—is taken out of the pack, the whole pack collapses. I shall not, incidentally, move Amendment No. 74.
  GC 422
  I speak for no grand organisation such as Victim Support or Refuge; in fact, I have had no correspondence with them. I speak out of a concern about the legal status of a code of practice. I support the motivation behind having a code. I support a code of good practice—I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, intended to use it technically; probably not—which, of course, has no legal efficacy. I draw a fundamental distinction between that type of code and the type of code that is proposed which has legal efficacy.
  On Second Reading, I took a general objection to these three clauses, really following in the footsteps of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, who approached the matter in a much more integrated way. Today one has to consider the status of the code that is proposed. The status is an amalgam of Clause 13 and Clause 15. Clause 14 is merely concerned with procedure.
  One is always concerned with the status and legal efficacy of a code. One can only look to what is called the "trigger clause" in primary legislation. Here the trigger clause essentially is Clause 15, taken in context with Clause 13. The structure of the code proposed has, in effect, what is called "qualified legal efficacy", and it is in this context that I call attention to codes of practice. I refer to a Motion debated in your Lordships' House to call attention to codes of practice as affecting the incidence of legislation. I shall give your Lordships the reference, if I may, as it is fundamental to any intellectual approach to this problem. Copies are available in the Library and are printed out on request. The reference is Official Report, 15 January 1986, cols. 1075–1104. It is very apparent that the type of legal efficacy is the type of legal efficacy akin to that of the Highway Code, to which Lord Denning spoke at cols. 1078–09.
  It was my Motion. I did not ask anyone to speak. Those who spoke were Lord Denning, Lord Elwyn-Jones—and I shall refer your Lordships very briefly to what he said about it in a moment to give a balance—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, Lord Henderson of Brompton, Lord Airedale, Lord Rochester and my noble friend Lord Renton. Therefore, this has some fundamental authority if one wants to try to understand what this is all about and what its effect is. I do not propose to bore the Committee with legalistic, esoteric submissions today. If Members of the Committee wish to know what was said, they can look for themselves. On Report I shall again not deal with technical legal things, but with its broad effect.
  This code of practice relates only—if one looks at its construction—to the criminal justice system; that is dealt with under Clause 13(1) to (4). But the trigger clause renders it admissible in criminal and civil proceedings to determine any question. That is quite unlike the Highway Code position with which Lord Denning was dealing, because the trigger clause in that statute was not solely related to criminal affairs. Here one has a situation which, so far as I am aware, is without precedent.

  GC 423
  It is worrying. The worry was well expressed by Lord Elwyn-Jones. He questioned the efficacy of codes compared with that of statutes and the authority of codes. He questioned the efficacy of remedies available to individual citizens and he took the view that reliance upon these codes was representative of a modern and unhealthy trend towards rules of indeterminate status. That is wonderful language, but it does convey the problems. If one wants to have something that has full legal effect, one should put it in a statute and not just in a code of indeterminate status.
  Why do I support the opposition to Clause 13 standing part of the Bill? First, I object to the structured complexity of Clauses 13 to 15. It is not so readily acceptable for the reasons given on Second Reading. Secondly, the form in which this qualified legal efficacy is conferred is not so readily intelligible and there is no precedent.
  Lastly and, perhaps, most importantly, I come back to the way in which the noble Baroness put her case. She used the word "code". I think that she said that it was a "code of practice". In effect, that is what I call a "code of guidance"; it is the same ilk of thing. It does not have legal efficacy. I believe that, in such a situation, it is appropriate that we should have what I call a code of guidance and what the noble Baroness rightly, if she so wishes, calls a code of practice and guidance—there is nothing between them. However, we should not create a form of legal efficacy or legal liability, if there is a breach that lands people in court. It is as simple as that.
  It is for those reasons that I object to the three clauses. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for having addressed it on all of them at the same time.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue. It would be appropriate if I spoke to Amendment No. 73A at this stage. Having heard my noble friend's introduction, I think that it would test the patience of the Committee if I tried later to repeat some of his arguments inadequately. He put them so well.
  My noble friend raised some of the concerns that I had and put them in the proper legal language. We welcome the idea of a code of practice, but we are concerned about the status of the code. My noble friend referred to a code of indeterminate legal status. He said that it appeared to have legal efficacy and was not just consultative. He also pointed out that Clause 15 referred to its application in civil and criminal proceedings, although Clause 13 appears to refer only to criminal application. When we considered the first part of the Bill, we talked about the blurring of civil and criminal procedures. I understand why the Government want the code of practice to apply to some civil cases, although one wonders whether it should apply to all.
  I hope that that short introduction has given the noble Baroness time to look further forward to Amendment No. 73A and that we have not sprung it on her too quickly. When I read what my noble friend
  GC 424
  called the "trigger clause"—Clause 15—my concern was that, when we consider the effect of non-compliance on those who operate the code, subsection (2) is so vague that it would leave one wondering what it is, or it is so careful about directing what should happen that it worries me even more.
  Subsection (2) states that,
  "the code is admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings and a court may take into account a failure to comply with the code in determining a question in the proceedings".
  For a department or a voluntary organisation, the ramifications of not following the code should be serious, but they should be serious for the operation of the organisation itself. Should they be serious for the outcome of a trial or a hearing of proceedings in a civil case? For example, what is meant in subsection (2) by "a question in the proceedings"? One could read subsection (2) as meaning that if Victim Support does not send out a letter at the right time on the right day in accordance with the good-practice guidance in the code and if that is then raised at a criminal trial, it could count towards the determination of a question in the proceedings. To use colloquial language, some would perhaps get off when others would not.
  What kind of non-compliance are we talking about? What kind of effect will it have on proceedings? Could it be that the code is being raised, as my noble friend has suggested, to the same level as PACE guidance, where the roof falls in if one gets it wrong? What could be the implications of non-compliance under subsection (2)? As ever, my first recourse is to look at the Explanatory Notes. They describe subsection (1)—fine—but tell us nothing about subsection (2), which is the core of the issue.
  My noble friend has raised the whole issue of the status of the code. I have taken that question down to the level of asking "what if?". If the code really is going to be like PACE, what happens if somebody gets it wrong? We could end up with a structural code that many would then find unacceptable.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have listened carefully to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and to the way they were expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I hope that I can clarify to the Committee why those very proper concerns may not be grounded in fact once there is a better understanding of the scheme that we have provided.
  Clause 13 would require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice that will be binding on the criminal justice organisations as well as on other organisations that deal with victims of crime named in it. Earlier in Committee, we discussed the difference between statutory agencies, which may be compelled, and voluntary agencies, which may not.
  The code would raise the standard of the services that the victim should receive—for example, the provision of information within a specified time scale. We hope that it will also build considerably on the current victims' charter by creating clear and enforceable rights for all victims in the areas of

  GC 425
  information, advice, personal support and protection. We really want the code to set, at the very least, minimum consistent standards of service that victims can expect to receive wherever they live.
  Clauses 13(2) and 13(4) allow victims of certain crimes or victims with specific characteristics to be treated differently under the code. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has already pointed to the complexity of it all. We have set the code out in that way because the needs of victims are also complex and we wish to ensure that the code addresses the needs of each species of victim. I do not mean that pejoratively. Each type of victim will be encompassed by the code.
  Clause 13(6) ensures that it is not necessary for an offender to be charged or convicted before the victim is entitled to receive the services under the code. That leads me to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas: namely, that many victims, unfortunately, do not have the joy of seeing the perpetrator apprehended and dealt with, but still wish to take advantage of the services that they are entitled to receive or to expect by virtue of having been a victim.
  The test for whether the code should apply in a particular case will therefore depend on a judgment, usually by a police officer, on the conduct which has been reported or about which a complaint has been made. Clause 13 is drafted to ensure the maximum flexibility for the types of services and organisations—the local structures covered by the code.
  That is why we feel that the code is important, but we also understand—and we make it explicit in Clause 15—that if a service provider fails to perform a duty that is listed under the code, that failure does not make it liable to any legal proceedings. Our rationale is to eliminate the barrage of litigation that might ensue, thus overburdening the courts. We do not want to encourage the blame culture that has grown up in the criminal justice system. The prospect of being shamed in an ombudsman's report will be sufficient in most cases to ensure that the agencies take their obligations more seriously. Most instances of non-compliance will usually be due to an oversight rather than serious negligence or mischief. In those circumstances, we believe that reference to the ombudsman seems entirely proportionate and appropriate.
  However, subsection (2), which has been alighted upon both by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, provides for limited circumstances in which the code would be admissible in criminal or civil proceedings. For example, if a victim brought a claim under the Human Rights Act against one of the public authorities which were subject to the code, a breach might be used as evidence that the authority did not respect the victim's human rights or did not do what we could reasonably have expected it to do. It will not itself form a basis for a criminal or civil action but it could be given as evidence for the court to consider during the case.
  GC 426
  Perhaps I may move directly to Amendment No. 73A. Of course, I understand that the noble Baroness. Lady Anelay, who is properly—I shall not say "instructed"—implored by a number of agencies—
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am much obliged. I intervene in order to keep the argument in order before the Minister moves on from this point. The circumstances which the noble Baroness explained—I shall not repeat them—in relation to subsection (1) appear to me to make it far more appropriate to have a code without legal efficacy because it is fairer to the social workers, it is fairer to everyone, and its wholly indeterminate form of liability is reduced. I listened very carefully when the Minister formulated the circumstances. I agree with what she said. However, with respect, what I cannot agree with is that we should then have subsection (2). I shall sit down, but I thought I would make that point of issue.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The purpose of subsection (2) is to make it explicit that the code is to be used only in very limited circumstances in criminal or civil proceedings. It is an attempt to address the very concerns that the noble Lord has expressed. It would be possible to rely upon the act or the failure to act. An example would be non-compliance of the code brought in an industrial tribunal by an organisation which sought to argue that the dismissal of one of its employees was proper because repeated instances of breach of the code had been highlighted to that worker and the agency or the authority believed that the standards in the code were a reasonable expectation. That would not mean that that piece of evidence of itself would entitle someone to bring a claim, but it may be a piece of evidence on which a party may wish to rely.
  Conversely, it may be relied upon by a worker who says, "I complied with the code in its entirety. There was nothing within the code that I did not do. I would like to pray that in aid to say that I was wrongly dismissed". It allows only that information and the code, which expresses a standard to which we hope that people will aspire, to be used in such cases. We consider it to be useful in that way.
  We believe that to remove Clause 15(2), which provides that the victims' code of practice and breaches of it can be admitted in evidence in civil or criminal proceedings, would be most regrettable. To remove the clause would mean that the relevance of the code of practice in court proceedings would be ambiguous. It is on that basis that I resist the opposition to clause stand part. This clause is essential to ensure that the court can consider a person's actions under the code where relevant. That might include the example I have just given of the employment tribunal proceedings relating to a member of staff of one of the organisations covered by the code or a judicial review complaint against an agency regarding a breach of the victim's rights under the ECHR.
  We believe that it would be proper in those circumstances for either party to seek to rely on the code as an indication of what would be an acceptable

  GC 427
  benchmark. We also believe that while, therefore, the person will not be legally liable if the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration finds him in breach of the code, such breaches should be admissible as part of determining wider issues. We believe that the balance there is a proper balance.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It might be helpful for those advising the noble Baroness if I add some comments before we reach Report stage. Although she has tried very hard to reassure my noble friend and me, I am afraid that as yet she has not succeeded on Clause 15. I shall restrict myself to that clause and not say the same with regard to Clause 13.
  Subsection (2) is drafted in such a way that instead of applying to limited circumstances, which is the Minister's intention, it appears to apply to a very wide range of circumstances. For example, it states that failure to comply with a code can be taken into account in determining a question in the proceedings. That could mean any civil or criminal proceedings. We do not know what the proceedings are. That might then be used to say that failure to comply with the code could be used in proving the guilt or innocence of a person or in testing the veracity of a witness.
  The noble Baroness said that this will apply only in particular circumstances. She gave examples relating to employment tribunals and the Human Rights Act. Those are limited circumstances. However, as drafted, this subsection could affect every criminal trial that comes our way and every family proceeding that takes place. That worries me considerably.
  I notice with regard to subsection (1) that the Minister said the Government were trying very carefully to avoid the blame culture. Who can blame them for that? Indeed, it is a responsible way forward that the Government are trying to seek. They are saying that they do not want the kind of system whereby someone can allege a breach and receive compensation; it should be sufficient that the matter is able to be referred to the commissioner. I agree entirely with that. However, it seems that by closing the door on the blame culture and getting financial compensation, they are opening it wide—unintentionally, I am sure—in subsection (2) to a different kind of blame culture, where someone's veracity may, indeed, be tested in a way that it should not be because of a breach of the code.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the anxiety expressed by the noble Baroness. However, we have to consider what the code will do and who it is for when we talk of criminal proceedings.
  During the argument the noble Baroness asked whether the code would be used in the same way as PACE, which means that everything would come to a halt. As she will know, the reason that PACE is so important is that it deals with the way in which defendants are treated. The relevance of the criminal trial is whether defendants will be justly dealt with in court and then have their liberty denied them. A very dramatic consequence flows from the breach of
  GC 428
  PACE. I do not suggest that what I say is in any way pejorative to victims, but victims are in a very different situation. Their liberty in criminal proceedings tends not to be at stake, but how they are treated may still be of importance.
  So, the measure will not have an impact similar to PACE of bringing everything to an end but it is a question of balance. It will be important to remember that balance, as the lay and professional judge will, in terms of admissibility, non-admissibility and weight. If there is information in relation to the code that is important, it is allowed to be admitted. But it will not, and cannot, have the kind of consequences that would flow from PACE because, of course, PACE is specifically crafted as a shield to protect defendants from various forms of unfair practices that would result in their rights under the Human Rights Act, and in accordance with the ECHR, not being met.
  I understand the noble Baroness's anxieties but we do not think that they are well founded. We believe that there is a proper role to play in relation to the code. We are trying to raise the bench-mark and the water mark—I know that the noble Baroness agrees with this—regarding how victims are treated. We are trying to emphasise to all agencies that victims have to be treated with propriety and responded to with care and consideration. That is the framework of the code. It is very different from PACE.
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I accept entirely what the Minister said with regard to her perception of the difference between the impact of PACE and the impact of the code. Where I differ is that I believe there is an impact upon people who will find themselves subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 15. People could find that their liberty is at stake. I give two examples: one at micro level and one at macro level.
  On a micro level, we are dealing with a Bill in which the first part—in Clauses 4 and 5—concerns the position where someone who is a victim of domestic violence may find themselves wrapped up in a situation in which they subsequently become a defendant. One could find oneself a defendant in a trial as a result of the provisions of Clauses 4 and 5 when one has also received the support services of, for example, Victim Support or another criminal justice agency. The idea may arise that there could have been a breach in the services that that person received and they could then use that to their advantage in their own trial. They may say, "I did not get the proper service that I should have received. I was not advised that I could do this, that or the other".
  I give an example on a macro level. I refer to the open-ended drafting of subsection (2). Nothing in subsection (2) states that the measure is confined only to people who are the victims in proceedings. Even if it were, I still ask the following question: does subsection (2) mean that the court could come to a different decision about a person's veracity just because they were the victim of a breach in the code? For example, a person may have sought assistance from Victim

  GC 429
  Support, but, wholly atypically—I am sure that this would never happen with Victim Support—they were given the wrong advice or not given the proper befriending assistance and therefore were too terrified to give the right information at the right time. Could they say later, "It was not really like that at all. I said that because Victim Support"—or any other agency—"said it was the best thing to do at the time"?
  What I am trying to get at, in a rather convoluted way, is that I consider that Clause 15(2) leaves open the fact that someone could say that there was a breach of the operation of the victims' code and that the court ought to take that into account either in their favour or in someone else's disfavour. Whereas I wholly support the narrow interpretation which the Minister put upon subsection (2) in her opening remarks, I remain concerned about the wider implications. I shall have to consider the matter further between now and Report.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand why the noble Baroness is worried. However, I do not think that that worry is justified. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness now that I have a clear understanding of her concerns. I really do not think that they are merited but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness as fully as I can setting out why we believe that what she mentioned will not happen and how the provision will operate. I shall copy that letter to any other noble Lord who would like to receive it. Of course, the noble Baroness will consider that response before she returns to the matter on a subsequent occasion. I hope that I shall be able to reassure her.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Procedure]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 68:
  Page 9, line 14. leave out from "and" to "the" in line 15.
  The noble Baroness said: The amendments fall into two subsets. In moving Amendment No. 68, I shall speak also to the first group, which comprises this amendment and Amendments Nos. 70, 75, 77, 81, 82, 85, 86, 89, 93, 96 and 97. The group leaves out all references to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs so that I can probe the Government's intention about their reference to that person. Which Secretary of State is intended to have this authority now and in the future? Of course the Minister could see this one coming a mile off. Are there plans for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to take over the Home Secretary's job altogether—goodbye, Mr Blunkett—or is it perhaps that they are just taking over the future running of this victim's charter system?
  Professor Pahl, who is professor of social policy in the University of Kent, brought to my attention that it is not clear where the commissioner is to be located within government, although my amendments suggest that he should be within the office of the Lord Chancellor. Wherever the commissioner is located,
  GC 430
  Professor Pahl points out that it should be made clear that this is very much an issue in which cross-departmental working will be essential. That is absolutely right. She says that domestic violence needs to be addressed not only by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office, but by the Department of Health for both medical and social care, the Treasury in its responsibility for social security payments, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in its responsibility for housing and homelessness and for joined-up working at local authority level.
  I turn to the second sub-group, which consists of Amendments Nos. 69, 71, 76, 78, 82, 84, 86, 88,90, 94, 97 and 99. They were tabled as a consequence of the concession made by the Government during the course of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. Following the very good practice of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I shall merely direct noble Lords to the column reference and not read out the whole extract. It is in Hansard for 15 January 2004 at col. 683.
  The basis of this issue was that my noble friend Lord Kingsland, in moving Amendment No. 1, sought to strike out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor". The second subset of amendments does the same to make sure that the Lord Chancellor is there. As we understand the situation, we still have a Lord Chancellor, not a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. The noble Baroness is going to say that there are both, but legislation should reflect what is legally the current situation rather than pre-empting the decision of Parliament. We have not yet accepted that the Lord Chancellor should be consigned to the blue yonder. My amendments would impose that the Lord Chancellor should have these functions. I beg to move.
  Lord Borrie: I had this odd query in my mind as the noble Baroness was speaking, because I have read the list of Cabinet Ministers several times over the past few months. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer is described on the list as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor. I know of course that the noble Baroness is right that the office of Lord Chancellor, which exists at the present time, is, as it were, down for abolition under the terms of a White Paper. That is to be discussed in due course—there will be a Bill and so n—and I understand the point about pre-emption.
  I have a query about the Bill. I have to say to the Minister that I do not understand this part and that I do not think the Explanatory Notes make the issue clear. Legislation usually simply states, "the Secretary of State" and as the years go by and the functions of different departments switch from one to another and change and so on, that is very helpful, because it has not been too narrowly defined. Yet here there are some clauses which state that the Secretary of State shall do something, whereas other clauses mention—for example, Clause 14, the one with which we are dealing—the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I should be glad of an explanation for that.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Before the noble Baroness replies, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I noticed in the Government's list when they introduced the post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, they also bumped him—not on the next flight but certainly he is bottom rung now instead of being near to the top. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is now perhaps running along the back of the train. I am sure that he would do that with grace.
  The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, raises an important point. The drafting in the Bill is very convoluted to try to drag in somehow the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs when it is not clear which Minister will be doing what at which time. I preferred the elegance of stating clearly that it should be the Lord Chancellor, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will know, unlike other Secretaries of State, is the one Secretary of State whose name is put clearly into legislation.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is the best entertainment so far today. As has been made plain by my noble friend, I remind the noble Baroness that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is in the happy position of wearing both hats with equal elegance. The thought of the noble and learned Lord running along the back of the train, even in his now sylph-like form, is one that I shall keep with me.
  I shall put the groups of amendments shortly so that the noble Baroness is clear which ones I shall resist and which ones I shall accept. I intend to resist Amendments Nos 68, 70, 75, 77, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 93, 96 and 98. I hope I shall cause the noble Baroness delight by saying that I intend to accept Amendments Nos. 69, 71, 76, 78, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 94, 97 and 99. I thought I would get the pleasure out quickly.
  Responsibility for victims and witnesses within Government falls jointly to all three criminal justice Ministers: the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor, or Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs as he is otherwise known. That is why we have made it a requirement on the face of the legislation that all three Ministers are involved in matters such as the appointment and removal of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, the members of the victims' advisory panel and the terms of the victims' code of practice. We are departing from the usual practice, rightly alluded to by my noble friend Lord Borrie, of simply referring to the Secretary of State. Earlier in Committee I spoke of the attempts we are now making to bring the criminal justice system together in a way that would make a proper, joined-up integrated response to the difficulties with which we are now faced.
  It is intended that all three Ministers should be involved in the decision and appointment in relation to this post. We also agree, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that lots of departments have an interest in the work of the commissioner. That is why the list of authorities in Schedule 3 is so long. It would be unwieldy for them all to have a hand in appointing the commissioner.
  GC 432
  Referring to a named Secretary of State on the face of the legislation is not usual practice. It creates lots of extra work dealing with references in the event of the machinery of government changes, on which we have already touched. That caused some difficulty in dealing with the creation of the office of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs as there are a great deal of references to the Lord Chancellor on the statute book and in many cases it is unavoidable to refer specifically to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. If we avoid referring to the Home Secretary as well as the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on the face of the Bill, the only suitable terminology is to add the clarification "if the Secretary of State is not the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs". I therefore resist the amendment that I have indicated I shall resist.
  I am willing, as I have indicated, to accept the other amendments which replace references to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs with references to the Lord Chancellor. For the time being, with the long-term fate of the office of the Lord Chancellor being considered elsewhere, this seems to be the most suitable drafting solution and will not pre-empt constitutional reform. It is also consistent with the decisions taken on other legislation currently before the House.
  I hope that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary does not have occasion to read the Hansard report of this debate as I think it might be very bad for his heart.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister. I accept entirely her arguments with regard to my first group of amendments, which she has discarded. I am grateful to her for accepting the second—it shows an intellectual consistency. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 69:
  Page 9, line 14, leave out from "and" to end of line 15 and insert "the Lord Chancellor"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 71:
  Page 9, line 21, leave out from "and" to "any" in line 23 and insert "the Lord Chancellor"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 71A:
  Page 9, line 33, at end insert—
  "(9) But the Secretary of State may revise a code under subsection (8) only if it appears to him that the proposed revisions would not result in—

  (a) a significant reduction in the quality and extent of the services to be provided under the code, or

  GC 433

  (b) a significant restriction in the description of persons to whom services are to be provided under the code."

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 72 not moved]
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Effect of non-compliance]:
  [Amendments Nos. 73, 73A and 74 not moved.]
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Investigations by Parliamentary Commissioner]:
  Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 74A:
  Page 18, line 3, at end insert—
  "( ) In such circumstances the person to whom the complaint relates is accountable to the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses pursuant to section 18(1) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 74A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 88A, which is grouped with it.
  These two amendments would strengthen the powers of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses because there is some disquiet in a number of quarters, including Victim Support, that the powers are not great enough. The amendments would ensure that he or she can enforce his or her recommendations and that those agencies which fail to implement changes recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner are accountable to the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.
  With regard to Amendment No. 74A, Victim Support is concerned that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration lacks the power to enforce his reports. The Bill provides for the following system: if a victim does not receive a service, he or she is entitled under the code to complain to the Parliamentary Commissioner. He or she can then produce the report, which includes what the person who failed to provide the service should do to remedy this situation. It could be to give an apology to the victim, to develop a procedure to ensure that other victims receive the service they should in the future or that others do not become victims in the future. If the person complained of fails to remedy the situation, the Parliamentary Commissioner can lay a report before each House of Parliament, and that is the end of the matter. It may be very embarrassing, but it is the end of the matter.
  The amendment provides one further stage to benefit either the specific victim or potential future victims. The Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses would be able to recommend or direct—those are the crucial words—that the person who has failed to remedy the situation in accordance with the Parliamentary Commissioner's recommendation must do so. This gives the commissioner real teeth.
  We need to learn from the operation of the commissioners we already have. For example, there is a much higher level of satisfaction with the powers of the Children's Commissioner in Northern Ireland
  GC 434
  than with those of the Children's Commissioner in Wales. We need to learn from the operation of these commissioners.
  With regard to Amendment No. 88A, for the Commissioner to be effective, Victim Support believes that this post should have the power to require government departments to have pro-victim and witness policies and procedures. We are concerned that the Commissioner's role as laid out in the Bill is very limited and needs to be enhanced. The role would have greater benefits if the Commissioner were able to give directions to an authority within his or her remit as well as being able to make recommendations.
  An additional benefit of the amendment is that, as well as engaging with policies and procedures that already exist, the commissioner would also have the power to require departments to develop new policies and procedures where none have previously existed. Together, these two amendments would considerably and significantly improve the powers of the commissioner so that he or she could do the job which he or she has been put in place to do much better and more effectively. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Having been so accommodating in the last batch of amendments, I must say that it almost gives me pain to say to the noble Baroness that I shall strongly resist these amendments. It would be wholly wrong for the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses to be able to direct other authorities and the Government as to the actions that they will take, not least because these directions may incur significant cost or be contrary to other policies and interests.
  For example, the commissioner may direct the Department of Health to provide a fast-track counselling service for victims of serious crime, which could affect resources and have an impact on other service users who may have similarly pressing needs. It is envisaged that the recommendations of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses and the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner will be taken seriously by the Government and the criminal justice agencies. The opportunity to name and shame is a very strong sanction.
  At the same time, it is important also for Ministers and independent statutory authorities to have the right to choose not to accept a particular recommendation because of the wider implications which the commissioner may not have taken into account. For those reasons, I have to resist the amendments.
  As I listened to the noble Baroness expounding the virtues of the enhanced role of the commissioner, I was tempted to say that if anyone were to so create such a post, a number of people might apply very quickly indeed.
  Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for explaining why she will resist both the amendments. The concern of Victim Support is to ensure that the post of commissioner, when created, is taken seriously. It is significant and greatly welcomed that the Minister

  GC 435
  has said exactly that. I shall read carefully her words in Hansard. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Clause 17 [Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses]:
  [Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 76:
  Page 10, line 10, leave out from "and" to "as" in line 11 and insert "the Lord Chancellor"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses]:
  [Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 78:
  Page 18, line 23, leave out from "and" to "as" in line 25 and insert "the Lord Chancellor"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 78A:
  Page 18, line 36, at beginning insert "Subject to sub-paragraph (3A),"
  The noble Baroness said: Perhaps your Lordships will give me a moment. I was taken away with the pleasure of assenting to everything.
  I have tabled Amendments Nos. 78A and 79A because they make it clearer that the commissioner can serve for only 10 years in total. I know that the purpose of Amendment No. 79, which is to follow, is to impose a maximum 10-year limit on the tenure which the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses can serve in post. We think that Amendments Nos. 78A and 79A make it clearer that the commissioner can serve for only 10 years in total. The clock, therefore, is not switched back to zero should there happen to be a break in an individual commissioner's year of service. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall invite the noble Baroness to speak also to Amendment No. 80A. I have suggested that we should group together government Amendments Nos. 78A, 79A and 80A with my Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 because they all have the same aim of ensuring good governance. One's objective is always to set up the administrative system in the best way possible.
  I note from the letter that the Minister kindly wrote me before today explaining the Government's objectives in these amendments that they were adopting good practice from disability legislation. I had simply pinched the wording from the Office of Communications Act 2002, to which I had proposed my own good governance clause. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, came back, as the Government usually do, with a redrafted clause,
  GC 436
  saying that that was better, and I agreed entirely with him. Therefore, it would have been very churlish if I had not used his precise words, which I did. However, I am perfectly happy to accept the noble Baroness's amendments.
  I have a question with regard to the drafting of one part of her amendment. In Amendment No. 80A, the proposed new subsection (b) would mean that the commissioner can be removed if he or she "is otherwise" unable or unfit to carry out his functions. Do the Government intend that to cover subsection (c) of my Amendment No. 80, in which I try to disqualify someone who has been "guilty of misbehaviour"? Does the Minister accept that if one is guilty of misbehaviour, that makes one unfit or unable—unfit in this case? I think the noble Baroness is nodding her assent. I accept that as a reassurance and put on record my gratitude to the Government for tabling their amendments.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I should have dealt also with Amendment No. 80A. The noble Baroness is quite right; we have sought in Amendment No. 80A to deal with her Amendment No. 80. I am grateful for her indication that she accepts it. We felt that the current terms as drafted, which state in paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 2 that the Secretary of State,
  "may at any time remove the person from office if he is satisfied that the person is unable or unfit to carry out his functions"
  could be suitably broad enough to cover all these scenarios. However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and others for their suggested amendments. We agree in principle that it adds clarity, and that is why I tabled Amendment No. 80A, to which I hope the noble Baroness, whom I see nodding, will agree. It is in line with similar legislation passed by this House in the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999, as the noble Baroness indicated. It will provide for more certainty regarding the reasons for which the commissioner or deputy commissioner may be removed. I add to the nod that I gave the noble Baroness regarding her comment: we cover subsection (c) of her Amendment No. 80 within the ambit of our Amendment No. 80A.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Borrie: I apologise for intervening after the Minister has spoken, but I should like some clarity or reassurance. I rather like the tenor of Amendment No. 80 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, particularly because of subsection (c), which says,
  "has been guilty of misbehaviour".
  I like that because there is a very long-standing tradition going back to legislation passed a long time ago when chairmen of tribunals, circuit judges, and so on, could be dismissed by the Lord Chancellor for "incapacity or misbehaviour". Because that has been with us for so many years, I think the meaning is clear and understood. So I was not terribly keen on the original words in the Bill on line 40 of page 18, stating that a person may be removed from office if that person is,
  "unable or unfit to carry out his functions".

  GC 437
  The Minister has explained, especially in relation to the noble Baroness's amendment, that "unfit" would include misbehaviour. I am not sure that it is such a clear word; I do not know that I want to push this before Report in terms of whether the wording is sufficiently clear. But I would at least be glad of reassurance, on the record, that "misbehaviour" is meant to be included.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: May I add a tiny contribution? The criterion goes back, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, over very many years to the days when most of these things were written in Latin. The Latin words were quamdiu se bene gesserit, which means "as long as he behaves himself". When something is so steeped in tradition and customary use, it seems a pity to depart from it. That sometimes suggests that you meant something different, which I do not think the Government do.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope I have made it clear to my noble friend and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we intend to encompass misbehaviour within our new draft. It is right that we have moved a little further on in terms of how we express things. There is a consistency now in the Disability Rights Commission Act and in this legislation. In terms of the way in which the courts will define it, I have said explicitly that it will include misbehaviour, so that old case law can be prayed in aid. I believe that something similar was said—not, thankfully, by me—when we were discussing the disability legislation. I hope that that gives my noble friend some comfort and satisfies the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, although I absolutely accept that the language does not have the attraction that it would have had in antiquity.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: It just goes to show, does it not, that the Bar is very outdated. Both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord are members of the Bar. I think that those of us here are firmly in favour of the change.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Just to be pedantic, perhaps I should make it clear that in accepting the noble Baroness's assurance that "unfit" includes misbehaviour, I shall try to keep my eye on it in future in governance clauses. Although the noble Baroness prayed in aid the 1999 Act in her drafting, I prayed in aid a more modern one. I should have thought that a Labour Government were so keen on modernisation that they might have kept the modern word "misbehaviour".
  In all seriousness, I accept the Minister's assurances, but we need to bear this in mind in the future.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 79A:
  Page 18, line 36, at end insert—
  "(3A) The person must not hold office for more than 10 years in total."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 80A:
  Page 18. line 40, leave out "is" and insert "—

  (a) has become bankrupt, has had his estate sequestrated or has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors, or

  (b) is otherwise"

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 82:
  Page 19, line 1, leave out from "and" to "before" in line 3 and insert "the Lord Chancellor"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 84:
  Page 19, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 and insert "the Lord Chancellor"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 86:
  Page 20, line 20, leave out from "and" to "in" in line 22 and insert "the Lord Chancellor"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 88:
  Page 20, line 39. leave out sub-paragraph (c) and insert—
  "(c) the Lord Chancellor"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18 [General functions of Commissioner]:
  [Amendments Nos. 88A and 89 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 90:
  Page 10, line 40, leave out from "and" to end of line 2 on page 11 and insert "the Lord Chancellor"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I gave notice that Clause 18 is one of the very few clauses on which I intend to speak on clause stand part. This is a short matter, but one of importance. This issue has been brought to my attention by the Solicitors Family Law Association. As we have just heard how marvellous solicitors are, I am sure that this will please the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.

  GC 439
  The Solicitors Family Law Association points out that it welcomes the introduction of a new independent Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses as part of the Government's commitment to tackling domestic violence. However, that association would like greater attention in Clause 18 to be focused on the victims of domestic violence. It would like to have seen a new subsection in Clause 18 stating that particular regard should be paid to the sufferers of domestic violence and their children and that there should be an onus on the commissioner to liaise with the independent Children's Commissioner regarding the need for children who may themselves be witnesses or victims.
  Have the Government considered that as part of the focus of Clause 18 and, if so, why have they rejected it? If it has not yet been considered, will they consider it in future? I do not oppose the Question whether Clause 18 stand part, but I want to raise an issue on its content.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The victims of domestic violence are extremely important. They represent at least 25 per cent of all victims of violent crime. Necessarily, they will form a significant body of victims for whom the commissioner would have to take responsibility.
  I appreciate what the Solicitors Family Law Association says in relation to domestic violence. However, our thinking was that the commissioner for victims should be responsible for all victims of crime. The noble Baroness will know that a great deal of sensitivity is involved. There are those who suffer bereavement, whether as a result of murder, road traffic accidents or otherwise. There is a feeling that we should treat all forms of victims to a similar high standard. It would be very difficult to justify putting in a section which highlights the needs of domestic violence victims and does not similarly underline the needs of the other victims, who may suffer severely as a result.
  I raise, for example, the subject of children who are victims of sexual abuse. It would be difficult to say that we had a separate section for domestic violence but did not have one for children who may have been lovingly reared within their family but were sexually abused outside it by a stranger. However, I give an absolute assurance that the Government see domestic violence as a hugely important issue. We expect it to be one of the significant areas in which the commissioner would be obliged to work because there is such a large volume of victims of such violence.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may intervene before the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says whatever she intends to say in response to the Minister. I believe that this matter goes back to a point that I raised earlier. Some of the people who have approached us would like greater emphasis to be placed on domestic violence and on the statutory right of victims to obtain assistance. The noble Baroness dealt with a large number of different issues, but she did not deal with that particular point.
  GC 440
  If we were to follow the line put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, we would place another little piece into the construction that we are making for victims of domestic violence. Those victims are in a special category, in the sense that they are very much under the power of their oppressor or the perpetrator of the crime. There is a strong view outside this Chamber that, although the Bill is welcomed, it does not go far enough, and this may be a way of helping to dispel that disappointment.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, says in relation to the expectation. I simply remind the Committee that there is the interdepartmental ministerial group on domestic violence. A large part of that group's work is to make a holistic, multi-disciplinary response to the needs of domestic violence victims. As I have already mentioned, there is also the Victims' Advisory Panel, which I chair and to which we shall come later.
  Those bodies are trying to drive forward the understanding that this is a multi-faceted issue that deserves the attention of a number of different parts of government. Those involved are the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which is seized with housing, the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions. I refer also to the Department for Constitutional Affairs in relation to the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and, therefore, the Attorney-General in terms of imposing lenient and other sentences, and, of course, the broader role played by probation officers, police and the non-governmental agencies and charities. Therefore, this is a huge endeavour.
  The point of establishing a commissioner is that he will, we hope, raise the standard for victims generally and be an external, additional independent voice in bringing home these issues. I absolutely understand what the noble Baroness says about the expectation. I simply say that there are also expectations in relation to other victims whose circumstances go a little broader than domestic violence.
  However, I want to reassure the noble Baroness that domestic violence victims are very much in the eye of the criminal justice system because they account for a disproportionately large number of the victims with whom we all, rather tragically, have to deal.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for her further response. When I told the solicitors that I would raise this issue under Clause 18 stand part, I felt that I would have a bit of a cheek doing so in front of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I am immediately using the term "domestic violence", a definition of which she earlier tried to get us to agree to. We are not there yet, so I appreciate that.
  I also understand what the Minister said with regard to not wanting to single out a particular category of persons. The difficulty is that, because the first part of the Bill states that it is about domestic violence and

  GC 441
  because the Bill has been presented publicly as a domestic violence Bill, organisations are naturally looking to focus on that. However, I still think that there will be pressure from outside to find some other way to focus attention on the 25 per cent of those who suffer as victims.
  I may need to come back to the matter in a slightly different way with an amendment, but I would obviously seek advice from the Solicitors' Family Law Association before I did so. I shall go no further on Clause 18 stand part, as the Chairman will be pleased to hear.
  Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21 ["Victims" and "witnesses"]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 91:
  Page 11, line 24, at end insert "committed in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland"
  The noble Baroness said: Clause 21 gives details of who is a victim and who is a witness for the purposes of the legislation, and who exactly will thereby benefit from the operation of the code. My amendment probes the question of its territorial extent. I know that the Minister has tabled later amendments with regard to territoriality; she kindly wrote an explanatory letter to us on that.
  With this amendment I am asking a specific question with regard to the position of those who come to this country seeking asylum. I asked some similar questions earlier on behalf of Southall Black Sisters, and this is a similar amendment. Will they have protection under the victims' code while they are in this country awaiting determination of the claim? The Minister addressed the question of a territorial extent in her letter of 30 January. She says that the provisions do not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, as I understand it. Will she tell us what the situation will be in Scotland? Will similar provisions be made there with regard to the victims' code? Does she have any advance information on that? I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Of course, the issues are devolved in relation to Scotland. The amendment would restrict the definition of a victim under Clause 21(2) to those who had been the victim of crime in the UK. However, by virtue of Clause 30, the powers of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses are restricted to making recommendations on agencies under his remit, and reporting only to Ministers with responsibility for England and Wales. The commissioner will not make recommendations on issues solely facing victims in Scotland or Northern Ireland due to the nature of their distinct criminal justice systems, and the plan is that he will consult devolved administrations on any recommendations regarding cross-border authorities.
  The commissioner, it is envisaged, will principally consider persons who have been the victims of crime in England and Wales. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is also within the commissioner's remit, and it has always been the
  GC 442
  intention that he or she will be able to investigate some issues relating to persons victimised abroad. For example, the commissioner may want to investigate crimes committed against holidaymakers, the treatment of victims of terrorism or those bereaved by violent crime overseas. He may want to be able to make relevant recommendations to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about how it can help improve the experience of victims and witnesses. Noble Lords will know that it has extensive responsibilities under its consular banner and in terms of the consular support services it provides. I hope that better explains our position.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister. She mentioned holidays. There could also be a situation where a family can be on holiday, be a victim of a crime committed by somebody within their group and come back here. As I understood the Minister, she said that although the offence had been committed overseas, once the people had returned to this country, they could then be given the protection of the code. Is that correct?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The FCO gives advice and assistance to British citizens overseas. As the FCO will come within the ambit of the victims' commissioner, it would be perfectly proper for him, in reviewing the kind of advice, provision and support given to our citizens when abroad, to say to the FCO that he would recommend, in relation to A, B or C, that it should consider addressing the provision of services in that way. In that way, the code could be very useful in making sure that the provisions we make for our citizens abroad are as robust as we would like them to be. I want to give notice of this matter to my noble friend Lady Symons. I know that she will be very exercised by the issue, because she is the Minister responsible for consular services.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister. She will understand, with various football competitions coming up, that I am concerned particularly about the issue of violence among the people who call themselves football supporters when they go abroad, but are anything but. I thank the Minister for her explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Authorities within Commissioner's remit]:
  [Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 94:
  Page 12, line 15, leave out from "and" to end of line 17 and insert "the Lord Chancellor"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Disclosure of information]:
  [Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 97:
  Page 13, line 2, leave out from "and" to end of line 4 and insert "the Lord Chancellor"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 97A:
  Page 13, line 7. leave out subsection (8) and insert—

  "(8) Nothing in this section authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29).

  (8A) Notwithstanding subsection (8), any disclosure or processing of information under subsection (1) for the purposes set out in subsection (2) in performance of functions referred to in section 13 shall be deemed to be necessary to be processed for the exercise of any such functions for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998, in particular section 35 (disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc) and Schedules 1 (data protection principles), 2 (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: Processing of any personal data) and 3 (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: processing of sensitive personal data) of that Act."

  The noble Lord said: The amendment reflects current public concern, partly because of two recent tests of the Data Protection Act 1998; namely, some of the events following the Soham murders, and a recent incident involving British Gas, where social services had not been informed of an elderly couple's circumstances. Alongside those headline-grabbing events, Victim Support noted a more general point; namely, regardless of the intention, a drop-off in referrals after the Data Protection Act 1998 came into force.
  There is very real public concern that the Data Protection Act may carry with it, despite all its good intentions, unforeseen problems that are making authorities and responsible bodies overcautious. As a result, the worry is that information that should be exchanged between agencies to give effect to activities and actions promised in the Bill will not take place. Although the amendment carries with it broad support for that Act, it seeks to ensure that such overcautious interpretation of the Act does not occur. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am of course very much aware of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, particularly in relation to the confusion in the interpretation of the Data Protection Act, as was so recently and tragically illustrated in the Soham case and by British Gas. I am sure that the Committee will know of the inquiry by Sir Michael Bichard, which is now under way. A primary focus of Sir Michael's inquiry will be to look at the handling of information within the framework established by the data protection legislation, as interpreted in the national and local guidance. Needless to say, I am not in a position to pre-empt the findings of that inquiry.
  I am aware of the issue raised by Victim Support about how information has been dealt with. It has mentioned difficulties about being informed of
  GC 444
  victims' details by the police in some areas. Without those details, of course, it is impossible for Victim Support to offer its services. I am aware also that the administrative arrangements to ensure that police pass on the details sometimes fall into disrepair.
  We are, however, confident that the current arrangements for passing information to Victim Support comply with the Data Protection Act. Those arrangements were discussed at length by the Information Commissioner, the Home Office, Victim Support and the police. They are the subject of a Home Office circular sanctioned by the Information Commissioner. The arrangements are replicated in the illustrative draft of the code which has been placed in the Library. I hope that Members of the Committee will have an opportunity to glance at that. Therefore, the amendment would have no practical effect on the draft of the code as it stands.
  We think that the answer to the practical difficulties which Victim Support has faced is not a change in the law, which already permits information to be passed, but probably a change in practice. The answer is to tackle the recalcitrant police areas, to point to the guidance that has been approved by their chief officers, and to reassure them that they are acting in accordance with the Data Protection Act. I think that many people feel that they cannot give information that the Act makes absolutely clear that they could and should give.
  To make explicit the link between the disclosure of information for that purpose—however important it may be—and the Data Protection Act is likely to lead to further confusion about that legislation, as the noble Lord suggested. It could, for example, lead other public authorities to believe that such a provision was required for them to make their own disclosures rather than relying on compliance with the general principles of the Data Protection Act. I know that that is not what the noble Lord would wish.
  The amendment would also have the effect that the disclosure of information under any future version of the code would be deemed to comply with the Data Protection Act. That would be wrong as a matter of principle. Any government revising the code in the future need to ensure that it does not require the disclosure of information that would be contrary to that Act. The Act safeguards the right of the citizen to privacy, and a future government should not be able to override its provisions in such a way.
  I also want to reassure Members of the Committee by saying that the ministerial domestic violence committee that I chair has been very exercised about the clarity of understanding in relation to the Act. We are looking very energetically together, across departments, to see what we can do to address that and to bring the clarity that practitioners and others need if they are to be confident about exchanging the proper information to keep women and children, in terms of domestic violence although it applies to victims generally, more safe.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord McNally: That was, in many ways, a reassuring response. One point that Victim Support makes is that it is not only the police that have to get the message but other agencies as well. Although the kind of co-ordination and action that the Minister described may solve the problem, the matter has to be closely monitored to see whether there is an immediate improvement from the activities, education and information that she described. We are not talking about only a complaint from Victim Support; there is a genuine and general public concern that the Data Protection Act, either in what it contains or how it has been interpreted, has very damaging and unforeseen consequences. However, particularly in the light of what the Minister said, it is my pleasure to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Victims' Advisory Panel]:
  [Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 99:
  Page 13, line 15, leave out from "and" to "before" in line 17 and insert "the Lord Chancellor"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 100:
  Page 13, line 23, leave out "may" and insert "must"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment returns us to a familiar theme; namely, that where one sets up a statutory body on which people serve as volunteers or representatives of organisations and carry out work to its benefit, as members of the panel will, the Secretary of State should reimburse them for their expenses. Subsection (4) sets up in statutory form the Victims' Advisory Panel, stating:
  "The Secretary of State may reimburse the members of the Panel for such of their travelling and other expenses as he thinks appropriate".
  I have done the usual in my amendment and changed "may" to "must" in order to ask the Government in what circumstances the Secretary of State would not reimburse such expenses.
  In any event, the clause gives the Secretary of State very wide power to say no. Even if one says that the Secretary of State "must" reimburse, he can still say that he does not think it "appropriate" for particular expenses. I really do not understand why the Government need the extra flexibility that the word "may" would give as I cannot believe that they are expecting people to do the work without the appropriate reimbursement. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can give the noble Baroness the assurance that the Government have absolutely no intention of failing to reimburse those who are so generous as to give of their time expenses that have been identified as reasonable and appropriate by the Secretary of State. Of course, if I
  GC 446
  may respectfully say so, the noble Baroness's drafting would be rather curious. It has always been the intention that lay members who are otherwise financially unrewarded for their commitment are reimbursed for the expenses they incur in providing their services to myself and, indeed, other Ministers. The existing wording allows the Secretary of State to spend government funds on this.
  The amendment would make no real difference to the practical arrangements for paying expenses, as the Secretary of State will still have a discretion as to what expenses were appropriate. Expenses are a practical matter which we think should be dealt with between individual panel members and the Home Office. There is no need to go any further on the statute book than giving the Secretary of State the power to make the payments.
  It is common and accepted legislative practice to provide a power rather than a duty in circumstances like this. For example, Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 provides that the Secretary of State "may" rather than "must" pay the expenses of the members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
  The real purport of saying that the Secretary of State may reimburse expenses is that, when it comes to accounting for the moneys expended by the Secretary of State, he has to make it clear that he was entitled to make those payments. That is why we normally use "may" in this regard. There is no suggestion that the Secretary of State would not pay appropriate expenses. However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right—"must" would be negated by the fact that the Secretary of State would reimburse expenses only if he thought that was appropriate. Therefore, "may" and "as he thinks appropriate" tend to go hand in glove.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Why does exactly the same line of argument not apply to Clause 24(3), which states:
  "The Secretary of State must consult the Panel … in such manner as he thinks appropriate"?
  I do not see why the same line of argument that we have just heard does not apply in that case.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If I may respectfully say so, it is quite different. What we are talking about in relation to the Secretary of State reimbursing moneys is that he can reimburse any individual for the expenses that he considers appropriate. The word "must" in subsection (3) relates to consultation. Subsection (3) states:
  "The Secretary of State must consult the Panel at such times and in such manner as he thinks appropriate on matters appearing to him to relate to victims".
  So if a matter arises relating to victims that is of some significance, he must consult them. That is the difference, if I may respectfully say so.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful for that explanation, but I think I am right in interpreting what my noble friend has said as indicating that where the Secretary of State thinks it is appropriate to reimburse

  GC 447
  members of the panel for travelling and other expenses, he must do so. I should prefer to see the word "must" rather than "may". We are in danger of getting into a circle here. If I have misinterpreted my noble friend, she will say so, but I do not think that I have.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My noble and learned friend has not misinterpreted me at all. I agree with him regarding subsection (2) where the Secretary of State must consult. I believe that logic is in my favour here. It is obviously a matter that I shall have to consider carefully between now and Report and perhaps delight the noble Baroness by returning to it at that stage.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I register my real disappointment. I really do not think that that will make any difference at all, although it is always delightful to banter words with the noble Baroness and, indeed, with the noble and learned Lord.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Although I have referred to the matter somewhat flippantly, the important point is that when one is recruiting volunteers, one wants to treat them with seriousness in recognition of the sacrifices that they make. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 24, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It occurred to me that I should raise one other issue at this stage, because I may need to refer to it on Report. I am giving the Minister and other members of the Committee some forward notice. When I was considering the clause during the weekend, I did some homework that perhaps I should have done in the first instance. I tried to find out how the Victims' Advisory Panel currently works. I know that the Minister chairs it. I looked in particular at Clause 24(7). It states:
  "The non-statutory Victims' Advisory Panel is to be treated as having been established in accordance with this section".
  When I asked the Library some time ago to find as much information as it could on the panel's objectives, composition, method of appointing, current personnel and the mechanics of how it now works, I ran into difficulty. The Library did its best, but because the panel is non-statutory, it was unable to come up with much detail. When I reviewed the Library's information at the weekend, I found it curious that we are to airlift that body suddenly into statute without knowing what it looks or feels like and without having a schedule that sets out its objectives, raison ďètre, the confines within which it works and how its membership shall be comprised. We have been careful to do that in setting up other organisations and yet not here.
  That is why I am speaking now to Clause 24(7). I shall want to look carefully at whether a schedule should be added on Report and what shape it should take. It would require the Government to flesh out
  GC 448
  how the advisory panel will work. The Minister may well want to hold her fire until then, but it seemed right to give her notice of my intent at this stage.
  Lord Borrie: I notice there is some description of the existing panel in paragraph 91 of the Explanatory Notes. I am not sure what more the noble Baroness wants.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My understanding is that when one sets up a statutory body, a corporate statement and a corporate structure are normally appended to the Bill. An example is the Office of Communications Act, to which I referred earlier. The statutory body that it created was carefully delineated: how the chairman was to be appointed; what size of membership it had. I am not looking for that kind of detail, because the panel does not have that kind of responsibility, but it is odd that Clause 24 is parachuting something in without stating more about what it is intended to be.
  Lord Borrie: With respect, I am not sure that that is a terribly good example. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, knows a lot more about the matter than do I, but, as I recall it, there was a paving Bill to set up the Office of Communications long before anybody was determining what its powers, functions and so on should be.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I did not make myself clear enough. The Act to which I was referring is the 2002 Act, the original Ofcom legislation. That contains a schedule that sets out precisely how one shall appoint and disappoint particular people to that body. I was looking for the expected outcomes of that body. It was that kind of schedule that I thought might be included in a more limited form in the Bill to give a flavour of how the Victim's Advisory Panel was to be composed and how it was to operate. I shall reflect on whether it would be appropriate in the circumstances. The difficulty is that we are being asked to put a legislative seal on a body about which we know precious little in official terms.
  Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Grants for assisting victims, witnesses etc]:
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 101:
  Page 14, line 3, leave out "as he considers" and insert", charities or other organisations as he has reason to believe are"
  The noble Baroness said: We now reach the stage where the Secretary of State is to start making the necessary provision of funds. Clause 25 states that:
  "The Secretary of State may pay such grants to such persons as he considers appropriate in connection with measures which appear to him to be intended to assist victims, witnesses or other persons".
  He can make any grant that he wants. Earlier, we received assurances from the Minister that he must act reasonably, and she will repeat that now.

  GC 449
  However, my reason for tabling the amendment is to ask the noble Baroness to place on the record an indication of what the Government mean by the recipient bodies. Who will be considered as "appropriate" to receive the grants? For example, subsection (1) simply states that the Secretary of State can pay grants to "such persons". I am aware that a "person" is a company limited by guarantee as well as an individual, but I was not aware that a voluntary organisation was a "person" in legal terms.
  I wonder whether the word "person" covers a sufficient range of bodies, organisations, people or whatever to make the operation of the Bill as effective as the Government intend. Obviously if an organisation is a company limited by guarantee and a charity—for example, my own local CAB—that is all right because it is a "person". But if it is not a company limited by guarantee, it is not a person and, therefore, how would it qualify? It may simply be that my legal knowledge is so deficient that I have missed something which is obvious to everyone else.
  I have, again, received a representation from Professor Pahl, Professor of Social Policy at the University of Kent. He points out a more general issue with regard to my amendment—that is, that the Government have not yet, in the eyes of some organisations, been as generous as they would have hoped in relation to funds.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, or the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—I apologise for not recalling exactly who it was—has already referred to issues of refuge. The difficulty pointed out by Professor Pahl is that a serious failure of the Bill is that it does not do anything to remedy the situation in which the leading voluntary organisations working in this field—that is, women's refuges—remain seriously underfunded. The professor states that that applies both at national level—for example, women's aid organisations for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and at the level of the 400-plus local refuges. She says that some refuges receive funding from local authorities and women contribute from their income from security and housing benefit personally. But most refuges struggle financially. She states that it would be a good idea if Clause 25 were extended so that there was a clear commitment at national level to support the work of the refuges financially, both nationally and locally.
  Therefore, my amendment is intended to cover that issue. I am asking the Government whether the Secretary of State will, as a matter of urgency, consider moneys going to those organisations? Do they fall within the "persons" defined in subsection (1)? I beg to move.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I hope that I shall be indulged if I congratulate the Minister and the draftsmen on saying "may" in line 3 because plainly the intention there is to give a discretionary power. I cannot help contrasting that with Amendment No. 100, which we have just debated. The intention of my noble friends amendment is to confer not only a discretionary power but a duty. Therefore, the word
  GC 450
  "may" is entirely appropriate in the amendment with which we are dealing; the word "must" would have been entirely appropriate in the earlier one.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that. I am almost tempted to say in relation to the earlier amendment, "I'll come quietly because it makes no difference", but I shall resist. It might obviate the need to go through hours of discussion later. I shall remain robust for the time being.
  On Amendment No. 101, if the noble Baroness looks at how we have drafted Clause 25 it is explicit that,
  "the Secretary of State may pay such grants to such persons as he considers appropriate".
  We believe that legal and proper construction of the way in which such persons are used in Clause 25 would include charities or other organisations. Of course, the grants could be made payable to the chairman or a person in the organisation for and on behalf of that organisation. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary, as the legal term "persons" as set out in Clause 25 would already cover such organisations. Instead—and I know this is not the noble Baroness's intent—if we were to accept her amendment it may have the effect of restricting to whom the Secretary of State may issue grants.
  The amendment also replaces the Secretary of State's power to provide grants to persons,
  "as he considers appropriate",
  to the more objective requirement that he "has reason to believe".
  Again I argue that this change is of no significance or value to the Bill because, as I said in response to the earlier amendment, the Secretary of State is bound by the rules of reasonableness in his actions and may be subject to judicial review on those grounds. So, changing the wording will have little effect.
  I believe that we have used the phraseology in Clause 25 in relation to,
  "pay such grants to such persons",
  to include organisations and charities before and have not received any difficulty in so doing. I shall of course check that, but I think that concern of the noble Baroness is unfounded. If it was not before I have just done a Pepper v Hart on it.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Perhaps I can ask one further question. The Minister said that I should not be concerned because "persons" covers organisations. So "person" includes an individual. We have a situation where the Secretary of State has freedom to give the money to anyone within the confines of the clause. The obligations he might have to victims—
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is how I interpreted it. It can be "persons" as a body, "person" as an individual or "person" as an incorporated body, provided it is capable of being defined as a person of

  GC 451
  some kind. I do not believe that the Secretary of State under this provision could give the money to an inanimate object.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Again I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The difficulty I have is that the simplicity of the drafting of Clause 25 was at variance with the explanation the Government were trying to give in the Explanatory Notes. The notes varied from talking about bodies, to persons or organisations, to "several voluntary organisations" in paragraph 94. I know that the Explanatory Notes are trying to be helpful by dealing with the full range, but I think that because "persons" was the only word used it led to some confusion among other organisations which felt that it meant they would be excluded. I appreciate fully what the noble Baroness says—that she intends it to include rather than to exclude.
  Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may say that I note that the Government Whip hopes that we might deal with the next amendment, which I think will take us beyond 6 o'clock. Whereas that is convenient to me, it may not be to the Minister. Perhaps she may want to check that matter. The next amendment is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. Before I formally withdraw my amendment, can there be a comment on that so that technically—
  Baroness Crawley: As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, will not take too long on the next amendment. I am happy to continue, and I believe that the Minister is.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In that case I shall not speak on the next amendment. I am sure that I shall have the opportunity to return to it on Report. I know that we all look forward to the Minister being able to act in a different capacity later this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am in the Committee's hands. If noble Lords want me to continue I shall. However, I do not want to spoil the Minister's life by continuing after six o'clock.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have five minutes. I know the speed of the noble Baroness. I am sure that we can get there.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 101A:
  Page 14, line 7, at end insert—
  "( ) The Secretary of State may, subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate, make grants to voluntary organisations under this section for the purpose of providing appropriate protection and support services for children who have suffered impairment due to seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another person."
  The noble Baroness said: In this amendment we are trying to bring forward for the first time, because it is not explicitly addressed in the Bill as drafted, the need to make appropriate support and protection for
  GC 452
  children who have experienced domestic violence. Members of the Committee will know that that is a particular interest of my noble friend Lady Walmsley.
  We all know that a very large proportion of all the children on the at-risk register live in households where domestic violence occurs. Studies have shown that those children are quite clear on what they think they need. They need to be safe and to have someone to talk to. They have said, in answer to a survey, that the support services which they found the most useful were those provided by children support workers in refuges. Refuges provide support for more than 100,000 children per year. That is the only widespread dedicated source of support for children who have experienced domestic violence.
  There is a suggestion in the brief that government initiatives are reducing the vital support services for children who have experienced domestic violence. Children's services in refuges are starved of funds because the funding provided through the Supporting People scheme is not intended for children. Yet children make up two thirds of the refuge population. Also, the national standards for under-eights' day care have set staffing ratios and minimum space standards which many refuge organisations cannot afford to meet. Some refuge organisations have had to limit play sessions to less than two hours per day in order to comply with national standards.
  If the only kind of attention paid to children during the legal process is the required home visit and a single interview, the person conducting the interview may not be able to support the child sufficiently to enable the child to admit that it is suffering from violence in the home. For all those reasons, we feel that it is very important that resources should be made available for specialist assessments to be carried out. That is another area where more funding is necessary. Indeed, all the matters I have spoken about can be properly supplied only by an assured funding scheme. That is why we should like to be able to say specifically that the Secretary of State may make grants to voluntary organisations for the benefit of children who have suffered as a result of domestic violence. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I support the underlying principle of this amendment. Child welfare is an issue about which we should remain deeply concerned. I recognise, in particular, that children who witness violence in the home have special support needs.
  However, the amendment would not give the Secretary of State power to do anything which is not already permitted by Clause 25. The clause gives the Secretary of State power to pay grants to assist "persons affected by offences", which would include children who witness violence in the home.
  The purpose of this clause is to provide a statutory authority for regular government grants to voluntary sector bodies. It is consistent with existing Treasury best practice. It does not, in itself, and nor is it intended to, signal that more funding will be available or that

  GC 453
  specialist groups that are currently unfunded by central government will become so. That sort of consideration is being taken forward in the action plan being drawn up on the national strategy for victims and witnesses, which was published last July. I hope that that response gives some pleasure to the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I had already noticed the word "witness" in the clause as it stands. I rather fancied that the Minister might be able to flatten this amendment on that account. I shall consider what the Minister said and some of the papers that she
  GC 454
  mentioned to see whether it is necessary to return to the matter at a later date. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Crawley: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until 3.30 p.m. on Monday.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): The Grand Committee stands adjourned until Monday at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at one minute past six o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Policing Board
  Northern Ireland Policing Board
  Euro
  Euro
  Special European Union Programmes Body
  Special European Union Programmes Body
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  International Development: Child Poverty
  International Development: Child Poverty
  Northern Ireland: Prisons Ombudsman
  Northern Ireland: Prisons Ombudsman
  Criminal Offences
  Criminal Offences
  War Crimes
  War Crimes
  Major Ian Hill
  Major Ian Hill
  Listed Buildings: Alterations
  Listed Buildings: Alterations
  Output Per Worker
  Output Per Worker
  Gender: Wrong Attribution
  Gender: Wrong Attribution
  Sport
  Sport
  UK Sport
  UK Sport
  Disability Discrimination Bill
  Disability Discrimination Bill
  Cambridge-St Ives-Huntingdon Guided Bus Scheme
  Cambridge-St Ives-Huntingdon Guided Bus Scheme
  Railways
  Railways
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Public Bodies
  Public Bodies

  Northern Ireland: Inland Fisheries Annual Reports
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  Copies of the inland fisheries annual reports of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure for 2000, 2001 and 2002 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  These documents provide details of the department's activities to conserve, protect and develop salmon and inland fisheries under the provisions of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, as amended, and include statistical information and income and expenditure details for those years.

  Angela Cannings
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)
  I refer to my Statement on 19 January, when I announced a review process in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal on that day in the case of R v Angela Cannings.

  Two hundred and fifty eight convictions over the past 10 years were identified involving the homicide of an infant aged under two years by its parent. Among these, cases where the defendant remains in custody will be accorded the highest priority.

  The review process has begun. As a result of further work we have now identified that another 18 defendants are still serving a term of imprisonment in addition to the 54 I announced on 19 January. The relevant data are being rechecked so that the total number can be finalised as soon as possible.

  Of these, one case file is already with the Criminal Cases Review Commission. A further 52, representing 365 boxes of evidence, have been recovered from central storage by the CPS and either are or are on the point of being reviewed. The remaining 19 priority cases are being retrieved locally. The process of retrieval of non-priority cases has begun.

  With the help of my interdepartmental group I have established the system of review. Each individual case will first be subject to a preliminary review by the relevant CPS area to identify its key characteristics. Each case will then be reviewed by a central review team to establish whether any features identified by the Court of Appeal in Angela Cannings' judgment make the conviction potentially unsafe. That central team is being established and will be ready to start work as the files and preliminary reviews are received.
  WS 30
  In all cases which appear to meet the above criteria the convicted person will be informed as soon as possible. I have discussed with the Court of Appeal how arrangements can be made to expedite cases which are to be heard by that court and I have also discussed with the Criminal Cases Review Commission the arrangements it is putting in place to permit the swift review of cases which may be affected by the judgment. These latter discussions are continuing.

  The review of the 15 current cases is also continuing and the results of that review will be known shortly.

  Chips for Everything: Follow-up Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  The Government welcome the follow-up report and recognise the importance of system on chip design to the UK. The main recommendation of the follow-up report—the establishment of a managed network—aligns well with one of the conclusions of the DTI's innovation review. The Government are supportive of initiatives to set up such a network and have asked Sir Robin Saxby to lead a pilot network in one application area. This will allow key stakeholders to learn how to manage a network of this sort to best effect before committing to something more comprehensive.

  Post Office Urban Reinvention Network
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My honourable friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Stephen Timms) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The urban re-invention programme aims to create a smaller, more viable network of post office branches adequate in number and suitably located to ensure accessible delivery of service to customers. At the end of the programme, within the UK as a whole, 95 per cent of the urban population will still live within a mile of the nearest post office branch. It is supported directly by government funding. This programme is absolutely necessary. If the Post Office does not adapt to changing customer demands it will spiral into terminal decline.

  During recent weeks Members of Parliament and Postwatch have become increasingly concerned about some aspects of the urban re-invention programme, In particular, the consultation arrangements have been criticised. There has been mounting evidence that in too many cases Post Office Limited has not handled them appropriately, or with sufficient sensitivity. Accordingly I asked Post Office Limited and Postwatch to review urgently the arrangements for the consultation currently employed and to propose changes to make them more inclusive and appropriate to achieve a viable network to serve the public after the programme is concluded.
  WS 31
  They have responded to this challenge and I am pleased to announce the following changes applicable to the remainder of the programme which will take immediate effect.

  Post Office Limited will advise MPs and local authorities as soon as possible of the remaining timetable for commencing consultations on plans for their area.

  Local authorities will be invited to provide relevant information, in advance, on infrastructure and regeneration projects to assist Post Office Limited in the preparation of area plans.

  When preparing an area plan, Post Office Limited will achieve a balance between sub-postmasters volunteering to leave the network, those offices which are not viable and the need for relocations and new openings.

  Post Office Limited will advise MPs and members of the devolved administrations on a strictly confidential basis of proposals, including the overall rationale for the proposed area plan, one week before they are put out to public consultation.

  Public consultation will be on the proposal to close an individual office, but Post Office Limited will also take account of, and respond to, views expressed about the proposed service provision in the area in reaching decisions on individual closures.

  Once final decisions have been made and announced, Post Office Limited will write to Postwatch, Members of Parliament and local authorities referring to the main points raised during the consultation and giving the reasons for its decision.

  Public consultation will normally last for six weeks but will in future be extended to take account of public holidays that occur during that period.

  In view of Post Office Limited's responsibility to notify its staff at directly managed offices of any proposal to close the office before the proposal is put to public consultation, the advance notification of Postwatch, MPs and of the devolved administrations will be replaced by notification of the proposal the day before the proposal is made public and the public consultation period will be extended to eight weeks.

  If branches previously identified as expecting to receive additional custom following closure of nearby offices are themselves subsequently proposed for closure, Post Office Limited will provide a detailed explanation of its reasoning in putting forward the proposal for consultation.

  Post Office Limited will establish a separate team dedicated to promoting and supervising the implementation of investment required to upgrade remaining offices to ensure the provision of adequate facilities for the additional custom provoked by the closure of nearby offices.

  Criteria have been agreed to define the "exceptional circumstances" which may justify putting into public consultation a closure proposal for an office located within the 10 per cent most deprived urban wards and with no other office within half a mile. The core criteria are: the branch proposed for closure being relatively
  WS 32
  small; having experienced a significant decline in business between March 2000 and March 2003 with a continuing trend which, if it has not already done so, will render the business non-viable; and having a dense network of surrounding offices with several accessible by reasonable transport links within half a mile to a mile. Other criteria which might also apply include: significant depopulation of the surrounding area or the geography of public service and retail provision has shifted; a clear majority of customers of the branch proposed for closure live within half a mile of alternative branches; and security issues which make it unlikely to be feasible to continue service.

  Finally Post Office Limited has confirmed that the documentation between itself and a sub-postmaster does not create any binding arrangement for closure until the public consultation has been completed. No contract binding on Post Office Limited is signed before the public consultation process has ended.

  The above new arrangements will be reviewed by Post Office Limited and Postwatch one month after commencement to ensure that the implementation is satisfactory.

  Post office closures will inevitably continue to be contentious. However, these changes to procedure should ensure that there is confidence in the consultation process.

  Post Office Limited is committed to the successful implementation of the new arrangements and to working with Postwatch to ensure an effective consultation process designed to maximise the quality of judgment and transparency, and to produce a fair result for customers and the company.

  Foreign Office Annual Report: Foreign Affairs Committee Response
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  This week, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary laid before Parliament, government White Paper Command 6107,Twelfth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee Session 2002–03 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003 Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  The committee draws a number of conclusions and makes various recommendations in its report on a variety of issues including staff management, resources and the FCO's overseas estate. Our response covers all these points.

  The FCO welcomes the committee's recognition among other things of its staffs commitment, often in difficult circumstances; its public diplomacy efforts with the BBC World Service and British Council to improve perceptions of the UK in the Arab and Muslim worlds; the improved management of its locally engaged staff overseas and its innovative and

  WS 33
  effective handling of rapidly increasing visa applications. The FCO will build on good practice in these areas and report on progress in future annual reports.

  The Command Paper addresses the Foreign Affairs Committee's concerns about the FCO's asset recycling programme. The programme permits the FCO to invest part of the funds gained from the sale of underperformmg or unsuitable property in other projects such as ICT development. The response provides details of how we identify potential property for sale, in line with the FCO's strategic priorities. It also explains that half such capital is reinvested into the FCO's estate and that this figure will rise to 80 per cent from 1 April this year. The paper admits the difficulties involved in sustaining the programme over the long term, but also describes how it has allowed the FCO to develop important capital estate projects such as the UK's new embassies in Berlin and Moscow.

  The paper takes issue with the committee's observation that the FCO attempted to conceal losses associated with a cancelled ICT programme in its 2003 annual report and emphasises its commitment to reporting FCO activity, including costs incurred, as clearly as possible.

  In its report the committee highlighted the increasing demands being placed on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from new challenges such as Iraq while operating within a finite resource climate. Its report recommended that the Government increase the resources allocated to the FCO to prevent erosion of its core activity. The FCO's response welcomes the committee's recognition of the difficult resource climate in which the FCO currently has to operate. It describes how the new FCO strategy (Government White Paper Command 6052, UK International Priorities: A Strategy for the FCO) which I laid before Parliament on 2 December 2003 will be a major tool in prioritising our work in future and ensuring that resources are targeted to achieve the most important goals of the Government's international policies.

  We are now in the process of putting the FCO strategy into practice. We have established a departmental change programme, derived from the strategy, which sets out what we intend to do to focus our resources on priorities, become more flexible and responsive, improve the diversity of our people, skills and experience, and target our activity to meet the needs of our customers across government and the UK public. As part of the change programme we are reviewing our organisation in London and abroad to ensure that it is aligned with our priorities and able to deliver the outcomes we seek

  The Foreign Affairs Committee outlines some concerns it has about the FCO's posts overseas. It recommends that the FCO opens a new post in Kyrgyzstan, and suggests that where post closures are being considered, the department should seek creative alternatives. The response explains that, to meet its strategic priorities and ensure safe and secure working environments for its staff while working within resource limitations, the FCO is obliged to adapt and
  WS 34
  amend its pattern of overseas representation. The FCO has already introduced alternative methods of representation in some parts of west Africa and agrees with the committee that such options are preferable to post closure. The FCO's network of diplomatic posts will remain a vital means of delivering the Government's priorities and building UK influence abroad. We need to ensure that it is adequately resourced, secure and tasked to address our most important priorities.

  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union is as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Event

  February

  4

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  4

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  6

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  9

  Brussels

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  10

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  11

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  13

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  18

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  18

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  19

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs

  20

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  23–24

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  24

  Brussels

  EU Moldova Cooperation Council (Troika)

  24

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  25–26

  Porlaoise

  Meeting of Regional Policy Ministers

  25

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  26

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  26–27

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  26–27

  Brussels

  Meeting of Regional Policy Ministers

  26

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  27

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  March

  1–2

  Cork

  ASEM Finance Deputies' Meeting

  2

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  3

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  3

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  4–6

  Co. Clare

  Youth Ministerial Conference

  4–5

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health& Consumer Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  8

  Brussels

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  8–9

  Ankara

  EU Ministerial Troika with Turkey

  8–9

  Brusssels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  9

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  10

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  10

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  11

  Dublin

  EU/Russia Ministerial Meeting (Troika)

  12

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  17

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  18

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  18–19

  Dublin

  OECD Ministers Conference

  19

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  WS 35

  Date

  Location

  Event

  22

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  24

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  24

  Brussels

  COREPER 2

  24–25

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  25–26

  Brussels

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  30

  Dublin

  EU/Ukraine Ministerial Meeting (Troika)

  30

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  31

  Brussels

  COREPER 1

  April

  2

  Punchestown

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  2–3

  Punchestown

  ECOFIN

  7–8

  Co. Wicklow

  Ministerial Conference on Communicating Europe

  16–17

  Tullamore

  GYMNICH

  26–27

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  26–27

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  27

  Luxembourg

  EU/Russia Permanent Partnership Council (Troika?)

  29–30

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  29–30

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  May

  6–7

  Dublin

  EuroMed Foreign Ministers

  7

  Limerick

  Meeting of Ministers with responsibility for Equality

  9–11

  Killarney

  Agriculture Informal Ministerial Meeting

  10

  Brussels

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  11

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11–12

  Cork

  Health Ministers Consultative Meeting

  WS 36

  Date

  Location

  Event

  14–16

  Waterford

  Informal Meeting of EU Environment Ministers

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  19–20

  Offaly

  Informal Budget Committee

  21

  Moscow

  EU/Russia Summit (Troika)

  23–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  24–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  25–27

  Co. Galway

  Conference on Islands and Territorial cohesion—Meeting New Challenges

  27–28

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  27–31

  Dublin

  Ministers and Directors General of Public Administration

  June

  1–2

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  1

  Dublin

  Development Ministers' Meeting

  1

  Luxembourg

  Meeting of Eurogroup

  1

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  8

  Luxembourg

  Justice & Home Affairs Council Meeting

  10–11

  Luxembourg

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  17–18

  Brussels

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  21–22

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  21–22

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee

  28–29

  Luxembourg

  Council Meeting of EU Environment Ministers

  July

  8

  tbc

  EU-Ukraine Summit

  12–14

  tbc

  Informal Ministerial Education Youth and Culture

  19

  tbc

  JHA Council